Surrendering

Post here your ideas for the campaign settings

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Luxun
Posts: 58
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2012 10:58 am

Surrendering

Post by Luxun » Wed Mar 08, 2017 6:04 pm

a short description of the desired addition or change
I would like to suggest a rule change regarding the ability to surrender. The rules say it's not a right to surrender. It's up to the winning Player to allow the loosing player to surrender. My suggestion is to change this part to the opposite. It should be a right to surrender. It would be up to the loosing Player to decide that he wants to surrender and the winning player have to accept it.

a "statement of expectation." What the suggestor thinks will be the end result of implementation.
I expect that the game experience for players (and of course especially for new ones) would rise.

a point by point discussion of WHY the change would have the expected impact.
I know that back in the days it was pretty common that you would demand an ejection of your choice to allow your opponent to surrender. I was used to it and never thought about it as the most I guess. It helped against the brutal cheese armies, against abuse RP collecting, rose the Hangar turnover and was considered to be normal. Since the Player base was much larger there where never a meaningful supply problem, there was always someone who had "good" spare units, he was willing to give you for free. And there was even a welfare system for those who were running out of units. To put it simple there were good reasons to have this rule and I never thought about possible negative effects of it.
Nowadays the circumstances are not the same anymore but the rule is still in effect (at least on paper). The Player base is much smaller (so small that you easily know everyone), I was lucky enough to only meet two people with extremely cheese armies, only the winning Player gets RPs and I haven't heard about any welfare system. The Player base adopted so that I never saw anyone not allowing the opponent to surrender or even demanding an ejection.
I guess the reason for that is that in such an small environment it creates bad blood between Players and would backfire heavily.

a point by point discussion of things that could go wrong with the change and how they might be avoided.
It would be possible to abuse that rule to throw games to collect cbills without the need for replacement units or repair costs. I expect that this would not happen since everybody "knows" everybody. Moreover Moderators could rule that such an behavior violates the spirit of the rules and punish it (similar to the Delaying Rule).

an honest disclosure of how much the feature matters to a person.
I was seriously surprised as I wasn't allowed to surrender after I got a really bad start in a game against a Moderator. After two turns it was pretty clear that I already lost the game. I have no problem with loosing due to stupid mistakes on my side, extreme RNG luck on his side or whatever reason. And I don't care much about my units (I am pretty reckless with them anyway) but I seriously got pissed about that situation and ejected 2 turns later all my units. I was forced to play a game that I didn't enjoy for half an hour, since there was no serious way to win anymore. Maybe it is because I am older now and value my time much higher than in my early twenty's. But I am in no way willing to spend 30 minutes with a game that I do not enjoy. I am fully aware of the fact that the Moderator might have his reasons to behave like he did and I am fully aware of the fact that he was fully within the rules. It is just that I do not value his reasons or the rules in this regard as much as my time. I do not believe that his game experience would have suffered if he hadn`t the chance to deny me surrender. My experience suffered from his ability to do so.
I know I am just one player but as I pointed out earlier I don't see the necessity for the rule anymore and more potential disadvantages then advantages. Moreover is the Player base now that small that I alone represent nearly 2% of the base. If only 5 more People would agree with me about this point we would already be nearly 10%.


I hope I managed to format the thread properly and that my suggestion is considered as reasonable.

Chaser
Posts: 827
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 3:38 am

Re: Surrendering

Post by Chaser » Wed Mar 08, 2017 7:39 pm

Retreat of the map if you are not granted surrender. Very few people don't allow surrender. I personally let most people surrender unless it's a cheese swarm army. I have had to retreat of the map. I personally would not like HAVING to accept someone's surrender.

Luxun
Posts: 58
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2012 10:58 am

Re: Surrendering

Post by Luxun » Wed Mar 08, 2017 9:06 pm

It wouldnt change the fact that i spent time with something that isnt joyfull.

I do not care about my units enough to be sad that an good or even rare Mek is lost. If i think carefully about it i propably wouldnt even be that upset like i was about the situation if he had demanded an ejection.
My main point is why should the winning player be able to decide if the game is over or not. If you play anyother game (especialy a 1 vs 1) you are always able to stop at any given moment and normally would not loose more then the match and something like ranking points ( here ELO). Why is it important that you loose here more ( Units or time)? What are the benfits of haveing the winning player to deicide it oppose to the loosing player?

