Which is what pisses people off when it is 11pm or later, we have to go to work the next day and our partner is shouting at us to go to bed and turn off the computer, which is in the bedroom!!!

When someone asks you to surrender as they need to go to bed etc..., that is not an invitation to dig in and try and outlast them for a win by them quitting instead of you....

I sympathesize with the OP.

We all know that Sins is a long game that takes ages but thats not the problem. The problem is the amount of time spent mopping up once a game is pretty much over. Other RTS games can last just as long , but the bulk of those games is competitively fought,  with only a minor portion being "mop up" at the end. 

I can estimate that having won over 400+ games online , that if I tried to play every single one of those to completion by mopping up everything , and if the opponents had the attitude of this NEWT guy , I will have wasted 200+ hours of game time. Thats over an entire week of watching nerf sieges bomb planets!

never said I dug in. I said that I dumped everything I had into one more fleet when everything was lost for one more space battle with death the only acceptable outcome. Keeping a planet or a structure that is obvoiusly lost just gives your opponent more xp points. I at least gave him what he came online for and not a tail between the legs runaround

well this is a rather difficult matter...

1: i't wouldnt be fair to vote, theres always the possibility that its 1 v 2,   the 1 guy winning,  then the 2 voting for their win...

so 1 is no option

2: a certain % would be annoying in some occasions,  i actually ran once on a multistar map, colonizing myslef there, and making a fleet,  my allies were losing but i joined them soon after with a large fleet, wich i could make without some player attacking me (they were to foccused somewhere else i guess)

if the planet% would have been in effect, i would not have won that match... but i did

so 2 is not a "good" option

now ofcourse, what is the big problem in him not leaving?  yes it takes a long time in bombing his planets & such,  but if you already won, you can easily make yourslef some boming frigates and wipe him out fast,  

some tricks in doing so is moving your fleet to engage his planets,  as soon as space-based stuff is gone, leave behind 1 or 2 ships to deal with builders, and leave all bomber ships to bomb the planet

move on like this and you'll be surprised how fast it can go....

if it doesnt go fast, you'll have to wonder, why isnt he giving up? is he defeated yet?   i've been confronted alot about peopel calling me an annoying ass,  not leaving a game i've already lost,   but can you blame me? it's a 1 v 3 match, im losing planets fast,  but í'm not leaving tilll im actually dead, theres still a big battle ahead,  one where i try to lure enemy in attacking me  and possibly even turn the tide....  once or twice i even pushed back hard nough and won ...

sometimes tough,  people are just stalling,  whatever their reasons might be,  for example since the start this guy has been annoying,  swearing, being racist etc. (cmm we need an ignore function!!!) he massed as many ravastra skrimishers as he could, not building anything else. he was defeated pretty easily ofcourse, but he insisted on running and colonizing every world he found,   it took the 2 of us remaining around 1,5 hours to finaly secure all planets, leaving him immobile....   theres just very little you can do about this, i dont see a true solution to it

probably the best thing to to, is just leave and have the game with your friends,  but ofcourse it's very annoying giving a win to someone who actually lost, but just stalls... (even tough the win means nothing... it still doesnt feel right)

a full week of bombing planets.. raagh, now that i think about it... it's nuts...  luckely 1.1 made the game so much faster

Hi guys,

This is a funny post because it is opposite to the 'quitter' posts of the past that were abundant in these forums.

Perhaps the player concerned had a sync problem and didn't know he was losing so badly

I quite admire people who do not quit needlessly - to quote a renowned writer "It aint over till its over"...

I'd suggest asking people before you start if they mind quitting if it is clear that there is a winning team...otherwise you'll have to take what you get.

To be the devil's advocate, isn't it usually the "good" players who keep complaining about people quitting early and insisting that if they don't have time to devote to a full game they shouldn't try to play in the first place?

It seems this advice can go both ways.

Asking people to quit for your convenience is rude to begin with. Posting about it on the forums is even worse. First people complain about early quitters, now complaining about not quitting early enough?

This is exactly what makes you look "elitist", and nobody likes that You follow the same rules as everyone else - if you don't have time for a full game, don't play it. You have no inherent right to demand someone surrender because you "won"

I don't remember all of the dialogue and perhaps I didn't read every message, but my memory is that you were politely or at least not rudely asked to please quit the game since it was over and then for some reason I couldn't fully understand you took offense to it.  After that the other guys on my team might have become understandably abrasive.

Maybe I'll go review the replay to see if I missed something, but I personally was probably pretty polite since I'm normally cordial and am the type of geeky goody-two-shoes who likes to help out newbies in the Lobby chat room (my being the unofficial cheerleader for Sins online multiplayer).

