Forwarded Surrender button always active

[Umbrathor]

Proposal:
Make it possible to surrender immediately at the start of a battle.

Currently, the Surrender button is greyed out at the start of a battle until one of your troops has initiative. My suggestion is to make it possible to surrender even if you do not have initiative yet.

I have searched the Forum for 'Surrender' and not found any similar suggestions.


Reason:
It saves time. If you employ a tactic that requires you to surrender and restart several times in a row, for instance when you are looking for a specific kind of terrain to fight in, you have to wait until you get initiative. If you happen to have an amry that gets initiative much later than the opposing army, you lose a lot of time for no good reason.


Details:
The button is gold / active at the start of any battle, just like the auto attack button.

If any opposing troops have initiative before you do, and can damage your troops on their turn, there are two options for how surrendering early works:

1. The AI immediately calculates and applies the damage you would have sustained (just like if you had waited for your initiative to surrender, as in the current situation)
2. Any troops that would have gotten initiave before you pressed Surrender, do not get to act and therefore do not do damage

I propose option 1, since I am merely looking to save time. However, I can see how option 2 would make sense in situations where people have misjudged a battle, and want to bail out to minimize losses. Or for attacking with 7 rogues and one other unit. If the player loses that unit early on, they want to be able to bail out before any (more) rogues get damaged. So option 2 seems fine to me as well, and in line with the idea of how surrendering works.


Balance:
It makes tactics that rely on specific terrain types more viable, and therefore awards tactical play. Especially when using troops that can take advantage of specific terrain features, that give attack/defense bonuses or the ability to hide, or the advantage artillery has in battlefields with difficult terrain versus the advantage when using melee troops on terrain with few obstacles to allow them to easily reach opposing troops.

If option 2 (above) were implemented, it would save some damaged/lost troops. Doesn't seem exploitable to me.


Abuse Prevention:
If surrendering and restarting battles to get more favorable terrain is considered an exploit, than this option would not open us a new expluit, but make an existing exploit easier. If it is not considered an exploit but a feature / tactical option, than it makes for faster and therefore better gameplay.

I do not see any potential exploits if option 2 were implemented. The attacking troops can still get damaged or be lost, if one isn't fast enough.


Summary:
I propose making Surrendering possible at the moment a battle is started, with any damage applied by opposing troops until the initiative of the first attacking unit.

If a majority of people prefer option 2. I will change the proposal to making Surrendering possible at the moment a battle is started, with any damage applied by opposing troops who (have) act(ed) up to the moment the Surrender button was clicked.

 

[Darrth Eugene Vader3]

In how many of those fights does it matter when you can speed up?

Seconds adds up. Any time saved in the total fights (off all kinds) I complete during a playing session (or all separate playing sessions) of 30 minutes, 2 hours, or whatever time I dedicate to play on any day, means more time on that(those) playing session(s) for more relevant actions like:

• developing my city,
• doing quests, daily challenges
• complete techs research
• interacting with guild members, friends, or other players,
• Guild Founder duties,
• using other game features (market, tavern, settlements, auction dealer, GB leveling, etc.)

Everything else than just staring at the screen waiting for the game allowing me to act again, either at other fight or at anything else in the game.

Do 30 seconds, 3 minutes, or any other time saved form total fights matter?

• Most auctions are won or lost in the last 30 seconds or even shorter than that, specially those auctioning a very valued reward.
• A top winning GB position can be secured or grabed from another player in just seconds, if you get into the GB at the right moment and not are stuck staring at the screen during a delay.
• Positions in GE can be defined / changed in the last few minutes if enough fights or negotiations are completed before the other guild(s).
• other examples exits, list not intented to be all inclusive.

What are you? My mother?

I dont think Umbrathor is your mother. And I'm not your father (you are not Luke, right?).
Forum rules are not your mother either. However, Forum rules include:
General Guidelines
- Please keep all communications respectful of the Community and Staff at all times.

Surely you have read this before. Do you have carte blanche to ignore Forum rules???

 

[Umbrathor]

Saving seconds isn't the reason. Reason is to make it easier to get to the fight you want. Compare it to RQ's where players also want it to be nade easier to get to the one they want.

Saving seconds is the reason for the proposed change. The fights do not get any easier for speeding up the surrender mechanic.

 

[Sl8yer]

The fights do not get any easier for speeding up the surrender mechanic.

