In FFA default settings, surrender must be accepted by all players, and as I see, that condition is in use widely. I wonder what is the point of this. When somebody does not want to play, why to keep him in a game?

Edited 11/27/2015 01:53:04

Because keeping him in-game may mean an advantage for other players, like him being a buffer against enemies, keeping a check on enemies, controlling strategic areas you don't want other players to enter and a cushion against advancing forces against yourself.

I agree, it is unfair.

Lets say in a 4 player ffa there are A,B,C,D. I am player A, I run into player B and crush him, he surrenders, everyone accepts. The next turn player D surrenders. Now I know that player C is crushing him but I haven't met either of them yet so I don't accept the surrender. I wait 2 more turns. I finally reach player C and D and then I accept C's surrender. Now I have an advantage because player D was so busy with player C.

If the surrender was auto then this problem wouldn't exist. However in a FFA you want to ensure that noobs can't join for the reason of surrendering too early.

I agree, it is unfair.

Lets say in a 4 player ffa there are A,B,C,D. I am player A, I run into player B and crush him, he surrenders, everyone accepts. The next turn player D surrenders. Now I know that player C is crushing him but I haven't met either of them yet so I don't accept the surrender. I wait 2 more turns. I finally reach player C and D and then I accept C's surrender. Now I have an advantage because player D was so busy with player C.

If the surrender was auto then this problem wouldn't exist. However in a FFA you want to ensure that noobs can't join for the reason of surrendering too early.

I have to admit that I used it in the same way in one of my games. Then I understood even better that this is really bad sportmanship, and decided to not use it that way anymore. Moreover, I had so huge income advantage at that point that I would win the game anyway.
I wonder how this feature originated. Anybody knows?

Edited 11/27/2015 11:36:59

On the other hand it is sometimes very unfair to let such player surrender, especially when game options won't turn hum into AI. In that case his neighbor may get a huge advantage which will destroy the balance of the game.

The question I always ask myself is how do you force someone to keep playing after they've made a decision to surrender. My experience is that most players will either let themselves get booted (prolonging the game for everyone else) or become irritated and urge others to accept their surrender in the chat, or just become obtrusive, stacking up armies in one place, not making attacks and creating wastelands for later after their surrender has been finally accepted.

A different problem I've encountered is two players surrendering (in a massive FFA) and not accepting each other's surrender. They've both stopped paying attention to the game once they've surrendered and they keep each other in the game even after all willing players accepted them to leave.

"The question I always ask myself is how do you force someone to keep playing after they've made a decision to surrender"

that is a problem. Generally - one should try not to play with noobs, rather join FFA's with friends he knows

I don't think that early surrendering will create any significant advantage, as game is in initial phase either way. And if someoene force other player to surrender by own good play, then I think he deserve some advantage.