Surrender options are needed

[Hodo]

In the past few days I have been in a few fights where I severely out classed my opponent.  T-Lynx vs a Prince,  T-Brig vs Renomee. 

If my opponent had an option to surrender but keep their ship, I am sure more people would take it.

Saw this on an old wiki for PotBS.

Surrender

There is another way to lose a Sea Combat. During a Player vs Player fight you can offer to surrender. You can offer a percentile of your unsecured cargo to the attacking players. If the attacking player accepts your surrender he will get a random part of your unsecured cargo based on that percentile. You will keep the rest (if any) and you will not lose durability or outfitting.

 

This is a fantastic system.   If I run down a T-Brig in my Renomee, he has no chance at escape, and no chance at out fighting me.   So why shouldnt he be able to surrender?  If he surrenders and says he will give me 100% of his cargo or what ever I can carry, but he gets to keep his ship.   It is a win - win for pirates, privateers and the trader ship captains. 

[jodgi]

1 hour ago, Hodo said:

It is a win - win

What if you're out to get pvp marks?

[Quineloe]

1 hour ago, Hodo said:

In the past few days I have been in a few fights where I severely out classed my opponent.  T-Lynx vs a Prince,  T-Brig vs Renomee. 

If my opponent had an option to surrender but keep their ship, I am sure more people would take it.

Saw this on an old wiki for PotBS.

Surrender

There is another way to lose a Sea Combat. During a Player vs Player fight you can offer to surrender. You can offer a percentile of your unsecured cargo to the attacking players. If the attacking player accepts your surrender he will get a random part of your unsecured cargo based on that percentile. You will keep the rest (if any) and you will not lose durability or outfitting.

 

This is a fantastic system. 

Yeah, right down to the part where surrender was always denied because PVP marks were worth more than cargo.

 

Surrender messages at best here would be abused for bragging screenshots.

[Lz3]

I find the current surrender should be fixed where the player is not rewarded a kill when the enemy surrenders (no/less pvp marks)

[William Death]

1 hour ago, Hodo said:

This is a fantastic system.   If I run down a T-Brig in my Renomee, he has no chance at escape, and no chance at out fighting me.   So why shouldnt he be able to surrender?  If he surrenders and says he will give me 100% of his cargo or what ever I can carry, but he gets to keep his ship.   It is a win - win for pirates, privateers and the trader ship captains. 

Seems ok, but honestly, I don't care at all about whatever cargo the ship is carrying. Unless he has a load of cartagena tar or something like that, what does it matter? I'm not interested in loading my fast and agile hunting ship with iron ingots or coal. For that reason, I'd much rather run across a nice 5th rate to tangle with rather than a trader. Don't get me wrong, I'll board and then scuttle a trader when I see it, but I prefer fighting targets that can fight back and give me more PvP and combat marks. Basically: I want the PvP marks 100% of the time. As an example: last night, I captured 2 L'Oceans in a gank. I really, really, really wanted to sink them for the PvP marks, but I didn't since a few of the others who were with me apparently don't have at least 2 or 3 first rates for some reason...but it took all my will power to remove the mouse pointer from the sink button .

Anyways, since PvP marks for sinking ships is the real prize you get for doing PvP....I'm not sure how often the surrender mechanic would realistically be used. I doubt I'd ever accept the surrender of an enemy trader: PvP marks are just too important and materials are almost worthless.

Besides all that: if I simply capture the ship, I can get 100% of the cargo and the PvP marks or the ship itself .

[Ravern]

24 minutes ago, jodgi said:

What if you're out to get pvp marks?

Its silly to have them as a meaningful currency so lets remove them (again) and have interesting game mechanics instead

[jodgi]

9 minutes ago, Ravern said:

Its silly to have them as a meaningful currency

Don't you like incentives to get people to go out for pvp? When we have this currency there is a motivation that should be able to trump the fear of loss based on gold and ship loss; pvp marks are more important and more worth.

Is it bad that people who pvp get things bot grinders don't?

Is it bad that people who play pure pvp can get nice things too?

When it comes to the state of pvp on EU1 Mr. Goldman is one of the guys who knows what's up.

What is your suggestion to boost pvp on  PVPEU1 ?

[Landsman]

29 minutes ago, Ravern said:

Its silly to have them as a meaningful currency

If you are a PvE player it certainly is.

[Hodo]

The problem is it isnt "fun" for the person who is sailing a trade ship.  When realistically if they did run into a 5th rate that they couldnt out run they would surrender.   Often times they would be taken as a prize, sent back to a nearby port, then the ship would have to be paid off by the captain, or by the company that owned it, and the crew and ship would often be let go.

There is no option like that in game.  I could try and sail that ship to a neutral port and sell the ship back to the person I took it from, but honestly with the current game mechanics that is a nightmare.  As you have to have a outpost there and they have to have an outpost... just not worth the effort.

 

[Ravern]

1 hour ago, jodgi said:

Don't you like incentives to get people to go out for pvp?

A new currency with some fancy upgrades locked behind it isn't an incentive.

2 hours ago, Landsman said:

If you are a PvE player it certainly is.

And that type of attitude is why we will never see server population go back to 2000+

[JobaSet]

2 hours ago, Lz3 said:

I find the current surrender should be fixed where the player is not rewarded a kill when the enemy surrenders (no/less pvp marks)

LOL unless they changed in last 6 months and I didn't notice it.  You don't get crap if some 1 surrenders on you before you can put damage on them.  The most extreme form of griefing in this game and it happens a lot, I once had 4 tbrigs surrender on me just so I could not get combat mark.  And they bragged about it. 

[Landsman]

26 minutes ago, Ravern said:

And that type of attitude is why we will never see server population go back to 2000+

Lmao.... yeah right. Or maybe it is because people can't be bothered to sail 2 hours to find some PvP because almost everyone else is doing PvE? In reality it is because there is no tutorial for new players and the game is lacking content. But at least the tutorial will be done soon.

[Macjimm]

I like Hodo's idea, but I'm not sure if we could allow traders to give in to a superior hunter without creating an abuse portal.

I was sailing a trader Lynx recently and was jumped by a Prince.   I didn't have a chance.   I did not surrender.   It was over very quick and the hunter teleported away to the other side of the Caribbean (At least that's what he said).  I lost my ship and my cargo.  It's okay. It's a PvP server.  Stuff happens like that.

But imagine if Hodo's idea could be implemented.   I could have negotiated with the  hunter, (he seemed to be a bright reasonable chap, polite and sensible.) We could have savored the battle a wee bit longer, enjoyed a chance to agree on terms.  Perhaps if the game mechanics allowed him some of these combat marks or if I could trade with him inside the Battle Instance I could have paid him gold (how much does it cost to buy C. Marks?).   The way the battle works right now it was a blind rush to sink or capture me then exit out of the instance.   Very little PvP.

I like the idea of surreder options that provide an incentive to the hunter to trade my ship back to me for - gold, goods or my word for future services .  Sinking or capping me in my T. Lynx from a Prince does take much skill.   I would like to have an option to the current mechanic of surrending just to spite my attacker.