When to surrender

[ams16]

In my mind, there are two issues involved in surrendering. (I am speaking of FFAs.)
1) My enjoyment of the game.
2) Politeness/fairness to other players.

What I mean by (2) is that in some games, surrendering is sometimes giving a victory to another player (one of the ones closest to you) because they will gobble up all your cities and then take down the rest of the people.

So when does the lack of enjoyment outweigh fairness to other players? Usually, I try to stay in as long as possible, but sometimes, I get to the point where I'm not looking forward to the game, so I think about surrendering.* I just quit a game well before I should have, in terms of the politeness factor, and I feel bad about that now.

(I don't usually quit because of a bad early battle or losing a hero early or something.)

What do other people do?

*I kind of wish there were a mode of surrendering that allowed your cities to continue producing, until you ran out of money. So it isn't a complete surrender.

[KGB]

Ams16,

I surrender when I no longer feel I can win the game. Note that by 'I', I sometimes mean 'we' if I am in an alliance and my ally might win the game if I continue to play and might lose if I resign.

Politeness/fairness shouldn't be a part of the consideration as much as others might argue for it. That's because there is no guarantee of it from other players. This is why when a player surrenders, all his cities should be razed to the ground. That's the fairest solution possible in FFA games.

Until that time, you can simulate your 'surrender but keep producing' method by simply hitting 'end turn' right away.

KGB

[Pillager]

Politeness/fairness shouldn't be a part of the consideration as much as others might argue for it. That's because there is no guarantee of it from other players.

Ummm..... I agree that there is no guarantee that other players will be considerate...but I don't think that is a valid reason to be inconsiderate. Think you are missing something here KGB...and its kinda sad

This is why when a player surrenders, all his cities should be razed to the ground. That's the fairest solution possible in FFA games.

Totally agree with this though.

[KGB]

Pillager,

I'm not saying I'm deliberately inconsiderate. I just meant that you can't attempt to take fairness to other players into account when you personally decide to resign.

I say that because no matter what you do, you are being inconsiderate/unfair to *someone* in the game. Here's why:

Under the current rules, if you resign all your cities become neutral. That's an unfair advantage for the player who can potentially easily grab all your neutral cities.

Under the proposed 'raze all' rule, if you resign all your cities will be razed. That's an unfair advantage against the player who is conquering you because he gets nothing, meanwhile another player who fights to the end can provide his conqueror with a bunch of cities/looted gold etc.

So regardless of which rule is used, someone in the game gains from your resigning and someone loses from your resigning. Thus you are guaranteed to be inconsiderate to someone because you change the game dynamics.

Hence there is really no way to resign gracefully from a game so there isn't any reason to beat yourself up over deciding to resign.

KGB

[LPhillips]

It's good sportsmanship to play to the end in FFA games, and it's something I respect players for. Certainly it's not an obligation.

[strach]

but don't you think that people who have three cities and any possibility to perform some kind of a last spectacular action should put their armies in the cities, spend all mony on building city walls and resign? I mean - why do I have to wait 48 hours for a move of a person whose turn containts of a pointless moves and clicking end turn?

of course everyone has a right to play till the his last breath and it would be kind of rude to ask someone to surrender, but I dont see any point in such attitude. it's not chess when you can get a stalemate

[LPhillips]

Heh, the reason for playing to the end is courtesy of balance to other players. But if you have a personal vendetta, then you may continue to play long after sportsmanship dictates resignation.

Thus, our game. You had to wait 48 hours because my internet has been crappy. I just missed 2 turns.

[kenc80]

you know i want to pipe in on this debate about whether its good sporting...is it proper to play out your games to the last man and castle? that never occured to me as the respectful thing to do?

In my opinion, I resign when all hope is lost so the remaining players can play faster and finish out the game. If its me and two mighty armies. why not resign when hope is lost and let them fight it out one on one without me interfering with pointless turns dragging out the game? Isnt that more respectful? to bow out and let the big boys fight?

i kinda see it both ways here.....


but yes, i do want to echo KGB again...castles should be razed upon resignation with no chance to rebuild (I'm a war 2 guy)

[ezras]

SO in the game that we are playing kenc80 I know that i am hopelessly lost and that you will probably win. I realized this maybe 8-10 turns ago. Should I have resigned. Or as I decided to do... send everything i have to try and hamper your victory lap.... I play turns often enough it does not delay the actual outcome. It just keeps you occupied and forces you to fight me to my last man. but what should I do and what I AM doing are to totally different things.

[kenc80]

no, im not referring to USA. Honestly that game is pretty much over anyways. and I mean, thats how you play and I respect that - I think its awesome actually - to the death! And yeah, you do play fast, again that wasnt why i posted that.

im really just making a bigger point that its not necessarily bad sportmanship to resign if a player feels like they are beaten and want to resign. LP made it sound like the "sporting thing to do" is to play to the last man (like you do) and I was making a point that it can be argued differently to that resigning isnt always bad sportmanship either.