It just gets easier to get the fight you want. Same as with RQ's, if you can skip the ones you do not want.

 

[Umbrathor]

It just gets easier to get the fight you want. Same as with RQ's, if you can skip the ones you do not want.

No, it does not get easier to get the terrain you want. Just faster. Your comment was, after all: "Saving seconds isn't the reason." Yes, it is.

You continue to misrepresent the proposal into it making fights easier. It doesn't. The fights remain equally hard. One surrenders when one doesn't like the odds, and one restarts the fight to get better odds. That is what the surrender mechanic is for, after all.

Nevertheless you keep repeating that the proposal is meant to make the game easier, because that is an argument for getting the proposal dismissed. So every time you misrepresent it in that way, I will correct you. We've been doing that for several pages now.

 

[Sl8yer]

No, it does not get easier to get the terrain you want. Just faster. Your comment was, after all: "Saving seconds isn't the reason." Yes, it is.

Faster would be to do the first attack on auto and see what happens.

You are looking for the optimal terrain for you to use so you can win the batle with less damage. That's easier all day. Even more easier would be for you to propose you could save this terrain for future use.

You continue to misrepresent the proposal into it making fights easier. It doesn't. The fights remain equally hard. One surrenders when one doesn't like the odds, and one restarts the fight to get better odds. That is what the surrender mechanic is for, after all.

They do not remain equally hard, cause you are looking for a terrain that is to your advantage and to the disadvantage of your opponent.

Nevertheless you keep repeating that the proposal is meant to make the game easier, because that is an argument for getting the proposal dismissed. So every time you misrepresent it in that way, I will correct you. We've been doing that for several pages now.

It is. Keep correcting me if you want. That does not make you right. If saving seconds is your priority, you just attack without retreating. Your priority is however retreating till the easy fight.

 

[Umbrathor]

Faster would be to do the first attack on auto and see what happens.

Quite right, and obviously beside the point. If the player in question considered that result satisfactory, that player would not check the terrain first.

You are looking for the optimal terrain for you to use so you can win the battle with less damage. That's easier all day. They do not remain equally hard, cause you are looking for a terrain that is to your advantage and to the disadvantage of your opponent.

The proposal is not to change the terrain, because that already happens. The proposal is to make surrendering faster. Which does not make the fights easier.

We do agree that different terrain means different odds to win the fight. And you call that easier. I do not quite agree with that either. It is where you call the glass half empty, and I call it half full. It is still the exact same fight, on terrain that you can better use to your advantage. I call that improving the odds, setting up for tactical play (and more fun), you call it 'easier.'

But it is still the same fight. Your odds to win with less damage increase, your odds are better. But you still need to cash in on those with tactical play by using the features of the terrain. The fight is not any easier. You will say it is, I will say it isn't. Half full, half empty. That is why I proposed to just agree to disagree. We look at this differently and that will not change.

[Edit: another way of saying it is: we do not (at this point) disagree about facts. If we did, one would be wrong, the other would be right. We disagree on views. Different viewpoints. That is not likely to change.]

 

[Darrth Eugene Vader3]

The proposal is not to change the terrain, because that already happens. The proposal is to make surrendering faster. Which does not make the fights easier.

We do agree that different terrain means different odds to win the fight. And you call that easier. I do not quite agree with that either. It is where you call the glass half empty, and I call it half full. It is still the exact same fight, on terrain that you can better use to your advantage. I call that improving the odds, setting up for tactical play (and more fun), you call it 'easier.'

But it is still the same fight. Your odds to win with less damage increase, your odds are better. But you still need to cash in on those with tactical play by using the features of the terrain. The fight is not any easier. You will say it is, I will say it isn't. Half full, half empty. That is why I proposed to just agree to disagree. We look at this differently and that will not change.

[Edit: another way of saying it is: we do not (at this point) disagree about facts. If we did, one would be wrong, the other would be right. We disagree on views. Different viewpoints. That is not likely to change.]

Can we agree to move on to other points of the proposal to discuss? Both of you have explained the your views clearly, Do Staff needs more information on this to Judge if the proposal should be forwarded to developers or filed at other sub-folder? Or if forwarded, developers need more information to judge if the change shall not be implemented because "it would make the game easier" vs proposal still got merit for development evaluation because "making surrendering faster" is aligned with their views of improving game efficiency or other specific Development Team goals?

