Is this not what the delete button was for?
Seems unfair to the members who may want to continue?
Also could this be exploited by setting an x amount of players to inactive?
No, the delete button wasnāt for this. Surrender gives players the ability to end the round early.
Also no, it canāt be exploited in that way. The inactivity check is only time-based, the leader setting the inactive tag doesnāt have any effect.
2 Likes
Great it canāt be exploited! But still think delete button was and is the same thing but only for individuals instead of the entire family. Just think it would suck to be one of the players who want to keep playing but are forced to surrender do to some wanting to quit.
I think itās a stupid idea and hereās why.
Imagine Iām a new player just out of virgo and I finally get to the big leagues and half way through the round my family surrender. I now canāt log in, I canāt rejoin, Iām stuffed. I quit this dumb game.
Then moving on from thisā¦ Iām the family next door, I can now take all your planets for free, giving me a massive advantage Vs the rest of the galaxy.
2 Likes
Was any of this considered when this was developed? And can you please stop censoring peoples opinions ffs
Your opinion wasnāt censored; your other post was flagged for violating our community guidelines.
Your critique is valid, and yes this was considered. However, the context of how this feature came to be is important.
@MTG_Dad posted a Petition to end Blackeye 3 early, which you yourself supported. The problem with forum polls is that they donāt represent a voice of the players involved because:
- Anybody can vote
- Players who donāt visit the forums are less likely to provide input
It would be irresponsible to end a galaxy early without proper input from the players who will be impacted. However, It isnāt viable to ask every empire what they want, and then wait for a bunch of different people to answer.
This is especially true given that BE3 being dead was a time-sensitive issue, and we would risk losing existing players if we didnāt solve the problem quickly.
Given that my presence here is at no point ever guaranteed, it made more sense to empower the players to do this themselves.
Hence, the surrender feature was built and served its purpose.
I am aware that there are problems with it, and it is not considered ācompleteā. Your assessment of it being a stupid idea is based on its current implementation, not the idea itself.
Although there are problems with its current implementation, there are also problems with the feature not being there. Neither situation is ideal but what we have now is the better of the 2 options.
As mentioned:
You and @Cells have both provided useful feedback, as have others. This is part of how we improve.
However, your insults are distracting and counter-productive as they divert my time and attention away from feature work and towards dealing with community management problems.
Every player here, including you, clicked a button that says they agree to follow our rules and guidelines. It would be a net gain for everybody if you could keep your word.
Hereās a refresher in case you forgot what you agreed to.
Also worth noting:
As weāve been doing with most new features since I came on, this can easily be disabled if players donāt want it. However, just because you donāt like it doesnāt mean that everybody else feels the same.
When itās time to discuss the next round, I recommend making your point in the corresponding thread.
BE3 was a 2 family galaxy Pieā¦
1 Like
I am aware of that.
A family wanting to surrender early isnāt limited to just 2-family galaxies.
Youāre missing the point, we had a round BE3 where there were 2 families, one was terrible and one was good. It got to the point where the terrible family were so far behind that the round was done. in a 2 family galaxy there are no other interventions, so it was GG.
Now moving forward, a galaxy which has more than 2 families is a completely different dynamic. Thereās more to play for because many different scenarios can occur. There shouldnāt be a surrender option in galaxies with more than 2 families. Itās going to promote everything bad about the game. It will promote families trying to beat the enemy into surrender, which isnāt fair, it will promote players who want to play being locked out of galaxies. It served itās purpose in BE3 (however a bit dramatic, you could of just ended it) but now it needs to be shelved and you need to focus on projects which promote positive play.
I get your point, I just donāt agree with it.
Planning for the reality that I canāt reliably ājust end itā on-demand isnāt being dramatic, itās reducing dependency on staff and management overhead. Thatās a good thing.
If you donāt like the feature you are welcome to make a case for disabling it in the round setup discussion threads. Thatās why theyāre built this way, as opposed to just making it a permanent change that you have no say in.
I appreciate your feedback on its impact, Iāll keep it in mind as I look at improving it generally.
