If I recall correctly, if a person or team surrenders a tournament, their remaining games are credited as Wins for their scheduled opponents.

For example, in a 31-game tournament, player A has a record of 13 wins and 12 losses, with 6 games remaining to play. The player surrenders the tourney and their opponents for those 6 surrendered games get credited with the Win.

Question -- Do I remember correctly that the players in the *completed* games keep their Win/Lose status?

I'm pretty sure they do. So, in the example above, 13+6 players have a Win against Player A, and 12 players have a Lose.

Comment -- This is why I'm not a fan of surrenders. It artificially skews the scores upward for all the opponents in the 'surrendered' games and effectively penalize those who took the losses already. Consider the hypothetical case where the tourney finishes with Players B, C, and D are tied at the top of the leaderboard, where Player B earned a Win against A, Player C took a Lose against A, and Player D received a SurrenderWin. Based on H2H or SODOS, Player D could come away with the tourney win via the 'free' win from A's surrender.

It seems... unfair.

Proposal -- If I understood the behaviour (i.e. completed games keep their W/L , and surrendered games credit the opponent with a W), I think it could be 'better' if the act of surrendering a tourney gives the 'W' to every opponent (completed or not).

Your thoughts?

It does skew things badly, when I have seen this, I always felt it may have been an unintended consequence of someone with a standard account determining they have no chance of winning the tourney clearing games so they can pursue another tourney.

I do recall surrendering from a tourney once, but peeked to ensure it would have no effect on the outcome and retained what sanity I have left.

I've been thinking of starting a thread to collect and discuss changes that are needed in the Tournament realm, a few things could use tweaking, certainly some merit here since some aren't thoughtful enough to consider the consequences of surrendering and possibly affecting the outcome.

Yes, a surrender does skew things a bit. But having the surrendering player just disappear from the standings (in effect) could lead to different problems. Imagine a 32-man tournament where you've played well, have finished your games and lead the standings on 23 wins and 8 losses. You can see that noone will be able to catch you, everyone has nine losses already, so you're congratulated on the win. Only - one player with a few games left surrenders, and is taken out of the standings. The until now #2, with 22 wins and 9 losses, lost to this player. So suddenly he has caught up with you on 23 wins and win the tournament because he won your direct encounter. That despite he having one bona fide loss more than you and you both played every game. How would that make you feel?

That's a very fair point. I'd be annoyed :-).

There's a similar case where the player may have lost the H2H but was already tied for first. The SurrenderWin could then kick that player right to the top of the standings.

Of course, now that I think about it (after typing most of this post already), your case is, in part, 'matched' by the case where the #2 player had won the direct encounter with #1, but had not played the surrendering player yet. The surrender automatically gives #2 the tie and thus the win due to the H2H. (If the surrender had not happened, #2 would either win their game and thus earn the tie (and win), or lose their game and the tourney.)

So... yeah. I'm not sure what the best solution would be, hence the call for 'thoughts' -- hopefully more people will weigh in.

These are the variants I see currently -- there might be a good solution, but then again there might not be :-)

• Existing system - Surrender gives automatic win to scheduled opponents of surrendered games, which effectively penalizes any losers of pre-surrender games.
• Give wins to all opponents - May penalize the potential tourney winner, giving an unearned win to the beneficiary of a SurrenderWin.
• Remove all pre-surrender Wins/Losses - May penalize the potential tourney winner (I think) and others.
• Disable the 'Surrender' option in tourney games - That's the nuclear solution. One problem (there are others I'm sure) would be that the person who would have surrendered can simply wait out the invitation periods to 'silently surrender via boot'. And regardless, the player may not have any interest in *trying* to win.
• Require 'Surrender' to be accepted by all players - All players could weigh in on whether they think the surrender is reasonable. If everyone agrees, then there should be no feelings of angst :-)
• Require 'Surrender' to be accepted by all pre-surrender opponents - They're the ones most affected.

(And... on a variety of the items above where surrender is possible, either keep the scoring the same as now (give Wins to scheduled opponents), or give Wins to *all* opponents, or remove Wins/Losses from all opponents, or ...?)

duplicate

Litotes wrote:That despite he having one bona fide loss more than you and you both played every game. How would that make you feel?

It would probably make me feel a bit angry toward the person who surrendered, and not so much about the rule. However, I think I'd be more frustrated if my loss to that player resulted in my not winning the tournament because someone else was awarded a win against them with no effort expended.

That said, it is worth mentioning that a player in a tournament who decides to surrender could just as easily lose all subsequent games by letting them time out, which I feel is an even more inconsiderate given how it would hold up the tournament The good news is, as hootz72 alluded, standard members are unlikely to prefer this option. Nevertheless, and if the OP's proposal is adopted, a premium member might do so anyway in order to avoid tallying extra losses, and there is no way to stop them from doing this. Chalk one up for the status quo.

This is a tough one. There are pros and cons, and though I don't have a strong opinion, at this point I'm leaning in favor of the OPs proposal.

duplicate

(I have no idea how that re-post appeared.)

agwyvern wrote:That's a very fair point. I'd be annoyed :-).

These are the variants I see currently -- there might be a good solution, but then again there might not be :-)

• Existing system - Surrender gives automatic win to scheduled opponents of surrendered games, which effectively penalizes any losers of pre-surrender games.
• Give wins to all opponents - May penalize the potential tourney winner, giving an unearned win to the beneficiary of a SurrenderWin.
• Remove all pre-surrender Wins/Losses - May penalize the potential tourney winner (I think) and others.
• Disable the 'Surrender' option in tourney games - That's the nuclear solution. One problem (there are others I'm sure) would be that the person who would have surrendered can simply wait out the invitation periods to 'silently surrender via boot'. And regardless, the player may not have any interest in *trying* to win.
• Require 'Surrender' to be accepted by all players - All players could weigh in on whether they think the surrender is reasonable. If everyone agrees, then there should be no feelings of angst :-)
• Require 'Surrender' to be accepted by all pre-surrender opponents - They're the ones most affected.

I feel that of those presented, there are only 2 'viable' options. And still, even given the choice for tourney acceptance of surrender; it doesn't prevent the stall-surrender. You can't force someone to put their real effort into games that they don't want to play. I'm not sure there's a good solution here (sorry for the negatism).

Requiring a surrender to be accepted by all players will likely not happen. Some will be finished with the tourney already and not look at it any further.

It comes down to preferences, but I prefer not to have existing information change. If someone is already on W11 L3 then I don't want them so suddenly instead have two losses.

From my (relatively extensive) tournament experience I can't remember an instance of this sort of thing mentioned in the OP deciding, though. I'm sure it has happened but it can't be frequent.