It's inconsiderate to go over the timer and assume people are going to not boot you.

Depends on the situation. If someone has a valid reason to go afk for a short time and posts so in chat than booting them anyways is a serious jerk move.

Now, if someone is going over the timer every single turn than it's a different story.

^ A problem solved by banked boot times.

More boot education is needed. We are aware of that problem. This is slated for development over the next few months. I have played with several players that are not aware they can surrender. They just close the tab when they are losing and walk away. Awareness to surrender is a big quality of game issue.

I like this thread, more ideas around carrots and sticks. Keep them up.

Honestly, I've been booted when I -HAVE- hit surrender. People wont accept it. Its happened about good 50 times to me throughout my time playing diplos. Automatically accepting surrender is a good thing but, sometimes when you hit it and then you finally see something you could've changed is the worst D:

So maybe something inbetween autoaccept and forcing everyone to accept would be good.

@Eklipse True, I would never boot someone if they said in chat "I have to go do something real quick, please don't boot".

@Des Personally I'd be in favor of getting rid of surrender accepting during any game that isn't a team game. I'd like to know I can opt out of a game without getting booted and simply accepting a loss. It's annoying as hell when people tactically don't accept someone else's surrender in a damn Free For All. Someone did that to me and I retracted my surrender and made a B-line for their territories with several large stacks, letting the other players take the stuff I used to own.

Edited 8/14/2015 06:07:34

^^^^^ +1 to Ebin398's last post.

+1 Des...

actually, I think that most or even all of the issues that I see in this thread has happened to me at least once already... except that I never play Real-Time games...
too much risk of booting, especially in my situation of not actually owning a device that I can play WarLight on.

Events History : including going over my boot time and being shocked to find that I am still in the game; having a boot rate over 10% (not atm, thankfully); surrendering with my team mate in the second-round tournament game cited above only to find that because my team mate surrendered first, I got booted for not checking back, because I was a noob; etc. I don't think I've ever been voted out... but I'd have to check.

( I get around. :O )

However, I have not yet made my own multi-player game yet...
in part because I am a little bitty Level 17, and I lack money...
plus the procedure for starting my very own multi-player game is honestly a bit daunting...
So I don't much know what I'm doing there,
except to "steal" a template/map combo that I think I would like and host it...

Maybe for my next game. :)

---

AlternateHistoryGuy / Des :

If I were to surrender because I know that I will get booted otherwise, and I post in the game chat announcing my decision and reasons,
I'd be most inclined to block people who forced me to get booted...
I'd even be inclined to block someone if I trusted the story of someone who was in that situation...
and to some extent with cases of "I'll be right back, please don't boot", although it could be abused.

My clan has a voluntary clan-wide blocklist, started by knyte, which I love.
It is also piece-meal, in that you can block the people in cases 1, 2, and 5, and disregard cases 3 and 4, or however one likes.

Good reasons had to be given for nominations with tons of supporting evidence,
including detailed claims, game links, profile links and mitigating circumstances,
and are verified by knyte, before they appeared on the official list,
and not every claim made the list, which is again voluntary and piece-meal.
Further, those details are noted in the official list.
I also checked out the details of many of the claims on my own.

It's not the sort of thing I would suggest for the open game forums,
due to the obvious political/drama reasons,
but if other clans have block lists with the same protections,

I'd be very interested in swapping my personal copy of the list with clans that also have well-documented lists.

Edited 8/14/2015 06:31:18

Honestly, I've been booted when I -HAVE- hit surrender. People wont accept it. Its happened about good 50 times to me throughout my time playing diplos. Automatically accepting surrender is a good thing but, sometimes when you hit it and then you finally see something you could've changed is the worst D:

So maybe something inbetween autoaccept and forcing everyone to accept would be good.

Could it not be setup that if a player exceeds the boot time and has surrendered:

Their surrender is automatically accepted

OR

The boot does not count against them since they made a reasonable effort to not be booted?

Edited 8/14/2015 05:38:27

Master Ree - there is a reason for "accept surrender" option. I agree, that in FFA's and 1v1's it is not necessary. But in team games it is annoying as hell, when your teammate surrenders, just because he's losing, but not the whole team. I'd have no regrets upon booting such a player.

