I think it's justifiable to require surrenders to be accepted before they happen in a team game, but I don't see why surrenders shouldn't just happen in FFA's without anyone else's approval.

Today I noticed someone tactically not accepting a losing person's surrender because they wanted the person to deploy their armies and give the other players more competition (even though the player wanted out of the game). He accepted another player's surrender that was fighting him the same turn, of course. And the player whose surrender he didn't accept wasn't fighting him.

What do you think? Is it justifiable to not accept someone's surrender just because you want to give other people in the game a harder time, regardless of the fact the surrendered person wants out of the game?

As few as I have played multi FFA games, this happens constantly and I do not see nothing wrong with it. Everyone joins knowing the rules, and one must take into consideration that not everyone might accept your surrender. That is also the cause for some players high boot rate due to the boot out of 10-20 FFA player games.

We all know the rules: everyone is free to vote or to surrender; accept or not!

I understand what you ask. In my perspective either manual or automatic multi-FFA games has rather big blind factor of position - you might be on open field or landlocked-surrounded by opponents. Therefore using the tactic of keeping players in-game deliberately does not contradict nor is not wrong of making your position stronger, as they are not Pure-Strategy in my opinion. Too mani independent variables.

The same way we could say that if it is visible that in multiplayer FFA games in 1vs1 battle one player is clearly stronger the other should surrender-leave etc and not keep stack-trolling him any further.

The best option thus far is to create instant-surrender and replace with AI to atleast equal a little the standpoint if some players regard to play to final elimination.

If you think that way, as my small experience has shown, that in around 10-20 player FFA games, more than half surrender quite fast. If they would play to end (up to elimination) and by the best skill they can, then probably a lot games winner would be different.

Personally I have learned not to play those games anymore, especially ones that require everyones consent to surrender. It seems rather waste of time playing knowing that you have lost - futile! Yet I understand that I have an effect into the game.

Another example to perfect the system, would be different ranking-rating-statistics system. The one where we do not grant only losses and victories, but points by a place finished - in a similar strategy game surrender happend only if one knew the place he was going be finished. That changes the outcome tremendously - then I multi FFA would be more pleasing to me to play.

just don't join/make FFAs without autosurrender,they're annoying as hell

I think it's absolutely justifiable to not accept surrenders in a FFA. One thing I don't like about FFAs is that the winner is often not the one who plays the best, but the one who faces the least opposition. Not accepting surrenders can help diminish that a bit.

Imagine there are 4 players, A, B, C, and D. A is fighting B and winning, and C is fighting D and winning. If B keeps fighting A, and D surrenders, C wins easily, even if he doesn't play as well as A. So of course A would refuse D's surrender to keep the match more even. And D should remember that he still has a chance because the dynamics of a FFA are always changing. If A or B suddenly threaten C, he might turn his attention away from D to deal with the bigger threat, giving D a chance to come back.

Edited 7/9/2015 15:26:08

I'm can see Jaymer point on this one. I personally dislike it when FFA surrenders are not accepted but it can give 1 player a big advantage on the map depending on situation. Scrabble is a good example.

I generally go by a rule of not accepting surrenders before turn 3. At least give the game a chance and if after 2 turns you're still sure, then I'll accept.

Is it justifiable to not accept someone's surrender just because you want to give other people in the game a harder time, regardless of the fact the surrendered person wants out of the game?

It's the whole point of allowing surrenders not to be accepted. Why else would there even be that option?