Surrender Guide

[Danicia]

(Originally written and posted by phizuol (http://www.burningsea.com/forums/member.php?u=81467))

So you have stumbled into a PvP zone and end up in a battle you will probably lose. What can you do? There is a surrender system that can sometimes save you some loss.

The first thing to note is that most people you face will probably not accept your surrender. That doesn't mean you shouldn't try if you don't have any other options. Some people just want your loot and don't care about sinking your ship so it doesn't hurt to try.

What do I lose?
When you surrender and it is accepted nothing bad happens to your ship, your personal items, or your secured cargo. Secured cargo includes your ammo, consumables like hull patches, and unused ship outfitting.

The rest of your cargo will be up for grabs based on the percentage of surrender you offer. You can choose to offer either 25%, 50%, or 100% of your cargo. Ship deeds are included in this unsecured cargo and you can lose them in a surrender.

How do I surrender?
In your list of ship skills you should have one called PvP Surrender. Move that skill to your bar and click it.

Think fast
Decide quickly whether you have a chance to survive the battle. Your enemy will be doing the same. When you offer a surrender what you are really offering is a savings of time and effort because your enemy knows he/she can get your loot eventually but if you surrender it will save them ammo and they can go look for someone else to attack without a long chase. If you wait until your attacker has beat up your ship and is about to defeat you then you are not saving them any time or effort so a surrender will almost always be refused.

Why surrender?
If you surrender you will lose some of your unsecured cargo. If you don't surrender but are defeated then you'll lose all your unsecured cargo, a durability point from your ship, and your permanent outfitting. Sometimes it's better to cut your losses. If you don't have any unsecured cargo then a surrender can save you and your attacker a lot of hassle even though no goods change hands.

How much to surrender?
100% surrender always has the highest chance of being accepted; however, if you are sailing a large cargo ship a 50% or even a 25% surrender may work just as well because many attackers can't carry a lot of cargo. In that situation a 100% surrender would mean a lot of your cargo will end up dumped into the ocean and wasted. Not everyone will care how large your ship is, but you can always try.

Your ship type matters
Even the most evil pirate knows that sinking a fallback ship doesn't really hurt you very much, especially if you are low level. However you may still be carrying valuable cargo and they will seek to sink you just in case. If you offer a 100% surrender right away when you are sailing a fallback ship your chance of acceptance is likely to be much higher than normal.

Also beware of sailing a Bermuda Sloop into a pvp zone. These ships are great for newbies but they also make good smuggling ships and will be considered a target. Don't expect to be allowed to escape without surrender just because you claim to be a newbie in one of these ships.

Diplomacy is a good skill
Diplomacy is a skill you get from a General Trainer at level 15 or higher and it allows you to understand the languages of the enemy. It can be valuable in negotiating a surrender with the enemy.

[Stormsurfer]

I understand that you can win Marks of Victory by defeating someone in PvP. Does this happen if you defeat someone by having them surrender?

[phizuol]

Nope, no marks for surrender. If your attacker is after marks then you are probably out of luck.

[Not Primetime]

I understand that you can win Marks of Victory by defeating someone in PvP. Does this happen if you defeat someone by having them surrender?

Nope just for the defeat if I remember correctly. I'd post the link to the dev thread from open beta on the subject but, I can't seem to find them. Maybe you can request the admins find and sticky that thread.

On a side note during open beta I only had one person offer a surrender. He offer zero booty and I did not except. I offered a surrender once for 25% of my cargo but, it was refused. I venture to say you won't see it used much if any.

[Stormsurfer]

Other than the Marks issue, I was considering honoring it all the time, but that makes it a lot tougher a decision.

[phizuol]

You can get marks from the economic warfare missions as well if that's a concern. Sinking isn't the only way to get them.

[bpdlr]

I think they changed it wo you wouldn't get a Mark in Beta.

I disagree strongly with this change, I'd like to see it reversed, otherwise there is very little incentive to accept Surrender.

