PDA

View Full Version : Concede - War Enhancement



l3lade2
10-20-2013, 07:01 AM
I think it would be a nice idea to have a "Concede" option to battles in war.

There would have to be a number of parameters to control this of course, but how often do you find yourself saying "ok guys...come back in an hour" or something?

Why lose all that time? Some people would prefer to get on with going for 50 wins, or the 56 streak...whilst some guilds may not.

My thoughts on how to control this (and please don't troll, if I've missed something obvious or you have any thoughts to add then chip in!);

* I would suggest it's an Officer & Founder function only.

* It would have to be Mutual - For instance, both guilds in any battle has the opportunity to "Concede", which would end the battle with the current CP totals, award the Win and Loss and move on.
When a guild sends a "Concede" request, it must be accepted by the opposing guild, so that if the opposing guild wishes to continue, perhaps they see a juicy target, then they can.

* A request can only be sent once during any war.

* Once sent...the opposing guild has to accept as per the above....the request could either be a) "pending" so it lasts the rest of the war and can be accepted at any time or b) perhaps it only lasts for xx minutes and the other guild has to decide fairly quickly whether to continue for CP's or move on for wins/streaks.

* Perhaps a Concede request can only be sent during the first xx minutes of a war...or the last xx minutes or something as a twist.

Just my thoughts, but I think it would be a really nice twist, some guilds will favour CP's during some battles, and not want to accept, whilst other times I'm positive some will say, yep we're going for / running low on time for 50 Wins or a Streak or something, let's accept and move on with the win under our belt!

From a GREE perspective...it shouldn't reduce CP really, as each guild will simply move on and re-declare, so they're still battling. It might be that they increase the Win requirements, but who knows that's for them to figure out.

Thoughts...?

Person
10-20-2013, 07:05 AM
would be a nice added feature, but will most likely make Gree change the win 50 wars to a win 60 wars quest :)

rsd007
10-20-2013, 07:09 AM
So all guilds will concede if they face FUN or RK and it's up to RK or FUN to decide who they want to ****

E-I
10-20-2013, 07:23 AM
This would make 50 wins soooo much easier!

E-I
10-20-2013, 07:25 AM
So all guilds will concede if they face FUN or RK and it's up to RK or FUN to decide who they want to ****

Yup, pretty much.

FUN could finish with 150 wins before the end of the first day.

rsd007
10-20-2013, 07:31 AM
but I like saving time idea

Krayt
10-20-2013, 07:44 AM
It's a nice idea in theory but it would never work

Bloodsucker
10-20-2013, 09:28 AM
would be a nice added feature, but will most likely make Gree change the win 50 wars to a win 60 wars quest :)

60? More like 100.

Zenobia
10-20-2013, 09:30 AM
Very interesting idea! So if a team offers to concede, and the other team accepts, it would count as a win/loss, not just disappear.

One aspect of it I like, for the excitementfactor, is that it makes it nearly impossible for teams to wait on FUN and RK being unavailable to be matched. They could be match for the last 20 minutes, you declare, they accept a concede, declare, are matched with you when you thought you were safe. That is exciting!

CowsofChaos
10-20-2013, 10:40 AM
If FUN were smart they wouldn't accept every single concession. They would still need points for number 1 and when faced with top 2 and 3 they would need to bone them hard in order that they don't score butt loads of points against a weaker guild.

I think the idea really helps with wins/losses and repeat matches however from a business standpoint a mediocre team can try to concede wins over and over to get 50 wins with barely any gems spent. Making bonuses in a weird way easier to acquire. If this does come into play we should expect more difficult quests

Ereaser
10-20-2013, 12:25 PM
This will only cause guilds to make deals, declare together and get wins that way instead of earning it

Alucard47
10-20-2013, 12:37 PM
Maybe the concede option could become available once a certain point gap is reached between the guilds....

KM KAge
10-20-2013, 12:50 PM
Point variance AND time. The time does not have to be long, but asking to concede must be at least 15 minutes into the war. Also consider something a bit more variable, for example, at the 45 minute mark the concede would not need to be accepted. It would be unilateral.
There may have to be a bonus for the "winning" guild if they accept the concede request, not big, but some incentive for them. Also, the conceding team should be prevented from declaring for a number of minutes (10-15 maybe).

Samskill
10-20-2013, 12:52 PM
Amazing proposition, but anything that prevent the influx of cash to GREEdy bank will not be carried out.
Trust me.

