Yeah, I hate that shit, it's completely pointless, at least in real time games.

Come on, change your settings!

i hate it to, play my games, i never leave that on. refusing to accept surrender usually turns into booting or troop suicides into teammates or other people

Agreed, I think they should put the option default off.

I'm against default off. Sure, some people just seem like they can't be bothered to press that button because they're not bordering the player that surrendered and it's comfortable for them to keep you busy. IMO that's part of the game. When I surrender I almost always post something like "accept surrender pls" in the chat and so far everyone accepted after one or two turns. On the other hand, I haven't played that much real-time yet.

But part of the problem is that it's very easy to overlook someone's surrender. I think it would already be a great help to make the "accept surrender" button flash red, like the "chat" button.

not accepting the surrender is a strategic choice..
the only person/people benefiting from it, are those nearby the surrenderer..

I love this game but I really hate that pointless shit... It's a shame we have it ON by default. :/ Even the existence of this option is illogical.

In real time games its just annoying, if I get real fed up with a game. I surrender and leave, and if they dont accept then i get booted...which seriously blows.

But in multiday games, theyre useful. I remember a FFA game with light fog where it's hard to make it a 1v1 when you know your only other real opponent is still spending troops to defend against the surrenderer.

It's unbelievably annoying when there's a surrender. If the player is angry with the game, you know those beside him pretty much lost as well. Why? He'll suicide rush into them. That isn't fun, because a normal player would not do as such. It is unfair to lose over such a thing. Then again, I hate the default luck percentage as well. I guess it's pretty much luck if a person next to you surrenders and not everyone accepts.

I agree that not accepting surrender is a strategic choice .. but it is kind of silly if you think about it. The strategic choice is knowing that the people surrendering no longer are valid players, but merely blocks/annoyance/suicide rushes for the people next to them. Not really tactics. Then again, some of the maps I play don't have a whole lot to do with tactics any way.

Should it be off by default? Yes, I think so. It's still an option (like turning them into AIs), and can be turned on just as easily. But for those quick games when the creator doesn't really look at settings, you'd rather have it as relaxed as possible. A lot of times the one who surrenders leaves immediately, and this is a problem in real-time games. You'd have to boot any way.

I disagree.
I think having to accept someone's surrender is strategic. (only in ffa or team ffa)

For example, if player A is fighting player B, and player A is losing, so A surrenders, as player C, you should not accept player A's surrender. Why? Because player A (even with income of 5) will at least distract or slow down player B, so you have a better chance of beating player B. Of course, it's strategic for player B to accept player A's surrender, because then player B can rapidly expand instead of having to focus on defending his bonuses from player A.

Darkruler, take a game with player a-b-c-d..
player a and b fight early, c and d fight early..
b takes a strategic loss on the first turn of conflict and surrenders.. if it has no accept that pretty much means A wins the match.. because c and d will continue to fight, while a gobbles b's territories, and when a meets c-d, whether there is one or both remaining, he will have little difficulty..
just because B had lost, does not mean his surrender is for his victory only.. his surrender affects everyones ability to win

another disadvantage: you not only lose the game, you also lose your autonomy. "oh great enemy, please accept my humble surrender. i am no match for you. i await your coup de grace." the defeat is total.

... Yeah, that's sort of the definition of surrendering...

I agree with Perrin on this. Some people surrender way too early. A player with 5 income fighting a player with 8 income might consider his situation hopeless, but surrendering just means that the player with more income is able to gain income so much faster.

My first 24 player FFA allowed instant surrenders, and the most powerful player was the guy who didn't have any neighbors, despite being a pretty poor player. He ended up losing to a guy who fought multiple wars throughout the game, and had a much harder time. If the guy who was in the lead most of the game had pressed his advantage at all, he would have taken the whole game with very little effort and almost no skill required.

Not to say that accepting surrenders is the only option, or that instant surrender always provides an unfair advantage. It certainly makes sense as the default setting, though.

I agree with perin somewhat.but if you think about it, the entire game is based on luck. and 40 armies against 30 and getting a win has just about as much to do with luck as your enemy surrendering on the first turn. and about as much skill goes into forcing an enemy to surrender as i does to actually overtake them. And it doesn't really matter anyways, because chances are they'll just be booted immediately afterwards and there would be no difference, that is besides the fact that you have a boot marked on your page instead of a loss when you are eventually kicked.

|> It's unbelievably annoying when there's a surrender. If the player is angry with the game, you know those beside him pretty much lost as well. Why? He'll suicide rush into them. That isn't fun, because a normal player would not do as such. It is unfair to lose over such a thing.|>.

Maybe I am missing something BUT, isn't surrender part of the game as it is in a real war? Doesnt it always help one side and not another?

"That isn't fun, because a normal player would not do as such" - WTF, why does any player have to play they way you think they should? There is no rules stating you have to play any other way other than what pleases you. Due to this, some have winning % and some have not, some enjoy their games and others whine "Why are you both attacking me, you are both playing as a team!!" - no, we are playing in a 3 player FFA and chances are we have to attack you.

This is a game that should be enjoyed, but I will not sit around when being attacked by bigger armies just to see them wipe me out - NOT FUN. If I deem I have no chance to win I will go on suicidal run through another opponent if the whim takes me, SOMETIMES FUN, as it allows me to control the result (normally I prefer controlling it by winning myself, but controlling who wins is also my right).

Sorry for using WTF, as I know there are some on this forum that are offended by single letters but ICAM but ICBW although ICEDI then again ICFILWU

Perrin, that is one example, but I've covered another. I was in an FFA where one person was fighting multiple people at the same time, didn't like it and surrendered. However, since not everyone accepted it, he went into a rage, put all his income on my side, and suicide-rushed into me. His former strategy was trying to hold off both of us and we would have gained equal ground. Now, the only reason I lose is because he was angry and I was the "lucky" bastard to be hit by his anger. Is that a strategic choice? It's more of a "I know the person next to him no longer will be my opponent" choice.

Don't get me wrong, I do this all the time. I actually understand that if a person surrenders, he might just suicide-rush into people. When they are not near me, it is "strategic" not to accept this surrender, since I know the people next to him basically lost. If they are near to me, I should of course hope everyone accepts so that I am not the target of such a thing. My problem with this, though, is that they no longer are valid players. It simply sounds silly to me not to accept a surrender due to the fact that you know their playing style will differ.

..I.., I don't think you fully understood me. Rules are pretty much not the issue in a discussion such as this. It is being discussed what the rules should be, not what they are. I, for example, think it is unfair to lose over a suicide rusher who happened to have picked me as his target, even though his initial strategy was to attack somewhere else. That does not make me feel I'm playing a very valid game. That is, of course, like all other posts, an opinion. I won't pretend otherwise.

Luck, naturally, plays a heavy role in this game. Doesn't just have to do with the luck factor, or pick preferences, or order differences. It also has to do with the other players in multiple-person FFA. And I accept that. I merely discuss here what I think could be better to reduce that amount of luck.