PLEASE!!! Allow to return the ship to his owner after he surrendered!

[Koltes]

Again and again I want to let trader go if he is willing to pay.
My yesterday's catch... he didnt care about the money or loosing ship. He just needed to deliver his provisions so he could craft his ship.
Piracy is my income so I must get something out of it. The only way to get something out of it is by sinking him.
Trader proposed to go out of the battle instance and he tries to pay me by trading in OW. Of course that didnt work. So I had to retag him, sink to get some amount of gold.

If you dont want opposite nations to be able to trade in OW then please do this:

1. Allow to drop silver and gold into your ship's cargo from your chest (so it can be looted);
2. Allow to pass back the ownership of the ship back to the owner after he surrendered

Thats it! 🤷‍♂️

[Beeekonda]

PVP Mission 6-7: Requires  15 kills - Gives 24 Medals (1.6 medals per kill) and Golden Chest (Which drops alot of fancy stuff)

PVP Mission 4-5: Requires 10 kills - Gives 50 Medals (5 medals per kill) and Captains Chest (Juicy stuff) and Wooden Chest (OMEGAJUICY stuff everyone crave)

The question is - whos going to use that feature, beside carebear roleplayers, if the attacker has no reasons to let trader go?

 

 

Edited April 18, 2020 by Beeekonda

[Raekur]

While i understand koltes wanting to help remove some of the toxic behavior I doubt his idea will ever get any attention. The main focus of the pvp server has always been sinking other players. To aid in that endeavor, trade runs were lengthened to force traders (easy kills) to have to be in the open world for 3 times longer because a few complained they were making more money than the pvp players (why this is a surprise is shocking). Crafting was simplified so that ships could be replaced faster (except for trying to get materials to the crafting ports is still a nightmare sometimes). The overall development of the game has always centered around one specific focal point and I doubt any content that deviates away from this will ever see the light of day.

[Macjimm]

I think Raekur is correct.  The culture of Naval Action is to promote and encourage combat with very beautiful ships.  I doubt that mechanics will ever be set to encourage trade or ransom.

I've paid attackers a few times to allow me to escape, but it is a hassle for them.  We must meet at a free/neutral port to trade.

If I could trade with enemy in OW I would carry combat marks to buy my freedom.  Paying 3 CM marks, and some Reals, to continue sailing might be okay, depending on what is in the hold.

But it ain't going to happen.

NA is about lots of fights, often ... with minimal waiting .

 

Edited April 18, 2020 by Macjimm

[Kejsaren]

Speaking for myself only,

I stopped attacking trade ships long time ago, sometimes i tag them to see who it is, if i attack it's because i dislike that particular player some reason. But other then that, trade ships not worth the time or attention. (Much like requins and other i want pvp but not really ships).

If i encounter a warship with 3 trade ships, those traders are no interest. It's the warship i am after to battle. 

(Indiaman exception i always attack because they give 5 rate pvp mission count)

So some sort of trade with enemy is ow (or even in battle) would be interesting. But i guess players would find way to abuse this.

 

Maybe add demand ransom / offer ransom , ships have to be not moving and next to eachother. After ransom complete both ships leave the battle (as long as either of them are not tagged).

After complete ransom neither ship can attack the other for a certain period of time to ensure that no re-tag after ransom payed.

Edited April 18, 2020 by Tsiang Dao Ming

[Tiedemann]

11 hours ago, Beeekonda said:

PVP Mission 6-7: Requires  15 kills - Gives 24 Medals (1.6 medals per kill) and Golden Chest (Which drops alot of fancy stuff)

PVP Mission 4-5: Requires 10 kills - Gives 50 Medals (5 medals per kill) and Captains Chest (Juicy stuff) and Wooden Chest (OMEGAJUICY stuff everyone crave)

The question is - whos going to use that feature, beside carebear roleplayers, if the attacker has no reasons to let trader go?

 

 

Trade ships should just not count toward this mechanic imo. Should only we for warships imo. Way to many "psychos" sinking unarmed traders just to get those combat medals.  

