People who surrender early are a problem

I am so fed up right now because of people in Ranked who immediately surrender on the sight of a few knights or archers and then leave their team alone. Imo there should be a report option specifically for such people. They don’t even try to fight or give you the chance to send help.

In games like Overwatch you have this problem all the time. Only there, you actually get punished when you leave before the match is over. First time you do that, you get locked out of ranked for 10 mins. If you leave early too often, you can get completely banned from ranked for the current season.

Of course in AoE2 it’s harder to define when the match is actually over. I’d suggest a vote-to-surrender option like in League of Legends. If >50% vote to surrender, the match is over and the team surrenders altogether. This would also solve the problem of that one player who’s trying to hide a villager somewhere only to drag on the match and waste the opponents’ time. For people who decide to leave alone anyway, lock them out of ranked for a specific amount of time. If they do that too often, lock them out completely.

Either way, this problem needs to be addressed. In team games, it currently only requires 1 player to ruin the game for the entire team because you know you’ll likely lose if you continue to play with 1 player less (unless the match is heavily unbalanced which is rather rare). Therefore, you have no option other than to surrender yourself, too.


I would agree quitters are really an issue. I would like some punishment system, like being looked out of ranked for sometime. I would even go for some increasing penalty length.

I dont really know if i like the vote-to-surrender option. I had some long games (>1h) that where clearly over (we lost) but my team wanted to continu to play. A vote-to-surrender option would mean i had to stay in the game that was clearly lost. For example: One flank and there pocket where already destroyed and now i had those knocking on the during as i was the other pocket. My flank also didnt make any progression on his flank at all and was also be pushed back. This game was clearly over…


Going out on a limb here: stop booming and help your mates. A flanker that resigns because his pocket’s natural foe is dumping higher tier units into his economy has correctly assessed his situation. I’d rather move on to the next game than struggle to dig out a win from a position of weakness compounded by a bad pocket.


That’s why I never play team games, only FFA but still, I cannot count the ammount of time I’ve played a game and suddenly AT LEAST 1 guy goes “I don’t like this” and resigns. It’s ridiculous.



When ever we dissect these arguments we can see how selfish people actually are… So quitters should be punished BUT only when YOU decide the game is over?

Ohhh ok so what about 2v2?

Let’s also forget how in MOBAs its easier to have a come back as opposed to the snowballing effect in most RTS.

Let’s say i want to quit since i realise its doomed, but ill be punished. So either i afk, or i Idle just enough to avoid being labelled as afk. Or i quit anyway. You get screwed and i go play something else,during “the ban”. You’re still screwed.

Let’s say you end up in a team game with one or 2 of those try hards that won’t ever resign. Now you’re stuck in a 2hr game thanks to your own selfish moronic system.

Let’s say im teamed with someone 200 elo lower than me, i can’t quit because your moronic system implies the match is fair…

And who’s fault is it really? If the devs were willing to implement systems like other games (Starcraft or company of heroes) have to account for players leaving then this wouldn’t be such an issue.

But instead of forcing the devs to fix what is lacking you want to attack the players…


Did you know you gave the same example, just worded a little bit different:

This is exactly what i meant.

Seems like you are selfish too :grin:

1 Like

This is not a thread about booming or anything. As I said, these people quit before you are even able to help. In one example, my units were already on their way to help him, he decided to quit anyway.

It appears to me that many people don’t really care about their rating and it’s this lack of fighting spirit which ruins games for people who actually want to climb in their rank.


Yeah Rage quitting is really annoying.

You should only able to give up when the whole team is agree with.

Yesterday we lost the game though I’m pretty sure we could win the game because our base is destroyed but the base of the enemy too. And I’m still have the Ressource and gold to produce a lot of units, my teammate didn’t know that.

1 Like

No, especially in 4v4 games oftentimes each team wins on one flank and looses on the other. I had many games in which one flank player wanted to resign or even did resign even though we were winning overall (just not at his flank).

