People who surrender early are a problem

So I get 3 v 1rd and die because my team doesn’t help me and I have to spend rhe next hour not playing multi-player because of it? Sounds real fair. How about we punish bad team mates who don’t help their allies instead.

1 Like

SupcomFA used a series of game options that would do the following when a player on a team left or was defeated:

Give thier population space to the rest of the team evenly
give pop space to highest score player on thier team
give pop space to everyone
give pop space to enemy

Also had options for the players leftover units:
give to highest score on team


Yeah exactly, and the worst thing a teammate can do is resign early. They are literally zero help to allies in that case. Staying in the game, relocating or rebooming as necessary, build walls, even making inferior units as cannon fodder is all more helpful. If the game goes long your 200 pop space is going to be crucial, others can give resources if you don’t have the eco to fill it with units. Its not so much about punishment, more about an incentive to keep playing not just hit the instant restart button and ruin another group’s game.

I’m sure it all depends on the situation, but there’s almost no scenario where I’d want a pocket player sending feudal units to help me on flank. They could make 10 scouts, or they could use that 800 food to get to castle age and steamroll with knights. If you’re playing a 3v1 that means there’s an opening on the other side of the map. If the pocket really offers no help and continues booming through castle age, after you lose your TC just move to the other side, now pocket is flank while you build eco. Hopefully they’ve got enough of a foothold to survive the pressure by then. If not, then you all die together, that’s the point of a team.

1 Like

You mean like their allies did for them? Where was the help from their allies while they were getting creamed?

Yeah because rebooming from 2 villagers in feudal age is SO MUCH FUN. maybe you should remember that next time you leave an ally to die.

Having had to reboom from nothing before. Its a punishment. Maybe you should punish boomers who ignore those who need help to keep booming.

Never been 4v1 Ed have you?

But I’ve rarely seen it happen where my allies take advantage of it.

Know how many times I’ve been left to die while my allies have no military buildings and are just booming?

Yes because rewarding boomers for booming and ignoring people who need help is totally going to make people who play flank happy.

I can’t believe you’re honestly sitting here defending scum bag pockets who would just boom and let their allies die.

I’ve literally watched these dumbasses boom to imp 120 pop full research before making military and you want to force me to stick around for rhem? Gee.

If they aren’t playing as a team why should I be punished for it? If anything punish THEM.

1 Like

If team mates are the problem lets play 1v1 only :smiley:

I’m not defending those that go full boom with no military. I’m saying nobody should be resigning before standard fast castle times, with the expectation of incoming support from knights, camels, eagles etc. In some cases fast imp may even be acceptable.

I realize that random groups are not perfect, and I mostly play 1v1 these days because there is such a lack of teamwork. However if 7/8 players want to continue, and 1 feels the need to rage quit in a suboptimal position, that is a selfish action.

I’ve probably gotten sucked into this debate too much already. We can’t really ever solve this one, people will do as they please, and care little about wasting other people’s time. If they were forced to stay they’d likely just grief allies until everyone quit. Realistically it just comes down to trying to respect other players and working as a team, which is a big ask for random anonymous strangers.

1 Like

Except you literally just said I should be forced to stick around in a game when my allies aren’t helping. So yes. You are.

It’s not rage quitting if you’re dead and your allies aren’t helping you. The game is over for you. Rebooming from 2 villagers isn’t fun. We play the game for fun.

Well when 3 people ignore 1 person getting ganged up on, it usually doesn’t do much to make the person who is getting destroyed happy. He’s getting wrecked and his team isn’t working as a team. Why force them to stay?

1 Like

Incorrect. I said:

The only consequence mentioned in this thread was preventing them from joining (and likely ruining) another team game for a period of time. Unclear if that would do anything to fix the behavior, but it may allow others to have a good time with better teammates.

Yep, thank you for demonstrating the exact attitude causing these problems. Your personal enjoyment is clearly the only thing that matters here, forget those other players if things aren’t going your way.

I’m done with this thread.

1 Like

False. Right here. You said I should be forced to stick around.

I’m dead. I dont want to have to stick around and reboom from nothing because my allies ignored my plight. I’d rather start a new game.

You’re rhe one telling me I should have to stick around for the enjoyment those who SACRIFICIED ME.

I agree 100%. Stick around. Be annoying to the opponent. Make trash. Throw up walls. Micro the hell out of your one skirmisher (lol).