[Farrago]

13 hours ago, koltes said:

Again and again I want to let trader go if he is willing to pay.
My yesterday's catch... he didnt care about the money or loosing ship. He just needed to deliver his provisions so he could craft his ship.
Piracy is my income so I must get something out of it. The only way to get something out of it is by sinking him.
Trader proposed to go out of the battle instance and he tries to pay me by trading in OW. Of course that didnt work. So I had to retag him, sink to get some amount of gold.

If you dont want opposite nations to be able to trade in OW then please do this:

1. Allow to drop silver and gold into your ship's cargo from your chest (so it can be looted);
2. Allow to pass back the ownership of the ship back to the owner after he surrendered

Thats it! 🤷‍♂️

I would also like this option. But we need to make sure it’s not exploitable.

Ransom can only be paid in reals, doubloons, or victory marks. No cargo Or it would facilitate abuse by assisting alts with smuggling.

There can’t be any additional protection once back in OW. Only trust.

[Tiedemann]

6 hours ago, TDK said:

Or leave some cargo space to equip your trader fleet with guns so you can fight back and not feed combat medals to the enemy. Players not putting guns on their traders deserve to be sunk.

So you think it is right to shot those that are not armed.. 😨

[erelkivtuadrater]

some kind of cargo inspection mechanic has been suggested so many times and is long overdue

Edited April 19, 2020 by erelkivtuadrater

[Farrago]

1 hour ago, Tiedemann said:

So you think it is right to shot those that are not armed.. 😨

Aren’t they free to surrender?

[Koltes]

17 hours ago, Raekur said:

While i understand koltes wanting to help remove some of the toxic behavior I doubt his idea will ever get any attention.

Actually not really. Im not on crusade to remove it as thinking this would have been naive. But I do know for a fact that there are lots of people in this community that feel the same way. Surrender should means that he gives himself to enemy's mercy and the enemy should have an option to give such mercy. What can I say?... Im a softy


 

14 hours ago, Macjimm said:

I think Raekur is correct.  The culture of Naval Action is to promote and encourage combat with very beautiful ships.  I doubt that mechanics will ever be set to encourage trade or ransom.

....

NA is about lots of fights, often ... with minimal waiting .

 

I beg to differ. Adding such option for the winner to return ship back to the owner will go long way. If trader doesnt trust the winner he will never risk paying. Nothing will change there. They surrender and teleport back to port. I dont say this will happen all the time. Specially not with traders who are on delivery run. But for those who are hauling resources to their port they might and often will want to pay ransom. Why? As you said its a waste of time for them to regrow resources and try to deliver them again just to craft a ship. So paying ransom would be very reasonable. As for the attacker, its all about time=money. The faster he can get paid and continue on his way the better it is. I would rather not chase the trader. If he drops sails, let me inspect cargo (yes Im free to take anything I like, but thats where bargaining comes in because heavy cargo in most cases have little interest to me) and make a deal.


 

8 hours ago, Tiedemann said:

Trade ships should just not count toward this mechanic imo. Should only we for warships imo. Way to many "psychos" sinking unarmed traders just to get those combat medals.  

Its already been that way. Its called trading with immunity and its boring as hell for both sides. What is there now is good, just need to extend the option a little. We are not asking much. It will be up to players to made deals. Or not...


 

6 hours ago, Farrago said:

I would also like this option. But we need to make sure it’s not exploitable.

Ransom can only be paid in reals, doubloons, or victory marks. No cargo Or it would facilitate abuse by assisting alts with smuggling.

There can’t be any additional protection once back in OW. Only trust.

I would say not even victory marks. Just cash. Silver and gold. And only from the cargo hold. Or if they are close and AFTER one side surrender then the trade function is available in the battle instance.


 

52 minutes ago, Tiedemann said:

So you think it is right to shot those that are not armed.. 😨

Yes, just like it is to get ganked. OW is a opportunistic place. There should nothing be fair. Everyone wants to get an advantage and upper hand and those players win who are able to be on the top of the wave more often than the others.


 

[Beeekonda]

11 hours ago, Tiedemann said:

Trade ships should just not count toward this mechanic imo. Should only we for warships imo. Way to many "psychos" sinking unarmed traders just to get those combat medals.  