Alucard47
10-20-2013, 01:14 PM
Point variance AND time. The time does not have to be long, but asking to concede must be at least 15 minutes into the war. Also consider something a bit more variable, for example, at the 45 minute mark the concede would not need to be accepted. It would be unilateral.
There may have to be a bonus for the "winning" guild if they accept the concede request, not big, but some incentive for them. Also, the conceding team should be prevented from declaring for a number of minutes (10-15 maybe).

I like the time bar on the conceding guild and the 15-minute period before a concede could be made.

KM KAge
10-20-2013, 01:20 PM
Amazing proposition, but anything that prevent the influx of cash to GREEdy bank will not be carried out.
Trust me.
This would be at worst "gem neutral". Unless the guild is going for CP, gem spending lessens once a good lead is established, and only kicks back in when the lead is threatened. With this model, more wars=more frequent establishing of a lead, which leads to more gem spending.

CowsofChaos
10-20-2013, 01:26 PM
This concede thing sounds more like an end battle now with current CP amount determining who wins and losses.

This could be simplified to a forfeit option. Your guild proposes a forfeit, the enemy team accepts. Your guild loses but get to try again, the other guild walks away with a win and maybe a bonus of 10k CPs or something.

on the downside is top teams don't really have to spend. other teams will forfeit almost instantly and top teams will get their 56 wins within the first day then only spend gems to maintain top 1-2-3-10 etc.

Guido69
10-20-2013, 01:33 PM
One flaw of this concept is that waiting times accumulate. You wait for the first matchup, the other guild concedes, and the stronger guild that accepts it, has to be matched again and looses time. It would work if matching times are identical and short for all guilds.

KM KAge
10-20-2013, 01:37 PM
One flaw of this concept is that waiting times accumulate. You wait for the first matchup, the other guild concedes, and the stronger guild that accepts it, has to be matched again and looses time. It would work if matching times are identical and short for all guilds.
ABSOLUTELY AGREE. The algorithm shortcomings NEED to be addressed as part of this. This includes matching times and not being used as cannon fodder in almost EVERY war.

Danthorne
10-20-2013, 01:42 PM
It's a neat idea, but knowing Gree as we do, there will be many bugs in it and be weird ways to additionally benefit from abusing it. Probably not worth the headache.

Alucard47
10-20-2013, 02:02 PM
The overall wait time would be decreased for the winning guild on a forfeit/concede battle. If the winning guild is up by a large margin early and the other guild stops and concedes, the winning guild can declare sooner, and therefore be matched earlier than if they would have to wait for the current war to end and then declare. Guilds would be able to get a lot more battles in over a weekend.

l3lade2
10-21-2013, 02:59 AM
If anything it could be argued that guilds will spend more gems in my opinion.

MoC as an example have been matched with Top 4 guilds at least 10 times this war (not an exaggeration, we had one of the 5 times alone lol).

We did not spend any gems in any of these battles...simply used free hits, then "come back in an hour guys". If we could have moved onto the next battle early, assuming the other guild was happy to, we might have been locked into a good battle and gemmed.

Just a thought that hasn't been mentioned. I'm not saying this is all that would happen, but another argument that can be made.

With respect to Top guilds...FUN, RK etc really don't spend gems "to get 50 wins", they spend their gems to finish 1st and 2nd etc. So if it's easier for them to get 50 wins or 56 streak, it doesn't matter, they gemmed the most before these prizes were introduced (remember they weren't around in early wars) and they still continue to do so throughout day 3 even when they have the units, as they value Rankings more (or so I assume, I'm not a part of it obviously so apologies if this is inaccurate).

Bohemian
10-21-2013, 03:42 AM
BAD IDEA. Leave much room to exploit between guilds with co-op.

P4TR1C14N
10-21-2013, 03:57 AM
Good idea, but not feasible as you can't put a number then on the amount off wins needed for a streak.

l3lade2
10-21-2013, 04:07 AM
BAD IDEA. Leave much room to exploit between guilds with co-op.

Already happens...at the moment guilds agree between themselves and the other just doesn't score for an hour. There are tons of these already going on, during wars and quests. "Co-op" is neither the objective of the idea, nor is it a new concept, been happening for months.


Good idea, but not feasible as you can't put a number then on the amount off wins needed for a streak.

