Reason for surrendering your ship

[erelkivtuadrater]

My idea is that its boring/annoying getting chased for many hours if you need to get away and there is really no reason to surrender your ship as of today since you would lose everything anyway, and knowing this game for 4 years now since the durability era its ALOT more suffering now losing a high quality ship = players want less risk = more feeling of having to go in heavy lineships and in groups of 5+ people. People also tend to leave battles even though they are 4v1 if they see they are outmatched, waiting to retag with even more people to secure a kill without losing ANY ship.

The Suggestion: 

The player that surrenders: If you surrender your ship. The ship gets teleported to your closest outpost, you lose the upgrades, cannons and items in hold. Its locked in port so you cant use it UNLESS, you buy an approval from the Admirality to use the ship again.

Still in battle instance: The attacker can sail to the ship, the only thing he can do is to sink it (to prevent duplicating ships), he gets rewarded with doubloons, one random upgrade from the ship (as of today), and items from the hold BEFORE its sunk (if you loot hold before its sunk there are much more items in there).

 

Approval from admirality should have a cost that exceeds the max amount of looted doubloons so duplicating doubloons wouldnt be possible. Would be as the "Reset Perk" item so it would have to be transported to the port if you have the ship at an freeport (can discuss if the ship should be teleported to closest national port, but then i thought of Poland)

If the ship is surrendered it shouldnt take in more water to prevent people waiting in the last second before they sink to surrender, it stays afloat until attacker has clicked the sink ship button.

The ship cant surrender if its taking in water, either from leaks or structural damage.

This type of surrender should also not be possible to do if you're in boarding, meaning the out of boarding surrender makes it more worth then surrendering while in boarding.

 

Example: Imagine you board a ship and the victim realize he will lose the boarding anyway so to prevent the boarder the full control of his ship he surrenders when he has no chance of winning. Then its to late, so to not lose your ship you would want to surrender before the boarding happens.

 

I think this will be a good addition, that people would surrender their ship to keep it and fight another day (only needs a new refit), it would actually make surrendering in the game relevant. People would probably try to not go in huge gank fleets and be more encouraged to try pvp knowing they can surrender if they get smashed in battle. It would be GREAT if you use it with an AI ship since you would literally pvp and lose nothing expect the doubloons for the approval for usage of the ship again from the admirality.

Getting chased from 20 ships getting retagged all the time at 4AM EU time wouldnt be as frustrating if you want to let go you can surrender, pay the doubloons, rerefit ship and go again.

 

Whats your peoples thoughts? 

Edited January 8, 2020 by erelkivtuadrater

[Macjimm]

Respectfully submitted.

The mechanics for NA combat are extremely complicated.  Please recognize the Devs: for the delicate balance they must achieve.  Tough to ensure fighting is; fun, exciting, and somewhat fair.  On the War server the challenge to harmonize these is much more difficult than on the Peace server.  Someone will always be frustrated and pissed off.

From what I have seen, there is a countermeasure for most situations in game.  

The game would be less fun if we complicate the battles more.  Please don't add more rules to them.

No one has ever been held in game against their will.  If you hate losing fancy expensive ships, ... Sail cheaper ones.  It's your choice.  You can exit the game at any time.  Don't add more convoluted restrictions, that impact everyone else, just to save you from losing your stuff.  Loss is part of the game.

N A. Fact # 1 You will be ganked, sunk and captured.  Repeatedly.  It is inevitable.

N.A. Rule # 1 Don't risk what you are not prepared to lose.

[Vizzini]

dlc ships already take care of this option and I could see limited appeal from the devs with the possibility of hindering any sales by allowing a form of durability such as you are describing

 

surrendering should mean you lose it , otherwise every battle could be over really quick

 

 

[Baptiste Gallouédec]

I m against anything preventing the winning side to keep a defeated ship. Sinking or surrendering should mean you loose the ship.

 

But i would like surrendering to get some use, same as i would prefer that most battles end in ship surrendering instead of sinking.

Maybe make it availlable only when taking leaks (all crew go to stop leaks and the ship can't sink anymore) or in shock (so you can't surrender without even giving a fight and deprive the opponent from getting medals.)

In return you could get a random note for a ship of the same class you were sailing or some compensation like the doublons & reals cost of your ship, or few combat medals, idk .

 

[MrOkieDokie]

if we ever get officers or something of the like surrendering could allow you to keep them? POWs you can buy back or something?

[erelkivtuadrater]

14 minutes ago, Macjimm said:

Respectfully submitted.

The mechanics for NA combat are extremely complicated.  Please recognize the Devs: for the delicate balance they must achieve.  Tough to ensure fighting is; fun, exciting, and somewhat fair.  On the War server the challenge to harmonize these is much more difficult than on the Peace server.  Someone will always be frustrated and pissed off.

