So I've been thinking about this a while and let me start by saying I really don't care about points and levels. That being said I wonder if you could get people to play longer and not surrender if there was a certian amount of points won for being "2nd" place or even "3rd". It gives players an unfair advantage if the person next to them surrenders and they get undeserved territories where if the player who surrenders has an incentive to fight on it would make the game more challanging. Sorry if I misspelled anything I have a mild form of dyslexia and am a hunt and peck typist. Which brings me to one more suggestion: spell check for the chat. I have zero concept of how it would work from a programing side I am a dreamer so feel free to shoot holes in it.

It might be annoying for the single person, but you can turn off instant surrender. So they can only leave the game if everyone agrees or they get booted.

thats cool but most people don't have it set up like that hence the frustration.

You should take this up with Fizzer. I often find myself in similar situations where someone surrenders, and another player benefits unfairly. Also, in diplos that go on for months, if you end up as the second person, its just heartbreaking to lose all of those points.

yeah I think I'll do that just thought I would see what other players felt about it.

do it make a progressive points system

Well, I do not think you have covered full sides of the problem. As we speak, it you mean Multi-Teams or FFA games. Not 1v1, 2v2 etc :) That being said. Now imagine a situation of 40 FFA game (Now currently there can be only one winner), but if the system would be progressive like top 3 survivors would get points, then this could lead to a whole different game outcomes. Why? Because lets assume Player A to be a promising winner, but now comes a into a play an underdog Player B, who has promised to Player C and D - who are unimportant in fight for the 1. Place - a second and third place in exchange for helping him to win.

For conclusion this settings changes game outcomes and players actions tremendously, especially in end-game phase. Some would favor it, because games will be indeed longer, but they also presumably add into each game a bargaining process. Not everyone would like the shift towards such trade-off and bargain. Secondly I would presume that, after this change there would be a lot of 3-5 Team players in each FFA to reap the first 3 points, occasionally shifting who would get the 1. Place in a game. The current system of Surrender AI - works best, because Warlight assumes by Default all players conflict against each other and AI sees everyone as enemy. You can just add "surrender must be accepted" and force players to play if you wish.

For the third point I like to stress is: Why do you propose an idea which is held together by points and levels which you do not care about at all? How would you weight how warlight playerbase leans in this scale of who cares about points levels and who dont? (50-50%, 40-60% etc?). You would not play any further if you do not see any chance of winning, according to what you said? Why do you think majority will? And just to let you know, it is not about the system-rules, but mostly who you play with and how you play. I like warlight as long as it is customizable, so if this idea gets done like Enable/Disable then go a head!

I like both of the ideas listed in the first post.
Tho for the first suggestions i think it should be optional maybe at first,you know,see if the people like it at first and test it,after that i think it should be decided what to do with it,wheather cancel it,leave it as it is or in all games.

The reason I posted it was to get feedback and others to contribute to the Idea, don't claim to have all the answers.people make deals all the time to improve their position that is part of the game and I would personally like to play against real people instead of AI. Your point that player C and D are "important" is obviously not held by the creators of Warlight because it says so in the surrender script. I think the AI is better than nothing but the computer is not as challenging as a person. I did not say I do not play an further, on the contrary I will play till I am eliminated, in a game where there is only 2 of us left and there is no chance of me winning or on a team that the majority want to surrender.I proposed it because some people do care about points and levels and I thought it would be an incentive for them to stay in the game. I think you need to read my initial comment a again before you start making things up.

Ok 1416 how do you figure? If a person surrenders and there is no AI the can take that land that is undefended. how is that fair to the other players that are not adjacent to that territory and even if there is an AI it does not play the same as a person hence unfair and undeserved. as to your second comment I never suggested that people should be forced to play I suggested that there is incentives to stay in the game. I think you and MR have the same problem, you "like to hear the sound of your own voice". I feel I have to say I meant that figuratively not literally.

While I mostly agree with Cata, I have one point to bring up, which is that those games where players have to accept one's surrender, the person surrendering usually just clicks out of the game and doesn't go back to it, making the option of accepting surrenders ultimately useless and even harmful, as now the person is still there, but AFK, meaning you have to wait to boot them.

I believe everyone should get points as this will actually make the game longer.

They should make a way where everyone wins something,but the 1st place wins most.

And when voting to end,I believe the points should be spread on everyone equally.

That is my point.

Thanks CbMPbTb I submitted it as an idea to the makers of warlight, you can go and vote for it and maybe they will give it a try.

yeah Orthrus Echo Five I see your point that is why I think the incentive(points for other places) would be a good solution. I can't stand when there is no auto boot, whats the point of putting 2, 3, 5 days etc. per turn and then there is no consequence for going past the time limit. It is unfair to the players who want to play and forces someone to be the bad guy and boot them if they want to continue the game.

if it would keep people playing I'm all for it Jahmed4040. Maybe they should lose points for being booted

An easy implementation of this idea would be to allow draws to be declared, and to keep a tally of such draws. Implementing a draw feature would be straightforward -- the code for Vote To End could be recycled with minor modifications such that if all active players (not surrendered, booted, or eliminated) agree, the game is ended with a draw being registered for each of the players.

Players stats could then be modified to display Wins/Losses/Draws ( Percentage (Wins/Total Games) ).

Adding draws would add another dimension to FFA and multi-team games. In particular it would encourage the 2nd and 3rd place players to cooperate to prevent a win by the player who is winning. As well, it would encourage smaller players, who are in a strategic position, to leverage their location to be included in any possible draw.

There is a downside to the draw feature. From what I have seen in the game Diplomacy, most games end up in 3-way draws. This occurs because once there are three players, it is very difficult to try to eliminate someone without opening yourself to being eliminated by the third player. The same might occur here in FFA, although very skilled players would still have many more solo victories to brag about.

Draws would be a fun feature.

here is the link if anyone would like to see this idea tried out https://warlight.uservoice.com/forums/77051-warlight-features/suggestions/15428829-minimize-early-surrender

I like that suggestion Gus squared.

What I like most about this idea is that it undeniably makes the games more competitive

There is some potential to this idea, but it won't work as suggested.

Look at Mr. Tranq's comments (on the first page) - he covers it pretty well. Replacing surrendered players with AIs is currently the best "fix" for this issue.

Here's a simple example of how it can affect a game unfavorably:

We have three players left.

Player A - production 100/turn
Player B - production 65/turn
Player C - production 35/turn

If only the winner gets points, then they have to fight it out. Player B and Player C have a strong incentive to work together (or else they both lose). An exciting fight ensues. (Or they both surrender, if they can't get their act together.)

If there is a second and third place, players B and C have little incentive to do anything, really. Player C isn't likely to improve his position, so he may as well surrender - he'll get points for third place anyway.

Likewise, Player B might as well help Player A finish off Player C, unless he thinks he has a chance at getting first (unlikely). He has almost no incentive to help Player C under most scenarios - he might as well finish off C and collect his points for second place.

I've seen this kind of behaviour even WITHOUT points; simply because a player likes to claim the "honour" of being "second place" for bragging rights.

If you're Player C in a "winner takes all" scenario, you have some good leverage on Player B: he has to work with you, or he has no chance of winning. This gives you some good strategic options.

If you're Player C in a "second, third place" type of game, you're screwed. And you might be more tempted to surrender just to take the points. It's much less interesting.