Why is it that so often when people surrender, others don't accept, forcing that player to keep playing a hopless game turn after turn?

There should be a way to surrender without waiting for others to accept imo.

While the game may be lost for you, your presence could still be relevant for others in the game and it would be a strategical detriment for you to bow out.

I know FlashMasta and I disagreed here and got a bit peeved at eachother about it. He said he always accepts everyone's surrenders unconditionally and that it's rude to do it any other way. I had the attitude it was rude to quit a game where your continued presence is still relevant to the other players. They may have even built a strategy on you being weak with little or no chance of winning, but not eliminated.

My attitude is in a 1on1 or in a group game where the winner is obvious I will accept surrenders. If it's a larger game and things are still undecided I probably won't unless I think it's to my advantage. If everyone had that attitude in accepting the surrender it would mean we'd all come to the conclusion that the person bowing out was in our interest - which is probably untrue for someone - meaning one person decided better than someone else and thus may have earned a superior position which I think is fair game.

If it was a 1on1 (or I suppose it could happen in a larger game too) and the person was just prolonging their victory I'd say it would be pretty rude not to accept the surrender, but otherwise I tend to think of people as quitters when they surrender and think it's rude when they expect everyone to accept it.

Even if someone is going to take longer to make their moves because they're going to be gone for days it's a turn based online game and I like to finish games with all players finishing their part. That's why I tend to set boot times higher too as I think it messes up games to boot people (if they have any intention of coming back and finishing I want them to be able to).

That's my take on it anyways.

I was thinking in a 1on1 (or group game that gets down to a 1on1) that perhaps it would be best for surrenders to be auto-accepted. Although I don't think I ever propositioned the idea to Randy. Unless someone can give a good reason why that'd be bad.

I think the only fair compromise for the two view-points is to set a 'majority rule' vote on surrenders (and boots before the direct boot option).

My opinion was that someone wouldn't surrender if they wanted to keep playing (whether surrendering was based on real odds of losing or not). Fair (to me) is that when someone surrenders I will accept, as I would expect the same response from my surrenders. I understand that surrendering can affect someone else's strategy, but I'm not entirely convinced that a surrender should be placed in that context. The option is there for a reason and I don't believe it is 'fair' for one person to basically use a surrender to potentially alter the outcome of the game in her or her favor.

Let's say I'm in a game with 2 other players and I see via spy card(s) or intuition that the other guys are duking it out...the surrendering player is causing the other player to spend a ton of resources to continue defending and attacking while the surrender is not accepted. If I continue to allow them to beat each other up I get a nice advantage. Did I get that advantage because I'm a better player? No. Did I get it because the other two are making bad decisions? No. I got the advantage because I refused to accept an (assumed) honest surrender. I might win in the end, but it would feel like a hollow victory to me.

I don't really feel like a surrender should be auto-accepted (like you click surrender and you're instantly booted)...but a majority vote would at least allow players to have an opportunity to have some say in the outcome of a game.

Another thing of note is that some people will move around and attack while in a surrender state and I've even seen someone un-surrender when their position improved a bit and they no longer wanted it accepted. This is relevant because once you accept a surrender you lose some control of when it is accepted unless you're the last person and controlling it yourself in a sense. For instance someone could delay their move and acceptance of a surrender, progress the turn, and then accept the surrender when it's more in their favor.

That makes me want to consider that people's surrender acceptance for everyone should be reset when a turn is progressed so everyone would have to re-accept. Although that doesn't even completely solve that issue since you're still dealing with the variability of that turn based on whether it is or isn't accepted. Perhaps if the person was surrendered/neutraled at the end instead of the beginning of all moves for that turn it would change that. This is more a reason why I tend not to accept, it's risky, and you can know they're still going to be in the game.

Another thing is if one person hasn't accepted a surrender people might go after them to force kill the surrendered person at the same time. Which is kind of lame. That's a potential downside of the system now.

Another more extreme option is to lock their ability to make any moves if they want to surrender so it's more genuine. Don't allow them to play any cards and if they're maxed, force them to discard to commit. Maybe even force a random/even distribution of their armies for them so they basically lose control. And if anyone commits their orders while the surrender is up it locks the person from un-surrendering for that turn (with or without acceptance? not sure). Would be like giving their playing to a AI that has no intention of doing anything beyond base requirement to progress turn. Although that seems a bit silly.

I'd say for the most part the system how it is works fine. Don't expect your surrender to be accepted though in group situations as people are accepting surrenders at their own risk.

I think it's rediculous to force a player who wants out of a game, to both keep playing (because you haven't accepted their surrender) AND not be able to do anything. If you're worried about what they do with their armies after clicking the surrender button, you should accept their surrender and honerably let them out of the game, instead of forcing them to play 15 more turns with no hope of victory.

Case in point, a game I'm in now, 4v4... my team has one player gone, two who have surrendered, and the winning team still won't accept.

Bad form, and rude if you ask me.

However if I've surrendered, and you don't accept it for 5 turns, I'm not going to just keep taking my turns and doing nothing, I'm going to be the biggest pain in the butt I can just because I can, and if things change and I think I have a chance, sure I'll unsurrender. That is the chance YOU take by not honerably accepting your opponents surrender when they made it.

1. I said it was extreme

2. I said it was silly

3. I suggested an AI player with no initiative would take over for the person SO THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO KEEP PLAYING.