User avatar
Dwight Derringer
Posts: 365
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 7:07 pm

Re: Surrendering

Post by Dwight Derringer » Wed Mar 08, 2017 9:08 pm

I understand completely that nobody wants to feel like they are fighting a losing battle. Nobody wants to feel like their labours are futile.

That said, I would like to state for the record that I am 100% against what you are proposing and it's going to be a super tall order to change my mind.

I will itemize the reasons that I like the right to grant no surrender:

-It is a great equalizer. If ensures that I am able to treat all people the same regardless of personal differences
-It enhances the strategic metagame (in some battles, eliminating a high-value or rare unit can be more important than winning the game outright since that powerful unit will no longer be terrorizing you or your faction mates)
-It adds an element of fear of loss to playing the tactical game, something that is a mental challenge to overcome
-In increases hanger churn, which requires people to buy more units which requires them to spend resources that can only be gained by being active and playing
-It makes vees and lighter meks more common since they are cheaper to buy and easier to build coherent armies with. I feel that this fits in with the BT atmosphere and lore, having larger units be rare and awesome sights to behold

I often hear people say that it is rude to force a person to play a game that they don't want to continue playing. After consideration I have chosen not to respect this argument since there are 2 ways that are always within a person's power that will end a game. These are fleeing off the map and ejecting enough units to trip the BV destroyed victory condition.

Luxun
Posts: 58
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2012 10:58 am

Re: Surrendering

Post by Luxun » Wed Mar 08, 2017 9:49 pm

As mentioned before Fleeing is not an option. It consumes time and is propably the slower to end the game as a full charge of your force would be. And you even get the chance that the RNG GOD is with you and you kill enough of his units while he misses all of his 4s to Hit.

And your second point 'ejecting enough units to trigger auto vic' would protect my rare monster... so i dont get that point either.

I do not know how the Hangar turnover is for others for me its normally pretty fast, as said i play pretty reckless normally therefore i do not know if that is a issue. But i remember once oppon a time there where autoejections if you didnt lost a certain BV of your army. But since most people allow surrenders without demand nearly all the time i doubt Hangar turnovers are a big deal anymore.

And that is another mainpoint the vast majorty of games follow allready the 'rule' that the loosing player decides when he wanna surrender since its nearlyy alway given. That said you could arguue that therefore there is no need for a change in the rules. But i arge that makes the situations where it is not given for whatever reason that much worse that the rule change is needed.

Seriously I would have never imagined to be allowed to surrender 15 years ago... but since its the common behavier these days i got really upset about it. AND i am not willing to play such a game. My time is way to important for that, therefor i ejected the units.

I get that everyone is used to the way rules are written but to argue that the gameexperience for the winning player benefits from beeing able to forbidding surrendering is beyound what i belive.

The point about great equilizer you brought up i didnt understand (maybe because english is not my first language) but as far as i see it my proposal would be enforce all players to be treaten similar while the current rule allows player to treat people as they wish for whatever reason they have in mind at that point.

Spork
Mekwars Developer
Posts: 3890
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 10:23 pm

Re: Surrendering

Post by Spork » Wed Mar 08, 2017 11:10 pm

Why does only your experience carry any weight to you?
Never had much, grew up with nothing
But the music, well it was something
Been down and out, I've been on top of the world,
World that keeps on spinning on a turntable.

BarukKhazad
MegamekNET Moderator
Posts: 329
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 10:56 pm

Re: Surrendering

Post by BarukKhazad » Wed Mar 08, 2017 11:18 pm

Luxun wrote: an honest disclosure of how much the feature matters to a person.
I was seriously surprised as I wasn't allowed to surrender after I got a really bad start in a game against a Moderator. After two turns it was pretty clear that I already lost the game. I have no problem with loosing due to stupid mistakes on my side, extreme RNG luck on his side or whatever reason. And I don't care much about my units (I am pretty reckless with them anyway) but I seriously got pissed about that situation and ejected 2 turns later all my units. I was forced to play a game that I didn't enjoy for half an hour, since there was no serious way to win anymore. Maybe it is because I am older now and value my time much higher than in my early twenty's. But I am in no way willing to spend 30 minutes with a game that I do not enjoy. I am fully aware of the fact that the Moderator might have his reasons to behave like he did and I am fully aware of the fact that he was fully within the rules. It is just that I do not value his reasons or the rules in this regard as much as my time. I do not believe that his game experience would have suffered if he hadn`t the chance to deny me surrender. My experience suffered from his ability to do so.
I know I am just one player but as I pointed out earlier I don't see the necessity for the rule anymore and more potential disadvantages then advantages. Moreover is the Player base now that small that I alone represent nearly 2% of the base. If only 5 more People would agree with me about this point we would already be nearly 10%.
Please clarify how my being a moderator made my denial of your surrender more upsetting.

