Life is Feudal Official Forum

[Lukepop]

I was thinking that at the end of battles all losing troops have to run for their life to prevent slaughter (unless Meta agreement not to).

OR At the end of a battle the leader of each guild (order,realm,kingdom) that participated in the battle, (Including vassals) can choose for his guild to either or surrender or not.

If that guild does surrender then all guildmembers automatically yield. It would be formatted per guild so that some guilds, probably with less members participating in the battle, could fight to the last.

[Siegbert]

I don't see why there should be game mechanics for it at all. It's neither realistic nor does it add to the fun when behaviour is forced upon you.

From my experience in Persistent World mod in Mount&Blade it's quite obvious when one side is losing. People are being scattered apart, some run for their lives, some try to surrender (and mostly get killed, but in PW there are no benefits for not killing another player, in LiF there are).

If a guild surrenders they just need something as a white banner and a general who formally delivers the surrender. But he needs to make sure all of his subordinates lay down their weapons. It's surely about meta game when you have to talk to people to solve a conflict.

Much more interesting for me would be if there is any benefit in taking prisoners and if it's possible at all. Surely all you can get from looting an enemy is his personal stuff, but when you imprisonate him you can steal something more precious from him: his time. So in order to get free he would need his guild members to bring over some gold or prisoners of their own.

[Thokan]

Much more interesting for me would be if there is any benefit in taking prisoners and if it's possible at all. Surely all you can get from looting an enemy is his personal stuff, but when you imprisonate him you can steal something more precious from him: his time. So in order to get free he would need his guild members to bring over some gold or prisoners of their own.

This:

It's neither realistic nor does it add to the fun when behaviour is forced upon you.

[Tantal]

Surrendering could be a good thing, when you don't want to lose skill. It is good to keep this in mind. But lets first see how these siege battles will really work.

And about prisoners: I dont think it is good to steal peoples time. LiF is still a game and we should be able to play it, whenever we want. What when you would catch a char and never release him? Then I would prefere to let my char dying on the battlefield, and I am sure I can play whenever I want.



btw: @ Siegbert, congratz to you post no. 666

[Siegbert]

And about prisoners: I dont think it is good to steal peoples time. LiF is still a game and we should be able to play it, whenever we want. What when you would catch a char and never release him? Then I would prefere to let my char dying on the battlefield, and I am sure I can play whenever I want.

Well, surely. I wasn't talking about a game mechanic here either. I was talking about players voluntarily agreeing (more or less) on taking someone prisoner instead of killing him.
Maybe the prisoner has gear he doesn't want to lose and the captor agrees on negotiating a ransom instead.
Or maybe the prisoner is of strategical value so the winning side decides it's better to hold him captive instead of killing him right away. If the prisoner wants to sacrifice his life he can try to do so but he will be beaten unconsious and robbed off his weapons so he's no danger.

[Tantal]

Well, surely. I wasn't talking about a game mechanic here either. I was talking about players voluntarily agreeing (more or less) on taking someone prisoner instead of killing him.
Maybe the prisoner has gear he doesn't want to lose and the captor agrees on negotiating a ransom instead.
Or maybe the prisoner is of strategical value so the winning side decides it's better to hold him captive instead of killing him right away. If the prisoner wants to sacrifice his life he can try to do so but he will be beaten unconsious and robbed off his weapons so he's no danger.

Sounds good!

[Lukepop]

It was just an idea. I think Retreat is good. Retreat or hold your ground while their reinforcements pour in.

[Thokan]

It was just an idea. I think Retreat is good. Retreat or hold your ground while their reinforcements pour in.

Hold your ground, literally, is implemented into the game already as a battle order.

http://lifeisfeudal.gamepedia.com/Unit

[Proximo]

And about prisoners: I dont think it is good to steal peoples time. LiF is still a game and we should be able to play it, whenever we want. What when you would catch a char and never release him? Then I would prefere to let my char dying on the battlefield, and I am sure I can play whenever I want.

Well, surely. I wasn't talking about a game mechanic here either. I was talking about players voluntarily agreeing (more or less) on taking someone prisoner instead of killing him.
Maybe the prisoner has gear he doesn't want to lose and the captor agrees on negotiating a ransom instead.
Or maybe the prisoner is of strategical value so the winning side decides it's better to hold him captive instead of killing him right away. If the prisoner wants to sacrifice his life he can try to do so but he will be beaten unconsious and robbed off his weapons so he's no danger.

It's a very rare situation where a player will want to be held prisoner for any period of time. This is still a video game and many people have limited amount of time to play. In war and battle there is no alignment hit for killing and your victory prize is authority and all the loot. Adding control over individual players is just a tedious option.