[Stormsurfer]

I disagree strongly with this change, I'd like to see it reversed, otherwise there is very little incentive to accept Surrender.

I'd have to agree!

Forcing an enemy to Surrender is just as much a victory.

[phizuol]

I'd have to agree!

Forcing an enemy to Surrender is just as much a victory.

Correct, but the enemy is not necessarily suffering a loss. That means when a cargo-less ship surrenders it would generate an item of value in exchange for no loss from the enemy. This leaves a lot of room for exploit and the devs did good to close that hole.

Soon cargo dumping will only be allowed when you refuse surrender. Essentially that is going to mean you either accept the surrender and get the cargo or refuse the surrender and get the mark.

[bpdlr]

Correct, but the enemy is not necessarily suffering a loss. That means when a cargo-less ship surrenders it would generate an item of value in exchange for no loss from the enemy. This leaves a lot of room for exploit and the devs did good to close that hole.

Soon cargo dumping will only be allowed when you refuse surrender. Essentially that is going to mean you either accept the surrender and get the cargo or refuse the surrender and get the mark.

Why not then only allow Surrender, or the award of a Mark, if there is > 0 tons of cargo? The system would be exploitable anyway (hold with 1 unit of Gravel for example) but as it stands, the only incentive for accepting surrender is if you know the victim is carrying something of value, and that is worth more to you than the Mark.

There would be far fewer cries of "griefing" from the Carebear Crew if Pirates were given some reason to accept surrenders rather than "ganking" all the time (with the exception of a very few, i.e. our famous Beta MVP, Capt. Jack Simple).

[phizuol]

Well you could do it where the surrenderer can give up marks instead of cargo or something. Honestly though PvP is so easy to avoid that there's not much right to complain if you get jumped.

[beltpouch]

Edit: looks like the cargo deletion surrender problem will be fixed in patch 1.2. so it won't be an issue soon :-)

[montezaus]

wouldnt it be great to see how much percent of the capacity of the ship, that attacked us, is for what we are giving. (there is probably mistakes in my grammer, sorry =) ). this way we can also be able to negotiating on a more fair exchange both for us and our enemy. when we are offering 50% of our cargo, the attacker would be knowing that this is what the attacker can get most, and the attacker would be knowing that too.

an option like 'as much as the attacker is capable of' would also be increasing the efficiency of the surrender system

[CmdrStanwick]

Isn't the problem of ditching cargo that was promised a self deating tactic in the long run?. I mean it seems to me that alot of the balance in this game is player created. So if you are a pirate (or privateer) and catch a merchant who dumps promised cargo, simply jot his name down on your 'list'. Oh, and make sure that you let everyone else know.

Eventually enough hunters will know his name and he will no longer be given the option to surrender. It becomes a self defeating policy. Not to mention that pvp'ers tendto be pretty revenge oriented, and when cheated will tend to activly search out those who cheated them (or at least give up the better target to thier revenge).

Anyhow thats what seems to me should should be the way things work. Any free trader who consistantly swindles PIRATES gets everything that is coming to them, up to and including being hunted down by every pirate that sees them on the open sea.

I can also see where a free trader who is honest in his dealings with his chasers could get a reputation for being so. Perhaps he carries around a small load of valuable cargo that he uses specifically for surrender purposes. His bulk cargo is probably worth more anyhow, and the pirate wont be able to carry the bulk cargo, thus making the prospect of surrender even better.

This player reputation works the other way also. Pirates that don't accept surrenders will quickly go on various 'lists' as prime targets for privateers and naval officers. Even thopugh they are better suited to defending themselves (or at least avioding combat) than a free trader it will make thier lives harder. I know that if I offer to fill a pirates hold with valuable goods and he sinks me anyhow, he gets put on my privateers 'list' as a cuthroat who deserves nothing more than to be having dinner with Davy Jones's gym socks.

