Force quit fix

Hunter Killer

Approved user
Joined
Aug 14, 2015
Messages
409
I have a suggestion to ease the force quit issue if there's no better fix yet.

When a battle disconnection is detected, whether intentional or due to crash, automatically give the defender a 8h peace treaty.

This way, although the defender won't get medals for defense, he won't lose any from another attacker as this is currently the case.

The peace treaty also covers for the loot and open traps from attacker who force quit.

While this is not the ideal solution, it helps the defender and makes defense somewhat less useless in the meantime.

And no real need to check whether the disconnection is voluntary or not, everyone should be happy while there is no real fix to be seen.

Attacker quit, had the loot and didn't lose medals. Defender has a peace treaty, didn't lose medals and cannot be looted or attacked again. He actually managed to defend his medals (he should gained some with a real fix)
 

atramar

Approved user
Joined
Sep 16, 2015
Messages
116
Although I like the idea as a good temporary solution, this would promote those magical bases that we all heard of and sometimes come across, that magically crash your game each time you take down Town Centre.
On other hand, some logging tool from developers would be helpful if they could highlight bases that are overly crashed at and look for the issue.
 

Aurelius...

Approved user
Joined
Sep 15, 2015
Messages
423
Hey HK,

I think coming up with a permanent solution, or for now a temporary one, is a great idea. Thanks for posting this.

I have one concern about this temporary proposal. If force quitting is as prevalent as it seems to be, this solution will reduce available opponents, and possibly dramatically.

Here's an earlier discussion: https://forum.nexonm.com/forum/nexon...e-close-glitch

The proposals in this thread would leave the defender's base unchanged after a disconnection, which is fair for the defender in the event of an unintentional connection issue. This would also eliminate the use of force quitting for farming resources, which leaves defenders' bases stripped of loot, oil and trade goods. The remaining problem is that an intentional force quitter would avoid an offensive loss, which is unfair to the defender and also to the greater community of people who compete for medals.
 

dbukalski

Approved user
Joined
Apr 8, 2015
Messages
2,015
As a gold farmer i dont support this increase in number of peace treaties bases. As a gold farmer i fully support broken peace treaties and close app.

In 2 mos as a medal farmer i shall be in full rage mode against the travesty that is broken pt and close app :)
 

acied

Approved user
Joined
Mar 31, 2015
Messages
293
I'm in for this, I would even suggest that after any attack even if the attacker looses a battle a peace treaty should be in place, but maybe a short one, 4 hr could do the trick.

In this way people can check their bases after 15 minutes or so (most do after they quit) and reset traps and set everything up for a next attack.

The peace treaty for a battle which will end in a victory for the attackers gives the defender a longer period (8-16 hrs) any other attack with no victory for the attacker or forced close means there will be a peace treaty also but shorter.

people should get the opportunity to reset after an attack even if it is a victory for the defender.

Another solution to the forced quit is have the traps be reset always if force quit is used, that would also ease the pain.

At this moment a victory for defense or forced quit, will always mean that defense is weaker and the chance on loosing more on the next attack is always bigger.

This is my 50 cents.
 

Radzeer

Approved user
Joined
May 2, 2015
Messages
510
Hunter, as dbuk said, it would further lower the number of available opponents at higher leagues. Technically it is also hard to determine (on the server) whether a forced close/crash or just skipping/returning back to own base from scouting occurred. At the moment when the attacker starts scouting a base, (the base's data + resource levels are sent to the attacker's app) the base becomes "locked" for other attackers. Then the attack log is awaited by the server and if it does not come in the next 5 mins the base is unlocked, I believe. The reason why no battle log arrived to the server can thus be a result of skipping or crashing/closing. As a peace treaty is triggered most probably by the last lost defense log entry (or of course bought PT entry), which is non existent in our case, then it would involve a different solution design in this area as well.
 
Last edited:

acied

Approved user
Joined
Mar 31, 2015
Messages
293
Do you mean, traps should always self-reset after any attack ?
 

Hunter Killer

Approved user
Joined
Aug 14, 2015
Messages
409
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.
 
Last edited:

JustInCase

Approved user
Joined
Oct 19, 2015
Messages
45
Because some people doesn't like the PT if someone force quitting. What about this, if someone force quit while on a raid that will be count as a defeat. The player will receive all the resources they get and the attacked player will receive medal for defending victory. This is will be fair i think. Like Tim said before the medals are a reward from both offense and defence.
 

