Forums » Suggestions
Surrendering
This is a topic that probably hasn't been covered in-depth for a good while, so I thought I'd resurrect the idea, and if it hasn't been brought up yet, then introduce it.
Right now, there are three possible outcomes to a fight, with the last very unlikely. Someone dies, someone runs, or both die. Many pirates wish for a fourth option--their victim complies with the order to stop/drop cargo/givemoney. Perhaps this new option will allow that, as well as other possibilities.
Here's how /surrender would work.
If, in a fight, one player drops below 20% (negotiable), they can /surrender ask "name". A bright message, much like the NFZ ones, shows up on the opponent's computer, and they can /surrender accept "name" or /surrender decline "name" (these could all be pre-bound by the devs in an update). If the person A surrenders to person B, person A's weapons can do no damage to person B (friendly fire protection). Moreover, person B can kill person A at any time by typing /kill "name". Person A then defines the parameters for person B's freedom. It might be deliverying cargo to a station, fighting alongside him, or acting as escort duty for a set amount of time (there would be a max limit on how much time Person A has /kill power over Person B).
When Person A is satisfied, they /surrender release "name", and person B is free to go about his business. Note that if a person surrenders, all of their players in servitude are released.
What practical effect does this have in-game? Well, first off, I'd like to emphasize that you don't HAVE to surrender, as much as your enemy doesn't have to accept your surrender. However, I think it will lead to more "humane" (for lack of a better word) gameplaying. Killing your opponent outright might be less profitable than holding him in temporary servitude. Of course, the sadistic would just /kill their prizes outright and people would learn not to surrender to them. Or the ruthless would refuse to accept surrenders, and that favor would end up being reciprocated.
Surrender could offer an honorable outcome to many spats and result in less hurt feelings. After all, the losing guy takes the initiative to offer his surrender. His honor is sustained and his opponent sets terms for his release. Both sides win, in the end. One guy avoids death without running, the other has services performed for him.
Suggested time-limit on servitude: 15 minutes up to 1 hour.
Right now, there are three possible outcomes to a fight, with the last very unlikely. Someone dies, someone runs, or both die. Many pirates wish for a fourth option--their victim complies with the order to stop/drop cargo/givemoney. Perhaps this new option will allow that, as well as other possibilities.
Here's how /surrender would work.
If, in a fight, one player drops below 20% (negotiable), they can /surrender ask "name". A bright message, much like the NFZ ones, shows up on the opponent's computer, and they can /surrender accept "name" or /surrender decline "name" (these could all be pre-bound by the devs in an update). If the person A surrenders to person B, person A's weapons can do no damage to person B (friendly fire protection). Moreover, person B can kill person A at any time by typing /kill "name". Person A then defines the parameters for person B's freedom. It might be deliverying cargo to a station, fighting alongside him, or acting as escort duty for a set amount of time (there would be a max limit on how much time Person A has /kill power over Person B).
When Person A is satisfied, they /surrender release "name", and person B is free to go about his business. Note that if a person surrenders, all of their players in servitude are released.
What practical effect does this have in-game? Well, first off, I'd like to emphasize that you don't HAVE to surrender, as much as your enemy doesn't have to accept your surrender. However, I think it will lead to more "humane" (for lack of a better word) gameplaying. Killing your opponent outright might be less profitable than holding him in temporary servitude. Of course, the sadistic would just /kill their prizes outright and people would learn not to surrender to them. Or the ruthless would refuse to accept surrenders, and that favor would end up being reciprocated.
Surrender could offer an honorable outcome to many spats and result in less hurt feelings. After all, the losing guy takes the initiative to offer his surrender. His honor is sustained and his opponent sets terms for his release. Both sides win, in the end. One guy avoids death without running, the other has services performed for him.
Suggested time-limit on servitude: 15 minutes up to 1 hour.
Re: SirCamps
> Here's how /surrender would work.