[Andrea LeSangre]

Surrendering not always works ;P Been sailing to Sisal in my lev9 Bermuda Sloop. Suddenly got ambushed by 3 lev 21 pirates in Xebecs and so. Knowing that I've civilian ship with 1 durability, I offered 100% of my cargo, and wanted to surrender

Well, at least it was fun to try outchase the enemy, and then be sunk and killed :D (that tought me not to turn the pvp flag on, until I'm capped :P)

[sinclair]

Double the Marks for Surrender, problem solved!


There are reasons to give a better reward for accepting surrender.

Actually this might better befit real historical situations.

If you look at naval combat during the era, especially between nations, not where pirates were involved, surrender was generally asked for, and quarter was honored if the quarry surrendered.

Also, everyone's perennially favorite pirate Blackbeard was an interesting character.

He would tend to be more merciful, if the enemy surrendered without a fight, although he was a prodigious fighter and a more than capable fighter. Many of his tactics, involved inducing fear and dread in his victims, saving the Pirates the trouble of having to fight and take casualties.

Then again pirates (and gamers) were an eccentric and fickle lot. Some were sadistic and treacherous. You could never predict what they might do. Blackbeard was just random enough to keep everyone guessing.

It's probably too much to hope for a genuine historical recreation however. Some of the mechanics are there.

[Aeiedil]

I am a bit peeved right now

I was trying to break my personal highest OS speed, so I was PvP flagged in a certain ship which has 4 cargo space. All was going well approaching 106 knots :)

Then I got jumped by a frenchie, offered 100% surrender twice, and he just carried on to sink me. I can't go crying about this, I put the PvP flag on, all I lost was a couple of speed uprades, so my trip back Bartica was 10 knots slower on average and my speed record attempt was over, I am just curous about oen thing.

Did the frenchie gain anything by sinking my tiny ship with no cargo in other than wasting 4 broadsides on knocking 1 duration point off a ship that cost me under 1k :)

[phizuol]

I am a bit peeved right now

I was trying to break my personal highest OS speed, so I was PvP flagged in a certain ship which has 4 cargo space. All was going well approaching 106 knots :)

Then I got jumped by a frenchie, offered 100% surrender twice, and he just carried on to sink me. I can't go crying about this, I put the PvP flag on, all I lost was a couple of speed uprades, so my trip back Bartica was 10 knots slower on average and my speed record attempt was over, I am just curous about oen thing.

Did the frenchie gain anything by sinking my tiny ship with no cargo in other than wasting 4 broadsides on knocking 1 duration point off a ship that cost me under 1k :)

If you weren't in a fallback ship nor had you been killed recently they would have gained a pvp mark or two which can be turned in for rewards (when you get enough of them.)

[Aeiedil]

That's fair enough then :) I would have been an incredibly easy target for them :) Had I not been totally drunk I'd have thought about sailing into the wind, Hornets are damned awful for speed in combat, but can outsail a lot of ships into the wind i find :)

[garborg]

What is the emote to demand surrender? This would be good to put in guide too.

[Coyle]

/surrender50

/surrender100

[bpdlr]

What is the emote to demand surrender? This would be good to put in guide too.

/demand

/demandxx where xx is 25, 50, 75 or 100

[garborg]

/demand

/demandxx where xx is 25, 50, 75 or 100

Thanks I had been typing /surrenderXX over and over, could not figure it out.

[Garrr]

What is this surrender crap? I pride myself in having never surrendered. I've been beat many times, but I fight tooth and nail until it's all over.

Surrender? Geez, what are you all, a bunch of french?


Also, if anyone could loan me some dubloons....

[Supe987]

As a pirate if i am in a traders ship with a full load of 490 cargo i wouldn't mind surrendering :P

[jehardiman]

Pardon me if this has been answered elsewhere, but what is the difference between Abandoning ship and being sunk, or abandoning ship and surrendering? Is there some reason for it?