Anyway, it's nothing for any of us to get real worked up about or to take personally; people end up squabbling over petty things in online multiplayer games all the time.  I don't remember having seen you post on these forums before, so perhaps some friends told you about this thread and you joined the forums, which helps to strengthen our community, so maybe some good came from all of this.  A part of me finds some humor in a losing player's insisting on dragging out the game, so it's really not that big of a deal, though I do think that some sort of "declare victory" option is needed.

There's a huge, huge distinction between someone's quitting when the game has already been clearly decided and someone's quitting when the game is still competitive and could still go either way. 

Almost all of the complaints about quitters occurs in the context of team games that have not yet been decided, usually from the teammate(s) of the quitter who feel that the quitter dicked their team over.  What many people don't understand is that in a team game, although you personally might be losing, your team might be winning and you can still do things to help your team.  Oftentimes it's not about whether or not your own empire gets crushed but the way in which it gets crushed.  Were you a huge pain-in-the butt that occupied two opposing empires, exposing them to your allies?  If you played the large random multistar map or Hyperion's Gates and you faced the dreaded 3-on-1, were you able to keep the three enemies in your star system from mopping you up longer than it took your three allies to mop the opponent in their system?  You could single-handedly win the game for your team in that sort of situation.

omg thats like such a perfect answer,   nobody can beat that statement annatar

True but it's also irrelevant. Even if the game is "decided", who are you to say when the losing player/team should quit? Maybe they want to make a last stand and have one more big battle. Maybe they, on principle, want to stick around for the last planet to fall because they like sticking around to the bitter end.

Other people quitting early so you can get your win is a big courtesy to you. It is not a requirement of online gaming. You cannot demand that other people quit for you, regardless of the state of the game. You can ask nicely if you really need to get going and there's only a few planets left to mop up and if people are feeling courteous they can quit so you can get a win on your record. But you know what, if you're out of time, it's you who should be quitting - winning or not And if you have time but are just too lazy to mop up and want people to bend over and quit for you, you have even less sympathy and even less reason to make a fuss on the forums about someone refusing to quit so your "battles won" count can go up by 1 quicker.

I think this is an inherent problem with playing online...you never really know the people you are playing with and what styles they like. Because of this fact, there is likely to be a clash of opinions in some regards which is why the 'terms and conditions' should  be clealy stated before the game starts. It is completely up to the player whether or not he wants to quit the game, some people like trying to fight an uphill battle. So if this is not cleared up before the game starts, then the opponent is within his rights to fight it to the bitter end regardless or to quit/surrender when he chooses.  It is a more often than not a matter of opinion when the game is 'won' before it actually ends.

I find people often get upset when they ask the other person to do something and EXPECT them to say 'yes, sure' but in reality you are giving that person a choice, if the answer is 'no' there is no point complaining about it ot getting upset. It was their choice to make, the same one you made when you clicked the accept button before the game - if you don't like their anwser you have to decide on the next logical action and do it.

Bottom line (as far as I'm concerned) is that its up to the player - if your friends won't wait for you to finish and you won't quit (you are being as stubborn as the guy you dislike in that situation) then that is a problem of your own making. I like players who fight the good fight.

Precisely Very well put.

amen

Several sufficient reasons as to why it is proper etiquette for a (clearly) losing player on a (clearly) losing team to quit  upon request have been posted.

Of course, no one is really metaphysically obligated to follow any unwritten rules of online multiplayer etiquette.  Let's take the crux of your argument to an extreme.  Using your logic, why should a player feel obligated to play the game if he doesn't like his starting position?  Why shouldn't he just quit two minutes into the game, screwing over his team?  Why would it be wrong for someone to publicly type out what the other players on his team are doing so that the opponents know their every move?  Why would it be wrong for someone to screw over his team by not even trying?  Etc.

Why should there be any sort of online multiplayer etiquette or expectations or formalities at all?  Why not just have anarchy and destroy the possibility of having public online multiplayer Sins games?  Answer--we have an unwritten (and sometimes written) online multiplayer etiquette so that the game is fun and worth playing online.

Etiquette us a truly loose and undefined standpoint in my opinion. I understand the arguments that have been put forward, but they really depend on your perspective. If most people of Western origin burp at the dinner table it is considered rude, whereas in certain Asian countries, it is expected after a meal as a sign of appreciation and enjoyment. A request to quit just because someone is struggling may be as offensive to the person who is struggling as not quitting is to the person asking. As I mentioned, misunderstandings and disagreements are commonplace in this type of arena. As far as I am concerned we all take the risk of who we have elected to play with once we click the 'accept' or equivalent button. Many people do conduct themselves in what others may consider 'immoral behaviour' online, but unless the ground rules are stated prior to game start, then it is quite literally a free for all in terms of what to expect and how others may behave.