> If, in a fight, one player drops below 20% (negotiable), they can /surrender ask "name". A bright message, much like the NFZ ones, shows up on the
> opponent's computer, and they can /surrender accept "name" or /surrender decline "name" (these could all be pre-bound by the devs in an update). If the
> person A surrenders to person B, person A's weapons can do no damage to person B (friendly fire protection). Moreover, person B can kill person A at any
> time by typing /kill "name". Person A then defines the parameters for person B's freedom. It might be deliverying cargo to a station, fighting alongside
> him, or acting as escort duty for a set amount of time (there would be a max limit on how much time Person A has /kill power over Person B).
Personally, I agree with most of this suggestion, except for the "/kill 'name'" part. What would be the incentive to surrender if the opponent can kill the player at any time? Besides, under international law, this is illegal, and I don't think that it should be encouraged in-game. The only incentive that I can think of to use this option would be to humiliate the hostage, and it only builds enmity in-game, not enjoyment (except, perhaps, for extremely sadistic players whose sole purpose is to detract enjoyment from other players by deliberately humiliating them, and who therefore probably shouldn't be playing in the first place).
Otherwise, I think that this is overall a good suggestion, although I would also remove the "below 20%" requirement, and allow surrendering at any level of health--historically, armies have occasionally surrendered without bloodshed upon simply facing overwhelming odds, and I feel that this should be allowed in-game as well.
-- DekuDekuplex Ornitier
> Here's how /surrender would work.
> If, in a fight, one player drops below 20% (negotiable), they can /surrender ask "name". A bright message, much like the NFZ ones, shows up on the
> opponent's computer, and they can /surrender accept "name" or /surrender decline "name" (these could all be pre-bound by the devs in an update). If the
> person A surrenders to person B, person A's weapons can do no damage to person B (friendly fire protection). Moreover, person B can kill person A at any
> time by typing /kill "name". Person A then defines the parameters for person B's freedom. It might be deliverying cargo to a station, fighting alongside
> him, or acting as escort duty for a set amount of time (there would be a max limit on how much time Person A has /kill power over Person B).
Personally, I agree with most of this suggestion, except for the "/kill 'name'" part. What would be the incentive to surrender if the opponent can kill the player at any time? Besides, under international law, this is illegal, and I don't think that it should be encouraged in-game. The only incentive that I can think of to use this option would be to humiliate the hostage, and it only builds enmity in-game, not enjoyment (except, perhaps, for extremely sadistic players whose sole purpose is to detract enjoyment from other players by deliberately humiliating them, and who therefore probably shouldn't be playing in the first place).
Otherwise, I think that this is overall a good suggestion, although I would also remove the "below 20%" requirement, and allow surrendering at any level of health--historically, armies have occasionally surrendered without bloodshed upon simply facing overwhelming odds, and I feel that this should be allowed in-game as well.
-- DekuDekuplex Ornitier
Hmm, I'd rather not see the devs spend their time implementing a feature which serves little purpose other than to humiliate an already defeated opponent.
[stamp of disapproval]
[stamp of disapproval]
Clarification:
The "kill" feature would be to prevent the hostage from running off, knowing that they die if they don't follow the captor's orders.
Re: Phaserlight: If the captor is just going to humiliate the hostage, they will learn once and people just won't surrender to that person. The point of /surrender is to provide an acceptable and honorable outcome to a fight, as well as providing traders with a reason beyond a pirate's alleged good will to slow down and follow a pirate's wishes. Currently it's escape or die, because there is really no acceptable way for a pirate to board/commandeer/steal from a trading vessel.
The "kill" feature would be to prevent the hostage from running off, knowing that they die if they don't follow the captor's orders.
Re: Phaserlight: If the captor is just going to humiliate the hostage, they will learn once and people just won't surrender to that person. The point of /surrender is to provide an acceptable and honorable outcome to a fight, as well as providing traders with a reason beyond a pirate's alleged good will to slow down and follow a pirate's wishes. Currently it's escape or die, because there is really no acceptable way for a pirate to board/commandeer/steal from a trading vessel.
