Suggestion: pre-battle surrender option

[Slamz]

Just a thought...

Before a battle starts, the defending team has the option (via the web interface) to surrender to the attacking team.

Surrendering will cost you a percentage of your goods: 25%, 50%, 75% or 100% (defender selects).

Attacker can see the surrender offer and either accept it or reject it.  If the accept it, they get those goods and the battle is canceled.  If they reject it (or fail to respond) then the battle commences as normal.


So, for example, you intercept a caravan that you know has goods and you think it's going to be a tough fight, if they offer 25% of their goods for free then you might let them pass.  You might even make that your "fare" -- 25% goods and free passage in and out!  50% if you try to sneak by and we catch you!  100% if we don't like you but at least you get to keep your troops and equipment and run away.


I'm suggesting to hide the exact amount of goods because I'm not sure it should be a case of asking for a surrender just to see how many goods they have before you decide if you really want to fight or not.

[Jarlek]

Hmmm. Makes sense really. But it would also be nice for the attacker to give preferences when attacking. Like, "give me x% and the battle will be canceled".

[Slamz]

Yeah, could even just be a text window -- although I think there's one now you can type anything into.  "Joo die n0w!11!" or "Give me 50% if you want to live."

[Jarlek]

Yeah, could even just be a text window -- although I think there's one now you can type anything into.  "Joo die n0w!11!" or "Give me 50% if you want to live."

"Joo die n0w!11" xD Funny!

The message window we have now btw, is the message for the people who was accepted to fight for you. There's no way to send a message/ultimatum to your enemy, apart from finding them on the forums or using the cRPG message system.

[Braeden]

I actually think it would be even better if you offered a # of goods or gold, rather than a percent.  So they got the offer to take 100 casks of ale or 300 gold, rather than 25% of things.  Especially if you could throw equipment in (lots of raiders would probably want to let you pass for some nice mail shirts and horses).  That said, even as originally written I do like it.

[Digglez]

I actually think it would be even better if you offered a # of goods or gold, rather than a percent.  So they got the offer to take 100 casks of ale or 300 gold, rather than 25% of things.  Especially if you could throw equipment in (lots of raiders would probably want to let you pass for some nice mail shirts and horses).  That said, even as originally written I do like it.

System Slamz suggested is used in Pirates of the Burning Sea and works very well. Seeing the # of goods ruins the purpose of the preemptive surrender.

[Turkhammer]

System Slamz suggested is used in Pirates of the Burning Sea and works very well. Seeing the # of goods ruins the purpose of the preemptive surrender.

He didn't say the attacker would get to see the number of goods the caravan had.  The attacker would just get an offer of x number of goods to not attack.  He would then need to make a judgement call.

[Slamz]

He didn't say the attacker would get to see the number of goods the caravan had.  The attacker would just get an offer of x number of goods to not attack.  He would then need to make a judgement call.

Yeah but that kinda gives it away... if I offer you 100 goods, you know I have at least 100 goods!


Assumptions:
1) I cannot be immediately attacked again after I surrender.

In Pirates of the Burning Sea, you become invisible after you get attacked.  Once you start moving again, invisibility will wear off shortly but it's enough to pick a direction and start moving.  They CAN attack you again but they'll have to manage to catch you again with invisibility giving you a head start.

2) You can't see exactly how many goods I have on the main screen.

Still not sure what chadz is planning here.  I'm hoping it'll just say like "G" or something to let everyone know I'm carrying some noticeable amount, but not exactly how many.

If you can already see how many goods I have then yeah, we could scrap the percentage plan and just use real numbers.

[DrKronic]

or whatever

[Zaharist]

I love the idea

1) I cannot be immediately attacked again after I surrender.

Exploitable nonsense.

No rules or code of honor for bandits. If they want to attack who can stop them? Even after making a deal.

[Digglez]

I love the idea
Exploitable nonsense.

No rules or code of honor for bandits. If they want to attack who can stop them? Even after making a deal.

If you dont make surrender at least a decent option, then noone will ever use it.  By letting the attacker accept/deny a surrender and letting victim flee, you present a much more interesting gameplay.  As the raider, do you accept and hope he was carrying a worthwhile load or do get greedy to try and take it all, risking a battle AND LOCKING YOURSELF in place for 24h's to commit to a battle.

[Blondin]

Very good idea, there is both interest for raider and victim, raider doesn't have to be locked and victim can continue his way, lighter but can continue.

Victim could give gold too, fast profit for bandits and victim could keep his goods (and even make more gold) but he has to make the journey and risk to be attacked again.

No need to be invisible after the deal, as said Zaharist bandits don't have honor, anyway it's the same as if he attacked you first time (except if victim gave some equip and troops!).

Very good idea that give depth, gameplay options and realism.

[Penitent]

+1

[Kajia]

+1

that.
and:
+1

[[ptx]]

Assumptions:
1) I cannot be immediately attacked again after I surrender.

Fixed - You cannot be immediately attacked by the guy who you surrendered your goods to.