 

[Umbrathor]

Can we agree to move on to other points of the proposal to discuss? Do Staff needs more information on this to Judge if the proposal should be forwarded to developers or filed at other sub-folder?

Moving on to other points: fine by me.
As for what the staff needs, I do not know. I see 23 votes, 12 of which supporting option one, 6 keeping things the way they are, and 5 for option 2. So about three quarters of the people who voted would like to see a faster surrender mechanic, with most of them supporting option 1. Fairly clear.

 

[Sl8yer]

The proposal is not to change the terrain, because that already happens. The proposal is to make surrendering faster. Which does not make the fights easier.

The proposal is to make surrendering faster, so you can go look for the easier fight. Same as with RQ's you are looking for the easy one you want to do. You can call it all you want, it is about making the fights easier.

We do agree that different terrain means different odds to win the fight. And you call that easier. I do not quite agree with that either. It is where you call the glass half empty, and I call it half full. It is still the exact same fight, on terrain that you can better use to your advantage. I call that improving the odds, setting up for tactical play (and more fun), you call it 'easier.'

More fun would be piccking a harder fight and still win. You want the most easy one. You want to do the same crossword every day. Nothing tactical about that.

But it is still the same fight. Your odds to win with less damage increase, your odds are better. But you still need to cash in on those with tactical play by using the features of the terrain. The fight is not any easier. You will say it is, I will say it isn't. Half full, half empty. That is why I proposed to just agree to disagree. We look at this differently and that will not change.

It's the same fight. The easy fight over and over again. Doing the same thing every time all the time isn't tactical, unless your tactic is to fight the eay fight.

You also proposed this.

Nevertheless you keep repeating that the proposal is meant to make the game easier, because that is an argument for getting the proposal dismissed. So every time you misrepresent it in that way, I will correct you. We've been doing that for several pages now.

 

[Umbrathor]

The proposal is to make surrendering faster, so you can go look for the easier fight. Same as with RQ's you are looking for the easy one you want to do. You can call it all you want, it is about making the fights easier.

You continue to repeat yourself. Glass half empy/half full. Not going into that again.

More fun would be piccking a harder fight and still win. You want the most easy one. You want to do the same crossword every day. Nothing tactical about that.

The fun for me is in using the army composition and terrain features and other tactical advantages to the fullest. That is way, way more satisfying than clicking auto. I often manually play even fights I could easily win on auto just for the fun of playing tactically.

It's a puzzle. A challenge you set youself: how can I play in such a way that - for instance - the opponent's hover tanks reveal themselves (end up on water of foliage), that I leave the artillery that cannot attack my fliers till last. That kind of thing. That's fun. There is nothing easy about that.

 

[Sl8yer]

You continue to repeat yourself. Glass half empy/half full. Not going into that again.

Yes you are. You keep trying to make it look different, but in the end it is about finding the most easy fight.

The fun for me is in using the army composition and terrain features and other tactical advantages to the fullest. That is way, way more satisfying than clicking auto. I often manually play even fights I could easily win on auto just for the fun of playing tactically.

That fun you can also have with less easier fights. What you are now saying is that tha game should be adapted to your "fun". I think the hard negotiations are the most fun. Does that means the others have to disapper, or should I accept that I am not the only player?

It's a puzzle. A challenge you set youself: how can I play in such a way that - for instance - the opponent's hover tanks reveal themselves (end up on water of foliage), that I leave the artillery that cannot attack my fliers till last. That kind of thing. That's fun. There is nothing easy about that.

It is a puzzle on any terrain. From a box with 10 puzzles you only want to do the easy puzzle. You ignore all other puzzles. The same puzzle every time is no challenge.

 

[Umbrathor]

That fun you can also have with less easier fights. What you are now saying is that tha game should be adapted to your "fun". I think the hard negotiations are the most fun. Does that means the others have to disapper, or should I accept that I am not the only player?

What I take from this is that your fun is different from my fun and that you don't see then need to accommodate what other players consider to be fun if you do not consider it fun. The rest of your post is just repetition and provocation. Been there. Done with that.

 

[Umbrathor]

@moderators: do you have enough information?

 

[Pafton]

@moderators: do you have enough information?

Yes, thanks everyone for a very interesting discussion. We've decided to send this along. Do remember that forwarding does not necessarily guarantee implementation.