I usually hate this setting EXCEPT for important TEAM games. I saw sometimes players surrender because of an internal disagreement within the team that have been resolved afterwards (like, when the game was over) or people surrendering prematurely.

Edited 4/16/2017 20:29:00

I like this setting. If a player goes missing on a team in the clan league, it allows that team to "manage" the game out(by not accepting surrenders) to ensure their substitution is made before their next game allotment.

they can do that without surrendering too

they can do that without surrendering too

For 3 days which may not be enough to get a sub in place. 6 days is a nice buffer to get stuff sorted.

What's the problem with the setting anyway? As long as it is turned off by default, I don't see any need for this option to go away.

The setting is useful in team games as some noobs may surr once they are down to base income despite the team is winning the game for him, as long as he stays on.

The setting is useful in team games as some noobs may surr once they are down to base income despite the team is winning the game for him, as long as he stays on.

Actually, it isn't useful in that situation, but I do know which feature may be useful for that kind of situation: "Players turn into AI controlled players when surrendered."

This thread is a BREATH OF FRESH AIR. Thank you Ryiro.

"i'd argue that if people really want to leave, they don't mind getting booted.
and there's always that one guy in an ffa who refuses to accept surrenders and just wants to either eliminate those weaklings or want them to get booted "

My thoughts exactly.


It's a frustrating setting. The problem is that it's the default setting for template making, so you will see it a lot more than it needs to be seen. If there is one thing that this setting really does well, it's wasting people's time.

The biggest point here that I'd make is that when you weigh in the pros and cons of this setting the cons are far more measurable. It's not very likely that a player who surrenders is going to decide to return to the game because their partners told them to.

Edited 4/17/2017 15:10:22

How does one accidentally surrender? :O

Well, this one i wrote based on a good player accidentally surrendering in 1v1 ladder game :)
(You already know who it is, but if you want i can give his name and that game too).

@Scarlett the Queen Viper

You can´t measure pros and cons, you can simply name them, rank them. Furthermore at least 30% of my games I can convince a player to play forward by introducing the mistake he made in analysing game he thought he was going to loose, but actually was in winning situation or in balanced position. Most of the times I can ask someone just to play 2-3 turns to see how things will go just for purpose of learning and analysing where one made a mistake in strategy.

If it is frustrating setting, don´t play games where it is enabled. Is that so hard to do? Yeah, they can still leave and get booted, at least it counts as boot, which is good indicator of ones attitude towards playing a game with teammates.

I really don´t like WR, commanders, earth map and many others things, but luckily I got free will to choose not to play them. Its a great thing, that free will, when you realise it.

Just write it once more and stated by TBest:
On Unity the setting "Surrender must NOT be accepted" is now default. So probably people won´t use the current default "surrender must BE accepted" that much, because obviously people are not putting any thought over it when to enable it.

I always make my own games, that's why I'm not bothered by this setting.

It's a completely frustrating setting in a MAJORITY of the games. I wouldn't go as far as remove it from the game. But it should at least
- be able to be highlighted in Settings Highlight https://www.warlight.net/SettingsHighlight
- not be enabled by default when creating a template.

This should fix it

^ exactly my opinion