I suppose that is something better than dividing the player base as well. It never ceases to amaze me how many young players believe all fights must be fair. Who ever made that rule? What is the purpose? Its like saying all major battles in history lead by great generals should have started like evenly matched boxing contests. There isn't one Great General that wouldn't agree, if he suddenly found himself fighting an evenly matched battle then his Strategy must have sucked.
Napoleon was known for defeating greater odds. Force each of his battles to start evenly matched and he suddenly becomes nothing special.
Blackbeard didn't make a name for himself hunting evenly matched prizes. Pretty much no successful pirate ever did. Lt. Maynard was nothing until he was hunting and brought down Blackbeard. Take away the ability to hunt unarmed cargo ships and both William Teach and Maynard become farmers?
Further yet what is the point of Admirals? If your commerce ships cannot be attacked or captured then why bother sending fleets to control sea zones. It wouldn't really matter and there would be no point. Every sea raider and Admiral from Sir Francis Drake to John Paul Jones becomes relatively useless.
This is why PvP populations drop nose dive whenever a game over protects players. All PvP roles (Pirate, pirate hunter, privateer and even fleet admirals) lose that extra thrill once the players realize its not all that anymore or it doesn't really matter. All you are left with is Gladiatorial style PvP.
Best thing Games Labs can do is put in some low level policed "safe zones" and let the players handle everything else for themselves afterwards.