All ships in this game has gunports and can carry marines you know

[Raekur]

39 minutes ago, Beeekonda said:

All ships in this game has gunports and can carry marines you know

So does basic cutters, should those count as well?

[Macjimm]

21 hours ago, Farrago said:

But we need to make sure it’s not exploitable.

Ransom can only be paid in reals, doubloons, or victory marks. No cargo Or it would facilitate abuse by assisting alts with smuggling.

How does the abuse work? 

I would love to trade internationally.  Is it abuse when a Russian trades Copper Ingots to a Brit at a port?  I don't see how that is cheating, so why would it be cheating if the Brit and Russian traded in OW or an instance?

[Farrago]

2 hours ago, Macjimm said:

How does the abuse work? 

I would love to trade internationally.  Is it abuse when a Russian trades Copper Ingots to a Brit at a port?  I don't see how that is cheating, so why would it be cheating if the Brit and Russian traded in OW or an instance?

I would also love it. It makes sense to be able to do except for one thing: alts.

I, and I think most, would use it more with alts than as a means of commerce between two players.

For example, my US alt brings trade ships down the coast from Charleston. Somewhere around south Florida in a quiet part of water he trades the cargo to my Spanish alt who then sails it west along the Cuban coast and out into the middle of the gulf where my Russian alt is waiting. The Russian takes it into Vera Cruz. Yes, this can be done in ports, but with significantly more risk than an out-of-the-way quiet stretch of water.

Or the way I would use it even more:

My Pirate sits off the US coast, capturing traders. After each capture, I transfer the loot to my alt US trader in Open Water who then takes it into a US port.

By the way, I didn’t say “abused.” I said “exploited.” Both of my above scenarios seem great. But are they the reasons to want this mechanic? I’m not saying an emphatic “no.”  One way to look at it is it would provide more options for the solo player. [shrug]

[ashley]

Stand and Deliver!

[BuckleUpBones]

Why not a 'Honor' system, like based on 'Hit Rate' or something like that, maybe damage done.

If players can maintain or achieves there level, then they get to keep there ship if they surrender.

Edited April 19, 2020 by BuckleUpBones

[Macjimm]

6 hours ago, Farrago said:

I would also love it. It makes sense to be able to do except for one thing: alts.

Farrago,

my compliments for your explanation. 

I have never understood the nuances of the game mechanics in NA.  Perhaps it is a cultural thing, because I don't see the harm in many of the interactions that excite and incite players. 

Like Alts.  They seem like a good idea to me, they create revenue for Game Labs and provide unlimited options for players to have more outposts, dock space, resources, etc.  I only have one account, but I can see the advantage and don't see the harm in having more.  I just barely have enough time for one identity.  I bought the Forger so that I could conduct monthly business ventures in alternate nations, but the DLC is much too restrictive to ever use it.

Suffer my ignorance if you will: Why is it okay to trade with a player but the same trade with an Alt is somehow wrong, or quasi cheating?

I still think that Admin wants to discourage international communication and interactions.  The foundation of this game seems to be fighting with these beautiful ships.  I would love to see more choice to trade and craft but doubt that more effort will be spent to improve either.  The focus appears to be getting us to fight as much as possible, without relations with "the enemy".  If enemies are not talking and trading with each other they will be fighting more.   I'm not sure the Admin care about the trade use/exploits/abuse of Alts in OW or battles. 

Edited April 20, 2020 by Macjimm

[Sparkydog]

Why not just another check box after you board the enemy- that says something like “ransom is accepted” that releases the ship back into the OW with minimum crew onboard. So the trader has to negotiate the ransom and submit to being boarded.

[Farrago]

6 hours ago, Macjimm said:

Farrago,

my compliments for your explanation. 

I have never understood the nuances of the game mechanics in NA.  Perhaps it is a cultural thing, because I don't see the harm in many of the interactions that excite and incite players. 