Not sure I understand, the number will be increased I presume, but like anything in KA, some finish quickly, others take long time, some don't finish at all. This applies to war streaks, LTQ's or anything. Or am I missing your point?

rsd007
10-21-2013, 04:10 AM
One flaw of this concept is that waiting times accumulate. You wait for the first matchup, the other guild concedes, and the stronger guild that accepts it, has to be matched again and looses time. It would work if matching times are identical and short for all guilds.
On the contrary, waiting time will be much less, for the following reasons:
- More guilds will be in declare state since it'll be possible to declare more times within the 3 day period.
- More guilds will declare without watching the leader board because they can't guarantee that top guilds will be moving for 1 hour.
having time points to such feature solves a lot of issues.
- You can't concede before 10 min of the battle is passed, if not accepted, battle will end at 30 or 45m mark.
- Concede after the mark means battles will end after 5min (so the winners know their battle will end sooner)

Big-R
10-21-2013, 04:11 AM
To stop this being abused maybe make a limit on doing it. 1 concede in a 24hr period or something similar. This will stop teams being able to manipulate the system.

rsd007
10-21-2013, 04:12 AM
do you want Gree to implement this? Concede should cost 50 gems

l3lade2
10-21-2013, 05:59 AM
To stop this being abused maybe make a limit on doing it. 1 concede in a 24hr period or something similar. This will stop teams being able to manipulate the system.

I like this. I find it hard to see how this could be "abused", as Guild control the matchups, so unless you refer to "CoM 2" guild purposely conceding to "CoM 1" guild because they are sister guilds as Abuse, then I don't see how it can be. That however, is Co-operation, not abuse, and it happens now obviously.

End of the day 1 guild has to take the loss, it's not abuse if it's important to 1 guild and not to the other at that point in time.

But I like the idea of limiting how many times, per either War (like in Tennis and American Football...you get so many "challenges" per Set/Game), or per time period. There's no reason to make it limited, it shouldn't really be required that much.

I can see GREE making this a gem feature if they went ahead it with though....i.e. you can Buy a Concede, if accepted, it costs xxx many gems or something.

Guido69
10-21-2013, 08:43 AM
On the contrary, waiting time will be much less, for the following reasons:
- More guilds will be in declare state since it'll be possible to declare more times within the 3 day period.
- More guilds will declare without watching the leader board because they can't guarantee that top guilds will be moving for 1 hour.
having time points to such feature solves a lot of issues.
- You can't concede before 10 min of the battle is passed, if not accepted, battle will end at 30 or 45m mark.
- Concede after the mark means battles will end after 5min (so the winners know their battle will end sooner)

I disagree. You assume more guilds that declared at any given time translates to shorter waiting times.

I think nobody (maybe not even Gree) can tell you that this is true. If that was true, the beginning of the war, where presumably most guilds declare immediately after the vent starts should see the shortest waiting times. But that is definitely not the case.

Guido69
10-21-2013, 08:45 AM
With respect to Top guilds...FUN, RK etc really don't spend gems "to get 50 wins", they spend their gems to finish 1st and 2nd etc. So if it's easier for them to get 50 wins or 56 streak, it doesn't matter, they gemmed the most before these prizes were introduced (remember they weren't around in early wars) and they still continue to do so throughout day 3 even when they have the units, as they value Rankings more (or so I assume, I'm not a part of it obviously so apologies if this is inaccurate).

True, we play to be #1, the prizes will follow suit. And to get #1 you need to outscore #2, Now, if we have to wait more times for matchups because other guilds concede, that will reduce our time to score points.

Bohemian
10-21-2013, 10:01 AM
Still silly idea & the 50 gems, LOL
This lead to all finish gltq & No points for war.
Idea for personal benefit will never be .....
If MoC want the 50 n streak just split the guild, after battle done join again. Simple

l3lade2
10-21-2013, 10:46 AM
Still silly idea & the 50 gems, LOL
This lead to all finish gltq & No points for war.
Idea for personal benefit will never be .....
If MoC want the 50 n streak just split the guild, after battle done join again. Simple

Nothing to do with MoC, go troll elsewhere.

FeelSoHigh
10-21-2013, 02:30 PM
In fact, you want something that make your team and the rival team spend less gems, do you?

The problem is that Gree wants you to spend more... Just a tought.

Person
10-21-2013, 03:38 PM
i dont see why people think this will make people spend less. It'll just mean people spend on getting points if the match up is good, then after 30 minutes or so and the guild's got the points it needs just accept the surrender from the other guild and match on to the next. If anything it will lead to more spending.