It is extremely hard to assess the state of the game correctly when you get pressured as a flank player…


In team games someone needs to take the blows while other can take the advantage. In a team game it is about the team position, not about your own position. This mean that you can be beaten hard, but your team can still win the game. It is part of playing team games. If you dont like that, then go and play 1v1. There it is about your position only.


well, those people tend to get their MMR down. if you win enough you will not see them again.

I also agree with the problem of pockets playing simcity. If you pick pocket and can’t deal with a rush of scouts, that is a bad signal.

I would prefer the starcraft system of managing the other civilizations after they DC/resign.

Besides people quitting early, people who quit when one person d/c’s. Just lost three games in a row b/c someone d/c, then others resign.

You can’t force people to keep playing. One of the better options you can do which would still seem fair, is allow a player to resign whenever they want, but either

  • tribute their resources between allies (maybe cancel queues etc)
  • tribute resources and units/buildings between allies, so they can take control of the resigning players vils, eco military etc.
  • Let an ai take over for them (I’m sure this is debated in another forum post).

Yes. This would really help.


I like the first and third bullets, but I’m very uncomfortable with the second.

I imagine the second bullet can lead to a lot of exploits; a game where one player resigns at the right strategic point can end up making several other players way stronger, e.g. imagine a pocket attempting a fast castle; suddenly a teammate resigns and he gets a free archery range. Then he needs one fewer building to advance to castle. Or even more severe, he gets the TC – then he can make vills while advancing to Castle. Taken to the extreme, a team with 1 player controlling 2 TCs will gain a severe advantage by midgame over 2 players controlling 2 TCs, simply because he only needs to research each technology or age advancement once. (but in late game the pop cap will give the advantage to the 2 players)

If you meant just let allies control his units / buildings while keeping them his color, there’s already a similar feature: after a player resigns, any ally can delete any of his units or buildings that are in the way.


Exactly. I think you’ve hit upon the balance that would occur. There would be a window where the smaller team would have more resources and buildings, and so could advance faster. But, it ultimately would be a race against time.

In a reasonably close game, the smaller team would have a fighting chance. However, if the smaller team was behind or poorer players, it would not make enough of a difference (as it shouldn’t).

Frankly, I’d take any of the options as a stopgap because disconnects and early surrenders affect the majority of the multiplayer games right now.

1 Like

It ticks me off too. When I’m in a 4v4 and one of my allies DC’s in Feudal, I’ll try and rush the enemy to even the odds. Unfortunately my teammates usually are playing sim city or just booming. If all my enemies make it to Imp, and I’m the only one in Imp on my side, I’ll call it gg.

^ that’s mostly for unranked. For ranked it’s more common for people to quit after 1 person leaves, and much more frustrating since skill levels are closer. Yeah there should be punishments in place. I’ve gotten my base destroyed and managed to escape with a few villagers just to rebound eventually and win the game.

1 Like

Can you tell me why i need to play a 2v3 for example if an ally already dropped in minute 1? That the game isnt stable is an issue for the devs to fix. I dont like to be forced to play such game. It is something else to me if the game already is in imperial age for example. I would never just quit because a d/c, except if we already where losing and with that ally the game is over in my eyes.

1 Like

you dont need to play 2v3; no one likes that situation. we should be able to resign w/o losing points or a lose if they d/c when the game starts and they d/c. Probably up to 15 mins into the game would be cool. most the time i just resign after they d/c that early b/c the odds arent in my favor of winning, but most the time i play at least 20 mins of the game to see the scores and see if i could possibly win or not. In team DM i’ve played a lot of 2v3 games and won thankfully. havent had the chance to see if can win in team RM b/c allies always resign shortly after one d/c’s.

lmao. Yeah i lose half the time b/c my allies like to eco for 35-50mins sim city-like, and make 5 military units, if even that. Playing that way is SO BORING. I admit that i used to do that, but i was doing that when the conquerors was released because i was 10 years old. People need to stop playing team RM ranked games and play single player and casual games.

1 Like