PDA

View Full Version : logging off in combat


stinkylover
09-21-2009, 02:23 PM
so if i cant be attacked while i am offline (which i totally agree with) what happens if i am fighting another player (in the mmorts mode) and i log off because i am loosing, not that i want to do this but hypothetically what is to stop a player from doing this to save them self from being defeated?

i tried to find info on this but i couldn't so it there is already a post on this plz direct me to it

Darvin
09-21-2009, 02:32 PM
You can avoid any battle by paying the attacker off with tribute. If you "chicken", you will automatically pay the tribute.

stinkylover
09-21-2009, 02:42 PM
i can accept that and i like the idea but say you don't want to pay the tribute so you start the fight with intent to just log off and screw the other person over. or will it be once you start a battle you are committed and if you log off you forfeit . i just hop there is something in place to make sure it doesn't happen, because that would really ruin the game for me

Konstantin Fomenko
09-21-2009, 02:49 PM
Good question - our system if very complex:

As it stands now - the penalty for just quitting/disconnecting is:
-Some of your army`s resources (as much as it would have cost to sue for peace and not fight in the first place) will get transferred to the enemy player.
-if your army doesn`t have enougth resources to pay: 25% of your remaining non-military units will be killed, and 10% of your remaining military units will be killed.

If you want to quit battle properly without fighting to the last men, you have to Surrender. When you surrender - game pauses, and the enemy player has the option to reduce surrender fee by 25%, 50% or 100%. Or to spare your units if your army doesn`t have enougth resources.
The player who shows mercy will receive additional reward to Influence resource (that is used for research and unlocking real currency paid units and content)

Also, opponent you are currently fighting, if he/she`s winning, can offer you to surrender as well. But in that case the options are 50% or 100% discount, and automatically your units will be spared. But keep in mind - the wining player doesn`t know how many resources your army has, when he`s making his offer. So he might pick - 25% discount, spare enemy units if not enougth resources - and get nothing:)

In team games - team-mates can surrender separately - so make sure you have team meats who won`t bail on you.

Last thing to keep in mind - fighting to the last man, will give a large influence reward to the player who lost - for his bravery.

Puppeteer
09-21-2009, 02:54 PM
Either way, don't get attacked if you need to leave and log out soon!

Konstantin Fomenko
09-21-2009, 02:57 PM
I feel a question coming up about possibility to exploit this system - two friends fight each other, surrender right away, show mercy - and get free influence resource.

We`ll have couple of safety ideas in place - such as to surrender/offer surrender - over 20% of total unit population must be dead.

stinkylover
09-21-2009, 03:07 PM
Good question - our system if very complex:

As it stands now - the penalty for just quitting/disconnecting is:
-Some of your army`s resources (as much as it would have cost to sue for peace and not fight in the first place) will get transferred to the enemy player.
-if your army doesn`t have enougth resources to pay: 25% of your remaining non-military units will be killed, and 10% of your remaining military units will be killed.

If you want to quit battle properly without fighting to the last men, you have to Surrender. When you surrender - game pauses, and the enemy player has the option to reduce surrender fee by 25%, 50% or 100%. Or to spare your units if your army doesn`t have enougth resources.
The player who shows mercy will receive additional reward to Influence resource (that is used for research and unlocking real currency paid units and content)

Also, opponent you are currently fighting, if he/she`s winning, can offer you to surrender as well. But in that case the options are 50% or 100% discount, and automatically your units will be spared. But keep in mind - the wining player doesn`t know how many resources your army has, when he`s making his offer. So he might pick - 25% discount, spare enemy units if not enougth resources - and get nothing:)

In team games - team-mates can surrender separately - so make sure you have team meats who won`t bail on you.

Last thing to keep in mind - fighting to the last man, will give a large influence reward to the player who lost - for his bravery.


i like it :) thanks for the response

Josh Warner
09-21-2009, 05:39 PM
Good question - our system if very complex:

As it stands now - the penalty for just quitting/disconnecting is:
-Some of your army`s resources (as much as it would have cost to sue for peace and not fight in the first place) will get transferred to the enemy player.
-if your army doesn`t have enougth resources to pay: 25% of your remaining non-military units will be killed, and 10% of your remaining military units will be killed.

If you want to quit battle properly without fighting to the last men, you have to Surrender. When you surrender - game pauses, and the enemy player has the option to reduce surrender fee by 25%, 50% or 100%. Or to spare your units if your army doesn`t have enougth resources.
The player who shows mercy will receive additional reward to Influence resource (that is used for research and unlocking real currency paid units and content)

Also, opponent you are currently fighting, if he/she`s winning, can offer you to surrender as well. But in that case the options are 50% or 100% discount, and automatically your units will be spared. But keep in mind - the wining player doesn`t know how many resources your army has, when he`s making his offer. So he might pick - 25% discount, spare enemy units if not enougth resources - and get nothing:)

In team games - team-mates can surrender separately - so make sure you have team meats who won`t bail on you.

Last thing to keep in mind - fighting to the last man, will give a large influence reward to the player who lost - for his bravery.

Bolded the two parts that made me go O.o

So theoretically if you play enough, you wouldn't need to pay for content?

That system sounds great with the surrendering/quitter penalty though, I like it.

Darathor
09-21-2009, 05:48 PM
That system sounds quite sound, lol. I like the idea that if your awesome enough, you don't have to pay for all of the bonus thingy's.

sneaky_squirrel
09-21-2009, 08:50 PM
I think he emans that we will be able to buy them by unlocking them, not buying the locked units for free ;p.

Just hope they aren't essential for combat.

Josh Warner
09-21-2009, 09:07 PM
I think he emans that we will be able to buy them by unlocking them, not buying the locked units for free ;p.

Just hope they aren't essential for combat.

But then that suggests you HAVE to have the required 'influence' to unlock units you've already purchased? Otherwise it would be redundant if purchasing it gave you the influence, no? Neither of those seem right, though they could be. It's all speculation for now.

sneaky_squirrel
09-21-2009, 09:53 PM
But how would you purchase what is locked in the first place?

You do realize I mean purchase as in "spending real life cash", will we have to do that to purchase better units(Like other MMORTS)?

Josh Warner
09-21-2009, 10:35 PM
But how would you purchase what is locked in the first place?

You do realize I mean purchase as in "spending real life cash", will we have to do that to purchase better units(Like other MMORTS)?