From the other hand, I don't understand people, who "tactical" boots right after the clock runs out. Yes, you have right to do it, but what's the point of playing if you won all your games by booting opponent? I always thought, that point of this game is to have fun by playing with others. Not having highest lvl, or best stats. But well, I guess some enjoy stats more, than pleasure of playing..

Well sometimes I like to play a game, but I have to do something. Usually I try to do things while I'm still in the lobby, but things happen and I come back and I'm booted by 1 minute. It's damn disgusting.

I think there should be an option regarding surrenders that instead of either being automatically accepted vs requiring EVERYONE to accept, that you only require half + 1 or half rounded up of the other players to accept. That stops that one stubborn person from refusing to accept your surrender.

@Genghis Not to say I agree with booting you, but you have to understand that when people have been waiting in the lobby for awhile they're pretty antsy and eager to start playing. To avoid this myself I make sure I leave a lobby if I'm going to leave the computer. Though that exact thing has happened to me, I make sure it's a pretty rare occurrence.

Edited 8/14/2015 06:07:55

+1 to Ebin.

+1 to Master Ree for the idea on surrender+boot combos...
it should at least be an option.

+1 to Latnox with the caveat that even in FFA Games,

having people surrender / get booted is often a royal pain in the arse for at least one person who still has / did have a decent chance of winning... and I'm not sure how best to address it... :(

By the way, could someone explain to a noob how someone gets booted from a lobby,

and what the effects are of booting on that person's account?

Edited 8/14/2015 06:24:47

I think he meant he joins a lobby, leaves the computer to go do something, then by the time he's back the game has already started and the clock has run out.

No effects as far as I'm aware besides having a higher boot % displayed on your account and you might get filtered from certain games if the host decides to only allow people who have a low enough boot rate.

Oh, I see.

Yes, I can see how that would be an issue.

And I added tons of good info to my third post, my last post on page one.

I hope people find it useful. :)

Edited 8/14/2015 06:31:48

Finishes 5 Straight Games without a Boot

This "carrot" will really encorage noobs.

get to wear a Golden Boot next to their name

Good "stick" thing.

i was in a Team torneymentand the other guy got boot. i was anyod yes the cost of booting should go up

Simple idea: create an option that would let game creators make it impossible to boot players with an unaccepted surrender. That way all active players have to accept the surrender for the game to move on, and inactives get booted before those who've surrendered. One way this could go wrong is if two players who don't accept each other's surrender have both surrendered and then gone afk, but that could be solved by re-enabling boots for cases like that.

So an option to make surrendering players unbootable until all other players have either taken their turn or been booted.

option that would let game creators make it impossible to boot players with an unaccepted surrender.

well, what's the point then? i can't surrender until everyone else accept this, but as they are forced to do it, this is effectively the same situtation as 'surrender happens instantly'

^ Not quite. They just have to boot all inactive non-surrendered players before they boot surrendered ones. This is because often the unaccepted surrenders occur because of inactives not accepting them and as booting them solves the problem without having to boot the surrendered players. This is mostly to make it easier to boot in the proper order because most people seem to miss that concept.

So if the surrender was just not accepted by an inactive, you can more easily move on while keeping the surrendered player still in the game (useful for FFAs where losing a player would imbalance the game).

The idea still needs refinement though because as of now it just adds convenience and keeps surrendered players bootable. Maybe combine it with the one to count boots of surrendered players as surrenders.

Edited 8/14/2015 07:27:22

when people have been waiting in the lobby for awhile they're pretty antsy and eager to start playing.

That's even another reason for not booting someone 1 minute after game had started.
"Well, I've waited 30 min for this game to start, but I can't wait 3 min more to actually start playing. Instead, I'll ruin the game for everyone who waited along with me."
Sounds legit.

Also I like Knyte idea. And regarding Krzychu's comment, it's not exacly the same as "surrender happens instantly". The difference is, that if your teammate wants to surrender, you can still try to talk to him. While if he rage quit, it's game over.

Edited 8/14/2015 07:25:14