I have no problems with your presenting a "mandatory acceptance of surrender" but would suggest that your proposal be changed to remove any need for moderator involvement at any time. If there is no ambiguity in the proposal, then players will always be able to resolve the surrender on their own, and players will not have unresolved conflict due to a mod not being present.

The above is my point of view as a moderator. The below is my point of view as a player.

Your ELO is comparable to mine. We both win about 2/3 of our games. My player experience is higher, so my ELO is higher, but 2/3 win ratio is about right for your exps and ELO.

At the end of the second round, you had a hipped 3/5 HBK-4G and a 3/5 AWS-8Q that was missing a PPC. It was clearly going bad and you asked for surrender. I do what I always do in that situation, I considered your 1640 ELO and that nothing was blown up, and said "no".

You knew your HBK would be cored or be put in the salvage pool, but you didn't offer to eject that HBK. Based on this, I believe your reason for offering a surrender, without offering to eject a unit, was that to ensure that your HBK made it back.

Against an equivalent player, players should have a win ratio of about 50/50. Since your ELO is about 1640, I have to assume that you play more LELOs than HELOs. A couple days ago I won a game verse you and salvaged a "made in the ACA" AWS-8Q. Which ACA player did you get that from? Why should I not attempt to stop the HELO CC players from picking on the LELO ACA players? Why should you be able to avoid losses in a game with me when you are taking meks from others in my faction?

I stopped enjoying our game when you rage-ejected your meks. The ACA players were dismayed when I scrapped the three meks salvaged, but I scrapped them because I considered them "ill-gotten booty".

As a player I dislike the idea of mandatory acceptance of surrender. Retreating off the board is easy enough. Though we should have stronger penalties for retreating without taking losses, enough to counter the potential profit of the op.
I had opinions/That didn't matter/I had a brain/That felt like pancake batter
I got a backyard/With nothing in it/Except a stick/A dog/And a box with something in it
The hardest button to button/ /The hardest button to button/ /The hardest button to button

Luxun
Posts: 58
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2012 10:58 am

Re: Surrendering

Post by Luxun » Thu Mar 09, 2017 12:47 am

Wow i didnt expected resitance for that suggestion. Especially not that much or that i would trigger any emotions!

@Spork
It does not. My experience is of course the thing i knows best and where i have to make no assumptions at all. My replies to Chaser and Dwight Derringer where about that i didnt had the impression that theire arguments hit the point (Chaser) or are weak / didnt understood by me ( Dwight Derringer).

BarukKhazad wrote:Please clarify how my being a moderator made my denial of your surrender more upsetting.
It did not in any way! If you got that impression because i stated that i played a Moderator, then i am sorry that was not intended. I just used the word to avoide calling your name because i thought it would propably create some sort of tensions. And that was not my intention.
BarukKhazad wrote:I have no problems with your presenting a "mandatory acceptance of surrender" but would suggest that your proposal be changed to remove any need for moderator involvement at any time. If there is no ambiguity in the proposal, then players will always be able to resolve the surrender on their own, and players will not have unresolved conflict due to a mod not being present.
I tried to format the suggestion as close to the template as i could and thought maybe there is a concern (that i do not share) about abusive behavier and tried to show a possible 'solution' to it. There somewhere the rule that even if something doesnt violate the words of a rule but the spirit in it that this is punichable. Myy 'solution' was related to this point.
BarukKhazad wrote:The above is my point of view as a moderator. The below is my point of view as a player.

Your ELO is comparable to mine. We both win about 2/3 of our games. My player experience is higher, so my ELO is higher, but 2/3 win ratio is about right for your exps and ELO.