Either I read it wrong or it confused me, either way, it has always been their intention to add little packs of content like extra units/quests for cash. I have no idea what their role will be/how powerful etc.

Puppeteer
09-22-2009, 11:48 AM
We`ll have couple of safety ideas in place - such as to surrender/offer surrender - over 20% of total unit population must be dead.
What if you absolutely have to leave, and someone attacked at the worst possible moment?

Konstantin Fomenko
09-22-2009, 01:51 PM
What if you absolutely have to leave, and someone attacked at the worst possible moment?
Pay them off...

The Witch King of Angmar
09-22-2009, 02:13 PM
Ohhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!! I do, in a way, think that there shouldn't be any alternative to get out of that situation due to the fact that people would abuse it. The rank system should help, though, to make sure that the game isn't over before it starts.

Konstantin Fomenko
09-22-2009, 06:17 PM
To clear up the Influence and unlocking paid content question.

It IS possible to pay a large amount of influence resources to unlock or buy paid content such as elite units or additional quests.

Both sides in the above argument are right:
-some elite units you would need to unlock for Influence or $, and then train them in your homeland - for example lets say dwarfish rifleman.
-other elite units, and quest packs, you can`t build but can buy for Influence (or $) - lets say you can buy 3 royal dragon, or a quest pack.

However, since research, and many other things in-game activities consume Influence - it would take a lot of hours to have extra influence to spend on paid content.

And after all - if you spend around 8$ on buying extra resources, quests and units - you will greatly support the developer - since we`ll be getting all the $. In fact when you spend just over 8$ - it`s like we sold extra copy of the game (once you count all the deductions for publishers, manufacturing e.t.c)

The Witch King of Angmar
09-22-2009, 08:13 PM
Now then, we will have a bank of some sort to buy these mission packs or will it be directly out of our resources during gameplay?

Thanks

Kaznafein
09-22-2009, 09:27 PM
o man o man I dint know about this payed content stuff this almost trashes my hopes for this game does this mean someone can come in and put 20 dollars a day into there account and just totally dominate anything :(. Sad day for me, I hope there is something in place to make it not to overbalanced I don't know how though. I dunno someone shed some light on this fear. Sure I understand it's good for the company and thats fine, I don't even mind that people that have the money to spend on this game do get some stuff to make them better off but I dont want to play a game were I have to keep putting money into the game to compete. Every once in a while would be alright i guess.

Also I have nothing against paying for expansion packs or even paying monthly but prefer the way guild wars does it.

sneaky_squirrel
09-22-2009, 10:07 PM
No worries, from what I heard you only battle those guys who you can actually give a fight ;p.

Who needs them (Content).

I really hope there to be guys who pay 20 daily, it would really help the company :D.

wills370
09-23-2009, 08:24 AM
I think a balance will be struck regarding the extra content for thoose who reach the maximum and want to diverse there gameplay.

There should also be a advanced rank system joining the gameplay to make sure that it remains level playing field when battleing other oppenent.

i like the idea but possiblly hold the extra quests off etc for a expansion?

Konstantin Fomenko
09-23-2009, 09:13 AM
I really hope there to be guys who pay 20 daily
This does sound good! Alas....we`ll have to impose a limit of something like 5$ per day.

Jean=A=Luc
09-23-2009, 12:12 PM
I think it'll balance out because those who spend a lot of $$$ on x-tra content will have severely impaired social skills so those who spend less money (or none) will be able to pwn them irl. :p

Darathor
09-23-2009, 12:24 PM
I think it'll balance out because those who spend a lot of $$$ on x-tra content will have severely impaired social skills so those who spend less money (or none) will be able to pwn them irl. :p

rofl.

But if you can buy resources with real money I think there should be a limit. I don't like it if someone can just pay more and get more advanced much quicker even if they don't know how to play the game as well as someone who has played for months. Also, if the creators of the game sell resources it will limit the amount of Chinese resource farmers there could possibly be in mmorts mode.

Kaznafein
09-23-2009, 02:07 PM
or they just have alot of money and do it becuase they can.

Puppeteer
09-23-2009, 03:05 PM
We, the cheap people, will have our own moral superiority.

wills370
09-24-2009, 01:46 PM
rofl.

But if you can buy resources with real money I think there should be a limit. I don't like it if someone can just pay more and get more advanced much quicker even if they don't know how to play the game as well as someone who has played for months. Also, if the creators of the game sell resources it will limit the amount of Chinese resource farmers there could possibly be in mmorts mode.

I dont beleive that will be a problem. As thoose who unless illegally produce the rescources via hacks there castles will be easy to take over and therefore food for everyone else. Just wish i have one of thoose next to me when i start :P should make a nice little bonus if i can take over a predominatly producer player.

Darathor
09-24-2009, 04:20 PM
Well, if all they do is get more and more resources, I think it will be quite easy to pay you off unless there is some severe scaling on the resource payment.

Kaznafein
09-25-2009, 10:17 AM
um if they purchase resources they will use them to build units you wont be able to build in the beggining. Due to ur lack of resources.

wills370
09-25-2009, 10:53 AM
um if they purchase resources they will use them to build units you wont be able to build in the beggining. Due to ur lack of resources.

Hmm intrsting point. Wondedr if there will be minimum requirements for each unit so you dont have the most elite units straight away etc.

Joseph Visscher
09-26-2009, 11:42 PM
The way I picture it,,,( I'm not exactly sure how Kon has it in his mind) is that you are able to buy(with Real Money) influence which you can gain by winning battles doing quests etc in game, influence is then used at our ingame online shop to purchase quest packs, resources, units, unique elite units, and special deals we release daily.

A player who buys influence or an experienced player that has tons of influence will then be able to go to our ingame online shop and spend it to say rebuy his armies after losing a battle and wanting to simply continue fighting instead of spending 1 hour rebuilding his armies or stronghold.
If you get good at sieging people, and have an awesome army, I could see you simply saving time and spending influence on your lost troops to get your Army back to it's primary game occupation... WAR! If not, go back to your homeland and get the peasantry back to work to start gathering resources to train a new army.

This method will let people that don't mind spending a bit more money for more action quicker for wars and battles; but also allowing players that don't want to spend more money to do exactly what everyone else can do but at a slower pace. It will also allow us to constantly make new content and quests to release to everyone for free unless you want to save time and buy influence,,, say for example 5$ for 50,000inf(100inf for 1 cent, buy a few battalions of swordsmen with that 100inf.), each battle won say gives you 100-1000inf. Each quest pack that adds a bunch of offline quests costs say 10,000 - 25,000inf each, we could even make expansion packs this way,,,100,000inf for a new fraction and expansion of the world map into DOF: Return of the Dragons? DOF2? Co-op Campaigns?
All influence would be nontransferable and only spent in our shop, so don't worry, there wont be a factory of Chinese children gathering digital non existent fake money to sell on ebay.