The best thing I have found is to try to ask the other players in the lobby or in the game lobby itself, what it is they are wanting from this game and what your intentions are. Once you hit 'accept' with a group of total strangers, there is no turning back and you have to take what you get I'm afraid. 

I must say in all my gaming years I have never heard of players (until now) actually wanting the opponents to leave the game, especially if has been hard work to finish them off.  If you want to establish a particular etiquette for a  game then I suggest stating it as part of the game description before you start or join up with like minded folks in a clan or with friends online that you know will agree with your standpoint.

Otherwise you will encounter those who don't agree with you in future but have an equally valid yet opposing point of view - stalemate. Understanding is a three edged sword - your side, their side and the truth - and the truth is it is up to each individual to decide when they have lost the game.

And that does not include saying "Sure" when told to quit because you want a win quicker. The fun thing goes both ways, after all. Being asked to quit because you apparently aren't worth someone else's time is by no means fun.

You can try to spin it however you want. All the things you listed are basic "how not to be an ass to your team" that anyone who plays team games should know.

Quitting when losing is not part of this, and in fact the unwritten rule of courtesy is *NOT* to quit when you're losing. You're just trying to add a condition that it's ok to quit when asked to quit by the winning player because the winning player is feeling lazy and doesn't want to keep playing.

Again, no sympathy for the "winning" player there. If you're trying to sound reasonable, I must say you aren't doing a very good job

OK, Annatar is correct - there is no obligation on the part of the losing party to quit or surrender.  I wouldn't even say it falls within the realm of etiquette.

Jixra is pointing to something a bit harder to pin down, but equally valid.  Namely, a 'good' player in Sins, as in Chess, is able to see enough moves ahead to predict unavoidable victory or defeat. 

Ever see The Seven Samurai?  Two guys face off and it's clear one will win before they have even pulled their swords.  If both opponents are perceptive enough the fight ends before it has begun.  Only when one opponent is too rash or unskilled to see the outcome must blood actually be drawn. 

It is a direct measure of skill and honor to say that you have been beaten before your last planet falls.  Sometimes you'll surrender before your first planet falls.. 

OTOH, as pointed out, it speaks to your opponent's skill and honor that they let you have that realization independently. 

If you manage to cripple my fleet early and say something as small as GG, you can rest assured that I will do all in my power to destroy you, or at least keep you occupied.  You must allow me to surrender of my own initiative, or you are disrespecting me. 

Short form:  it's cool to surrender when you are clearly beaten.  It's cool to let your opponent decide when they are clearly beaten. 

I am more irritated buy the types that drops the first 5minutes after they see my 2 illuminators...

Also, you irritate me. 

Your thread is useless, and you are useless. And i whuld be also happy to stall any and all possible games i might (very big IF there) ever lose to you.

Oh, come on! Stop twisting and turning this all around and being a pain in the neck, the guy obviously was doing it in spite and clearly stated: 'This is fun, I am going to keep you boys here for as long as possible'.

He wasn't trying to fight an uphill battle. He wasn't trying to make the guys sweat for the win, he was simply being a jerk that enjoyed his moment of taking advantage of the situation and hit back the guys who just beat him. Stop with this whole annoying holier-than-thou attitude and your constant, never-ending, non-required nitpicking already, damn it. Sheesh!

Unfortunately, there really isn't anything that can be done against this sort of infantile behavior, in any RTS. Be glad he only kept you from playing another game and not worse. While I agree with you that this is extremely annoying, I think you should really take it more lightly under these circumstances.

This is definitely true, and by itself it isn't a problem. The player who knows his win is inevitable is basically already reassured and in most cases can stop sweating since the uncertainty is over. The problem, though, comes in when that player tries to force it upon the other.

Even if the other realizes that he lost, maybe he wants to put up a fight instead of just rolling over and playing dead. Maybe he wants to see if the winning player will make some mistake that will allow him to come out on top after all. Maybe, even more simply, he's just thinking "Well, I already put time in this, I'd like to actually finish it normally".

And he can do all those things, because the game is more than just about the winner. The losing player needs to have fun as well. This is true for any game. Many already surrender/quit early because to them they did all they could and they can no longer have fun. To others, they want to have the feel of making the last stand and going down fighting.

