The first rule of Warlight is "You shall be respectful to other players at all times". In any sport or game, in any country in the world, it's considered very disrespectful to tell your opponent to give up, no matter how well you think you're doing. This is universal social etiquette. So why on Warlight do some people think it's OK to tell their opponent to surrender? Either they don't have enough information to judge whether to surrender - I've seen people demanding that their opponent surrender when there is no way for them to know each other's income - or they do and they decided not to. That's their choice and no-one else's.

Also, people seem to not know what "gg" means. It means "good game", and it's polite to say it when the game is over, or when you are leaving the game. It does not mean "I think I've won the game" or "I think you should give up now", and it's very rude to use it in that way.

It is equally rude to drag out a game where the outcome is known to all parties. In sporting events, the time/length of the game is predetermined so there is no real concern regarding the losing team(s) delaying the inevitable. This is not the case with Warlight.

As I see it, the only reason to delay a clearly lost game is in the hopes of winning via boot, a more dishonorable approach than requesting the surrender of a vanquished foe.

Note that refusing to surrender can also be interpreted as a failure to be respectful to other players.

Edited 5/6/2015 19:11:00

Anyone who gets mad at someone else for not surrendering is a grade A bozo.

If you're so certain you're gonna win, just finish out the last few turns. It's not that hard.

Personally, I almost never surrender unless it's a 1v1 and I'm sure I'm gonna lose. But I don't understand these players who hold it against anyone for not surrendering.

It is equally rude to drag out a game where the outcome is known to all parties.

I agree, but of course if you think your opponent is being rude by not surrendering, telling them to surrender is still not appropriate - two wrongs don't make a right, as even pre-schoolers know. And also, what is known to the people who demand surrender is typically not known to the people they are addressing their demands to.

Edited 5/6/2015 19:17:32

If you're so certain you're gonna win, just finish out the last few turns. It's not that hard.

Hear hear! Couldn't agree more.

Well, I find it quite rude to not surrender in a ffa when the only thing you can still achieve is stall the player wo legitimately defeated you in a 1v1 so he won't win the game. I played some Greece autogame ffa and this happened about 6-7 times in a row to me with pretty much exactly the same pattern.

Not surrendering and just carrying the game on when it's obviously over is highly disrespectful.

The only reason why one could want to delay the end of a game is because it's a ladder or tournament game and they don't want the next one to start just yet; in that case if they say it in chat there's nothing wrong with it

So playing a game till the end is disrespectful?

If you're going to fight, you should fight. Just because you might lose doesn't mean you can't win. If you are severely outnumbered, different story.

Not surrendering and just carrying the game on when it's obviously over is highly disrespectful.

Well, what's obvious to you might not be obvious to your opponent. But I hope you are agreeing that issuing a demand for anyone to surrender is extremely disrespectful.

If it is not possible to win, you should surrender...period. If it is possible to win, play on (even if you are behind). It is that simple.

The sticking point is whether you KNOW it is over or not.

If it is not obvious, I have no problem with people playing it out longer. I have surrendered games before only to see it without fog and realize I was mistaken and had a chance.

BUT, if you are way behind and have no chance, why run around? What is gained from that? Don't tell me experience, that is garbage. You'd learn more in a 2 minute discussion about the game with your opponent than you would in 100 turns of running around just to prolong things. If your goal is to learn, then ask questions. If your goal is to just keep playing because you are allowed to, then you might be trolling. You won't learn anything from playing out a hopeless situation.

As to what is OK in a chat. I almost never suggest it is over to a player, because I hate it when people do that to me. But if they are taking 5 or 6 turns when they are clearly way behind, I might make a playful comment to suggest it is over. Something like "turn 5 when I broke your only bonus was a back breaker, glad I guessed right there." It isn't telling them they must surrender, but highlighting that their back is in fact broken, in case they don't realize it.

I will never demand a surrender, because that only makes them more likely to stall. But you cannot tell me I should not hold it against someone and maybe blacklist them if they stall for dozens of hopeless turns.