Re: SirCamps
> The "kill" feature would be to prevent the hostage from running off, knowing that they die if they don't follow the captor's orders.
Sorry, but I can't see it actually being used in that way. Instead, I see it being used to coerce larger and larger exortions from hostages, and possibly eventually just to finish them off in the end.
The situation would happen somewhat similarly to the following:
Pirate gets newbie trader down to 20% health. Pirate offers to let trader surrender with only a 1000 c charge. Trader surrenders. Pirate then claims he/she mistyped, and now demands a 100000 c charge. Trader can only afford 10000 c, and pays 10000 c to pirate. Pirate tells trader he/she will spare trader's life if trader reveals location of three asteroids with at least 50% of Pentric ore. Trader reveals location of two asteroids, but can't find third asteroid. Pirate gets angry, and "/kill's" the trader. Pirate then types "That'll teach ya! Yar! lol" to trader, and leaves. Newbie trader gets sick of playing, and quits VO completely.
> Re: Phaserlight: If the captor is just going to humiliate the hostage, they will learn once and people just won't surrender to that person.
While I don't mean to interrupt, I must say that this isn't necessarily true. Different people log on at different times, and new people keep creating new accounts. There will always be some ignorant poor player who will surrender even to such a dishonorable pirate unknowingly.
Sorry, but there are just too many ways to exploit the "/kill" command. Killing hostages is illegal under even current international law, and fleeing hostages should be captured, not killed. If necessary, just replace the "/kill" command with a "/freeze" command that freezes the hostage ship without destroying it. But I can't agree with any form of any "/kill" command.
[Stamp of Disapproval to "/kill" command]
-- DekuDekuplex Ornitier
> The "kill" feature would be to prevent the hostage from running off, knowing that they die if they don't follow the captor's orders.
Sorry, but I can't see it actually being used in that way. Instead, I see it being used to coerce larger and larger exortions from hostages, and possibly eventually just to finish them off in the end.
The situation would happen somewhat similarly to the following:
Pirate gets newbie trader down to 20% health. Pirate offers to let trader surrender with only a 1000 c charge. Trader surrenders. Pirate then claims he/she mistyped, and now demands a 100000 c charge. Trader can only afford 10000 c, and pays 10000 c to pirate. Pirate tells trader he/she will spare trader's life if trader reveals location of three asteroids with at least 50% of Pentric ore. Trader reveals location of two asteroids, but can't find third asteroid. Pirate gets angry, and "/kill's" the trader. Pirate then types "That'll teach ya! Yar! lol" to trader, and leaves. Newbie trader gets sick of playing, and quits VO completely.
> Re: Phaserlight: If the captor is just going to humiliate the hostage, they will learn once and people just won't surrender to that person.
While I don't mean to interrupt, I must say that this isn't necessarily true. Different people log on at different times, and new people keep creating new accounts. There will always be some ignorant poor player who will surrender even to such a dishonorable pirate unknowingly.
Sorry, but there are just too many ways to exploit the "/kill" command. Killing hostages is illegal under even current international law, and fleeing hostages should be captured, not killed. If necessary, just replace the "/kill" command with a "/freeze" command that freezes the hostage ship without destroying it. But I can't agree with any form of any "/kill" command.
[Stamp of Disapproval to "/kill" command]
-- DekuDekuplex Ornitier
Hmm, I thought of something like this once. How about if the surrender is /surrender "Mr. B" "money". One "Mr. A" enters the surrender command, he becomes invulnerable to "Mr.B" and cannot move until "Mr.B" replies or leaves the sector or takes more than 30 seconds to reply. The attacker gets a message, saying "Mr. A" is willing to surrender "money" credits. /surrender accept or /surrender decline. Accept transfers the credits and renders both invulnerable to each others (and only each other) shots until one of them leaves the sector. Decline enables both to harm each other. "Mr. B" can then either just leave or kill you (since you became a sitting duck) and pillage your cargo.
