Forwarded Surrender button always active

[Umbrathor]

Proposal:
Make it possible to surrender immediately at the start of a battle.

Currently, the Surrender button is greyed out at the start of a battle until one of your troops has initiative. My suggestion is to make it possible to surrender even if you do not have initiative yet.

I have searched the Forum for 'Surrender' and not found any similar suggestions.


Reason:
It saves time. If you employ a tactic that requires you to surrender and restart several times in a row, for instance when you are looking for a specific kind of terrain to fight in, you have to wait until you get initiative. If you happen to have an amry that gets initiative much later than the opposing army, you lose a lot of time for no good reason.


Details:
The button is gold / active at the start of any battle, just like the auto attack button.

If any opposing troops have initiative before you do, and can damage your troops on their turn, there are two options for how surrendering early works:

1. The AI immediately calculates and applies the damage you would have sustained (just like if you had waited for your initiative to surrender, as in the current situation)
2. Any troops that would have gotten initiave before you pressed Surrender, do not get to act and therefore do not do damage

I propose option 1, since I am merely looking to save time. However, I can see how option 2 would make sense in situations where people have misjudged a battle, and want to bail out to minimize losses. Or for attacking with 7 rogues and one other unit. If the player loses that unit early on, they want to be able to bail out before any (more) rogues get damaged. So option 2 seems fine to me as well, and in line with the idea of how surrendering works.


Balance:
It makes tactics that rely on specific terrain types more viable, and therefore awards tactical play. Especially when using troops that can take advantage of specific terrain features, that give attack/defense bonuses or the ability to hide, or the advantage artillery has in battlefields with difficult terrain versus the advantage when using melee troops on terrain with few obstacles to allow them to easily reach opposing troops.

If option 2 (above) were implemented, it would save some damaged/lost troops. Doesn't seem exploitable to me.


Abuse Prevention:
If surrendering and restarting battles to get more favorable terrain is considered an exploit, than this option would not open us a new expluit, but make an existing exploit easier. If it is not considered an exploit but a feature / tactical option, than it makes for faster and therefore better gameplay.

I do not see any potential exploits if option 2 were implemented. The attacking troops can still get damaged or be lost, if one isn't fast enough.


Summary:
I propose making Surrendering possible at the moment a battle is started, with any damage applied by opposing troops until the initiative of the first attacking unit.

If a majority of people prefer option 2. I will change the proposal to making Surrendering possible at the moment a battle is started, with any damage applied by opposing troops who (have) act(ed) up to the moment the Surrender button was clicked.

 

[Sl8yer]

I am not against the strategy, but let's face it, if you retreat you give up. You quit. In GE and PvP you lose the fight if you retreat. A lost attempt, no plundering and not being able to attack for 24 hrs. Retreating comes with a cost. In other parts of the game it just costs you time. Now you want to change that by starting to reward retreating. I do not think it is right. You should actually get a 10 min stop and go penalty if you retreat. That I would support.

 

[Umbrathor]

I am not against the strategy, but let's face it, if you retreat you give up. You quit. In GE and PvP you lose the fight if you retreat. A lost attempt, no plundering and not being able to attack for 24 hrs. Retreating comes with a cost. In other parts of the game it just costs you time. Now you want to change that by starting to reward retreating. I do not think it is right. You should actually get a 10 min stop and go penalty if you retreat. That I would support.

Discretion is the better part of valor. Would you promote a general who has the light brigade charge into what is klnown to be a death trap valley filled with, let's say, nail guns?

There is no shame in assessing the situation and deciding this fight is not winnable, or that you are better off (saving units) fighting at another place and time. That is an essential part of warfare, and always has been. As it is in this game.

Playing tactically deserves to be awarded. You and I just value different strategies and tactics.

I do not ask that retreating gets 'rewarded' more. It is a strategy that is built into the game, it is a valid option, one weighs the pros and cons. I want to be able to use that strategy (the terrain strategy, specifically) to the fullest. You don't. Fine.

 

[Emberguard]

Don't hear you about the fact the proposal has only one option left.

what’s that mate? Pass it onto the devs cause there more yes votes? ;D What a fantastic idea, why didn’t we think of that? ;D

 

[Sl8yer]

what’s that mate? Pass it onto the devs cause there more yes votes? ;D What a fantastic idea, why didn’t we think of that? ;D

According to you. one of the two options is already available on the app. What would be more logical. Bring that one to the PC as well, or change the one on the app and bring the second option to both platforms?

Discretion is the better part of valor. Would you promote a general who has the light brigade charge into what is klnown to be a death trap valley filled with, let's say, nail guns?

There is no shame in assessing the situation and deciding this fight is not winnable, or that you are better off (saving units) fighting at another place and time. That is an essential part of warfare, and always has been. As it is in this game.