You people with your "play to the end" comments...I wonder how you felt about the Tampa Bay Bucs going full tilt on the last snap (a kneel down) in a game last year. Or what about guys taking runs at players in the closing minutes of a blowout in NHL? There is a level of sportsmanship here. And it is a GAME. If this was real life, I would do everything I could to survive. But in a game, you live to fight another day. If your reputation is worth risking by playing those extra turns, then by all means.

Edited 5/6/2015 20:05:01

Playing to the end is only disrespectful IF you (the opponent) hasn't surrendered, when it's clear who the winner is. In my opinion, it's OK to play to the end in multi-attack on a small map such as ME and MME.

Surrendering on Single Player isn't needed because it's already clear that your playing at a disadvantage within the first 6 turns on the challenges, unless it's clear that the AIs will beat you.

Edited 5/7/2015 06:54:33

Chris nails it perfectly. I am more than willing to give advice after a game but not if they pointlessly drag it out.

If the game is in doubt then yes, it is rude to demand a surrender. But if incomes differ by a factor of 10 and both sides know this (very easily done) then requesting a surrender is reasonable. My personal approach is informing them of the location of the surrender button in case they were not aware.

Surrendering on Single Player isn't needed because

Dan, did you seriously just referencing surrendering in single player... against the AI?

"It does not mean "I think I've won the game" [...] and it's very rude to use it in that way."

That is an accepted use of the term in pro gaming circles.

It's not bad etiquette to ask someone to surrender when the outcome is obvious. For example, I just had to wait 4 days for a 2v2 game to end, because one team refused to surrender despite our team having broken both of them down to less than 10 income (and having around 30 income each, ourselves). Every turn, they simply ran away into a new neutral territory (until we trapped them).

We said GG on turn 5 or so, when both starting bonuses of one player had been broken and we had a large stack on the border of the starting bonus of the other. The game was clearly over, unless we made a horrible mistake somehow or one of us got booted.

I've also asked for surrender in games around turn 10, and I could reasonably predict what my opponents had based on overlapping picks. I explained my reasoning - I guessed they were, their estimated income, and how that compared to me/my team.

I don't get mad if people want to play things out until they see proof of my income and map position vs theirs - but once they can see the proof, they should accept the fact of their defeat. People also shouldn't get upset when asked to surrender. It's not disrespectful; it's time-saving for both of us.

Edited 5/6/2015 20:23:14

It's not bad etiquette to ask someone to surrender when the outcome is obvious.

It is. What seems obvious to one team may not be obvious to the other. Even if it's obvious to both, it's still bad etiquette. If it was obvious to the weaker team and they didn't surrender, why would they suddenly surrender when you ask them to?

For example, I just had to wait 4 days for a 2v2 game to end, because one team refused to surrender despite our team having broken both of them down to less than 10 income (and having around 30 income each, ourselves). Every turn, they simply ran away into a new neutral territory (until we trapped them).

Presumably you asked them to surrender, and they declined to do so.

It's not disrespectful; it's time-saving for both of us.

It is disrespectful. It could save time, if the person on the receiving end of the demand immediately complies. In that case, it might save a few minutes. If, on the other hand, the demandee finds this so irritating and disrespectful that they start playing extremely slowly, then it clearly hasn't saved anyone any time. See your example above.

Dan, did you seriously just referencing surrendering in single player... against the AI?

AI can get very offended if you don't surrender when its obvious that they are going to win, far on in the end. It is important to mention single player in this conversation because of it.

Here's the thing traveller... etiquette and respect are purely subjective. Just because you believe something to be disrespectful or poor etiquette it doesn't mean that everyone else must have the same opinion.

What you find to be respectful others may find to be disrespectful, and the difference of opinions here is clear proof of that.

Bottom line, stop trying to enforce your own views upon others. Don't like it when someone demands a surrender? Then blacklist them and move on, simple as that.

Don't be childish. I'm not forcing my views on anyone.

Hey, don't call me childish! That's disrespectful!