The objective of official battles between clans is to gain enough authority to siege the opposing clans city. If your talking about retreat and surrender for battles specifically then that could be a viable option besides fighting to the death although less fun.

You would have to penalize retreat or surrender from a battle so people don't abuse it to cut there losses. For example fighting to the death obviously means you lose 100% loot and authority.

Then you could add many options to retreat and surrender. A few examples would be a flat loss of 75% gear or a debuff to your entire army while a retreat timer goes down for like 5 minutes. You could call it panic or routing debuff and it would add negative effects to all fighting potential.

You could do that or make it so the winners get to dictate the terms of the surrender. Basically if a army surrenders then the winners have to pick from a few options of what the terms will be and the surrender will only work if both parties accept. Options could be 100% loot, 75%, 50%, 25% or 0% and let the enemy walk away free. This may be useful if there was a political change or a deal was struck because they knew they would not win or for some other reason.

[Siegbert]

It's a very rare situation where a player will want to be held prisoner for any period of time.

Okay, granted. But what about my other example:
you as the winning side manage to capture the other guild's leader. You rob him off weapons and by threatening to beat him unconcious if he tries to escape you can force him to stay with you. (Bobik mentioned the possibility to drag uncouncious people around if I'm not mistaken.)
He would have no way to harm you or get away so he either needs his guild members to try to rescue him by force or have them pay for him. I would be perfectly viable and make for an interesting meta game.

[Proximo]

It's a very rare situation where a player will want to be held prisoner for any period of time.

Okay, granted. But what about my other example:
you as the winning side manage to capture the other guild's leader. You rob him off weapons and by threatening to beat him unconcious if he tries to escape you can force him to stay with you. (Bobik mentioned the possibility to drag uncouncious people around if I'm not mistaken.)
He would have no way to harm you or get away so he either needs his guild members to try to rescue him by force or have them pay for him. I would be perfectly viable and make for an interesting meta game.

Recall to home. If they created a jail or something to hold people so they cannot recall then entire clans would get jailed forever.

[Siegbert]

Yeah... there would need to be a maximal time frame for imprisonment of some sort, obviously.

[Honzadr]

if there is no one who can rescue you, you have to kill yourself
by rejecting food

[Siegbert]

Lol, didn't think about that that's actually a possibility in this game

[Proximo]

You guys are missing the point completely.

[Honzadr]

Recall to home. If they created a jail or something to hold people so they cannot recall then entire clans would get jailed forever.

if there is no one who can rescue you, you have to kill yourself
by rejecting food

i don´t think so
two options
1. kill yourself
2. wait for rescue
what did i missed?

[Proximo]

You missed the part where it's a huge waste of game time for whoever is the prisoner. The exact first thing I said in this thread.

[Thokan]

You missed the part where it's a huge waste of game time for whoever is the prisoner. The exact first thing I said in this thread.

+1

[Honzadr]

You missed the part where it's a huge waste of game time for whoever is the prisoner. The exact first thing I said in this thread.

so let´s get portal gun, because running is waste of time and generator of materials, because mining is boring,remove hunger bar, because that is just waste of time, build freaking plane, because traveling is annoying
yes, that is how you imagine good medieval simulator?
remove option to take someone as prisoner, even when solution to it is so simple, kill your character and it doesn´t matter if it is death by starvation or by stone in his skull

[Thokan]

You missed the part where it's a huge waste of game time for whoever is the prisoner. The exact first thing I said in this thread.

so let´s get portal gun, because running is waste of time and generator of materials, because mining is boring,remove hunger bar, because that is just waste of time, build freaking plane, because traveling is annoying
yes, that is how you imagine good medieval simulator?
remove option to take someone as prisoner, even when solution to it is so simple, kill your character and it doesn´t matter if it is death by starvation or by stone in his skull

Explain to me how logging in and being forced to wait is essential to the game?

It is a game influenced by medieval times. It is not a simulator.

[Riboy98]

You missed the part where it's a huge waste of game time for whoever is the prisoner. The exact first thing I said in this thread.

so let´s get portal gun, because running is waste of time and generator of materials, because mining is boring,remove hunger bar, because that is just waste of time, build freaking plane, because traveling is annoying
yes, that is how you imagine good medieval simulator?
remove option to take someone as prisoner, even when solution to it is so simple, kill your character and it doesn´t matter if it is death by starvation or by stone in his skull

Explain to me how logging in and being forced to wait is essential to the game?

It is a game influenced by medieval times. It is not a simulator.

+1

[Honzadr]

Explain to me how logging in and being forced to wait is essential to the game?

It is a game influenced by medieval times. It is not a simulator.

did you even read it?
"being forced to wait" i said at least once that there should be option to make suicide *facepalm
what is your point now?
you want to be killed on battlefield immediately, rather than get chance to cause havoc in enemy castle?(if you will escape)
or you thought that prison should be indestructible ?

