Shattered Kingdoms

I'm not sure how much of an affect it would have on other game mechanics... but I find it very much a pain in the butt not to be able to flee where I want to. You don't always flee when you're on the brink of death or panicking. I think it is reasonable to assume someone can make a quick visual scan, or even have enough knowledge of an area to know what their options are and make a more rational decision on where they are going to go. Anytime I flee I feel like some blonde in a horror flick that found the bad guy! lol Seriously though, I think it's fair to give the player the option to flee in a certain direction. This doesn't really have an impact on retreat as far as I can see... the merc should be using that skill to move the entire formation, not just himself. What do you all think? Perhaps not super important... seems like it would be a fairly simple fix though, not much of a headache that I can see.

This is called Retreat, and it's a skill given to Mercenaries.

Apparently flee is an unfocused, undirected panicked flight in the first direction your character sees. That's why sometimes you can't flee at all, but get "blocked from escape."

I promise you.. I'm not trying to be a dbag or anything. Please read what I said... you'll clearly see that I touched on retreat and why THIS is not the same thing as that skill, at all. Also.. I touched on why fleeing truly isn't an unfocused, undirected panicked flight. I could accidentally attack a friend and 'flee' combat in order to keep from killing them or hurting them severely. Or, I could use the flee as a tactic to draw someone in a direction of my choice. It does have a tactical advantage and not the same one as retreat. You cannot flee combat with a group, that is what retreat is for. (I'm aware that retreat can probably be used for the solo merc as well.. however, why would sounding a retreat when you are alone effective? Doesn't really make sense, just saying.) Anyway.. please guys, don't post to say something that was already mentioned unless it is an argument or agreement about that particular something. It's pointless.

No, retreat works just fine without a full formation for mercs as long as they're holding a group. Conceptually, what you're talking about is also a retreat, not flight. Flee is undirected flight. The dictionary will be able to clarify the difference for you if you want to be an [REDACTED] about it, too.

A tip. Next time you have an idea like this, do a quick forum search. This is about the 236125612351234 thread that's been raised about this, and Dulrik has stated the conceptual difference between flee and retreat almost as many times.

Sorry max, but no. All any regular player of this game has to read of your first post is "I'm not sure how much of an affect it would have on other game mechanics... but I find it very much a pain in the butt not to be able to flee where I want to." After reading that, they know the answer. This won't happen, nor should it.

You can call me an arse all you like and that's perfectly fine.. however, please don't pretend like I didn't touch on a subject when I did. Two things go through my head when I read comments such as your first. One... did he even read what I said? Two... is there some reading comprehension issues here? See, now you can rightly call me an arse.
Now then... I've been playing for a little over a month. I have a large family and little time to waste looking up old forum posts to ensure that I'm not bringing up an old topic. I'd be stupid to think something hasn't been mentioned in the past. Could you please just name drop Dulrik in your first post and explain why he said he'll not make this change, rather than pretend like I didn't realize that what I suggest is similar to retreat, or that I didn't touch on why it really isn't a hysterical, freakout moment where the player just loses their mind and runs into walls and into the waiting arms of another enemy unwittingly, without any control?
Retreat, as you just said, is focused on a GROUP. You need to have a group formed to use it. I assume that means it could be a group of... just themselves? If that's the case, then it's a flaw. If that's not the case, and you have to at least have a pet in your group, then what I suggest and what Retreat currently is, are two different things. Fleeing in a focused direction would NOT take a group member with you, period. Your pet would be left behind, as would anyone else. (I realize my argument is futile, if what you say is true.. however, I'm sure there are plenty of players who would agree that it makes sense.)

I'll gladly stop beating around the bush and just come out with it, if that's what it will take to get someone to actually read what I said before making a comment. I only mentioned the first part because you guys keep busting out with the 'it'll screw the game up for such a minor change!' line, and the second part is to make it a little personable. It seems a common mistake I make, sorry about that. As far as if it SHOULD happen. Well, as has already been said.. Dulrik is God here and his word is law. If he doesn't want it, it won't happen. I agree. However, that doesn't mean it should NOT happen at some point. There are plenty of good changes that could be made to this game that would positively affect it in many ways. Some of you vets need to try to embrace change instead of fighting it like an old enemy.

Are you Smoochy Bovine? http://shatteredkingdoms.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=23307&p=392674#p392674

As you'll see right under the post this takes you to, you have this:

Someone please explain the conditions under which someone that follows you will flee with you. Is it everyone that follows you and not caught in battle, not taking direct hits, what exactly? Or do I have this wrong in my mind?

I have no idea what that is.. and my posts have turned from wanting to get good feed back to simply wanting you guys to respond more intelligently. I get it, this idea has been seen a million times. Perhaps that means something in itself, yes? Above.. I've already conceded that Dulrik is the final word and agreed that he will not approve it if what you say is true, which you show proof right here. What's the point in saying any more? Really, that last part goes for us both I guess, yet I continue to be baffled by the lack of comprehension.. though most likely, lack of care as to what has already been stated.