I Surrender! BATTLE IS OVER... or not?

[Iroquois Confederacy]

46 minutes ago, Archaos said:

This is what I am saying though, your hold soon gets filled up with the current method meaning you have to return to port. But with the proposed system you just keep getting cash without having to return to port. In the long run this will benefit commerce raiders. I agree the traders will get some benefit but in the long run the raider hanging around for longer has a down side.

"I would gladly lose everything so my opponent gains nothing - and I certainly wouldn't want anyone else to be able to make that choice either."

[Archaos]

6 minutes ago, Iroquois Confederacy said:

"I would gladly lose everything so my opponent gains nothing - and I certainly wouldn't want anyone else to be able to make that choice either."

Its not just because its what I would do, and I have no issues with people having choices. I am just pointing out another aspect to such a mechanic that people should consider.

At present KPR is regularly camped by a few commerce raiders and the longer they are able to stay around before having to return to their home ports the worse it is for the traders. In a way the next step would be to set up a protection racket where people would not be attacked as long as they paid up in advance.

If a raider spends 20 minutes in an instance chasing down one trader then that is 20 minutes he cannot attack others.

The idea in general is okay but not the cash alternative.

[Skully]

2 hours ago, Archaos said:

Its not just because its what I would do, and I have no issues with people having choices. I am just pointing out another aspect to such a mechanic that people should consider.

At present KPR is regularly camped by a few commerce raiders and the longer they are able to stay around before having to return to their home ports the worse it is for the traders. In a way the next step would be to set up a protection racket where people would not be attacked as long as they paid up in advance.

If a raider spends 20 minutes in an instance chasing down one trader then that is 20 minutes he cannot attack others.

The idea in general is okay but not the cash alternative.

I have my doubts as well of some decisions folks are allowed to make when they need to judge self preservation versus nation benefit (or self preservation versus some game mechanics).

I think the only solution is that everybody delegates any decision to me.

I know, I know, it doesn't scale well. But you guys can simply not be trusted with decision power.

[Koltes]

5 hours ago, Iroquois Confederacy said:

The current alternative is what I do:  Sink you, take whatever I feel like, and dump the rest.  If I get slowed, sure, I dump that too.  But I'm out a few hundred tons of goods.  The trader is out a ship and cargo, and all those hours.

I bet many a trader would rather pay 100K for passage instead of a ship and 750K of cargo.

Nailed it

[Iroquois Confederacy]

26 minutes ago, koltes said:

Nailed it

It's almost like we do this on a regular basis...

[Koltes]

@admin
All I can say is that we all need positive reviews on steam and small things like this will definitely improve game's rating 

Edited July 3, 2017 by koltes

[Guest]

Fantastic suggestion. Like it

[Harry Collier]

I like the idea. It's well thought out and anything that gives players more options other than losing everything is good in my book.

[admin]

On 01.07.2017 at 3:30 AM, koltes said:

3. If I decide to let him go there should be Let Go button. Pressing Let Go surrendered player gets back the control of his ship even after I looted it

 

It is going to be very hard to solve the griefing problem where the player will let him go to attack again (especially using friends).
If he is let go and appears in the open world he will be attacked again. 
If he is sent to port after that it will be used to send ships around using alts. 

[Suricato Rojo]

Maybe a "Let Go" Player could stay in a new blue screen for 1h.
Blue Screen was a good interface/mechanic asset IMHO. 

[HachiRoku]

6 minutes ago, admin said:

It is going to be very hard to solve the griefing problem where the player will let him go to attack again (especially using friends).
If he is let go and appears in the open world he will be attacked again. 
If he is sent to port after that it will be used to send ships around using alts. 

Well i have to sink people i only want loot of alot. Most of us would gladly take the risk of a possible trolling mechanic because in most cases it saves ships. Simply put i does more good than harm. 

[Koltes]

22 minutes ago, admin said:

It is going to be very hard to solve the griefing problem where the player will let him go to attack again (especially using friends).
If he is let go and appears in the open world he will be attacked again. 
If he is sent to port after that it will be used to send ships around using alts. 