[Thokan]

Explain to me how logging in and being forced to wait is essential to the game?

It is a game influenced by medieval times. It is not a simulator.

did you even read it?
"being forced to wait" i said at least once that there should be option to make suicide *facepalm
what is your point now?
you want to be killed on battlefield immediately, rather than get chance to cause havoc in enemy castle?(if you will escape)
or you thought that prison should be indestructible ?

Lol, yes. I would rather die and respawn, and continue playing the game.

[Paskiboy]

Much more interesting for me would be if there is any benefit in taking prisoners and if it's possible at all. Surely all you can get from looting an enemy is his personal stuff, but when you imprisonate him you can steal something more precious from him: his time. So in order to get free he would need his guild members to bring over some gold or prisoners of their own.

Now that is something I would NOT like, it would be game breaking and just simply annoying and boring for the player in question, if the prisoner doesn't experience any RP whatsoever and actually is forced to do things by others. It takes away the whole "freedom"-aspect of the game. Somet thing can't simply be implemented, even if they just seem like another cool feature.

[Siegbert]

Much more interesting for me would be if there is any benefit in taking prisoners and if it's possible at all. Surely all you can get from looting an enemy is his personal stuff, but when you imprisonate him you can steal something more precious from him: his time. So in order to get free he would need his guild members to bring over some gold or prisoners of their own.

Now that is something I would NOT like, it would be game breaking and just simply annoying and boring for the player in question, if the prisoner doesn't experience any RP whatsoever and actually is forced to do things by others. It takes away the whole "freedom"-aspect of the game. Somet thing can't simply be implemented, even if they just seem like another cool feature.

Yeah, imprisonment takes away the freedom
But it adds to the meta game.

I'm not suggesting that you'll be teleported into a prison cell and have no chance of interaction at all...
They way I imagine it is that your captor has to guard you and escort or possibly knock you unconsious for a couple of seconds and carry you to their place.
It would be exciting the whole time since your party can get attacked all the way by your captive's guild members, also he could try to run and get caught by you again.

Of course there would need something to be in there for both parties. In real life you would prefer to get captured rather than get killed because your life is valuable. In a game your life is irrelevant, but your gear and time might be.
I wouldn't suggest that you can be held prisoner forever, but for a couple of hours maybe after which you'll be set free or your ability to pray yourself home will be reactivated again.

It shouldn't be a punishment for you in regards of you being excluded from experiencing the game.
For instance: your party is attacking another guild's settlement all the time no matter how often you get killed. Then a considerable amount of your guild members get captured so the other guild has time to repair their stuff or set up defenses while you can try to organize an escape.

It's not like I'm not talking from experience. I have witnessed a couple of prisoner situations in Mount&Blade mods "Persistent World" and "Persistent Frontier". Granted it's more a roleplay thing there because there really is no consequence of dying other than you'll lose your gear. The maps are really tiny as well.
But it's exciting to be in the situation to having to deal with prisoners and being a prisoner yourself.

Once I've been tricked into stepping into a cell and was immediately sold into slavery until someone came around, "bought" me and gave me back my freedom. Was very entertaining

[Proximo]

As a game mechanic, nope. Done so as RP is fine.

[Lukepop]

Omg no offense people but this thread is about Retreat and Surrender. Surrender being yielding.

Please it would be nice if you stayed on topic.

[Proximo]

Omg no offense people but this thread is about Retreat and Surrender. Surrender being yielding.

Please it would be nice if you stayed on topic.

People respond to posts made, not our fault the conversation has shifted. Were not ******* robots.

[Honzadr]

Omg no offense people but this thread is about Retreat and Surrender. Surrender being yielding.

Please it would be nice if you stayed on topic.

People respond to posts made, not our fault the conversation has shifted. Were not ******* robots.

i agree

i don´t even remember what was the original idea about

[Kern]

Sorry to talk again about prisoners, but maybe we can do it with advantages for the winner without waiting for the prisoners.

What if there is a kind of ransom to be payed for prisoners, and the amount of money could be provided by work. The prisoners would have to work for their jailers, until the value of their work is equal to their ransom (determined by social position). The ransom can also be payed by the prisoners faction, which would handle two cases:

- The prisoner is a simple footman, no one will pay for his ransom (and yet we can imagine that a faction can pay for a group of prisoners). Their ransom is small, so they can do work that the jailers doesn't want to do themselves (mining, chop wood...) for a few time. They also can escape, but they take risk for their lives and possibly loss of alignment.

- The prisoner is an officer or lord/king. The faction will have to pay a huge ransom, or some free officers will take their chance to replace their leader and forsake him. Then his ransom will be as low as footman, but he have lost his social position.