The main purpose as I thought this out is creating that risk factor. If "Mr. B" declines, they could either make a lot of money off your cargo or find no cargo, in which the trader gets the last laugh. Another thing is they have to make this decision fast if there are other pirates seeking your cargo. In which case, the trader has to surrender to each person, or just let the better pirate win.
The main purpose as I thought this out is creating that risk factor. If "Mr. B" declines, they could either make a lot of money off your cargo or find no cargo, in which the trader gets the last laugh. Another thing is they have to make this decision fast if there are other pirates seeking your cargo. In which case, the trader has to surrender to each person, or just let the better pirate win.
I'm not seeing why we would need a special surrender command, if a trader wants to surrender to a pirate right now, what's stopping them? Sure, they could lie to the pirate and then start running again, but I don't really see that as a problem.
I think the real reason that surrendering isn't a very common end result of combat right now, is because there's very little reason to surrender. The cost of a ship & a full load of trade goods isn't high enough for a trader (or anyone else) to worry about, they can recoup the loss easily. The devs have said they're planning on changing the economy soontm, so this might change, and we might see traders more willing to surrender.
I think the real reason that surrendering isn't a very common end result of combat right now, is because there's very little reason to surrender. The cost of a ship & a full load of trade goods isn't high enough for a trader (or anyone else) to worry about, they can recoup the loss easily. The devs have said they're planning on changing the economy soontm, so this might change, and we might see traders more willing to surrender.
At 20% by the time I'm halfway through the /surrender command I'll be dead, specially if I'm being attacked by weapons that deliver huge amounts of damage. Not to mention the huge abuses that /kill will bring about.
I fail to see the use of either command. Surrendering and humane treatment of a captive should be left completely at the discretion and actions of a player, and not enforced/helped by any in-game commands.
I fail to see the use of either command. Surrendering and humane treatment of a captive should be left completely at the discretion and actions of a player, and not enforced/helped by any in-game commands.
All commands can be bound to keys, so if there was a /surrender command, you could do something like "/bind 'S' surrender %target% 5000", and then just hitting shift-S would surrender to whoever you had targeted, without you having to take any time to type.
But actually, I could write a fairly decent surrender alias right now. The only things I couldn't have it do is enforce the no moving, invulnerability, or the kill command - which I don't think I'd necessarily like, anyway.
So, here's a rough surrender alias. It will send a message saying you're surrendering to whoever you have targetted, and will bring your ship to a stop as quickly as possible (using the emergency brakes alias), so the pirate will hopefully not kill you thinking you're trying to escape. After you & the pirate have worked out a deal, turn off the emergency brakes (using the z key in this example, easily changed to whatever key you want), and off you go.
alias ebrake_off "set flymodeflag 0 ; +Decelerate 0 ; +Brakes 0 ; bind z ebrake_on ; echo 'Emergency Brakes OFF'"
alias ebrake_on "set flymodeflag 1 ; +Decelerate ; +Brakes ; bind z ebrake_off ; echo 'Emergency Brakes ON'"
alias surrender "msg %target% I surrender! Don't kill me! ; ebrake_on"
But actually, I could write a fairly decent surrender alias right now. The only things I couldn't have it do is enforce the no moving, invulnerability, or the kill command - which I don't think I'd necessarily like, anyway.
So, here's a rough surrender alias. It will send a message saying you're surrendering to whoever you have targetted, and will bring your ship to a stop as quickly as possible (using the emergency brakes alias), so the pirate will hopefully not kill you thinking you're trying to escape. After you & the pirate have worked out a deal, turn off the emergency brakes (using the z key in this example, easily changed to whatever key you want), and off you go.
alias ebrake_off "set flymodeflag 0 ; +Decelerate 0 ; +Brakes 0 ; bind z ebrake_on ; echo 'Emergency Brakes OFF'"
alias ebrake_on "set flymodeflag 1 ; +Decelerate ; +Brakes ; bind z ebrake_off ; echo 'Emergency Brakes ON'"
alias surrender "msg %target% I surrender! Don't kill me! ; ebrake_on"
Wow, so pirates could become slave traders if this is implemented?