Sometimes your teammates are making great progress on the other flank. Although it stinks to be on the other end of base trades, splitting their forces to defend you may lose the game.

I have seen games decided by the extra effort from the wrecked player. I have seen games where the weakest player on the winning team resigns, and flips the script.

In team games, I have never thought ill of a weak teammate or weak opponent that stuck around. Wait until the score leader calls it.


I’m sorry. Why should I support people who didn’t support me?

And what if they are just booming with zero military? If they are attacking the enemy fine and dandy. But you know how many times I’ve seen people go up to 100+ villager as pocket with zero military and ignore their allies?

Because that’s what heroes do. And you, MatCauthon3, are a hero.


Still doesn’t seem right to punish people because they get paired with bad team mates.

I insist, reputation points and the posibility to filter lobbys by reputation… E-communities work well this way… There many features could work, not only punishments, rewards for good sportsmanship too like avatars, special events, etc…


I tried looking you up on but you must play under a different user name. I suspect you are a good player so I can’t figure out why you would be paired with teammates that don’t make military.

When I make mistakes and a teammate takes the time to nicely chat a suggestion, I really try to learn from it. So, maybe even stick around to coach a bit (‘On this map, try to make some military by x:xx time.’ or ‘When you’re booming, make enough military production buildings in the flank’s camp so that you can respond quickly if the situation changes.’)

I mean, if you’re going to lose a game, might as well get some joy out of helping others improve.


One thing I’ve always wanted to know if it would work is when a player resigns it is taken over with AI instead of going idle.

It happens in other games and gives people a chance if they actually were pulling it back.

Which AI I think could depend on elo, but I’m tempted to say never extreme AI as I feel that people could start resigning on purpose

This topic shows the worst of some people, lack of empathy and common sense, but i am scared that with the current terrible dev leadership, soon we can have punishments like this to follow the alt f4 punishments, anyway team games are unplayable on DE, cysion and adamisgreen finally managed to kill the only game mode i enjoy, i used last night 2 nicks on different ranks, the higher one i got vs stackers 3200 with strong allies 1900 tg elo 0 1x1, the second time i got again with those teammates after +7mins waiting time so it was kind of obvious to get matched vs the same stackers, so i closed the game, logged in with an inferior elo, just to have waiting times of +7 mins and pure alt f4 for 45 mins, the elo of that account is 2300 which can be considered really low and yet i wasn’t able to get a game.

Those +7 mins of waiting time with low accounts just shows how small is the active playerbase and if they don’t work to keep it, the unfair matches will increase 1000% following the alt f4 punishments, can’t believe some of you want to punish people who surrender because their team is so bad, the game is in an awful state and yet you guys want to make it worse.

Don’t get too down @SouMexican. I think most people here are brainstorming solutions to improve the team game experience and action, rather than hurt the player base with delays.

That being said, if the future Alt-F4 solution can be worked around by having people simply resign when the game starts, then earlier resignations will become a serious problem.

Honestly, a lot of these problems boil down to AOE2 not helping enough to get the same players playing together. That is, if you have a group of people you regularly play with, you’re much less likely to Alt-F4, resign early, or not support your teammates with military. You’re also much less likely to be rude to them. So, improvements to ‘friending’ random players might be a positive solution to many of these issues.


One of the realities of playing a game is that people are human. Different interests accentuate their actions, as they apply different values to different things. In game theory, you must assume that all players are rational actors, that is they apply what they believe to be the best solution to any given problem, given their interpretation of the problem, and their interests. Their own interests may seem irrational to others, but it is their interests. Trying to reverse engineer their interests can also expose your biases more than their interests. These interests can lead to what seems to others to be self destructive behavior, but another part of it is that one has not walked in their shoes to understand how they built their biases.
Another thing to know is that their experience may lead them to have an instinct of when a game is over that is drastically different to other players, and possibly oft wrong. They can misjudge why certain players are taking certain actions for this reason, and metas can further mislead. Taunting, or rage quitting boggle me more.

1 Like

How would you decide its lost or not? Maybe one believes they can still win against 20 knights in friendlies territory whos vills dies. For that player its impossible, but his teammate(s) want to continue. So a voting system is also no good, as trolls or people who fight untill the end can block your resignation. Or trolls who will vote to resign when you are winning. So many different problems with such voting.