From what I have seen, there is a countermeasure for most situations in game.  

The game would be less fun if we complicate the battles more.  Please don't add more rules to them.

No one has ever been held in game against their will.  If you hate losing fancy expensive ships, ... Sail cheaper ones.  It's your choice.  You can exit the game at any time.  Don't add more convoluted restrictions, that impact everyone else, just to save you from losing your stuff.  Loss is part of the game.

N A. Fact # 1 You will be ganked, sunk and captured.  Repeatedly.  It is inevitable.

N.A. Rule # 1 Don't risk what you are not prepared to lose.

I dont think its a complicated mechanic, maybe i explained it complicated. But the difference, you surrender your ship before its dead or in boarding you get to keep it and only lose the upgrades, cannons and inventory, the guy that sinks you dont have to go the full distance to sink you. 

As example: you're upwind, demasted with literally no chance to survive, you know you will die anyway and sink, so you rather just prolong the fight for both you and the opponent since you know surrendering wont do you any good since you will lose it all anyway.

9 minutes ago, Vizzini said:

dlc ships already take care of this option and I could see limited appeal from the devs with the possibility of hindering any sales by allowing a form of durability such as you are describing

surrendering should mean you lose it , otherwise every battle could be over really quick

You lose anyway today, but how it is now no one surrenders their ship because there is nothing worth doing it (crew cost are basically free)

[erelkivtuadrater]

47 minutes ago, Baptiste Gallouédec said:

I m against anything preventing the winning side to keep a defeated ship. Sinking or surrendering should mean you loose the ship.

i dont understand your point, if you sink your sink, if you surrender in boarding you can get captured with my suggestion, and there is literally no one that surrenders their ship unless they dont know any better, since you have nothing to gain, you dont even get to keep your crew as of today.

Edited January 8, 2020 by erelkivtuadrater

[Baptiste Gallouédec]

My point is you suggest the one who surrender manage to keep his ship, while the one who won the fight can't take control of the ship he defeated, only sink it, there i think the winner should have the choice to cap it of sink it (i even don't like not being able to cap dlc ships).

With you suggestion a dream build ship would never be lost  or get captured anymore, you surrender and you get to keep it for your next fight. 

[erelkivtuadrater]

2 hours ago, Baptiste Gallouédec said:

My point is you suggest the one who surrender manage to keep his ship, while the one who won the fight can't take control of the ship he defeated, only sink it, there i think the winner should have the choice to cap it of sink it (i even don't like not being able to cap dlc ships).

With you suggestion a dream build ship would never be lost  or get captured anymore, you surrender and you get to keep it for your next fight. 

im sorry but you didnt read my post or understood it, dont take it personal.

But if we compare it for what we have today.

Today you can sink or capture your enemy. Your only way to capture the enemy is

1. if he surrenders //which we all know for the fact that the player would never do because if they know they are gonna die at least they dont want the enemy to keep the ship.
2. if you win vs him in boarding. If he sinks before you can loot the ship you get like +-25% of the hold items.

Suggestion gives the player a actual reason to surrender.

1. If he surrenders, the only thing he loses are the upgrades, guns and hold inventory. //gives motivation for pvp, doesent feel like everything is lost if he has no chance in a battle etc
2. Attacker gets all hold inventory if ship surrenders, and the guy on losing side wont fight him even its an inevitable death just to not let the enemy keep the ship
3. The surrender wont feel that everything is lost and get demotivated from losing everything, but he has to pay a price to get the ship back in form of doubloons.
4. He cant do the same surrender in boarding, so if the attacker manages to get the player in boarding and kill him there, he can do whatever he wants with the ship, if he wants to keep it or sink it, its up to him. Then its to late to surrender in the same way.

 You say "while the one who won the fight can't take control of the ship he defeated,"

I say. What is the difference when the guy that wins the fight sinks the ship in combat, he still cant capture it, and thats how it is today aswell.

But as its today there is no reason to click that Surrender button..

[Aquillas]

There are reasons to do it.

Whenyou are ganked with no chance to escape and no chance to have fun, why fighting? When you have some IRL reason to stop...

Either you surrend or simply leave the game.

Edited January 8, 2020 by Aquillas

[erelkivtuadrater]

36 minutes ago, Aquillas said:

There are reasons to do it.

Whenyou are ganked with no chance to escape and no chance to have fun, why fighting? When you have some IRL reason to stop...

Either you surrend or simply leave the game.

if im  getting ganked in any ship like i did the other day, im by no chance gonna surrender and give the ship freely to them, i wont give them that pleasure i would atleast take out a few and ATLEAST sink the ship to prevent them from getting my whole inventory AND possibly my ship.