Why are we all cheering a feature that could potentially lose us players. This is shameful. We should be encouraging people to fight on, not give up, use diplomacy, use the in-game advantages of a lower size family. Why the heck do we want a button to surrender. BE3 was an exception and for some reason a vote to end the galaxy wasnāt enough to just end it, we had to make a surrender button without an real due thought process. @I_like_pie how do I explain the āSurrenderā button to a new player? āThis is the button you click when you CBAā
If you want to surrender you just donāt log in anymoreā¦ why do we need a button for it, why do we need to freeze out an entire family. What are you doing with this game man.
You made a surrender button for your own game, you may aswell add the tag āDont Botherā to the registration page.
1 Like
So are you blaming a system where a big part of the fam has to click the surrender button, or are you blaming a family for using the option?
I do agree that a family that surrendered should blow up and make all planets uninhabitable or something, but at this point I think the system is flawed but ok, but above all: the family that surrendered fucked up (and therefore not @I_like_pie).
You should stop blaming Pie for everything you donāt like and start looking at the players a bit more.
1 Like
Hala, Pie is in charge of this game, not the players. I dislike that they surrendered of course and I feel it wasnāt necessary. But because the option was available they took it. But if I was a newish player in the family and my round was cut short I would be pissed at Pie. Pickle, Blue, Luker have played for years and all know the winning feeling so surrendering for them isnāt a big deal at all. Thatās why I feel it should not be an option at all, and thatās why I blame Pie for not understanding this. This is my final round, so donāt feel bad for the guy, Iāll be out of his long locks soon enough.
1 Like
The effect would be pretty much the same if they would all delete. Itās the fam members that should consider what happens to the fam members that do not want to delete, not game mechanics.
If anything, you could consider a āsurrender confirmationā button for the leader.
1 Like
Probably too much discussion for something that may never be used again.
@OrBit Iāve explained my rationale, but you keep saying it was done without thought. Iām not sure how productive this conversation can be if you keep telling me that I donāt understand something because I disagree with you.
As I said, I get where you are coming from and the concerns are valid. However, there are also problems with not having this feature, and what we have now is the better option for reasons Iāve already explained in this thread.
As @Hala mentioned, your point about new players being put off by surrendering is also true for deletion.
How is that not also true for deletion?
FWIW I also donāt think deletion should be encouraged, but it also makes no sense to forbid players from giving up. Allowing them the option to say āIām doneā isnāt the same thing as encouraging it. It is giving them the ability to end their empire on their own terms, if that is what they wish to do.
Granted, surrendering impacts family members who may not want to, which @Cells was able to communicate pretty clearly.
On that note, I donāt see what point youāre making here that @Cells didnāt already make and that I didnāt already acknowledge.
If your point is āPie doesnāt understand and does things without thinkingā then I recommend re-reading my responses in this thread. You are either conflating a disagreement with a lack of understanding, or willfully ignoring my explanations.
Either way, the rationale and understanding is there if you choose to acknowledge it.
Btw, regarding this:
This is perfect example of how to offer a suggestion to improve something instead of just listing all the reasons you think something is terrible.
I think we could flip this to achieve a similar but more intuitive result: require fam surrender to only be an option if a leader initiates the vote. If the family decides to change leaders, the surrender proposal and its votes would be nullified.
This would make family surrender a more formal process. In cases like BE3 where it was clearly needed, it should be an easy call, but in other rounds with more complicated scenarios it would be a heavier decision for the leader to propose.
Thank you @Hala for pushing the conversation towards a more productive outcome.
1 Like
To be honest I am with Orbit on this one.
Surrender button shouldnāt exist except in two family galaxyās.
1 Like
Thankfully, itās a galaxy setting that players can discuss during the round setup threads.
Different players want different things. That is why these things are built as settings that can be discussed and voted on.
3 Likes
Allowing a fam to surrender is fine, but certain things should be addressed.
- all players may not want to surrender, but vote might still be met, players that do not want to surrender should be allowed to move to other families ( we have done this in the past)
- once a family has surrendered 1 of 2 things should happen
a. all fam members that wish to stay are moved to other families, and all remaining players are removed allowing those planets to be explored again.
b. all fams members that wish to stay are moved to other families, fams naps are immediately cancelled, pmode is removed, blow up planets feature is removed.
I think the ability has merit, but in its current form has flaws.
1 Like