Players wont be overbalanced because this simply buys the units it doesn't rank them up, an experienced army will still kick the living S*** out of a newly purchased all level 1 army. Elite Units will simply be unlocked but will still be extremely costly to train, may take a large chunk of your population and upkeep, Dragons cost a lot too feed you know, and you can't seem to stop it from snacking on your dam Tower Guards! Lol. ;)


Disclaimer:
This post should be considered completely unconfirmed.

Darathor
09-27-2009, 08:33 AM
That seems like a good system to me. If it is like that, then I can see you guys making a fair amount of money doing that, and if it's put partially to making new content and quests for free, who can argue with that?

Supreme
09-27-2009, 11:21 AM
The problem is that 1. The bought influence will either be over- or underpowered. 2. they shouldnt do it at start. 3.It's a business so I have little hope in the expansions being totally free (because of those packages (expansions=more monies). )

The latter 2 being fine if the 1th one could be done correctly.

/thepessimisticme

Joseph Visscher
09-27-2009, 01:02 PM
The problem is that 1. The bought influence will either be over- or underpowered. 2. they shouldnt do it at start. 3.It's a business so I have little hope in the expansions being totally free (because of those packages (expansions=more monies). )

The latter 2 being fine if the 1th one could be done correctly.

/thepessimisticme

I see gaining influence a lot easier then you may think, doing quests for your kingdom, helping your Allies in combat and sieges, crushing your enemy to the point where he asks to surrender and then giving him mercy; defending your stronghold against 2 armies at once and winning the battle. Anything that would give you more power, control, and well influence on your kingdom in real life is what should give you influence to spend as you will in dof.
Win a battle 250-1000 times,,, there have a new expansion pack. Experienced hardcore players won't need to spend more money to play more of the game they love. I like the idea.
Pfft, Go play c&c3 win a battle 2000 times and what do you get? Rank 1563... nothing else, and you still need to go out and buy c&c3:kanes Wraith for 30$.
With Dawn of fantasy, win a war of 2000 battles or more and what do you get? Tons of influence to spend as you will to make the game even better with tons of quest packs and small expansion packs we will continually make after release, ability to stay in wars with pure hardcore battles with skipping the economy side of the game(only if you want) and buying and replacing your dead armies with influence; Make sure you take these new armies on the new quests so they can rank up a bit,,, Experience is the victor.

If this is what reverie is going to do in the end,,, I support it, in my opinion its not greedy and its honest sale that bonuses everyone, poor people don't need to spend more money, rich people can help Reverie and get everything formentioned above without having to play 1000-2000 games!

wills370
09-27-2009, 01:40 PM
I see gaining influence a lot easier then you may think, doing quests for your kingdom, helping your Allies in combat and sieges, crushing your enemy to the point where he asks to surrender and then giving him mercy; defending your stronghold against 2 armies at once and winning the battle. Anything that would give you more power, control, and well influence on your kingdom in real life is what should give you influence to spend as you will in dof.
Win a battle 250-1000 times,,, there have a new expansion pack. Experienced hardcore players won't need to spend more money to play more of the game they love. I like the idea.
Pfft, Go play c&c3 win a battle 2000 times and what do you get? Rank 1563... nothing else, and you still need to go out and buy c&c3:kanes Wraith for 30$.
With Dawn of fantasy, win a war of 2000 battles or more and what do you get? Tons of influence to spend as you will to make the game even better with tons of quest packs and small expansion packs we will continually make after release, ability to stay in wars with pure hardcore battles with skipping the economy side of the game(only if you want) and buying and replacing your dead armies with influence; Make sure you take these new armies on the new quests so they can rank up a bit,,, Experience is the victor.

If this is what reverie is going to do in the end,,, I support it, in my opinion its not greedy and its honest sale that bonuses everyone, poor people don't need to spend more money, rich people can help Reverie and get everything formentioned above without having to play 1000-2000 games!

I agree with this.thoose who are willing to spend and give the company that extra bit of money to make the game even better should not be overpowered and this system ensures it.


one thought however is that you should not be able to attack a player you have just fought for around 24 hours. As this could become a influence based game where somone can have a close fight. And then the enemy decides to buy an entire new army while the other player has to rebuild. And then looses as a result of this (It would affectivly be troop spamming)

Supreme
09-27-2009, 03:04 PM
I can see your point but I can say for a fact that a lot of people see: pay for getting an edge ingame and immidiatly think this game isnt for them. But yea if you emphasize free expansions because of this & just giving a fair competition to the no-lifers it might not be a problem. Depends on how it will work in practise I guess.

wills370
09-27-2009, 03:26 PM
I can see your point but I can say for a fact that a lot of people see: pay for getting an edge ingame and immidiatly think this game isnt for them. But yea if you emphasize free expansions because of this & just giving a fair competition to the no-lifers it might not be a problem. Depends on how it will work in practise I guess.

I guess this could be practiced during late stage beta by giving select beta players (free influence). and see how it affects them in comparison to overs. this could be adjusted with the restarts etc. untill a balnace is met where is gives a small advantage but does not overpower.

Joseph Visscher
09-27-2009, 04:56 PM
I guess this could be practiced during late stage beta by giving select beta players (free influence). and see how it affects them in comparison to overs. this could be adjusted with the restarts etc. untill a balnace is met where is gives a small advantage but does not overpower.

With our auto matcher that weighs the armies' ranks, upgrades, unit numbers, elite units and heroes then matches them proficiently to a enemy, the only imbalance I can see is the player's skill differences in combat and unit imbalances which we hope to perfectly balance during beta prior to release.

Heres an idea,,, say there isn't any matches of enemies that are at your skill range, we could have a widen search which matches with players below and or above skills compared to yours, and depending on that skill level we could increase the amount of influence with the raise or lower of the risk involved. Underdog low ranked players with crap armies that should lose a hard battle will gain more influence if they win; completely opposite if you are more powerful you will gain less then normal influence after crushing your enemy in a very easy battle. This will prevent bullying of novice players/armies on experienced players/armies while still letting any player fight any battle if he wants to.

wills370
09-28-2009, 04:13 AM
With our auto matcher that weighs the armies' ranks, upgrades, unit numbers, elite units and heroes then matches them proficiently to a enemy, the only imbalance I can see is the player's skill differences in combat and unit imbalances which we hope to perfectly balance during beta prior to release.

