I'd rather die (and reload) than give up my loot. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/evilgrin1.gif" alt="" />
Unless (as you suggested) the person attacking you is someone you want to preserve for some other reason, perhaps, yes. For example, if you know that killing someone in this faction will break a quest for you, or cause you to be fined more than your bribe. Or if reloading takes any significant amount of time, and you have scads of cash. Or, for me the best one: if killing them would cause you to have problems, morally.
And that whole "loot" thing - that's exactly what I'm arguing against anyway. Mobs should not, I feel, just be things to click on until dead, then to loot. I prefer a little more moral depth to my massacres. There's no moral qualm in killing something that attacks you once it sees you, until you kill it. But there is, in one who growls if you come close to its nest, attacks if you come closer, then rolls on its back and tries to surrender if you hand it its [nocando] on a plate.
I wouldn't want to talk out my differences with every thug or thief who started something with me.
Completely agree: compulsory pacifism would get old fast, and would feel too Disney - but I'd just like the
option. I hate having to play every single game as a violent jarhead who doesn't think at all about leaving more corpses lying around the countryside than the first day of hunting season.
It could be interesting to have a quest where you were sent to kill some demon or wizard, but they were impossible to beat, requiring you to yield and talk your way out of the situation.
Yeah - though, some would whine like that not being able to kill him was destroying their freedom of choice, so I'd be inclined to just give him the ability to be killed, but make it near-impossibly hard. Plonk him in some source of infinite heals, perhaps, so you would need to kill him in one hit, or get him away from that source.
But then people might grumble that although there were multiple solutions, the difficulty of the solutions was not equal. But, sod them, I say :P
If there are going to be any responses based on stats or skills, a perceptive person might be able to spot an opponents fake surrender pleas, and get an option to accept, then do a fakeout-turn-your-back-while-preparing-a-counterattack move.
Heh - great idea. Evil, but great <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
Opponents that attack and then flee are annoying, especially weak ones.
Not as annoying (to me) as having them just stand there and die like gormless cannonfodder <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/disagree.gif" alt="" />
Nipping in, attacking, then fleeing is the obvious tactical move, especially if you are weak.
If it gets annoying, I'd invest in a bow to pick them off as they run away.
If weaker opponents (ie without appreciable experience points or loot) simply avoided you, though, that would be good. There were a couple artifacts in one of the old Ultima games (or maybe Final Fantasy?) that would either repel weak opponents and attract strong ones, or repel strong and attract weak. The same kind of thing could be done with a skill or spell.
Ooh, nice ideas. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> Though, weak/strong boundary would need to be judged relative to your own strength, to scale.
Welcome to the forum. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wave.gif" alt="" />
Thanks <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
