Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[jaketheyak]

What about resigning in a multiplayer game?
Wouldn't that always be impolite

Yes.

One player resigning in a multiplayer game is annoying because it throws the balance out for the remaining players.
But if one player has an unassailable lead, I think it's fine for the remaining players to agree to resign as a group.

Of course, the current online implementation does not handle this situation at all well, so it just always sucks.
But who is playing multiplayer online anyway?

[Jimmmmm]

What about resigning in a multiplayer game?
Wouldn't that always be impolite

Yes.

One player resigning in a multiplayer game is annoying because it throws the balance out for the remaining players.
But if one player has an unassailable lead, I think it's fine for the remaining players to agree to resign as a group.

Of course, the current online implementation does not handle this situation at all well, so it just always sucks.
But who is playing multiplayer online anyway?

I probably play a 3p game for every 5-10 2p games I play. Don't resign 3p+ games.

[xyz123]

Thanks for the replies.

I do resign and congratulate my opponent where I think there is no realistic hope of me winning, but in an example like this where all it needs is one bad draw for my opponent and a good one for me then it is certainly feasible. When I need multiple draws for both players to go my way is when I consider resigning.

I did have a game last week where I was at one point seriously considering resigning (I was about 30 points down) which I ended up winning. Admittedly it was due to extreme luck where on a possessed turn I bought 4 provinces and left my opponent with a hand of 4 victory cards and 1 copper for their next turn.

On the subject of resigning in 3 player games, that can lead to cheating. I played a game once against another registered player and a guest. The other registered player bought an estate on their first turn and the guest immediately resigned.

[HiveMindEmulator]

If you're sure your opponent has the win and that he is also aware of it, then the only thing you're accomplishing by not resigning is wasting everyone's time, and I don't see how it's uncool to say that wasting everyone's time is rude.

The purpose is to have fun. Trying to win is fun (regardless of the actual outcome of the game; although I can also understand the reasons why some people think winning is more fun than losing), that's why people play games. It's not fun when I can't try to win. I can't try to win when I've already won, so that's not fun, and I can't try to win when I've already lost, so that's not fun either.

This seems rather closed-minded. Maybe to you the only thing that is fun in games is trying to win, but certainly you should be able to see how other people might find other parts of games fun, no? Maybe they want to see how the deck plays out even in a losing effort, perhaps for educational purposes. Maybe they appreciate some sort of aesthetic beauty in the construction of a deck. Yes it is less fun to play with people who don't play the game for the same reason as you, but it is still rude to berate them for not seeing it the same way as you.

[Jimmmmm]

I was playing a game the other day with Ironmonger and Poor House, and Loan for trashing. I wasn't sure how good what I was doing was, and I wish I'd been allowed to play long enough to find out. It would be nice if when your opponent resigns you had the option of continuing against a bot or even solitaire.

[nate_w]

On a funnier note, I was playing a game the other day where I was about 100 points behind and opponent resigned. I think he was a little too quick to do so, but it wasn't unreasonable in the situation:-)

[shmeur]

I was playing a game the other day with Ironmonger and Poor House, and Loan for trashing. I wasn't sure how good what I was doing was, and I wish I'd been allowed to play long enough to find out. It would be nice if when your opponent resigns you had the option of continuing against a bot or even solitaire.

Try recreating it if you remember the Kingdom; that sounds fun.

[joel88s]

Ignore these poor sports, and blacklist them if it bothers you.  People who berate you for not resigning or taking time to think about your play are just poor sports who aren't worth your time.

Wanted to pick up on this other issue of taking time to think... I've found myself avoiding playing live on line because I like to actually think about the game once in a while when I play, and am admittedly oversensitive to people saying 'faster please', which I remember happening a lot on Isotropic as well as on Goko now. Is this really considered gauche now, and are these people really outliers? I even thought about labeling my table "No rushing - Thinking allowed" or something, but thought that would sound hopelessly anal!

[sudgy]

If someone asks you to play faster, that's their fault, not yours.  Sometimes, to win you need to think more.  If people don't want to play with someone who doesn't want to win, then they should find others of a similar mindset to play with, not get mad at you for doing what is what you are technically supposed to do (as one of the points of a game is to win it (along with other things, of course)).

[qmech]

I don't join games with "fast" in the title.  I never worry about taking too long to make decisions, and very rarely get questioned about it.  I would not be surprised to find that part of the reason is that I mostly play high level opponents.