Player has a choice to Surrender the old way if he doesn't trust the attacker. Also once the attacker been dishonest the work will go around pretty quick.
I played EVE for few years and ransoming is a legit business. There were even websites where players would list pirates that miners should not trust.
Even if trader paid 50k and the got retagged again he lost extra 50k. Not the end of the world. I guarantee that he will be saving a lot more.

As of when trader tagged by multiple force he has in battle chat to ask and get confirmation that they all will  let him go. Else he can just Abandon the Ship and its no different to the current surrender.

We seriously need more choices

Edited July 3, 2017 by koltes

[Epic Dave]

awesome idea!

[Rebrall]

On 03/07/2017 at 9:13 PM, admin said:

It is going to be very hard to solve the griefing problem where the player will let him go to attack again (especially using friends).
If he is let go and appears in the open world he will be attacked again. 
If he is sent to port after that it will be used to send ships around using alts. 

@admin couldn't you give them a tag of some description that signifies they have recently surrendered and make them  immune to attack for a set time or invisibility for a set time?, other then that @koltes really good suggestion i like it, it brings a nice essence of realism to the game, good job!

Edited July 13, 2017 by Rebrall
spelling

[Koltes]

1 minute ago, Rebrall said:

@admin couldn't you give them a tag of some description that signifies they have recently surrounded and make them  immune to attack for a set time or invisibility for a set time?, other then that @koltes really good suggestion i like it, it brings a nice essence of realism to the game, good job!

Just give 3 mins invisibility if he has been Let Go

[Iroquois Confederacy]

30 minutes ago, admin said:

It is going to be very hard to solve the griefing problem where the player will let him go to attack again (especially using friends).
If he is let go and appears in the open world he will be attacked again. 

But we already have this exact issue with "Revenge Fleets" constantly tagging you into new battles.  Solve one, and you solve the other.

[admin]

14 minutes ago, koltes said:

We seriously need more choices

Ability to surrender only cargo is a great idea - we will put this into a feature backlog. It is not easy to make this - because the way you propose it - it can cause potential for griefing. For example - player surrenders cargo and waits for the privateer to decide on it. What if that privateer holds his decision for 1.5 hours. We then have to keep that trader for 1.5 hours somewhere until the privateers makes the decision not to sink the ship.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, admin said:

Ability to surrender only cargo is a great idea - we will put this into a feature backlog. It is not easy to make this - because the way you propose it - it can cause potential for griefing. For example - player surrenders cargo and waits for the privateer to decide on it. What if that privateer holds his decision for 1.5 hours. We then have to keep that trader for 1.5 hours somewhere. 

Maybe a 15 minute countdown timer or so would solve this issue.

[Koltes]

4 minutes ago, admin said:

Ability to surrender only cargo is a great idea - we will put this into a feature backlog. It is not easy to make this - because the way you propose it - it can cause potential for griefing. For example - player surrenders cargo and waits for the privateer to decide on it. What if that privateer holds his decision for 1.5 hours. We then have to keep that trader for 1.5 hours somewhere until the privateers makes the decision not to sink the ship.

Surrender makes you lose control for 10 mins. Then you gain it back regardless if trade was finished or not. Also cant grief for eternity. Abandon Ship button is highlighted while Surrender is on. Can leave any second 

Edited July 3, 2017 by koltes

[Norfolk nChance]

I would imagine also with the surrender you'd also get maybe the kill cool down warning on the UI to help stop the immediate grieving

 

[Skully]

On 7/3/2017 at 11:46 AM, admin said:

Ability to surrender only cargo is a great idea - we will put this into a feature backlog. It is not easy to make this - because the way you propose it - it can cause potential for griefing. For example - player surrenders cargo and waits for the privateer to decide on it. What if that privateer holds his decision for 1.5 hours. We then have to keep that trader for 1.5 hours somewhere until the privateers makes the decision not to sink the ship.

Make the battle timer tick off. After 1:30 the trader can simply escape.

[Koltes]

bump

[James Thomson]

What stops him to sink you after catching you again at OS? 

[Meraun]

I+1

i woud even add an option for the player to pay the Attacker after he boarded the Ship. So basicly "200k and i can keep the Ships"?

[FKL 1982]

Maybe I'm being stupid but I'm fairly sure the battle ends when a player surrenders already