Btw ill take note of it, next time i see you ingame outmatched and no chance to survive ill expect you to surrender your ship then? (I bet you wont )

Edited January 8, 2020 by erelkivtuadrater

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

You will not surrender... But the gank squad might force ( if they fancy your ship ) you to give up the ship, and capture it, by force of chain, some ball, a lot of grape and cutlass.

[erelkivtuadrater]

6 minutes ago, Hethwill said:

You will not surrender... But the gank squad might force ( if they fancy your ship ) you to give up the ship, and capture it, by force of chain, some ball, a lot of grape and cutlass.

that is true, but then again, thats in boarding and my suggestion is when you are in boarding its to late to surrender to keep your ship so if you surrender in boarding, it would be like today where the enemy decides if the ship is kept or not

Edited January 8, 2020 by erelkivtuadrater

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

Objective to take over the enemy ship is to take the prize, the ship itself most of time.

So... who keeps the ship ? The original owner or the fellows that capture it ? There can only be one ship.

 

[Farrago]

There should be an incentive to surrendering but not one where you get to keep the ship UNLESS the player you are surrendering to agrees.

Idea:

Surrender brings up a trade window with the capturer and the captive. On conclusion of a successful trade, whatever the captive has left (possibly the ship and any remaining cargo) is transported back to nearest friendly or neutral port. Obviously if he gives up the ship, all of his cargo is lost as well. This would allow the capturer to be paid a ransom in cargo, the ship AND cargo, some cargo, reals, doubloons, or victory marks. A minimal reward in reals is given to the former captive based on the number of crew lives he saved by not having them go down with the ship. 

[Conte D. Catellani]

What about just improving with a perk the Admiralty insurance? Now it cover the cost of the ship if is sinked, with a perk also if is captured. 

Dunno how it work if take into consideration the upgrades and weapons cost and, in traders case, the cargo value. 

Edited January 9, 2020 by Conte D. Catellani

[AeRoTR]

What about golden/purple ships? You will just surrender and keep the ship. 

@RepairyMcRepairous made a very good purposal, surrender by terms window. That is good idea. 

[Potemkin]

Would be interesting to see a crew experience system similar to ultimate general civil war where the unit gains experience through combat but replacing losses can lower overall experience level and remove bonuses that come with higher levels of veterancy. If you surrender you should lose the ship, period. Individual ship's crew with veterancy bonuses would change the situational dynamics of choosing whether or not to surrender. 

[Macjimm]

14 hours ago, Farrago said:

There should be an incentive to surrendering but not one where you get to keep the ship UNLESS the player you are surrendering to agrees.

This has always been a very good suggestion.  One that  I wish the Devs would allow.

Currently the only way to pay a ransom, or return captured assets, is for the combatants to agree to meet at a port. I'd done it on occasion but most hunters don't think it is worth the effort to travel to the agreed port and complete the trade.  Allowing trade in the battle instance is a very good idea and would add alot of interest to the game.  It allows creativity and provides options.  

The winnner should be able to return;  the ship, the crew, and/or the items in the hold.  If the winner choses to he should be able to keep or destroy it all.  The instance-trade allows the loser to pay a ransom in reals, doubloons and/or upgrades.  If the winner gets a reward from the admiralty after each battle, he could keep repeating catch and release to earn additional rewards.  There should be a simple fix for this abuse.  Perhaps after a battle is ended, by surrender, the winner will not be awarded a reward for subsquent battles with the surrended player(s), until a cooldown period expires.

This idea is completely diffent from allowing the loser to keep a ship that has been captured or sunk.  It makes no sense to have the ship clone itself - so it is duplicated.   A ship sunk, or captured, is a ship lost to the loser.

I can't see how FULL insurance could work and prevent abuse.  The current insurance seems to work okay.  But the payback will never be enough to replace valuable ships and expensive upgrades.

 

Edited January 9, 2020 by Macjimm

[AeRoTR]

I do not sink good ships, take if I need or tell the guy he can have it at a freetown if he wants to pay some million reals. 

I charge around, good upgrades x 500k reals

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

6 hours ago, Macjimm said:

The current insurance seems to work okay.  But the payback will never be enough to replace valuable ships and expensive upgrades.

Other game with insurance covers the full cost ( player must put the entirety of money on insurance though, is basically a savings for a bad day ) has no player to player trade so the prices correspond to what the market charges. Insurance in NA is in relation to what AI market charges, not what players charge.

The beauty and the beast, and the more we charge for resources the bigger the gap from insurance. It affects both the buyer as much as the seller, because all lose ships.