At the end of the second round, you had a hipped 3/5 HBK-4G and a 3/5 AWS-8Q that was missing a PPC. It was clearly going bad and you asked for surrender. I do what I always do in that situation, I considered your 1640 ELO and that nothing was blown up, and said "no".
I do not know why my ELO would change my perception in such an situation. I do understand that it changes yours. Its propaby extremly easy to say person X with an ELO of 1550 loses most times i will let him go this time. And it is propably easy to say the person with ELO 1700 will win anyway most of the times he will be able to replace easily whatever dies.
BarukKhazad wrote:You knew your HBK would be cored or be put in the salvage pool, but you didn't offer to eject that HBK. Based on this, I believe your reason for offering a surrender, without offering to eject a unit, was that to ensure that your HBK made it back.
The only reason i did not offer anything to eject was that i was totally unprepared for such a situation. I did not even thought about the possibility that you would denie me surrender for half a second befor you did. Simple because i have not seen anyone to not accept a surrender in the weeks that i am back here.
BarukKhazad wrote:Against an equivalent player, players should have a win ratio of about 50/50. Since your ELO is about 1640, I have to assume that you play more LELOs than HELOs. A couple days ago I won a game verse you and salvaged a "made in the ACA" AWS-8Q. Which ACA player did you get that from? Why should I not attempt to stop the HELO CC players from picking on the LELO ACA players? Why should you be able to avoid losses in a game with me when you are taking meks from others in my faction?
Wow that sounds harsh and unfriendly!
I do not care for the ELO of my opponent. I try to play friendly with everyone. I do not avoid HELO Players and even arrange fights with them (ask Legion if you dont belive me). I even considered to rebuild an army that Shark who got badly lucked from me before our game seemed to feel cheese (we didnt spoke about it but he made a coment I think was hinting in this direction) just before we started the game. I allways ask in my housechat if an army is ok or cheese just to avoid giving my opponent a bad feeling about our game. So such an assumtion i take personal. Especially since we played a couple of games and you shoould know that i play normally till autovictory kicks in unimportant what i loose.
Hell we even retasked and loaded an old game where i had the feeling that you had allready the upper hand (despite me beeing very lucky in one of the first turns). It costs me 3 Assaults, but did I care ???
BarukKhazad wrote: I stopped enjoying our game when you rage-ejected your meks. The ACA players were dismayed when I scrapped the three meks salvaged, but I scrapped them because I considered them "ill-gotten booty".
I stopped enjoing our game as i had to play beyond the point where it would be reasonable to see the chance of winning.
BarukKhazad wrote:As a player I dislike the idea of mandatory acceptance of surrender. Retreating off the board is easy enough. Though we should have stronger penalties for retreating without taking losses, enough to counter the potential profit of the op.
As i tried to point out earlier i do not see retreating as an option since it is propably more time consuming that charging or ejecting enough for the autovictory kicking in.
As said i do remember the times where it was common to demand an ejection from your opponent and i was totally able to play in such an environment. The old forced autoejection would propably something you might consider again.

Everything you pointed out would have some validy in it when my behavier where driven by the hopes of keeping one or more special units. But that is not the case! My point is that it is just not fun for the loosing player to keep playing the game (charging, fleeing or do what ever he can) when he allready wanted to surrender. And that the importants of this point gets more value the smaller the Player base gets. (Thats the reason why demanding surrenders where common in the old days and isnt common these days).

I consider this suggestion as rejected since it sounds for me as if you guys are very pleased with the situation. I didnt intended to rise tensions or offence anyone. I am totally fine with ejecting my units if i do not wanna keep playing and are denied surrender. I do not care much about my Hanger.

User avatar
Dwight Derringer
Posts: 365
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 7:07 pm

Re: Surrendering

Post by Dwight Derringer » Thu Mar 09, 2017 2:00 am

Holy shit. :shock:

Welp BarukKhazad is making some accusations against you, Luxun, that I won't comment on because I have no idea if they are true or not.

What I will say is that surrendering to save a unit is lame. Super, super lame and displays a huge amount of disrespect. Ejecting a badly damaged but powerful or rare unit before it is destroyed is like tipping your own king over when you are checkmated in chess. It's classy and displays huge a huge amount of respect and honour for your opponent. It's why in sports teams shake hands after the game.

I am a fencer - I can tell you that not shaking your opponent's hand after a bout can get you kicked out of a tournament, hell even celebrating after a good hit (touche!) can get you disqualified from that match.

Denying your opponent units is a big part of the strategy of this game. By my reckoning it's a big part of what makes this game so good. Every time you bring something onto the field, there is the risk that it doesn't come back. "War... war never changes." I strongly assert that trying to immunize yourself from that risk is bad sportsmanship.