4. Your team game falls into two categories I suggested:
A. I said it was rude to prolong and not accept surrenders when the winner was clear.
B. Surrenders being auto-accepted in 1v1 situations. A team is effectively a single unit. So in the case of a 4v4 if all active players on one team surrender it would be auto-accepted. This means if it's 4v1 and the 1 surrenders, it's accepted. If it's 4v2 and both of the two surrender (a team surrender) then it's auto-accepted. This also can apply ffa's. If it's a 3 way ffa and two of the people surrender it's person A versus surrendered B and C, A is a single unit and B&C to A are a unit - 'Team All Opponents'. Anytime all opponents surrender to a unit (of any size 1+) it would qualify and be auto-accepted. That one wouldn't work in reverse though incase that was unclear - if just A surrendered it wouldn't fit into auto-accept since from B & C's perspective all opponents haven't surrendered.

I only see two general weaknesses with some of that:
1. Two enemies (without the silly AI thing) could keep someone locked down where they are working together to keep you locked in with no intention of killing eachother or surrendering or ending the game.

2. Some of this could void the functionality of Kabamf's betrayal games. Whereby eliminating the opponent isn't the primary objective, but ending the game with the most territories is - meaning people are actively keeping an opponent alive when they don't have the most territories until they do to try to end the game in their favor. These are of questionable functionality anyways though and require people to be in agreement on the altered rules to work.

Honestly, I'm tired of hearing people complain about their surrenders not being accepted. I think it's rude to join a game and then surrender the moment victory becomes difficult. Joining a game means that you are in that game until the end, and I really don't like how some people just join a lot of games and then try to quit the ones that they don't have a chance in.

Even if you are legitimately losing, you can still make a comeback. And if not, then get yourself eliminated... unless you surrendered when you still had a chance of surviving and thus expanding, which indicates again an unwillingness to commit to a game.

The surrender acceptance dialog box even warns people that losing players can still have an effect on the game; clearly the creator of Warlight would like to discourage surrenders in games where there isn't already a clear winner. So I'm with Doushibag (and Randy) on this one.

I agree with Nebula. I don't think you can legitimately complain about being "forced" to continue playing a game you voluntarily joined. Suck it up and try to create as much trouble as possible for those that layed you low. You might find that to be kind of fun!
The situation Whispre describes does seem to be just plain rude, though. My .02: surrender only when it will end the game for everyone. Otherwise keep playing, if for no other reason than to be a nuisance to those who showed you no mercy.

My two cents: it is a bit poor sporting to refuse to finish a game only because things are going poorly for you. If you feel that other players are being unsportsmanlike (keeping you down, but not eliminating you), or if you have some other reason for not playing (perhaps a lack of time, even though Warlight might be accessible) don't forget that no one can force you to take turns. If you really want out of a game, all you need to do is stop taking turns, and eventually some one will boot you.

As for the "betrayal" games, keeping a token player alive can be an integral part of the strategy, so it's not really poor sportsmanship. Every one who joins one of those games should be aware that it may happen to them, so it's not a just cause for complaint.

If people want out of a game and express it via surrender, I'm always willing to let them go. I know it can give a big advantage to their neighbors, but if you don't want to play, then I'll let you out. It's only a game.

Personally, if I surrender and people don't accept it after 2 or 3 turns, then fuck it, good luck booting me in a few days when the timer expires. I don't have time for some retarded "code of internet video game honor" or acting as a human shield for some other opponent.

An easy solution to everything would be to require surrenders to be accepted/ rejected for the game to progress.

For instance, if a player surrenders, then the next turn, every player must vote to accept or reject the surrender.

I feel that a lot of times surrenders are ignored. Anyways, I'm not quite sure why surrenders need to be accepted-- imagine in world war II if the russians has surrendered to the germans. In real life, the rest of the allies, which would benefit from the russians still fighting, would have no say.

I don't understand why it has to be different in warlight.

Also, I think there needs to be the option to retire your account. Maybe something comes up, or you just lose interest. But you want to leave warlight for an extended period of time.

So, have the option to retire your account. Have a time limit on reactivation, say, of 2 weeks, so that no one would use it as a strategic option.

Yes, we prefer people not leave warlight, but if we don't let hte ones that want to go leave gracefully, it will tie up games and anger people. It's taken me over 2 weeks of trying to end out my warlight games. If it were easier, I would probably consider coming back when I had more time. But the way it is now, it's simply a nuisance to get rid of, and I don't think I want to go through that trouble again.

Im with Doushibag.

It IS stupid not to accept a surrender in a 1v1 game or team game where you're only delaying the inevitable.

However... in a 12 person free for all there should be NO surrenders!

I've seen people surrender in 4 turns! No way i'm going to accept someone elses surrender and allow whoever beat up on them to just expand even faster in a 12 person game.

The only time I accept surrenders is when it's just delaying what is already decided (just because you may not win, does not mean that your surrender does not determine the winner).

You shouldn't start playing in a game you're not willing to see through til the end. I accept surrenders if they appear to benefit me strategically in the game, but the fairest thing is for all people to continue to play until they are either eliminated or they win.

As a side note, people who take out their frustration with whatever in a game by purposefully delaying their turn until they are bootable are total schmucks. It's even worse when they wait until just before they are bootable and then take their turn so they can make everyone wait 3 days per turn. The game could use some kind of community rating system so that I can avoid games containing people that act with that level of pettiness and immaturity. If you don't want to spend time on the game anymore but people won't accept your surrender, then just go in, dump your deployment somewhere, and submit your turn - it takes seconds. Don't be a douchebag.