Playing tactically deserves to be awarded. You and I just value different strategies and tactics.

I do not ask that retreating gets 'rewarded' more. It is a strategy that is built into the game, it is a valid option, one weighs the pros and cons. I want to be able to use that strategy (the terrain strategy, specifically) to the fullest. You don't. Fine.

So why do you get punished for retreating in PvP and GE? Shouldn't you propose that stops as well since there is valor in retreating?

Another strategy built into the game is point farming in GvG. Just because something is built into the game does that mean it should be made easier?

 

[qaccy]

For what it's worth, I believe option 1 is already sort of in place on the PC version. You're able to surrender during the landing animation for enemy units with Rapid Deployment, and depending on whether those units would be able to reach you in their first turn, you'll be able to see that some damage may have gone out even though you surrendered before any actual movement took place on-screen.

I don't know if this is the case on mobile, as I refuse to do any manual fighting on mobile.

 

[Umbrathor]

For what it's worth, I believe option 1 is already sort of in place on the PC version. You're able to surrender during the landing animation for enemy units with Rapid Deployment, and depending on whether those units would be able to reach you in their first turn, you'll be able to see that some damage may have gone out even though you surrendered before any actual movement took place on-screen.

I don't know if this is the case on mobile, as I refuse to do any manual fighting on mobile.

Thanks! Emberguard said something similar, though she said it resembled option 2 more: damage is inflicted by units who have (had) their turn before you click Surrender. Can anyone shed more definitive light on this? It is hard to be certain, since one leaves before the action is played out. The most obvious clue would be the number of units who sustain damage. If that is more than one, and you surrender before the first unit acts, that indicates that all units who would have had a turn got to act.

 

[Umbrathor]

So why do you get punished for retreating in PvP and GE? Shouldn't you propose that stops as well since there is valor in retreating?

Your reasoning is off there. You don't get punished for retreating in PvP and GE. Retreating has the same effect as losing the battle, you are not punished for retreating. You simply don't get the reward for winning.

The fact that you have a limited number of attempts in PvP and GE is not 'punishment' for retreating. It is a way of making it a different kind of challenge, one where retreating is not a wise strategy. Whereas in other fights retreating and trying again is a valid strategy for overcoming that challenge. Especially in the continent map, where the battle map does not change if you retreat.

If Inno wanted to 'punish' retreating, they could have players pay a ransom to buy their prisoners of war free (you have after all surrendered), or they could have introduced the limited attempts mechanic in every type of fight. They haven't. It is about creating different experiences, different types of challenges. Just as autoattack is not a wise strategy in the Egyptian settlement, and fighting with 7 rogues and 1 other unit is not a wise strategy on the continent map. You have to approach each type of fight differently.

 

[Emberguard]

According to you. one of the two options is already available on the app. What would be more logical. Bring that one to the PC as well, or change the one on the app and bring the second option to both platforms?

Bring #2 to PC would be most logical given on desktop you can surrender before the battle begins if you have a unit with Rapid Deployment and #2 is how mobile has it

 

[Emberguard]

Thanks! Emberguard said something similar, though she said it resembled option 2 more: damage is inflicted by units who have (had) their turn before you click Surrender. Can anyone shed more definitive light on this? It is hard to be certain, since one leaves before the action is played out. The most obvious clue would be the number of units who sustain damage. If that is more than one, and you surrender before the first unit acts, that indicates that all units who would have had a turn got to act.

I've only tried it a few times but when I have I've never had any damage from it. Wouldn't hurt to do some thorough testing on it though to make sure

 

[Sl8yer]

The fact that you have a limited number of attempts in PvP and GE is not 'punishment' for retreating. It is a way of making it a different kind of challenge, one where retreating is not a wise strategy. Whereas in other fights retreating and trying again is a valid strategy for overcoming that challenge. Especially in the continent map, where the battle map does not change if you retreat.

You keep going on and on and on. I have no problem with your strategy. If you want to use it use it. I just see no reason to make it easier for you to use it. If you use it, deal with how it works. If you can't live with the extra time it takes, don't do it.

 

[Umbrathor]

I just see no reason to make it easier for you to use it.

That has been clear from the beginning. Let's just agree to disagree.

 

[Darrth Eugene Vader3]

It isn't bad, but why should it be rewarded with saving time and units

Why? A player would enjoy the game more and play longer time if his/her time is not wasted in unnecessary / non critical delays.

• Inno should agree with improving game quality (level of enjoyment) for their customers). (Do we agree?)
• Inno surely benefits with players playing longer time each time we login. (Do we all agree?)
• Developers to judge each time saving proposal for necessity / criticality, among other aspects like how difficult to implement, or if it impacts negatively to other game features.