In that regard the NA insurance is well done.

[Vernon Merrill]

Same discussion....  different decade.

[Celtic]

Perhaps tie it to XP/Monetary reward? I do like the trade window idea - but as an alternative.

 

If a player Chooses to Surrender

1. They Gain 1.5 battle XP (representing lessons learned) (also offsets what they could have potentially got if they fought to end)
2.  1.5x current Ship insurance payout
3. a percentage chance to retain each upgrade (higher for books)
4. Majority of crew is returned to you

If a player does not surrender

1.  "Heroic Sacrifice" buff - 1.25 real gain modifier for XX Period of Time 
2. Current Insurance Payout
3. "Risky Captain" Negative trait Crew is more expensive to recruit for XX Period of Time. 

All the above values should be up for discussion and adjustment to come to something that provides incentives to perform one or the other as the situation permits.  Additionally I still think there should be a "Crew experience" counter which is dinged when you lose men - and would tie quite nicely into something like this.  

 

We should arguably be seeing surrenders far more often than we are seeing Straight sinkings if we want to be true to history. Captains would generally see the writing on the wall and in order to prevent a senseless loss of life strike colours.  But as it stands there never has been a reason to Surrender vice fight it out the bloody end even if you're not having fun you might at least get more XP out of it. 

It should be more of a tactical choice that, even if I know I'm going to lose, fighting it out to the bitter end will help secure a victory for my team - but if it's either a lost cause or my contributions would be negligible I should be able to strike and at least get something out of it.   Furthermore Captains, at least in the Royal Navy tended to garner reputations where  Sailors would try and sail for certain "lucky" captains knowing they were good for going after prizes, or were generally viewed favourably. While other captains would have poor reputations, perhaps from losing large numbers of their men senselessly? and would have more trouble recruiting

 

 

[Yoha]

On 1/17/2020 at 12:28 AM, Celtic said:

Perhaps tie it to XP/Monetary reward? I do like the trade window idea - but as an alternative.

 

If a player Chooses to Surrender

1. They Gain 1.5 battle XP (representing lessons learned) (also offsets what they could have potentially got if they fought to end)
2.  1.5x current Ship insurance payout
3. a percentage chance to retain each upgrade (higher for books)
4. Majority of crew is returned to you

If a player does not surrender

1.  "Heroic Sacrifice" buff - 1.25 real gain modifier for XX Period of Time 
2. Current Insurance Payout
3. "Risky Captain" Negative trait Crew is more expensive to recruit for XX Period of Time. 

All the above values should be up for discussion and adjustment to come to something that provides incentives to perform one or the other as the situation permits.  Additionally I still think there should be a "Crew experience" counter which is dinged when you lose men - and would tie quite nicely into something like this.  

 

We should arguably be seeing surrenders far more often than we are seeing Straight sinkings if we want to be true to history. Captains would generally see the writing on the wall and in order to prevent a senseless loss of life strike colours.  But as it stands there never has been a reason to Surrender vice fight it out the bloody end even if you're not having fun you might at least get more XP out of it. 

It should be more of a tactical choice that, even if I know I'm going to lose, fighting it out to the bitter end will help secure a victory for my team - but if it's either a lost cause or my contributions would be negligible I should be able to strike and at least get something out of it.   Furthermore Captains, at least in the Royal Navy tended to garner reputations where  Sailors would try and sail for certain "lucky" captains knowing they were good for going after prizes, or were generally viewed favourably. While other captains would have poor reputations, perhaps from losing large numbers of their men senselessly? and would have more trouble recruiting

 

 

Battle XP for players who surrender without earning XP in battle can be exploited very easily. Someone could farm the XP by surrendering back and forth between a couple or more accounts.

I don't think there is anything wrong with the current surrender mechanic. The spoils go to the victor as they should.

[Celtic]

On 1/22/2020 at 5:05 PM, Syler said:

Battle XP for players who surrender without earning XP in battle can be exploited very easily. Someone could farm the XP by surrendering back and forth between a couple or more accounts.

I don't think there is anything wrong with the current surrender mechanic. The spoils go to the victor as they should.

Except there is literally 0 incentive to surrender, If you read what I suggested it would be 1.5x whatever they would have gained had they not surrendered and fought the ship down to a sink - which probably would have been more XP anyway.  

 

Basically the concept I'm suggesting is to make it worthwhile for after fighting a bit and knowing you'll lose you get a little perk for not just getting your boat sunk out from under you. If all you do is surrender without fighting you get 0 xp - and 0 x 1.5 is still 0.  but 100 xp from fighting would net you 150 is you surrender. 

 

Edited January 23, 2020 by Celtic
Clarity