-H-
10-21-2013, 10:09 PM
I love this idea.... And if programmed correctly I can't see it being abused and think it will actually raise gem spending. Everyone will want to discourage their opponent ASAP!

alizainal
10-21-2013, 11:04 PM
When a guild sends a "Concede" request, it must be accepted by the opposing guild, so that if the opposing guild wishes to continue, perhaps they see a juicy target, then they can.

Just my thoughts, but I think it would be a really nice twist, some guilds will favour CP's during some battles, and not want to accept, whilst other times I'm positive some will say, yep we're going for / running low on time for 50 Wins or a Streak or something, let's accept and move on with the win under our belt!

From a GREE perspective...it shouldn't reduce CP really, as each guild will simply move on and re-declare, so they're still battling. It might be that they increase the Win requirements, but who knows that's for them to figure out.

Thoughts...?

If my guild is winning, we'll send a "concede" request and hope the opposing guild accepts it. But if we are losing, there's no way we'll accept. Why would we give them an opportunity to have another battle. Let them face us even if we dont retaliate.


would be a nice added feature, but will most likely make Gree change the win 50 wars to a win 60 wars quest :)

just like I said, if we are losing, the other team just have to pound on us until the time is up.


My point is, if every guild use my strategy, winning 60 wars will be waaay more difficult than it is now.

finallyfree
10-21-2013, 11:17 PM
The idea is great!

I would like to add following this.

Surrender or concede can be push and has to pay penalty like "Money in Vault" + "Orbs" + "Brick" and the another team will consider it's good or not to accepted concede. The lower team can submitted offer maximum once/battle and Maximum 5 conceded in whole war accepted. For the superior team to accept the new order, this should be done in first 10 mins of war.

If the superior team choose to accept, They can declare immediately. As for the conceded team has to wait 30 mins before declaring...

If they rejected offers, the game finished as the clock ticking down...

Just an add on idea.. :)

l3lade2
10-21-2013, 11:42 PM
In fact, you want something that make your team and the rival team spend less gems, do you?

Where are you getting this from?? I don't see how this would be accomplished....most guilds (or certainly ours) would only ever choose to concede/surrender on battles which they have no interest in partaking in. So instead of sitting around for an hour, and NOT doing anything, we can move on to the next one where we WOULD attack and spend gems.

There are some battles where we literaly say "don't bother wasting hits, make sure you're full and come back in 1 hour"..... Exactly how is this motivated by spending less :rolleyes:

FeelSoHigh
10-22-2013, 02:40 PM
Maybe you're right... I'm probably bored of rules changing event after event.

Alexius
10-22-2013, 02:50 PM
Just to have a dissenting voice heard, I don't like the idea. The next step is win 70 consecutive battles. At that point it's time to walk into the sunset.

Crow-Magnum
10-22-2013, 04:01 PM
hahahahahaha

Miranda6900
10-22-2013, 06:02 PM
I concur with Moc. I think it would add another dimension to our wars, making them that much more exciting

echus14
10-22-2013, 09:05 PM
Well, here's a little twist in the tail for the fun of it (no pun intended) - each guild has a one-time option to force their opponent to immediately yield. Number of CPs obtained is what you actually earned, but regardless of CPs earned, for that one battle only. it will count as a win for you if you use your option. In the event that both guilds use it, then whoever draws first, wins. OK, time to get the little wheels in the head spinning. LOL.

l3lade2
10-23-2013, 12:29 AM
Well, here's a little twist in the tail for the fun of it (no pun intended) - each guild has a one-time option to force their opponent to immediately yield. Number of CPs obtained is what you actually earned, but regardless of CPs earned, for that one battle only. it will count as a win for you if you use your option. In the event that both guilds use it, then whoever draws first, wins. OK, time to get the little wheels in the head spinning. LOL.

This would be grossly unfair, and GREE would never implement this. Imagine you were on 9/9 streak of something, planning to spend BIG to make sure you get there, then 10 minutes in someone takes a forced win? You would be outraged, and GREE would lose out on gems. Anything which reduces gem spending would never be implemented.

Any this instance I have to say I'm not a fan of...forcing someone to take a loss just isn't fair when you consider the streak quest.

echus14
10-23-2013, 03:22 AM
Never said it would be fair. Just a variation on the theme and it may be one reason to actually reduce the number of stages for streaks. As for whether it would result in higher or lower gem usage, that's debatable. The time you have now becomes very important to earn CPs, and the only way to max that is to force a refill. Yup, gems.

Anyway, it's just something to throw into the mix.