MArcomage

Why would there be a opponent opinion on the surrender? If you want to surrender you should just be able to push the button because right now the cancer brigand players can get even more toxic by not agreeing to your surrender to milk you more for their XP( i havent met one though) but still i see no reason what so ever to include the necessity of opponents agreement for YOUR surrender

Well, maybe you are trying to achieve some kind of award like "gentle touch" (winning using a common) and your opponent chooses to give up the turn before you win.
A situation like this has the same amount of unfairness as the one you described and it's the reason why we have the "confirm surrender" option.

Fithz Hood described my thoughts perfectly.

I disagree with the last 2 posts. In fact this was the cause for problems between me and several other players. I call this milking for badges and strongly dislike it.
Plus the not-surrender thing can not be enforced - if i want to surrender and my opponent does not accept my surrender request, I can always just stop playing.

I think that in both case there will be someone complaining so it's kinda an irrisolvable problem.

There might be somewhere in the forum an older discussion about this issue, discussion that led to the "surrender rule" we are using now.

I'm fine with either Mojko will decide, I don't really care: I carefully avoid from the start anyone that plays unfair.

Anyway I feel that the real problem doesn't lie in the "surrender rule" but in the reason why someone wants to surrender: playing against (or with) a brigand deck is boring as hell.

this is not the only reason to surrender
surrendering means you see that you have no way of winning a game and give the oponent the win
if you would build in some silly badge for that, people would be happy when you surrender
instead the game and some players choose to disrespect your wish to surrender
well, guess what, noone is a slave here and has to play games he does not want to play anymore
i do not like the surrender rules and i do always accept the surrender of my opponent, as it should be in my opinion

surrender says: "ok, you win, i do not wish to play this anymore"
and by disrespecting this you kinda say "oh, you know, i really do not care, cause i want to get that badge and whether both of us are having fun does not interest me at all. just be my slave and continue playing so i can get that badge"

Yup and what does this stupid badge mean in a underground community anyway will someone send me a certificate that im awesome along with a golden medal if i achieve enough badges ?seriously the decisive decision on surrender should be that of the person that is surrendering and ONLY his

Maybe there can be a distinction:

- when you are the *host* of the game, you can surrender at any time without confirmation
- when the other player is the *host*, confirmation after surrender is required

in my opinion surrender needs no confirmation
you are giving up ... whats the other guy to say? you are not allowed to? i think we can agree that everyone likes winning ... when you give up, you do not do it for fun ... you give up your chance to win - something you like.

i do loose any kind of respect for guys not accepting a surrender request and i do feel like this is a very strange contruct in the game ... can not remember seeing an other game where your opponent has to agree so you can surrender

and as i said - this can not even be enforced
so we have a very strange, conter-intuitive and in my opinion asocial rule, which even can not be enforced ...

On the other hand, having an unconstrained surrender, might lead to abuse and surrendering too easily. And this might be seen as rude by some players.

Mb make confirmation needed only when tower is under eg 1/2 of starting value?

everything can be missused, you can only protect up to a certain degree against this
like the current system is missused by some players

Round limit of 15 rounds necessary before the surrender is a option would negate the possibility of abuse

Honest question for the other folks here, but how often do people actually offer to surrender? I would suppose it happens most often with resource crippling decks, which I don't play as and am fairly insulated against with my favored deck, so I don't feel I ever actually see the request come up.

It sometimes happen to me in reveal mode

Perhaps what should be implemented is a timeout once the surrender is offered. If the opponent refuses to accept the surrender, they play their round and can take three more rounds after that. If the player continues offering to surrender (but has the option to withdraw it, removing the counter) and the opponent plays their next round, same for the next, and same for the next without managing to end the match, then the surrender is automatically enforced.

If you were close to a special victory condition, four rounds is enough time to make it happen. If you can't pull it off in that number of plays, you weren't actually close enough to winning to merit ignoring the surrender.

My proposal could still be annoying to someone one card away from a Titan victory, but has anyone in the history of this game ever surrendered to a Titan deck?

Good idea DPsycho :) i think we need both the round limit to prevent abuse of win hoarding and the 3 round rule to prevent the looser of the match from spite achievement denying