Heres an idea,,, say there isn't any matches of enemies that are at your skill range, we could have a widen search which matches with players below and or above skills compared to yours, and depending on that skill level we could increase the amount of influence with the raise or lower of the risk involved. Underdog low ranked players with crap armies that should lose a hard battle will gain more influence if they win; completely opposite if you are more powerful you will gain less then normal influence after crushing your enemy in a very easy battle. This will prevent bullying of novice players/armies on experienced players/armies while still letting any player fight any battle if he wants to.

Hmm intresting idea. Andi like how it will work however how will you measure comparative army's. Say if one has an army of horsemen. And the other an army of elves (unlikly i know). Then it will still be a unpitched battle. And although the archers may be alot higher level. They still would be at a large disadvantage (im guessing) to the horsemen.

Jean=A=Luc
09-28-2009, 07:11 AM
Hmm intresting idea. Andi like how it will work however how will you measure comparative army's. Say if one has an army of horsemen. And the other an army of elves (unlikly i know). Then it will still be a unpitched battle. And although the archers may be alot higher level. They still would be at a large disadvantage (im guessing) to the horsemen.

Whoever builds one-unit spam armies deserves whatever they get.

Supreme
09-28-2009, 09:08 AM
It's almost never the way to go. But...seeing as the enemy cant quickly buy some counter-units it might work..:P

wills370
09-28-2009, 09:09 AM
Whoever builds one-unit spam armies deserves whatever they get.

I agree that is not how the game should be played and would be stupid to do so. Was curiouse how the influence system would work in that case however.

Kaznafein
09-28-2009, 11:37 AM
Thanks for the details

Jean=A=Luc
09-28-2009, 06:46 PM
I agree that is not how the game should be played and would be stupid to do so. Was curiouse how the influence system would work in that case however.

Let's say horsemen and bowmen cost the same. Two players meet, one has 100 archers the other a 100 horsemen. From the matchmaking system's perspective they're "equal". It's not the system's job to correct players' mistakes and poor judgment.

wills370
09-29-2009, 10:37 AM
Let's say horsemen and bowmen cost the same. Two players meet, one has 100 archers the other a 100 horsemen. From the matchmaking system's perspective they're "equal". It's not the system's job to correct players' mistakes and poor judgment.

Hmm intresting. Could be a intresting thing do have when it coems to sending out horse raiding partyies around the back of a battle hunting down reinforcements could well happen. Thanks for answering. so the system is based on cost of units?

Jean=A=Luc
09-29-2009, 11:28 AM
Thanks for answering. so the system is based on cost of units?

I have no idea, I was just saying what makes sense and making the point that if you screw up some tactical/strategic element of your game it's not the system's place to make up for that. Match making systems typically consider a players win/loss ratio, number of games played and in if there are rpg elements the player's level or in DoF's case the "level" (of development) of one's stronghold.

Supreme
09-29-2009, 12:11 PM
[QUOTE=Jean=A=Luc;19187]I have no idea, I was just saying what makes sense and making the point that if you screw up some tactical/strategic element of your game it's not the system's place to make up for that. Match making systems typically consider a players win/loss ratio, number of games played and in if there are rpg elements the player's level or in DoF's case the "level" (of development) of one's stronghold.[QUOTE]

Arent those side-issue's though?

I think this should be considered but the main thing is the cost (and perhaps the amount (considering the race)) of the armies. (like people said)

Darathor
09-29-2009, 04:48 PM
I think that the match-making system would be based off of the amount of units(as said before, based on race),cost and level/experience. It would also be based off the kind of units, so someone with elite units couldn't have the same amount as someone with mostly normal units.

Josh Warner
09-29-2009, 05:01 PM
I think that the match-making system would be based off of the amount of units(as said before, based on race),cost and level/experience. It would also be based off the kind of units, so someone with elite units couldn't have the same amount as someone with mostly normal units.

The best approach is one that looks purely at total value of the armies in question when match making. If you have a poor unit composition the game shouldn't compensate for your bad choices lol. Also, as far as experience. It depends entirely on how powerful it is and their goal for the game, personally I don't want to see my very high level units considered a higher value, what's the point of leveling them up if it penalizes me by increasing the 'strength' of my army according to the algorithim. It's like RPGs that have you level up... but the monsters stay the same level as you, leveling loses all of it's meaning. if you don't gain any relative power for leveling up your units, there is a far lower incentive to do it, wouldn't you agree?

That is unless they go with another form of 'advantage' rather than raw power. For example, an elite unit might be 'valued' at the strength of two level 1 units of the same kind, and it would provide an even matchup for them, but if units have an upkeep they would only require half. And of course it would be half the population cap. It really depends on how they balance it out. If for battle purposes they remain equal value/strength fine, but they need to have other advantages like the same strength for less pop cap/less upkeep if there is even upkeep. I'd still prefer it to be more experienced units are just stronger, but valued the same, but it can work the other way if done right.

Darathor
09-29-2009, 05:43 PM
I see what you are saying Haeso. Having a huge advantage that isn't taken into account in match-making, thus making you fight inferior opponents much more often, is fine. I like the idea of steam-rolling a good percentage of my opponents due to the imbalance of unit power.

Also, you can still fight people that are slightly higher or lower level then you in match-making, not to mention we don't know how NPCs' levels work in accordance with a players.

Joseph Visscher
09-29-2009, 05:56 PM
Let's say horsemen and bowmen cost the same. Two players meet, one has 100 archers the other a 100 horsemen. From the matchmaking system's perspective they're "equal". It's not the system's job to correct players' mistakes and poor judgment.

I think that the match-making system would be based off of the amount of units(as said before, based on race),cost and level/experience. It would also be based off the kind of units, so someone with elite units couldn't have the same amount as someone with mostly normal units.

If the system can see how much each unit costs it can also take into acount it's type of damage and its type of armor and adding all of these up can be then compared to the enemies'.

For example: 1 Maceman VS 1 Swordsman and adding up the counters in their stats.