:)
:)
Dungeon-Online?
this just sounds bad all around. If you want to have surrender buttons, just make them yourself, if the pirate wants to comply he/she will, if not they'll kill you.
I think the only way to get the surrender option working in the trader/pirate relationship is to have a choice of responses to a hail.
For example:
Pirate: yarrr! pay me 10k!
1) pay 10k to pirate
2) decline
At that point the money is paid or not, if not the pirate will still chase, if so, we have to assume the pirate will break off. If the pirate still chases and kills the trader, they wont get payed again, news travels fast enough in vendetta.
That's basically just the game handling what already happens right now, a pirate makes a demand, and the trader either accepts the terms manually: "/givemoney pirate 10000" or declines: "no! :P"
This would make it easier for the traders, I have heard a few noobs complain about not knowing how to pay a pirate, and they were killed because of it.
I don't see any point in offering a surrender, and I don't think anyone would offer it anyways, it's easy enough to run.
For example:
Pirate: yarrr! pay me 10k!
1) pay 10k to pirate
2) decline
At that point the money is paid or not, if not the pirate will still chase, if so, we have to assume the pirate will break off. If the pirate still chases and kills the trader, they wont get payed again, news travels fast enough in vendetta.
That's basically just the game handling what already happens right now, a pirate makes a demand, and the trader either accepts the terms manually: "/givemoney pirate 10000" or declines: "no! :P"
This would make it easier for the traders, I have heard a few noobs complain about not knowing how to pay a pirate, and they were killed because of it.
I don't see any point in offering a surrender, and I don't think anyone would offer it anyways, it's easy enough to run.
I think we're trying to come up with solutions to not make sour pirate dealings. It's too easy to accidently kill someone after they pay you. They'll complain and will forever consider you the lowest of pirate scum. If you don't be quick about damaging traders, they get away. Pirates barely have the chance to ask for money, it just isn't an option. Either you kill them, or you don't. There's no time for payment, unless everyone wants to fight each other with feathers.
Bwahahaha. You're a slave driver Camps :P
This appeals to me strangely. But 15 minutes to an hour? Bah!
How about a few months >:D
This appeals to me strangely. But 15 minutes to an hour? Bah!
How about a few months >:D
i think it would be good if the devs would create a surrender alias similar to the curent hail alias. I mean we can do it ourselvs but it would help new and lazy players out a lot.
baisicly it would be a setable key that sends a setable mesage to your target. so, basicly a second hail option. you could say "I surrender" or "Hold on I'm sending the money now" so that the pirat gets the idea that you intend to pay. However for
the problem with surrender commands is that pirats usualy kill first and ask questions later because it is very difficult to sucessfuly catch and kill a fleeing oponent, and they don't want to take the risk of it being a trick by giving their mark enough time to comfortably type in the commands.
baisicly it would be a setable key that sends a setable mesage to your target. so, basicly a second hail option. you could say "I surrender" or "Hold on I'm sending the money now" so that the pirat gets the idea that you intend to pay. However for
the problem with surrender commands is that pirats usualy kill first and ask questions later because it is very difficult to sucessfuly catch and kill a fleeing oponent, and they don't want to take the risk of it being a trick by giving their mark enough time to comfortably type in the commands.
Cam's idea makes much more sense. A couple of keystrokes and the pirate is either paid or gunning you down.
Of course, the pirate could get paid and then still gun you down, but now at least it was done without having to work with binds, which some people (like me) avoid like the Plague.
Of course, the pirate could get paid and then still gun you down, but now at least it was done without having to work with binds, which some people (like me) avoid like the Plague.
A couple more Hails would be quite useful.
actually, on hails, is there any way to have the hail msg diff for each char. As it is now, you have to make a bind if you want to have seperate ones, and after a while you kind of run out of usable keys.
bind a key to cycle through hails, so you just cycle through them to get the correct one to bind to your single hail key. it'll also protect you from sending the wrong hail by using the wrong hail key.