Surrender - is a simple solution that improves matchmaking

[Uhuru]

BHG, since you are still not able to make a fair match, give the opportunity to surrender without a fight before the war begins. This will save time and improve the loyalty of your payers. In case of surrender, the fame should increase/decrease partially, say 50%. Additionally, this will lead to faster ranking of alliances for more accurate matchmaking in the future.

 

[theBobNamedDan]

I don’t like the idea of surrender. I understand sometimes we get bad matches. It happens to all of us, but such is life. You get some easy ones, some hard ones, and some impossible ones.

I think every team should try no matter what the matchup is. You still gain alliance xp no matter what and that matters again.

There is to much of an attitude that “we should be able to get 90%+ destruction with at least 4 stars in every match. It isn’t the case and shouldn’t be. Use the bad matches to test strategies against new bases or something. The surrender would just be terrible as I am certain 90% of all war matches would be a surrender because people will be scanning for “easy wars”. Then they finally get an easy war and the other team surrenders.

I think this option would harm the game more than help.

 

[King Crimson]

Great attitude, well said!

 

[Uhuru]

Now we are all in a situation of being forced to fight. Capitulation gives you freedom of choice, it will not lead to the end of the fighting, as the one who wants to fight will fight. In addition, I think everyone has encountered a situation where the enemy simply ignores a losing war (does not attack), so the surrender is actually applied, but it is not organized in the game.

 

[atom3]

I see that your are making a good debate here but let me save you some effort and remind you that this game doesn't take suggestions. So no matter how many people like it or not it's not gonna get implemented. The game is maintained at the minimum just enough to milk some more players until it becomes unprofitable.

 

[Uhuru]

Yep, this is true

 

[Zaxillaxifrage]

This would only work as an OFFER to surrender, which must then be accepted by the other alliance. If they don't accept it, the war goes on. Simply quitting the war, with nothing the other alliance could do about it, would result in war after war being queued, started, and then canceled as people only stayed in wars they thought they would win (and then having most of those not happen either).

Meanwhile, the alliance you forcibly surrendered to has been scouting your bases, recruiting coalitions, putting troop tactics in strongholds, and assigning targets. Oops, wasted time, effort and resources, you surrendered four hours before war day. No thanks.

 

[Jerryleeboy]

Sandbagging causes lots of mismatches......solution....every unused attack grants the opposition a star....will stop sandbagging and hopefully make for a more even match

 

[Uhuru]

I don't like the idea of penalties for not attacking. Thus, sandbags cannot be eliminated.. You can eliminate them by limiting attacks by age. For example, banning attacks for more than two ages down. But this complicates things.. This has already been discussed here.