As you pointed out, it comes down to respect. The winning player doesn't automatically get respect because he's winning. And winning doesn't absolve him from needing to respect his opponent - the whole good sportsmanship thing. Asking the losing player to quit is extremely disrespectful, it basically says "I don't want to waste my time with you anymore, you aren't worth it so leave" which is is essentially the definition of being an elitist snob.

Things can come up, though. Stuff happens in RL. If you're winning but don't want to or can't stick around, if you want the losing player to respect your wish you will have to show them respect first. For example, I'd be perfectly fine being asked this: "Hey, something came up and I need to run. Thanks for sticking around and not quitting yet, it's been fun, but would it be ok with you if you surrender now?". I'd say sure and thanks for the game and surrender. But if you were to say to me "Hey, I won already, can you surrender because someone's waiting for me for another game?" I'd come up with an eloquent way of saying "Screw you" and make sure you have to fight to the very end for your win.

So, if any new "unwritten rule" about this were to be considered, I can't think of a better way to word it than this:

Respect your fellow players, and most of them will respect you. Be an ass because you're winning, and people will be happy to be an ass in return

Depends on how he was asked to quit If Jixra was being rude, he'd have every reason to do that. But the question is not in the screenshot, so we may never know What if Jixra said "Omg you suck, quit already so I can stop wasting time"? I would absolutely do the same thing Newt did, and I'd applaud anyone else doing this and then next play a game with Jixra again.

But anyway, this thread has long since stopped being about Newt and this specific incident, since Jixra is trying to make the "online etiquette" argument with it.

My brother and I are old Moo/galciv/RTS fans, and I signed up here in preparation to buy Sins.

I was scouting this forum out for multiplayer infos, hoping it would have good team support.  Dissappointed to hear the only win condition is total annihilation, especially if elimination is much slower here than in other RTS, like starcraft.

They should take a page from other strategy games and give at least a pre-game option that if one team has a commanding lead militarily, economically, and socially, then the losing side starts losing popular support quickly and auto surrenders.

Alright!  So you want to say you "Politely" asked me to leave?  BS buddy go ahead and post the replay, please please please, I have never ever ever ever ever played with anybody more rude and cocky then you three that were in that game.  You had things to do, my team mates left, you were killing their AI replacements, hadnt even touched me, I was attacking your homeworld, you realized the game was going to be much longer than you anticipated and you were being told by your "CLAN" to come play in their game because they were waiting on you ( as for the skilled part of that "We were going to play a Skilled game" you were going to play a 4 v 6 and I smurfed that game and watched you turn it into a 5v5 because two of the 6 sided team had more then 80 games played, so you were just looking for a noob stomp, no skill required game).  If you had "Beaten me" it wouldnt have taken you long to "Mop" me up, but I still had a pretty big fleet and no worlds lost. I have played with many many people and last I checked if you wanted to leave you can leave, or if your winning ask the opposing side if they wanted to give up, not demand surrender but say GG buddy, it was fun, would you mind if we wrapped this up so I can play with some friends?  But no, you demanded I surrender, thats just asking for trouble of course I saw you were a bunch of stat stackers from the begining so you wouldnt mind winning the game correctly, you have obviously been flamed hard here buddy, so give it up.  You were rude, you hopefully learned your lesson, and you will treat others with the respect you in turn would appreciate.  You were polite my ass ha ha ha!  Dunno what dilusional world you might be living in pal but I was there, you were just super upset you had to actually finish the game so you come here to try and bad mouth me, but it didnt work.  Enough of this now, its going no where, fix yourself and be done with it.  Thanks a ton!

Newt

You've dropped context.  The situation at issue is not one where players are bieng asked to quit in the middle of a competitive game that has yet to be decided but rather one where the game has already been clearly decided and is, for all competitive intents and purposes, over.  The game, at this point, is no longer challenging, interesting, nor particuarly fun.  (Why losing players would find the getting mopped up part fun, I have no idea.)

The unwritten rule of courtesy is not to quit when you are losing in a game that is still competitive where your team could still win.  I don't see how it's all discourteous to quit once the game has been decided.  I mean you no disrespect, but do you play online at all, Annatar?  I'm asking because I'm a little perplexed that you don't seem to have an introspective understanding of the exact situation that Hack and I are referring to.

The situation at issue isn't merely one of a game that is still somewhat competitive where an experienced player might be able to see the writing on the wall but rather one where it's crystal clear what the outcome will be.  For example, consider a situation where one team has three human players, one, two, or perhaps three of whom are pretty skilled and they control 75% of the real estate and the opposition has only one human opponent and perhaps one or no AI allies (their having been crushed), it's pretty clear which team is going to win (barring minidumps or one of the players on the winning team going AFK, etc.).