Maceman | Swordsman
>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Hit Rating & Defense Rating
HitRating 30 | DefRating 45
DefRating 20 | HitRating 20
0 < 15
Damages & Armor
DamCrush 80 | ArmCrush 30
50 > 15
ArmSlash 10 | DamSlash 120
50 < 125
50pts | 125pts

Time to put my theroy to the test have have a battalion vs battalion battle.
Swordsmen and Maceman have the same Health of 400pts each, Speeds and what not.
10 macemen vs 10 swordsmen
500pts |1250pts

Outcome was 5/10 badly injured swordsmen

A Swordsman would win the fight 125 times out of 175 vs a Maceman if their Health, Armor Upgrades, Movement speed and other stats where exactly the same, in a battalion or army this becomes less random.
Macemen are a lot faster then swordsman and are good for hit and run raids. Although, swordsmen have that grand shield that stands strong against Piercing Damage from arrows. It all boils down to how you use them, I could have put on that shield wall ability and lost 0 swordsmen, while the Macemen could have also used an ability to crush through and cause more damage. ;)

I can see a system like this that takes into account every stat your army has and compares all of it to account every stat in the Enemies' Army.

Total Army HP: 560480
Total Army HitRating = bla
Total Army Bla bla = bla

Josh Warner
09-29-2009, 07:10 PM
I see what you are saying Haeso. Having a huge advantage that isn't taken into account in match-making, thus making you fight inferior opponents much more often, is fine. I like the idea of steam-rolling a good percentage of my opponents due to the imbalance of unit power.

Also, you can still fight people that are slightly higher or lower level then you in match-making, not to mention we don't know how NPCs' levels work in accordance with a players.

Don't be so defensive, we're just discussing things aren't we? And who said it would be huge, you can scale it based on the level of the unit, just not equally. It could end up as a very tiny advantage in the end, but an advantage is the point of leveling your units. Why would you bother with higher level units if they have no advantage? And if you want everything to be perfectly equal play skirmish, persistent worlds that don't reward anything but player ability might as well not be persistent. It's like an MMORPG with no skills/levels, everyones the same, if increasing your power has no relative advantage, it's not really increasing. I also said you could easily balance it through other advantages that relate to the kingdom level instead of battle,




@ Joseph -
That certainly sounds interesting, if you can account for everything from attack speed to movement speed, to special abilities etc it might work, seems difficult especially for abilities. I mean on units with more hit/speed each point of damage would be worth more and all these other things. Would it even out in the end? Too much math for me to wrap my head around right now. It seems like it wouldn't. Should be interesting to see, it wouldn't be terribly hard to add it in and test it for a bit and see how it works out. If it does that'd be amazing and make everything quite easy in regards to automatching. This just seems so simple, maybe I'm overthinking automatch entirely, and this would indeed work. If it does that really would be great.

Assuming that doesn't work however, it'd work to just assign every unit type a value, then modify that value based on upgrades/levels, then add that value to the army 'strength' it seems like it would be easier to balance that way. While in a standard skirmish game you'd balance with training time/special reqs/cost, you have cost/experience/tech for MMORTS though. The thing doing it this way also allows you to do, rather than any of the other various weighting things come to think of it like cost etc. is it allows you to easily modify the 'power' of the unit without actually adjusting it's stats when working on balance for MMORTS.

Also, one thing I'm not sure you guys are doing or have even considered, using the same unit but giving it different stats for mmorts vs skirmish that way you can balance in skirmish using training time/special requirements etc without imbalancing MMORTS, of course this too would be meaningless if the method you described works. I know the training times would be different because of the scale, and maybe the resources, wasn't sure if you'd considered the other stats though.

Darathor
09-29-2009, 08:40 PM
Don't be so defensive,

Was I?

And you said at first that there should be no change in the value because of level, this would in fact cause the player with higher level guys a sizable advantage because there's no limit to how much higher level the enemy player can be. The points or whatever should scale with unit level to keep it balanced.
I would hardly say I was being defensive, I was being sarcastic to explain the stupidity of not having units points scale with level. I have a right to be ticked off every once in a while.

Josh Warner
09-29-2009, 09:37 PM
Was I?

And you said at first that there should be no change in the value because of level, this would in fact cause the player with higher level guys a sizable advantage because there's no limit to how much higher level the enemy player can be. The points or whatever should scale with unit level to keep it balanced.
I would hardly say I was being defensive, I was being sarcastic to explain the stupidity of not having units points scale with level. I have a right to be ticked off every once in a while.

You can disagree all you want, I enjoy a good discussion in fact, if anything they're one of the few things that makes forums entertaining. Just agreeing with everyone else leads to very uninteresting threads. But you're coming off as attacking me with 'sarcasm' being thinly veiled misplaced anger - be it intended or not. Now as I said, it depends entirely on how powerful leveling up units is whether or not it needs to be included. Assuming the system Joeseph outlined doesn't work, which would make any discussion moot, I have my doubts if it would end up balanced or not though, I'm just not capable of putting it all together in my head. Once we get the stats of units and can actually test it out we'll see. Now If it's a couple percent stronger overall, which is still a modest increase, but not anywhere near overpowering weighting it based on level would be a choice, not a nesscessity. If it's the other end of the spectrum where it can make one unit worth several of the same type of course it needs to scale to a certain extent. I assumed that went without saying, guess not. The weighting based on experience was a tangent, the main point is that scaling based on value works, the other system I lined out in my other post is even better after having thought about it however.

Darathor
09-29-2009, 10:01 PM
I'd still prefer it to be more experienced units are just stronger, but valued the same, but it can work the other way if done right.

There wasn't really anything wrong with your original post but this, this would be unfair and unbalanced. Having better units but still fighting people with little to no experience would be horrible unless levels give you like 10 health when the normal unit has like 400 or so, and then, leveling wouldn't be nearly as big and people wouldn't bother with it as much.
They said that players could easily recreate the 300 with unit leveling so I would assume that it makes your units a fair bit more powerful.
The fact is, if it makes it unbalanced, don't do it, what you were first describing was. Now if it was a small level advantage or whatever, it would be fine and all.

It's hardly anger, more just annoyance.

Joseph Visscher
09-29-2009, 10:23 PM
You can not feel a persons emotions through text Haeso, you can only Perceive it to what it is, everything else between like presumed emotions are simply imagined by you; unless otherwise noted.
So shut Haeso it, lol. (Jolly)

With regards to unit leveling, The units level/rank what ever has no true effect to any unit in game. What happens is the unit gains experiance, and when it ranks up the units Health increases by a percentage of itself
(such as HitPointCap=HitPointCap*1.10)
It then triggers a small function inside every unit which Give the unit 1 'Skill' Point and adds a nice little rank up effect.
This Skill Point is then used to select a skill to increase, you choose which stat to increase; HitRating, DefenceRating, Stamina, etc. and that skill increases by a percentage also.

