Have you guys ever faced such opponents? They know they're done but always wait for days to surrender. Im in 3 ladder games like that, my opponents are in hopeless situation but they still try to make nonsensical moves every 2 days.

Ya it happens when someone decides to drag it out for some reason... Its quite annoying if its obvious that they will lose.

I faced a situation in which i was gonna lose, but my opponent takes forever to make their move, even though I move quickly

sometimes what's obvious to the winner is not obvious to the loser.. sometimes..
personally I like to waddle in the joy of my victories, so don't mind when people extend out their games, unless it is a RT game they are extending just to troll

reasons why i (or others) play slowly:

- it's turn 20-40: we have a couple hundred armies scattered across the board, each of us has 30+ in bonuses, each move matters enormously. such a headache. if you aren't physically comfortable and mentally relaxed and attentive, such games can be grueling. i tend to play at the pace of my opponent. if the enemy wants to take 1-3 days a turn, i welcome it in this type of situation.
- 1v1: maybe i only want to play 1 game at a time (or 0! but my rating is high and i feel obligated to remain active), and the system only allows me to play 2-5. if i drag out a loss (or any game for that matter), i cheat the system (i create the reality that i play the average number of turns taken in 1 normal speed game by playing slowly in 2 games)
- 1v1: i've witnessed a certain top player not surrender until a loss expired, in order that he maintain his #1 rank.
- 2v2: you know it is over. but your teammate doesnt. so you drag it out. if alone you would've already surrendered, but since you are a team you cant show any signs of weakness (and thus cant surrender until the team agrees to). so you are forced to play a game you dont want to play. your response: reluctantly play (ie, drag it out).
- 2v2 or 1v1: you want a better initial ranking. you have games ending that you will win. you have a game you will lose nearing its end. in the games you are winning, your opponents are dragging out the game or naturally just play 1 turn every 1-3 days. if everyone played fast, you'd get the wins and higher rating/rank before the loss. if you play fast in the loss and let the enemies postpone your wins, it affects your ratings/rank. so you play at the speed of your losing enemies in the game against your already victorious enemies.
- you have a life and want to keep it balanced: less warlight, more life. your decision: remain an active wl player, but play only once every 1-3 days in your games. this is the best reason i think.

lol @ Gui's reply. But I mean the game is really over but the guys keep running around with his base income, and 1 move / 2 days.

I think I played a ladder game once, where the other player never got his first bonus..

Are they brand new players, where they possibly don't know how to surrender or why someone would want to? Most of us surrender when it's clear that we cannot win, but newer players often drag it out just because they want to keep playing.

If it's a player who has been around for a while, especially with a decent rating, I would say that they are gaming the wins and losses to maintain or improve their rating. I might do that myself if I am ever in a position to get a high rank.

If they are losing but not completely out (as in, not the scenario above where they only get base income and have no armies), then they might be trying to think out possible moves to get out from under a rough situation. I also take longer in harder games that are close to me losing. I'm sure it annoys my opponents when I take two days to make a move and immediately surrender when I see that I actually was losing badly. This could easily be the case when the winning player has been expanding and only using a portion of their income to fight. Until they use their entire income, it's almost impossible to tell in the early game if you are really losing or in fact fighting evenly.

Personally, when it becomes fairly clear I am winning, but think it is unclear to my opponent I am winning, I will feint on my front lines and expand to hit him hard in another spot.. the idea of the overwhelming feelings a general would get make my day... and it doesn't happen that often so I have to enjoy every one that comes around ;)

u mean us ? :D

lol @ retro, I mean my seasonal ladder games. Im in a game with 60 troops in Anta, about to break his AUS but have to wait for 2 days just to see he lost 5 bonus.

I dont know if Im being trolled but in a ladder game, my opponent is keep making a move every 2 days (right before he's about to get booted) with his 5 income ( it's already turn #14 and my income is 29, his is 5). And Im pretty sure that this game is hopeless for him but I dont know why he keeps trolling me like that. I also notice that he did the same in the 2 recent losses of his in the 1v1 ladder, he stopped making moves when he was in hopeless situation and then got booted eventually instead of surrender.

here is his profile >>> http://warlight.net/Profile.aspx?p=716415378

some people draw out losses to prevent their rating from dropping until later

There should be a way for game creators to define a 'technical knockout' as a victory condition.
Like: "When a player or team has in three consecutive turns at least three times the base income of all other players or teams combined, then the game should automatically be ended and counted as a victory for the superior player or team.
For ladder games this should be enabled by default, for all other games this should be a tickbox option during game setup.

Three times the income of all others? I don't even see how you could win if the enemy had 1,5 your income.

In a 2v2 ladder game I can very well imagine one player starting close to both opponents and successfully denying them their early bonuses for a couple of turns, while his teammate remains undisturbed and completes a lucky 5er bonus in two turns, resulting in say 15 to 10 income. Such a game could end prematurely by turn 5, even when the disrupter would be eliminated by turn 6. I admit this case might be rare, but not impossible, so 1.5 times would be too low.
So make it twice the income, or let the game creator pick a setting:
"When a player or team has in X consecutive turns at least Y times the base income of all other players or teams combined, then the game should automatically be ended and counted as a victory for the superior player or team."
With X >= 3 and Y >=2. Something like this.