I think you are starting to sound like a poor sportsman, but you have always been friendly when I've talked to you in-game so I don't want to believe it.

BarukKhazad
MegamekNET Moderator
Posts: 329
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 10:56 pm

Re: Surrendering

Post by BarukKhazad » Thu Mar 09, 2017 2:15 am

My point of view regarding surrenders is in the comment section of my host, "Eject of Flee! No Surrender!". We have played there 11 times this cycle. I know you usually don't surrender and we've played out most of our games.

There are players who choose "better to surrender now before my mek gets legged". Some have tried to surrender in the first round when a mek takes 20+. I have no tolerance for that, because those players get cbills for retreating without losing anything. Many are better opponents after I deny surrender.

I did intentionally portray your attempt at surrender as an attempt to save the HBK, but only because that is what most often happens. I don't know what your intent was, but I have not accepted a request for surrender from any player for four cycles, unless they have lost something. Ask around :)

You do play against ACA players and take their stuff. Your ON1 and AWS went to other ACA players.

I don't force opponents to completely retreat off the map. I do expect them to be willing to lose units (and not by ejecting a healthy mek).

User avatar
Nastyogre
MegamekNET Moderator
Posts: 4133
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:46 am

Re: Surrendering

Post by Nastyogre » Thu Mar 09, 2017 2:58 am

I take the view that a magnanimous player will accept surrender when reasonable. I consider it good sportsmanship.

Baruk is playing a bit more aggressive game but his rule isn't really no surrender, it's no surrender without loss. As one of the better players, my guess is he faced a number of players that would take a few turns to engage then attempt to surrender because they felt they had little chance to win. While this may be true, our philosophy here is that each player has some responsibility to provide a game to their opponent when they match up. That means an honest attempt to play and win. It is reasonable to expect that the game really isn't decided until one player has one unit put in the salvage pool.

The only way I could even think that requiring acceptance of surrender would be fair, would be that the surrendering player must either have a unit destroyed or in the salvage pool or eject a unit. Even then, if my prized unit is in danger of being legged then I can eject my junk and insist upon surrender.
It should then be the choice of the winner on what unit to eject if there is no unit destroyed or in the salvage pool.

I do have my own personal rule. Surrenders come only at the end of turns. I rarely will grant it once initiative for a turn has been rolled. We rolled initiative, we play the turn. If you wanted to surrender, surrender before that roll.

I have found Barukhazad and Luxun to be strong, friendly and honorable players. I won't comment on any more of it that's my observation.


I believe all operations give RP 1 for losing, 2 for winning. Maybe not aero.

Luxun
Posts: 58
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2012 10:58 am

Re: Surrendering

Post by Luxun » Thu Mar 09, 2017 10:02 am

Seems my observation of the player behavier lead me to a wrong assumption. I thought surrendering is nerly alway given and therefor the rule should adapte to this circumstance. But it should be clear by now that the Players (or at least the Vets that responded here) consider the right to denie surrender value it highly.

User avatar
Nastyogre
MegamekNET Moderator
Posts: 4133
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:46 am

Re: Surrendering

Post by Nastyogre » Thu Mar 09, 2017 1:43 pm

Luxun wrote:Seems my observation of the player behavier lead me to a wrong assumption. I thought surrendering is nerly alway given and therefor the rule should adapte to this circumstance. But it should be clear by now that the Players (or at least the Vets that responded here) consider the right to denie surrender value it highly.
It's a tool, an option, nothing more. I like options. Then again, I've lost so much lately I've had exactly one chance to offer or deny surrender. I offered to let a player surrender when the game was clearly gone for him. He declined and the next turn decided it.

obese pigeon
Posts: 854
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 10:51 am

Re: Surrendering

Post by obese pigeon » Thu Mar 09, 2017 4:26 pm

Luxun wrote:Seems my observation of the player behavier lead me to a wrong assumption. I thought surrendering is nerly alway given and therefor the rule should adapte to this circumstance. But it should be clear by now that the Players (or at least the Vets that responded here) consider the right to denie surrender value it highly.
Hi Luxun, i dont think its the right to deny surrender that people value highly. Its more of the suggestion that the losing player has a right to surrender, which the winning player has no choice but to accept.

Imagine you were playing a game with a player who behaved like a complete ass. He doesnt treat you with respect, and to borrow Dwight's example, doesn't shake hands after the fight. When you finally have him beat, he asks for surrender. I think it would be completely infuriating to be forced to grant the courtesy of surrender to this dickhead who doesn't deserve it.