With the example I gave above, if the swordsmen where ranked up and i increased there defense rating it would be 135 to 50 and there will be 6-7 swordsmen left in a battalion vs battalion battle.

Josh Warner
09-29-2009, 10:31 PM
You can not feel a persons emotions through text Haeso, you can only Perceive it to what it is, everything else between like presumed emotions are simply imagined by you; unless otherwise noted.
So shut Haeso it, lol. (Jolly)

With regards to unit leveling, The units level/rank what ever has no true effect to any unit in game. What happens is the unit gains experiance, and when it ranks up the units Health increases by a percentage of itself
(such as HitPointCap=HitPointCap*1.10)
It then triggers a small function inside every unit which Give the unit 1 'Skill' Point and adds a nice little rank up effect.
This Skill Point is then used to select a skill to increase, you choose which stat to increase; HitRating, DefenceRating, Stamina, etc. and that skill increases by a percentage also.

With the example I gave above, if the swordsmen where ranked up and i increased there defense rating it would be 135 to 50 and there will be 6-7 swordsmen left in a battalion vs battalion battle.

I assume that's just an example effect and it's not actually cumulative? And that seems fairly simple, but it does add a nice touch of RPG, makes people care about their units, attached so to speak. Should be nice.

wills370
09-30-2009, 03:50 AM
Thats a nice feature if in effect you can specilise each unit. Possibly having a set of swordsmen that have very high attack power etc and another that specilises on defence. Ads whole new dynamics to the game if in effect you could have 2 armyies identical rank and units but with very diffrent playing styles, also will make it hard to tell if your fighting some units and you suddenly see one of there units hacking through your men like maniacs.


another nice possible feature would be say a war cry etc where for a limited time your mens attack over defensive move increases. Affectivly making them more agressive.


And i think the system should work as it is just a matter of tallying all the stats together at there given point value and comparing the two totals at the end.

Ironic
09-30-2009, 09:48 AM
You can not feel a persons emotions through text Haeso, you can only Perceive it to what it is, everything else between like presumed emotions are simply imagined by you; unless otherwise noted.
So shut Haeso it, lol. (Jolly)

With regards to unit leveling, The units level/rank what ever has no true effect to any unit in game. What happens is the unit gains experiance, and when it ranks up the units Health increases by a percentage of itself
(such as HitPointCap=HitPointCap*1.10)
It then triggers a small function inside every unit which Give the unit 1 'Skill' Point and adds a nice little rank up effect.
This Skill Point is then used to select a skill to increase, you choose which stat to increase; HitRating, DefenceRating, Stamina, etc. and that skill increases by a percentage also.

With the example I gave above, if the swordsmen where ranked up and i increased there defense rating it would be 135 to 50 and there will be 6-7 swordsmen left in a battalion vs battalion battle.

lol i just got a vision of a massive of dof where all the soldiers r wow toons screaming "OMG UR NOT HIT CAPPED WAT A NUB" and "WTF MACEMAN OP"

Puppeteer
09-30-2009, 11:48 AM
Was I?

No, I saw no element of defensiveness. Play nice, Haeso, don't play the victim card.
What types of damage are there? Evidently slash, and crush.

Josh Warner
09-30-2009, 03:29 PM
No, I saw no element of defensiveness. Play nice, Haeso, don't play the victim card.
What types of damage are there? Evidently slash, and crush.

Can't really answer it but safe bets are likely to include magic (wonder if it's one type per element or not), siege and piercing. Can't really think of any others though. Expanding on your question, I'm guessing there will be various types of armor that have different degrees of protection against each type of attack, how many of those would there be. A lot more room there than for attacks, could easily work in 10~ types of armor.

wills370
09-30-2009, 06:20 PM
No, I saw no element of defensiveness. Play nice, Haeso, don't play the victim card.
What types of damage are there? Evidently slash, and crush.

piercing also. And i assume there will be a charge bonus for calvery a splash damage for siege equipment and blun dammage for blunt wepons (if there are any?)

would be nice if arrows became more affective/higher piercing damage the closer the enemy got. That way you could make them wait that little bit longer to do that extra damage when doing volleys.

Josh Warner
09-30-2009, 07:21 PM
piercing also. And i assume there will be a charge bonus for calvery a splash damage for siege equipment and blun dammage for blunt wepons (if there are any?)

would be nice if arrows became more affective/higher piercing damage the closer the enemy got. That way you could make them wait that little bit longer to do that extra damage when doing volleys.

crush = blunt.

wills370
09-30-2009, 07:22 PM
crush = blunt.

Hmm fair enough. Thought crush damage would come under the siege equipment when you have huge rocks falling on enemies as they roll and crush people (if the shots do roll?)

Josh Warner
09-30-2009, 07:40 PM
Hmm fair enough. Thought crush damage would come under the siege equipment when you have huge rocks falling on enemies as they roll and crush people (if the shots do roll?)

That would be considered siege damage most likely, it might also be classified as crushing, but who knows. We do know since joseph just said it however, that crushing = bludgeoning weapons ie; macemen deal crushing. mace = blunt = crush.

wills370
10-01-2009, 01:39 AM
That would be considered siege damage most likely, it might also be classified as crushing, but who knows. We do know since joseph just said it however, that crushing = bludgeoning weapons ie; macemen deal crushing. mace = blunt = crush.

Guess we will have to find out. Still i do like the idea of rolling projectiles. (even if they dont roll far). Hope they include it.

Puppeteer
10-02-2009, 03:02 PM
would be nice if arrows became more affective/higher piercing damage the closer the enemy got. That way you could make them wait that little bit longer to do that extra damage when doing volleys.
This is a really interesting idea, I'd not thought of that. Not only does it add the element of do I shoot from afar, or shoot closer for more damage but is quite realistic. However, one thing I would like (and can't remember reading about) is distance affecting accuracy. Does DofE have wind? That would be very nice to see wind affecting light projectiles.

Josh Warner
10-02-2009, 03:19 PM
This is a really interesting idea, I'd not thought of that. Not only does it add the element of do I shoot from afar, or shoot closer for more damage but is quite realistic. However, one thing I would like (and can't remember reading about) is distance affecting accuracy. Does DofE have wind? That would be very nice to see wind affecting light projectiles.

