Hi, I've been thinking about the morality of not accepting surrenders lately (mostly due to the backlash I received in one game I am currently in) and I thought I could use some extra brain power and experience.

The issue is this:
In my opinion, if an FFA game has got "surrenders must be accepted" setting switched on, then players have the right to leverage it against others for their own benefit. Some people disagree.

My reasoning is this:
This particular setting has basically no utility in FFA games other than using it to keep others in the game for your own benefit, so if it's turned on then AS FAR AS I CAN SEE either
a) you should expect others will use it that way
or b) the host made a mistake and forgot to disable it

I don't think anyone has the right to assume the game has "broken" settings and force others to conform to their desired setting, so option b) should be disregarded. Even if the host says it was a mistake it doesn't mean players should not use the setting, that would be akin to ignoring multi-attack because someone says the game wasn't meant to have it...

I've thought about it quite extensively and I think the only way I would consider going with option b) is if EVERYONE agreed to it at the beginning (or at any point in the game I guess) without being pressured into it.
Everyone including myself... the way WZ is set up is that players get to create games and others "shop" for them, joining games they like. Once the game is created that's the game to be played, changing settings mid-game is akin to deceiving a customer. If you deem this setting immoral don't join games with it, there are those like me who deem it perfectly reasonable and we have the right to play our games the way we like too.

just switch on surrendered players turn into ai, it's faster than making a great big forum post

Sure, but I am currently in a game that I did not create and that does not have it switched on.

From the perspective of one that wants to surrender, I really started to hate this setting.

I want to get out of the game, but am forced to still take my turns? Why?

After experiencing this 3 times, I started to just not surrender anymore, but let myself be booted. I don't like it that way, but it seems to be the only way of being able to really get out of a game.

Yeah, it's pretty annoying to play when you don't have a chance to win, but if someone else's chance to win depends on it they definitely have the right to do that. Of course, if it was the other way around you would get to keep them around in order to win the game.

So as far as I can see it's pretty fair, but I'd like to add that I agree - in FFA AI is usually the better solution and perhaps "surrenders must be accepted" should be turned off by default when creating a new template, so that there are fewer games that end up with it turned on by mistake.

I agree, had this happen in an ffa where one player had no hope to win, and didn’t let another player surrender which basically kept two other players from having a shot.

I do note that some games have started posting in comments to surrender if you don’t have a chance, which works.

But to make someone take a boot in order to leave is unfortunate, and they should be allowed to leave.

Can someone make a case in an ffa why to leave the surrender must be accepted on?

Well, the boot is a punishment for not playing on when others want you to play, after all, that's what everyone signed up for in such a game.

This is the reason to leave it on:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingmaker_scenario

I think in an FFA when you have 0% chance of winning you should be fair to the best player and give up.
Otherwise, you're helping someone who wasn't the best win a game they shouldn't have won. I lost several FFAs for this reason and it's exasperating, seeing someone play to lose is horrible. I can't understand continuing to play only to lose. And the meaning of FFA is very clear, Free For All.

And if someone, being fair, surrenders because he knows that it is impossible for him to win the game, everyone should accept the surrender, but if there is someone who unfairly does not accept his surrender, the answer is clear and it is not to be booted.

The solution is easy and what i would do would be deploy the income only in one territory and committing without moving, so it doesn't influence the game and it doesn't benefit a worse player to win a game that he never should have won. And move only to attack the player who does not accept the surrender.

And of course, if the settings allow it, it can be done, another thing is whether doing it is fair or not. But for me I just want to win by being the best, I don't want to win with help from other players, because that indicates that you only won with help, not by being the best.

Interesting take. What if players I had to fight were stubborn and wouldn't give up till the end, why would I then let someone have the luxury and just make their opponents disappear? It's true that those people can just refuse to fight, but they usually fight. AI is definitely the preferable solution tho, for all the reasons you listed imo

Also yes, if I have 0% chance of winning I will go ahead and surrender, unless maybe if someone cheated me (like breaking truce) I will get my vengeance and drag them down with me or possibly in other miscellaneous cases I would help someone.

I'd say since it's impossible to force losing players to surrender the solution is to keep everyone in the game regardless of their situation unless they have no impact on the outcome of the game whatsoever (in this situation AI is turned off, ofc AI would be preferable).

In some cases it could be, but in the end I only play to win, not to annoy other players. And if I'm not going to win, I'm not interested in the game, but I want the one who was better than me to win and see what skills he had to get the victory and thus be able to learn.

When I create an FFA or team game, I always put in the setings:

Private messages: NOT ALLOW

Surrenders happen instantly: YES

Automatically boot: YES

Players turn into AI controlled players when booted: YES

Number of times players can come back after being turned into an AI: 1

Players turn into AI controlled players when surrendered: NO

AIs surrender when only one human remains: YES

I think it is the fairest option.

Edited 8/21/2022 19:05:39

I play to win too, in fact to the point that I will rather blackmail someone to help me out/force truce, else I will try to drag them down with me... if it gives me even slightly better shot at winning (though one has to account for the reputation damage it will cause and consider if it's worth it).

It's more predictable to turn surrendering players into AI rather then forcing them to play, so I suppose it's more pragmatic.

I would certainly not let people surrender freely without turning into AI, there are some seriously tenacious/stubborn people out there that just won't surrender, so the AI will at least maintain some balance.