Like Alts.  They seem like a good idea to me, they create revenue for Game Labs and provide unlimited options for players to have more outposts, dock space, resources, etc.  I only have one account, but I can see the advantage and don't see the harm in having more.  I just barely have enough time for one identity.  I bought the Forger so that I could conduct monthly business ventures in alternate nations, but the DLC is much too restrictive to ever use it.

Suffer my ignorance if you will: Why is it okay to trade with a player but the same trade with an Alt is somehow wrong, or quasi cheating?

I still think that Admin wants to discourage international communication and interactions.  The foundation of this game seems to be fighting with these beautiful ships.  I would love to see more choice to trade and craft but doubt that more effort will be spent to improve either.  The focus appears to be getting us to fight as much as possible, without relations with "the enemy".  If enemies are not talking and trading with each other they will be fighting more.   I'm not sure the Admin care about the trade use/exploits/abuse of Alts in OW or battles. 

I am also not against Alts. In some ways, they allow a player to do in game what they could do in real life. Like in my examples, it’s quite possible shipments would travel under different flags at different times. It makes sense that a Pirate would have a “legitimate” partner to sell his stolen goods. It also makes sense that just because I was out to sea, my representatives could still be in various ports buying and selling while other employees transport my goods.

So I’m not against trading and doing other things withAlts, but some view Alts as a pay to win as these are all benefits that are difficult or even impossible without an Alt.

The problem I see with Alts is if they are used to manipulate the strategic or tactical balance at the expense of one nation over another. This causes many of the tribunals and salt in the game.

Also, let’s say I have a strictly Econ alt in Russia. He sails back and forth across the gulf all day basically just printing money. I would have little incentive to be true to my own nation in matters dealing with Russia because it could hurt me economically. Realistic? Yes. However, we have no rule of law in the game. Russians, discovering my Alt smuggling could do nothing about it. My own nation would have little recourse as well other than possibly some clan disciplinary action.

So some players resent the way Alts can be used to circumvent some restrictions of the game without incurring a real risk by the smuggling or traitor activity.

By the way, none of the possible Alt activities I’ve described have I done. Like you, I think the whole Alt thing can be too time consuming. My alt is in the same nation, Pirate. He does only a few things. When I used to craft, he’d help farm materials. But now, he either makes the occasional trade run or serves as a support ship to my main, carrying repairs, loot, etc while if I’m out raiding.

[Macjimm]

3 minutes ago, Farrago said:

However, we have no rule of law in the game. Russians, discovering my Alt smuggling could do nothing about it. My own nation would have little recourse as well other than possibly some clan disciplinary action.

So some players resent the way Alts can be used to circumvent some restrictions of the game without incurring a real risk by the smuggling or traitor activity

Enlightening.  Thanks Farrago.

It would be difficult to address this lack of risk.

[Koltes]

12 hours ago, BuckleUpBones said:

Why not a 'Honor' system, like based on 'Hit Rate' or something like that, maybe damage done.

If players can maintain or achieves there level, then they get to keep there ship if they surrender.

Hard coded honer system never works and is ground for more exploiting. I would rather let players to deal with it like people would in RL. When you pay ransom there is ALWAYS a risk that you wont get your side of the deal. It will come down to how valuable to cargo is to you personally and what you are willing to put at risk to save it. Also pirates who dont honor the deal will get known pretty quickly and will never have traders paying ransom to them
 

[Macjimm]

Well said Koltes.

We take lots of risks with player to player trades.  When a shipwright crafts a custom build the buyer may change his mind and refuse to pay.  A trader takes an order, sources and buys resources, then transports them to a buyer who may refuse to pay the agreed price.  A crafter makes labor hours contracts or repairs only to discover that buyer has stopped playing.

These risks actually enhance the game by allowing options and creating opportunities.   There is room for integrity and sculduggery.  The satisfaction from trust fulfilled, outshines the disappointment of victimization.

Paying to leave a battle would be a gamble.  It's unlikely that a ransom would be offered if fleeing or winning the fight was an option.  The choice is loss of everything or payment for the possibility to leave with something.  

These type of chances and options make the game richer.

Edited April 20, 2020 by Macjimm

[Koltes]

@Macjimm spot on