When you are in a multiplayer game, do all your opponents need to agree to your surrender or can you do it unilaterally?  There are times when it seems obvious that someone has decided not to continue in a game, but you have to wait for them to time out twice before they are auto-booted, which can mean a four day delay for the other players in the game.  It would seem to be more convenient to just get it over with. 

I would add to this maybe considering auto-boot after only 1 skip for timers of two days or longer.  I can see someone missing a turn by accident for lightning or one day timers, but if they miss a turn after two days most likely they have given up on the game.

SquintGnome wrote:

There are times when it seems obvious..

Just because a player hasn't moved doesn't mean they don't want to play.   The only time you can be sure a play doesn't want to play is when they offer to surrender.

Otherwise, all players in a game could always "unilaterally" decide to boot BlackDog, which I'm sure we all agree would be a strategically wise decision.

Hi M,

When I say unilateral I mean that a player in a mutliplayer game should be able to surrender themselves, not boot other players.  So a player should be able to surrender without having all their opponents accept.

SquintGnome wrote:

Hi M,

When I say unilateral I mean that a player in a mutliplayer game should be able to surrender themselves, not boot other players.  So a player should be able to surrender without having all their opponents accept.

This has been suggested before and there was decent opposition to this ability.  The reason is that surrenders drastically alter the course/dynamics of the game.  That is why all other players must accept surrender (in 3+ player games).

Of course, that same player can always let themselves timeout as you mentioned.  However, the subsequent boot ends up being a "blemish" on their record that hopefully serves as a slightly deterring factor.  I think if there were some stronger consequences to boots then it would be more of a deterrent.

And as ATH said, a player can offer to surrender, right?  If all players agree, that it's fair, they can accept, and no one is the worse off.  Best practice is usually to play it out.  If players are being booted in an abnormally high number of games, they can be avoided.

to me it seems quite unlikely that everyone will accept the surrender. Some of the players will be booted in the meantime so the player that wants to surrender must re-submit his offer to surrender. some new players might do not realize that someone wants to surrender and don't react at all. and so in most cases offering surrender does not make sense if you are in the game with 6-7 or more players. maybe it should be an option to players who do not want to accept the surrender of someone can vote THAT THEY DON'T ACCEPT so nullify the offer immediately.

Vidoviti Milan wrote:

maybe it should be an option to players who do not want to accept the surrender of someone can vote THAT THEY DON'T ACCEPT so nullify the offer immediately.

+1 for an anonymous "Reject Surrender" button.

it don't must be anonymous... what do you think if it is possible that players must vote for yes or no before they can place their units and continue to play? like when you have 5 cards, and you can't play before you trade...

I like better the anonymous "reject surrender", like M57. Because when you are offering to surrender, you are not far from suiciding. In that case it would be tempting to kamikaze on the one who rejected your surrender.

Your second idea is not a bad one neither VM.

i agree that the second idea is neat. it would be nice if there was some sort of indication that someone had offered up a surrender. right now they have to post something in the game messages to call attention to it if they want others to notice. something like that could work well.