 

[Darrth Eugene Vader3]

*GvG is desktop only

Should it would be more fairer if game features that impacts points/ ranking / battles outcomes (in and out of GvG) are more and more the same / equivalent in Desktop vs Mobile? Reducing advantages between players or guild with more players using desktops or using computers?

 

[Sl8yer]

Why? A player would enjoy the game more and play longer time if his/her time is not wasted in unnecessary / non critical delays.

Total BS. To a player any delay is unnecessary / non critical. Just look at the numerous suggestions for an "aid all" button. Players want to do as little as possible and do not understand that in wanting that, they kill the game.

 

[Darrth Eugene Vader3]

That means that it will change fights only in one place and that would be GvG, so that makes it a change in GvG

Only fights in GvG? Are you sure?

• Desktop players dont do GE encounters by fighting?
• Desktop players dont do GBG fights?
• Desktop players dont do PvP fights?
• Desktop players dont fight at Continent Map?
• Desktop players dont do Daily Challenges or Quests asking for "Defeat this (small, medium, large) army?

The change, if implemented will impact all fights, not mather if playing at PC or Mobile, in GvG or out of GvG.

 

[Darrth Eugene Vader3]

Total BS. To a player any delay is unnecessary / non critical. Just look at the numerous suggestions for an "aid all" button. Players want to do as little as possible and do not understand that in wanting that, they kill the game.

BS? Only humans replying here, not bulls.

I may agree that most (if not all, you may be one exception) players may seen delays as unnecessary, that is why I wrote that developers must evaluate and find the unnecessary ones and deal with them, while keeping the necessary ones. Developers should/shall evaluate the critical ones and determine if there are feasible ways to improve the game without killing them.

Animations are delays, to some players it improve the game, to others just annoying / distracting / causing time waste. A feature to turn off the animations is available from several years now. Apparently, this delay was not critical, and the game has continued improving, expanding and generating profit/revenues for Inno all these years. Game has not been killed by offering a way to remove one delay.

Now, returning to the OP, are the seconds saved by this proposal, in all fights of the game (not only in GvG) critical? A game killer? For me that is a question to the developers to answer, only they have the data to judge how critical is to the game removing or changing that piece of code.

 

[Umbrathor]

Total BS. To a player any delay is unnecessary / non critical. Just look at the numerous suggestions for an "aid all" button. Players want to do as little as possible and do not understand that in wanting that, they kill the game.

Again, you are being disrespectful, and you are generalizing. The simple fact that @Darrth Eugene Vader3 uses the term "unnecessary / non critical delays" shows that he understands that not all delays are unnecessary / non critical. Since he is a player, that disproves your statement. You yourself are probably another example.

 

[Sl8yer]

Only fights in GvG? Are you sure?

• Desktop players dont do GE encounters by fighting?
• Desktop players dont do GBG fights?
• Desktop players dont do PvP fights?
• Desktop players dont fight at Continent Map?
• Desktop players dont do Daily Challenges or Quests asking for "Defeat this (small, medium, large) army?

The change, if implemented will impact all fights, not mather if playing at PC or Mobile, in GvG or out of GvG.

In how many of those fights does it matter when you can speed up?

 

[Sl8yer]

A feature to turn off the animations is available from several years now.

As far as I know that has always been available.

Now, returning to the OP, are the seconds saved by this proposal, in all fights of the game (not only in GvG) critical? A game killer? For me that is a question to the developers to answer, only they have the data to judge how critical is to the game removing or changing that piece of code.

Saving seconds isn't the reason. Reason is to make it easier to get to the fight you want. Compare it to RQ's where players also want it to be nade easier to get to the one they want.

 

[Thunderdome]

Ladies and Gents,

If I may put in my dos centavos to this. If this "button" is a thing on Mobile then I am hoping it would make its way to the PC/Browser world as I do contemplate my time in deploying my units "manually". Sometimes it's a good thing to "retreat" when facing odds that exceed one's own, either by not wanting to lose units (for those who rely on non-Alcatraz methods) or just want to get some data on what "buffs" the opposing side has (I concentrate on the Defense % of the defending side to see if my Attack % will hit them out of the park with "plinks" done to my units; which I swap out after each fight with fresher ones to keep it going).

Now, when it comes to neighborhood attacking, we all know the moment we push the "attack" button, a 24 hour time penalty is applied, so there is no "saving" of time in that department; you're going to have to wait the 24 hour period to try again, and only if the defender didn't look at their replay and switch units accordingly. In PVE aspects, it might be a good way of doing so if you think you get the wrong terrain; first strike units will always have the first strike; there is no changing that. The only thing I can see where it can be an exploit is through GvG if a person gets a battle where they "need" to change the units in order to overtake the ones defending a post. Might as well put the unit list on the army select screen for the defending side and make GvG cater to the ones who have superiority as it will no longer be fun or challenging.