If wind does indeed dramatically effect arrows and such - I hope you can target ground for your archers so you can manually counteract it. Perhaps have a thing on the UI showing which direction it's going and then you can adjust with target ground if it's a strong wind, adding a little micro to make your archers more effective.

Puppeteer
10-02-2009, 03:24 PM
Or, archers readjust themselves? It comes under their accuracy - those who are experienced and elite automatically adjust to fire into the wind, but those who are perhaps newly-trained or are using poor weapons don't always adjust, and get more widely inaccurate as the range increases. More micro for this kind of thing would be unpopular with the masses.

Josh Warner
10-02-2009, 03:26 PM
Or, archers readjust themselves? It comes under their accuracy - those who are experienced and elite automatically adjust to fire into the wind, but those who are perhaps newly-trained or are using poor weapons don't always adjust, and get more widely inaccurate as the range increases. More micro for this kind of thing would be unpopular with the masses.

Again, depends on how big the effect is. Do both if it's moderate. A good player with a new army won't be on equal footing against bad players with leveled armies, but he'd be able to at least fight back. And if both armies are 'elite' it'd be equal footing depending on how well they adjust.

If it's the difference between 100/100 landing in the target area or 90/100, I think target ground wouldn't be game breaking, but would reward the better player. I don't want the game to turn into a starcraft level of micro/apm, but it should have some things a better player can do to maximize the potential of their units.

wills370
10-03-2009, 01:43 AM
I like the idea of the wind. Although i guess it would depend on how often the wind changed. (say your up in high ground). The wind would change direction much more rapidly and this could render your arrows severly handicapped unless higher rank.

I guess it would come down between this balance. Although this could be coupled with the distance factor whereby you just have to wait to shoot alittle longer before you can shoot effectivly.

Would be nice also if you could tell your archers to say test range and point in a direction even if there are no enemyies there. Like on other games this would let you plan for an attack much better by knowing both how far they ca fire and roughly what there spread would be.

Supreme
10-03-2009, 03:28 AM
I like the idea of the wind. Although i guess it would depend on how often the wind changed. (say your up in high ground). The wind would change direction much more rapidly and this could render your arrows severly handicapped unless higher rank.

I disagee, this would make this game less about skill and more about luck.

Would be nice also if you could tell your archers to say test range and point in a direction even if there are no enemyies there. Like on other games this would let you plan for an attack much better by knowing both how far they ca fire and roughly what there spread would be.

Yea but you can probably test in on less hard NPC's so you'd learn that way.

Puppeteer
10-03-2009, 04:32 AM
It's not luck it still is skill - if you know that higher up it's more perilous for accuracy, then you're taking a risk; it's up to you.
I like the idea of 'testing range'. A 'bombard area' function would do nicely. Do remember that you have to pay for arrows though, so you can't test too much!

Josh Warner
10-03-2009, 04:47 AM
It's not luck it still is skill - if you know that higher up it's more perilous for accuracy, then you're taking a risk; it's up to you.
I like the idea of 'testing range'. A 'bombard area' function would do nicely. Do remember that you have to pay for arrows though, so you can't test too much!

paying for arrows wasn't confirmed yet, only siege weapons.

Puppeteer
10-03-2009, 05:07 AM
Oh rly? Huh, I remember reading that (must have been a year ago now) and thought it was finalised. Seems like a good idea, though. You can't go total war on someone and expect your ammunition to stay intact.

Dan Riddell
10-03-2009, 07:31 AM
Can't really answer it but safe bets are likely to include magic (wonder if it's one type per element or not), siege and piercing. Can't really think of any others though. Expanding on your question, I'm guessing there will be various types of armor that have different degrees of protection against each type of attack, how many of those would there be. A lot more room there than for attacks, could easily work in 10~ types of armor.

In scenario editing is it possible to create new types of attack etc?

Josh Warner
10-03-2009, 08:30 AM
In scenario editing is it possible to create new types of attack etc?

I'm afraid I don't know yet. I certainly hope so, or they at least add several unused types/the ability to modify the existing ones.

sneaky_squirrel
10-03-2009, 09:57 AM
Would be nice to SEE the wind though ;p, for ambiance.

OFF TOPIC: Just hope they have enough effects on the editor (SFX).

Supreme
10-03-2009, 10:15 AM
Because being on the lowground instead of highground is so much more tactical? I think it'd be pretty bad if that would be the case, in pretty much every single game and irl its better to be on the highground -.-'

Sure there could be an occasional minor penalty but...really?

Puppeteer
10-03-2009, 12:55 PM
Because being on the lowground instead of highground is so much more tactical? I think it'd be pretty bad if that would be the case, in pretty much every single game and irl its better to be on the highground -.-'

Sure there could be an occasional minor penalty but...really?

Eh? Each has its advantages and disadvantages.

Josh Warner
10-03-2009, 01:14 PM
Eh? Each has its advantages and disadvantages.

Unless we're talking about mountains and not the usual hills and such, wind would have next to no impact differentiated by that minimal height difference. You're more likely to see a difference in the wind based on how many trees there are in an area than a small hill.

Puppeteer
10-03-2009, 01:45 PM
I was comparing the difference between a valley, and a hill. There you would get a difference. A sheltered area compared to an exposed area -there you would get a difference. Of course, I'm not saying the arrow will swing 90 degrees and miss by 200 yards - not every effect in a game has to be exaggerated beyond proportion.

Josh Warner
10-03-2009, 01:58 PM
I was comparing the difference between a valley, and a hill. There you would get a difference. A sheltered area compared to an exposed area -there you would get a difference. Of course, I'm not saying the arrow will swing 90 degrees and miss by 200 yards - not every effect in a game has to be exaggerated beyond proportion.

Well, like I said, it depends on a lot of things other than height is all. The trees, any buildings etc. it just seems overly complicated to add in based on height especially when height is traditionally seen as an advantage. I suppose you could create specific areas that magnify based upon a % the current wind of the map using zones and scripts for them. But a dynamic system that changes based on height throughout the map is asking too much.

Puppeteer
10-03-2009, 02:54 PM
Yes that is true, it is complex, in any case my original point was the factor of wind - in cases where the weather is more severe, the accuracy of archers diminishes. I'm not sure how exposure became the prime argument, that wasn't my intention!

