You guys are mixing subjects here. It almost sounds like you've been convinced by Nexon that the current medal system and matchmaking should remain as is. We have different issues that need to be fixed: force quit, broken peace treaties and no opponents found. Saying we should not fix the first 2 because it will make the third worse is the wrong reasoning. That's the lazy approach that Nexon has taken so far, which is to not change anything.
The right approach is to fix each of these issues separately. Fix force quit, fix broken peace treaty and change matchmaking system. If you are worried about not getting opponents, ask for a change of the matchmaking system, not to keep force quit and broken peace treaty as is. You are just giving the devs a thumbs up to not do anything with that argument.
On the force quit fix, the real one I'd like to see implemented is the following. Technically, it can be pretty hard and there may be server side architecture constraints that makes it impossible. But let's give it a try:
1) If a game disconnects in the middle of a battle, we freeze battle situation. When attacker reconnects, he loads the game at the exact same moment as before he left. If it was a force quit and he can't get the victory, he will time out and lose. If it wasn't intentional (e.g. crash), he gets to continue the battle where he left it.
2) If this is unintentional (e.g. crash), the attacker will reload the game immediately. It takes me less than 30s to relaunch the game after a crash, even if I have to reboot my phone. If not, he can't play until he takes the loss.
3) Assuming that attacker is sneaky and doesn't reload the game or is disconnected from network for a long time, we can't just freeze the situation for the defender as he needs to have access to his base too. So we give a period of time for the attacker to reload (e.g. 2 mins) after disconnection is detected. If the defender reloads his game after these 2 minutes, the battle ends in a victory for the defender. So effectively, a genuine attacker who experiences a crash has Max(2 mins, defender reload) time to reload and finish his battle. Otherwise, too bad. Same situation as when you play, get into a tunnel with no network and your base has been attacked in between.
Now I don't know that they are able to save information right before crash/disconnection but this would be ideal to me.
Assuming they can't do that, we know they can detect a disconnection and IronAngel said they wanted to monitor that. In that case, what is a fair treatment to the defender, assuming intentional and unintentional disconnection?
Currently, the attacker is the one that walks out with the upper hand. Using force quit saves his medals, and he gets to keep all the loot he could steal. His assumed downside is rebuilding army, which he would still have to do even if he wins the battle, so not really one. So his only real downside is not moving up in medals. But everything else supersedes that: not losing medals, keeping loot and trade goods.
For the defender, a force quit means resetting traps, having resources and trade good disappear. It makes defense useless because you're better off giving away your TC to lock in the peace treaty immediately. This makes one third of the buildings in the game useless. You need to somehow reward a good defense if you can't fix force quit altogether. Giving a peace treaty does that. At least, your defense has helped you not lose medals (should make you win some in ideal fix scenario). Length of peace treaty is debatable but there should be something in here for the defender. Right now the defender is screwed whatever happens. He will lose all his resources to ghost attacks and then medals to an attacker who can take his base down without force quitting.
