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!

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

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"

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.

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.

Precisely Very well put.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.