Josh Warner
10-03-2009, 03:04 PM
Yes that is true, it is complex, in any case my original point was the factor of wind - in cases where the weather is more severe, the accuracy of archers diminishes. I'm not sure how exposure became the prime argument, that wasn't my intention!

Ah, my apologies then, I guess we went off on a tangent from the point then. I like the idea of accuracy effected by weather/wind,If it's raining, or snowing, or night there should be penalties. A slight/small penalty for night, moderate for raining, or heavy for snowing or something. That the sort of thing you wanted to see? It might not be directly because of wind, but I like the idea. Or did you have something else in mind.

Puppeteer
10-03-2009, 03:41 PM
If it's raining, or snowing, or night there should be penalties. A slight/small penalty for night, moderate for raining, or heavy for snowing or something. That the sort of thing you wanted to see? It might not be directly because of wind, but I like the idea. Or did you have something else in mind.
Bingo, though I think rain should have a bigger effect - rain distorts the bow string, and makes it swell. Range and and accuracy is affected by this.

Josh Warner
10-03-2009, 03:58 PM
Bingo, though I think rain should have a bigger effect - rain distorts the bow string, and makes it swell. Range and and accuracy is affected by this.

Well that was stupid of me, I have a bow of my own. I was thinking solely of how things would affect the arrow in transit rather than the bow itself. But yeah, we agree weather, wind or not and maybe night should have penalties. Now the question is - can you choose when to attack. Like if you have a primarily melee army could you pay some sort of small penalty and the attack take place during snow/rain, or if ranged heavy a bright sunny day with clear skies etc.

Puppeteer
10-03-2009, 04:07 PM
I suppose it's luck of the draw (pun intended!).

Josh Warner
10-03-2009, 04:22 PM
I suppose it's luck of the draw (pun intended!).

lol, I was thinking for a penalty based upon which weather condition(s) you wait for when you declare an attack. Like the defenders getting boosts to things like gate health, or more boiling oil etc. but you get the weather you want. The advantage depends on which weather condition(s) you wait for, if you choose the worst, lets say strong rain, for archers. It would be a big penalty, but if you chose strong and light rain(Far lesser penalty to archers) the penalty would be less etc. Often times games leave out the fact that while the defender has advantages in a siege, so too does the attacker! For he chooses when to fight, while the defender gets walls to fight from.

wills370
10-04-2009, 03:30 PM
lol, I was thinking for a penalty based upon which weather condition(s) you wait for when you declare an attack. Like the defenders getting boosts to things like gate health, or more boiling oil etc. but you get the weather you want. The advantage depends on which weather condition(s) you wait for, if you choose the worst, lets say strong rain, for archers. It would be a big penalty, but if you chose strong and light rain(Far lesser penalty to archers) the penalty would be less etc. Often times games leave out the fact that while the defender has advantages in a siege, so too does the attacker! For he chooses when to fight, while the defender gets walls to fight from.

Hmm intresting idea. It might be hard to find the balance and would find alot of testing to get it all to be beleivable levels. The footsoldiers could also have a slight cover bonus in the heavy rain as line of sight is reduced etc. But the archer idea is intresting espicially if it is coupled with the wait longer to do more damage idea.

zach12wqasxz
11-10-2009, 01:18 PM
say that you are playing and for some reason you have to get off for a few minutes...like say to eat, or do something like chores around the house,.. or something, will there be like a puase game system? like say if i send a message to the other player and he agrees to puase the game for like say...5 minutes...will we be able to do that? and then after the 5 minutes is up the game will unpuase automatically wether or not im back ( this way it will give me time to do what i need to do instead of comeing back to the game to find my army and castle destroyed...wich would suck ). so is there anything you guys already have in place for this? also say i engage someone in a seige...if i find myself having to logg off,..would i be able to send a message to the other player requesting like a rematch...but pick up where we left off from the prevoius fight....like say if i had 200 knights storming his castle...and i have to logg. i send him a message...he agrees to let me logg off without consequense....and then like say the next day if he is logged on as well. continue or fight where i had 200 knights storming his castle of like 50 knights and 100 archers. will we be able to do this?

Darathor
11-10-2009, 02:27 PM
say that you are playing and for some reason you have to get off for a few minutes...like say to eat, or do something like chores around the house,.. or something, will there be like a puase game system? like say if i send a message to the other player and he agrees to puase the game for like say...5 minutes...will we be able to do that? and then after the 5 minutes is up the game will unpuase automatically wether or not im back ( this way it will give me time to do what i need to do instead of comeing back to the game to find my army and castle destroyed...wich would suck ). so is there anything you guys already have in place for this? also say i engage someone in a seige...if i find myself having to logg off,..would i be able to send a message to the other player requesting like a rematch...but pick up where we left off from the prevoius fight....like say if i had 200 knights storming his castle...and i have to logg. i send him a message...he agrees to let me logg off without consequense....and then like say the next day if he is logged on as well. continue or fight where i had 200 knights storming his castle of like 50 knights and 100 archers. will we be able to do this?

If you have to leave for a while, just log off, and you have to accept an attack to let it happen.

If the guy lets you log off with no consequences, then I doubt you would be able to continue the fight the next day if both of you are online, your troops will probably have been moved or something.

treelin
11-11-2009, 07:15 PM
Im glad their doing something to D/C'ers and quiters so forth because, in every RTS game ive ever played, If i was winning, or better yet, if it was a stalemate they would either D/C or leave. but noticing this is mmorts things are going to look bright for my future :D

Unen
11-18-2009, 05:22 PM
I feel a question coming up about possibility to exploit this system - two friends fight each other, surrender right away, show mercy - and get free influence resource.

We`ll have couple of safety ideas in place - such as to surrender/offer surrender - over 20% of total unit population must be dead.
Or could have it so if you surrender show mercy to someone surrendering X times a day or X times to a certain player the influence you earn will be reduced.

Espadachim
11-18-2009, 06:58 PM
Or could have it so if you surrender show mercy to someone surrendering X times a day or X times to a certain player the influence you earn will be reduced.

Sounds like a good idea, but I somehow prefer the minimum amount of deaths. Looks like that it makes harder to exploit the system.

wills370
11-19-2009, 02:47 AM
Sounds like a good idea, but I somehow prefer the minimum amount of deaths. Looks like that it makes harder to exploit the system.

you already have a option before the fight begins as to wether you wish to pay tribute and avoid the fight all together so i beleive if you do wish to enter the battle then you should have to loose some troops before offering a surrender which is then dependant on the other person :) as would be in ye olden days.