That said, i have no problem with your reasons for bringing up the suggestion - i do believe you have the good of the community in mind. I even understand how upsetting that incident was for you, and i do feel that in the post above, BarukKhazad was probably reading too much into your motivations for wanting to surrender early.

I hope that you don't take what some of the others posted personally.

User avatar
Dwight Derringer
Posts: 365
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 7:07 pm

Re: Surrendering

Post by Dwight Derringer » Thu Mar 09, 2017 8:05 pm

obese pigeon wrote:
Luxun wrote:...i do believe you have the good of the community in mind.

I hope that you don't take what some of the others posted personally.
That goes double for me. I want to be friends, and I think a big part of that is being able to be honest and open with one another. I would never lie to you about what I'm thinking or fudge the truth bout my emotions and I hope you won't either.

I think that anybody who takes the time and effort to write something out because they feel that their words could make MMN more fun or a better place (just like you did with this topic) is a good person, and I'm sorry if I made you feel otherwise. I know that I'm kind of brash and assertive, which is something that makes me ashamed of myself more often than not. If I made you feel badly, than this is one of those times and can only hope that you will accept my apology.

That said, my mind is not changed. Although it is open to change! I am currently summarizing your argument to myself like this; "Losing is not as fun as winning, and since MMN is a game and should be fun for people, those who are losing should be able to end the experience at their discretion." and that argument is not a good one to me because in a competitive environment there has to be a winner and a loser, there is simply no getting around it.

I want to ask you directly: Is this about losing units, or is this about the feeling of not winning?

Luxun
Posts: 58
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2012 10:58 am

Re: Surrendering

Post by Luxun » Fri Mar 10, 2017 11:03 am

Dwight Derringer wrote: "Losing is not as fun as winning, and since MMN is a game and should be fun for people, those who are losing should be able to end the experience at their discretion." and that argument is not a good one to me because in a competitive environment there has to be a winner and a loser, there is simply no getting around it.

I want to ask you directly: Is this about losing units, or is this about the feeling of not winning?
Its nothing of both. You cannot win everytime and even if you would you would for sure loose units.

I would try to summarize my argument as: "From the point on where the loosing Player wishes to surrender and has to keep playing there will be potentially more frustration, bad blood, problems etc generated compared to fun and enjoyment from playing the game."

This whole thread is an exceptional good example for it...

I was denied surrender --> got upset about the situation
I ejected my units to end the situation --> Baruk got upset about it
I tried to create a helpfull suggestion to avoid such situations for me and others in the future ---> there are accusations, assumptions and overall high tensions

I simple do not belive that the positives of the current rule outwieghs the negatives. Nonetheless it seems that ths topic is so controversial that it would propably better to disscus it in the general Forum (if there is really a desire for anyone except me to change the rule).

I hope you can understand my point of you. if not you can PM me and i will try to clearify it further as good as i can.

BarukKhazad
MegamekNET Moderator
Posts: 329
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 10:56 pm

Re: Surrendering

Post by BarukKhazad » Mon Mar 13, 2017 1:34 am

Luxun wrote: I tried to create a helpfull suggestion to avoid such situations for me and others in the future ---> there are accusations, assumptions and overall high tensions
Please note that my accusations were a deliberate attempt to portray the situation in the worst light. I have no hard feelings about any of this.

My problem with any rule which can be argued, is that there is always someone who will go the extra mile to argue it for their benefit, rather than to argue for the benefit and fairness of all involved.
obese pigeon wrote:i dont think its the right to deny surrender that people value highly. Its more of the suggestion that the losing player has a right to surrender, which the winning player has no choice but to accept.
With surrenders, this is the situation for me. If I cripple a TLN-5V and my opponent is not a LELO, I want the option of coring it. Having difficult-to-fight units at low % on the build tables is not enough, players need to break those units when they can.

Back in my first cycle I had a OSR-2Cb and MadMcMax gave it a hip crit at range. I wanted to surrender and he countered "pop the Ostroc". I have my fit about "why won't you let me surrender" and he gave me a "some people are like that" and I refused and fought it out and nearly won, which I hadn't done verse MMM before (we both were below 40% bv before it was over). I remember that game as a good game, even though I was in a foul state of mind when I played it.

Post Reply