While I was in a game today, I had a debate over the terms of surrendering with another player. While his ideas seemed interesting, he was a rather poor English speaker, and could not articulate his claims as well as I could. Therefore I would like to hear opinions from other people regarding the subject of surrendering.


We both had two perspectives on the matter:

The player I talked with had an argument stemming from a more "Diplomatic" perspective - that is, he viewed surrendering as a way of ruining a game, and allowing one player to "snowball" into high income and therefore, controlling the game, all entirely based off of his experience playing diplomacy. If a player surrenders, regardless of their position (he claims), it ruins the effect of the game, and the players' "excitement" of the game.

My perspective comes from a more competitive standpoint, in which players, once they concede that they have lost, surrender as a sign of defeat, not to "ruin" the game for the other player. This could apply to 1v1 and team games mostly, and usually holds true to FFAs (without truces, as to not get muddy with backstabbing issues).


I found his arguments rather stupid to be honest, as he proposed a system that would initially make players only win by booting or eliminating the other player(s)/team, which he later revised to require that players could only surrender after turn 20 regardless of the outcome. I'm sure my standpoint could easily be revised, but I am limited to my own thought, which is why I'm asking here.

Some preliminary questions, which can lead to other clarifying ones, could be:

• Why do [you] think people should surrender?
  
• What are your thoughts on surrendering before turn 1?
  
• At what point in a game do you think surrendering is a viable option?
  
• On the subject of diplomacy games (of which I have no experience), is surrendering an option, even if you are in a bad position? If not, why do you think this?
  
• What do you think is a just cause for surrendering?
  

If you opt to answer these questions, explaining it as well as possibly providing a link to a game which proves your point would be of great help.

I'm sure this has been brought up before, but I'd like to hear thoughts on the matter now, not what people thought of even if a few weeks ago.


Questions/Comments greatly appreciated.

People should surrender when they think they have no chance of winning.

If in a team game: Ask your teammates and only surrender if the decision is unanimous

Surrendering before turn one is ridiculous. Should not be allowed. There is an equal chance for anyone to win -before the game has started- so surrendering makes no sense.

Surrenders should be allowed after Distribution. You can tell a lot from a game by the starting picks.

This is tricky. I think, yes. Of course it is/should be an option. There are endless situations you could deliberate over, but the surrender button is essential in my view. Boot rates would skyrocket. Perhaps making them all but obsolete! Many problems created for what gain? Fewer greedy players getting undeserved power in a F.F.A. or Diplomacy game?

I think the question here should be Are AIs a good enough substitute for a player?
A: Looking at the alternative... Yes.

Overall: Stupid idea.

That's my opinionated drivel.

Edited 10/19/2014 23:31:22

From a purely competitive standpoint, not surrendering a lost position is basically stalling. And with that in mind, we're in established theory.


I agree, his argument is a bit ridiculous. Has he been on the 1v1 ladder yet? My guess is, no. :P

9 times out of 10 I don't surrender. Sometimes you can win just by staying alive.

1v1 surrender as soon as its obvious you've lost

Larger FFAs it all depends... surrendering can definitely change the complexion of the game and allow one player to win that would have otherwise lost

Surrendering before Turn 1 should be allowed..... Last week I was on the real time ladder and i had to go mid game so i told the guy I was sorry and surrendered..... One problem though..... I forgot to leave the ladder. I had another game start so I quickly surrendered before the start and then left the ladder before joining my evening company........ Yes this is debatable but in real time games surrenders should not have to be accepted.


~~> Dont surrender in Diplos or FFA's. In diplo games everyone has a place. Does Antartica just say at the start of the game "I surrender this is dumb since i shouldnt hve i serve a ''super power'." No your choices and prescense helps change the game.


@AWESOMEGUY
I think that the guy you played with mainly thought from a diplo perspective but...... Suppose your in a 3v3v3 clan game. Team A and Team B are clearly winning and its very close. Team C has lost however. Team C can surrender and give Team A the upper hand because of how their boarder is situated or Team C can say HEY lets pick the winner. If im going to loose lets take Team A down with us. Their presence although its small is a game factor....


I still think that once the game is lost and you tried a come back for 2-3 turns to surrender....

Surrender when you're not having fun and/or you know you've lost. You're aware you've run out of time and would otherwise get booted (and only surrendering or both lead to AIs in team games)

Surrendering before turn gets blacklisted, you obvious can't make decisions about what games to join before joining them and therefore I don't wish to play with them in the future. This is most true for round robin tournaments.

See answer 1

Depends on the diplomacy game. If you are good at them you should be able to not surrender, if you are bad, you probably should play them in the first place.

See answer 1

Any 1v1 or team game you obviously surrender when you know you lost.

FFA's can be set up so that a player can surrender instantly, but an AI takes over. That should control whichever argument you have with this issue.

This debate should really only apply to FFA's. In all other cases it doesn't matter. In 1v1 you surrender when you have lost. Same with team games (assuming your teammates agree). You should really only consider competitive balance in FFA.

In ffas, you also surrender when you're defeated. If someone doesn't accept the surrender, i just deploy all armies on one terretory over turns or i attack the player who doesn't accept (only possible when he's bordering me of course). Making it standard to stay in a ffa you lost is bad, because normally you only fight 1 opponent at that point and gives the others an undeserved advantage (the victim is 95% the guy who defeats the other). Defensive, boring ffa players can stack meanwhile.

In a team game / ffa situation I completely agree with him. If you win because you had 5-10 more income early on, your neighbour knows it and surrenders, you take his bonuses and meet the next guy you have 10-20 more income and he surrenders ... repeat ... you won because of that extra 5 income in the first few turns. If those people stayed and fought, danced and dodged and made you keep putting armies down in your core to eliminate them, then you cannot just swallow the bonuses and when you meet the next guy you have to make tactical decisions ... fight him or eliminate the first player? Basically a FFA / Team game. Interesting.

For 1v1 I agree with you. Surrender when you can no longer win, unless you need to learn in which case playing it out to the end to get that experience (whilst frustrating for the bigger player) is a very useful skill that you will need in later team games.