Hunter Killer

Approved user
Joined
Aug 14, 2015
Messages
409
No that's not fair. Since the patch upgrade I've crashed in battle more than 15 times. Sometimes at troop deployment. Most of the time when confirming victory. If we give automatic win to defender in case of any disconnection, I would have lost 600 medals in the last 3 days.

The problem is they can't differentiate between voluntary force quit and crash or network disconnection. If they could, then yes defender wins in case of voluntary force quit. But since this game is so buggy and crashes all the time, you can't do that. I would have quit long time ago if I was losing 39 medals every time the game crashes in battle.
 
Last edited:

JustInCase

Approved user
Joined
Oct 19, 2015
Messages
45
Oh. You are right. I forgot about the crashes. To be honest I not updating yet so the crash never happen to me.
 

EternalRookie

Approved user
Joined
Jul 18, 2015
Messages
138
This proposal if implemented will:
1) Worsen the 'no opponent found' issue
2) Encourages abuse to trigger 'free' peace treaty

For these reasons, I do not think it is a good 'temporary' solution.
 

Endril

Play Hard
Joined
Apr 12, 2015
Messages
126
I think hunter killer has nailed the most prominent problems of the game at the moment and they are only 3 things. Admittedly it may be technically hard to freeze the attack in point. Another method would be to allow the attacker to start from the beginning again. Implementation of a time limit as suggested to reconnect and also to impose a counter for the number of times that have restarted so for example if you crash 3 times then its over and the defender wins.

This would however also require the current crashing while deployment or at the end of the battle to be fixed.

Endril
 

Hunter Killer

Approved user
Joined
Aug 14, 2015
Messages
409
You can't allow the battle to restart from scratch. Otherwise I'll make a first run, expose all the traps, then force quit and restart battle again.

In the worst case, all the defenders traps are exposed and useless. In the best case, everything restart as if nothing happened (traps on) but i know exactly where they are and can avoid them.

The more runs you give to the attacker, the more
chances he has to test the winning strategy and ultimately win.

If the battle has to restart, it needs to restart where it was left so no advantage can be gained from force quitting.
 
Last edited:

acied

Approved user
Joined
Mar 31, 2015
Messages
293
Although I like the thought Hunter Killer, I honestly believe it is a too complicated solution to the problem.

I still think a battle not properly ended, should be considered not played at all, for both attacker and defender. (so no resources/trade goods gained)

Then people could still close to prevent medal loss, but it will not give them any progress whatsoever.

In order to make it interesting to not force close, and still go raiding for some loot, instead of medals (which is fine imo), the loss of medals should be lowered by destruction %.

The fun could be more versatile, raiding for medals, raiding for resources but loose a couple of medals.

I have no idea if it will work, but any complicated solution to a problem that simple, most of the times ends up in disaster.

As long as they cannot determine if it is a crash or on purpose, then treat it as it wasn't played seems the most fair solution.
 

acied

Approved user
Joined
Mar 31, 2015
Messages
293
yes, but I sometimes need resources quickly and for that reason, I would like to get an army of raiders and start looting and plundering.
Now mostly I use those abandoned bases, so nobody is harmed and the farms and caravans have easy access.

I dont mind spending a medal or 2 to gain some loot in return, but I refuse to drop 39 medals., so closing the app is a good way for harvesting.

So By making it possible to go plundering for resources with a minimum on medal loss, the game would become intresting again.

Then there are suddenly 3 reasons to complete a battle... 1 going for medals, 2 going for resources, 3 going for all and throw in your complete army.

More tactics will emerge on both attacking and defending side.

And closing the app, will only cost time, which we know is limited....
 

acied

Approved user
Joined
Mar 31, 2015
Messages
293
In short, I def. think that issues are connected.

So to adress them all together and rethink the reward system, will lead to more opponents and lesser broken PT's

BHG needs to consider this..
Fixing 1 or 2 issues will not help at all.

currently they earn 0.022 dollar per download/day (5 mil downloads)

COC does 0.1 dollar per download/day (100 mil downloads)

So do the math, they need more users if they want to continue this game
 

polo1967

Approved user
Joined
Jul 18, 2015
Messages
101
Force quitting allows people to gain resources and maintain their armies without having a loss counted against them. Perhaps they (Nexon) could implement a system where instead of resources being added to an attackers total as its being looted, a tally of all the loot being taken is kept and you only receive that amount once the battle timer expires, the battle ends after all the attackers troops have been lost, a win for the attaker when a base is totally defeated or when an attacker hits "end battle". At the conclusion a rundown of all the resources taken will be tallied and THEN be added to the attackers total. This way if any one of those scenarios are not met, the attacker gains nothing and it will be as if the battle never took place and everyone is made whole.
 
Top