[Dream Warrior]

Sinking ships is healthy for the economy. you have to replace that ship which is built with goods that are sold everyone keeping their ship does nothing to promote trade!

[thegreywolfe]

Right now, I have to say the surrender system is useless. I think it should be fixed so people can't dump after surrendering, but don't touch it before. I've been in 4 pvp battles and offered surrender to everyone, amounting to about 20 surrenders I've offered at 50 to 100 %. I've never been accepted.

Frankly, if you don't accept my surrender then I'm dumping my goods. I'll be damned if some jumped up, pirate or privateer gank squad that is cloaked and blocking the spawn point for a port is gonna get one item from my hold.

Until I learned about the spawn point trick of making it so we can't duck back into port after checking, I was willing to at least try and run goods in and out of pvp ports. Screw it now, I ain't giving them anything. It's bad enough that they feel they need 5 level 40 to 50's to take me, but they all refuse my surrender and expect to get what's on my ship too!

Thanks, but if you want my goods, accept my 50% surrender or buy them on the AH, I'm going to continue dumping my goods if surrender is refused. And if they change that so that I can't dump goods, than I, and probably most players will not be hauling any goods in the red circle again.

[yusu]

People do not accept surrenders anyway.
Pretty much a useless function

[bonelizzard]

People do not accept surrenders anyway.
Pretty much a useless function

Surrender is bugged/exploitable.

You will see this change when they fix it.

[thegreywolfe]

Surrender is bugged/exploitable.

You will see this change when they fix it.

As long as I can still dump cargo if they refuse my surrender. I see no reason whatsoever to reward them for being jerks.

[Shreddi]

I agree you should be able to dump cargo and let them try and pick up before it sinks. Especially the people who group large in the highest level ships picking on low level ships. Duming cargo should lighten ship enable you to sail faster hoping they try and pick up cargo in meantime.

[thegreywolfe]

I agree you should be able to dump cargo and let them try and pick up before it sinks. Especially the people who group large in the highest level ships picking on low level ships. Duming cargo should lighten ship enable you to sail faster hoping they try and pick up cargo in meantime.

Not quite what I meant man. What I meant was, if they all refuse my surrender then they shouldn't get anything except the mark of victory. All the cargo should go straight to the bottom of the sea.

[Calin Tavers]

Not quite what I meant man. What I meant was, if they all refuse my surrender then they shouldn't get anything except the mark of victory. All the cargo should go straight to the bottom of the sea.

I agree wholeheartedly. The system should be changed that if you get offered a surrender and refuse it, you get NO cargo or money, just a Mark. So you have a choice to make when it comes to Traders: do you want their expensive cargo? (and when I'm carrying a boatload of ship deeds that could be quite a prize) Or do you want a Mark?

I can see why the change was made. I can easily exploit with a friend and get us both enough marks, but you can do that anyway with enough money and time. But Surrender is a very interesting concept and something that is historical as well and should have a better use in this game than just a "pity" decision.

[valkiria]

Double the Marks for Surrender, problem solved!




Really ?

So me and my buddy surrender to each other in turns and stock up hundreds of Marks of Victory flooding the market...........

Don't think it may be a good choice for the game.

[valkiria]

I agree you should be able to dump cargo and let them try and pick up before it sinks.




It could be a good idea at least in 1 vs. 1 battles since it would slow down the attacker.

But the dumped cargo should be small and hard to target for pick-up (have to come to a full halt) and NOT targetable using keys. In a word, it should really be time consuming for the attacker to pick up to give enough time for the target to put some good distance in between.

Also, dumping cargo should half (or even reduce further more) the time necessary to exit the battle instance. Dropping cargo should pretty much ensure with a good percentage a good way out from the Battle instance.

Only question is, what about those battles where the followers are more than 1 ?

It would not stop the pursue (1 would stop pick up the cargo but the others would keep the pursuit) and therefore not work in favour of the prey to get a way out.

There should be something that forces all of the attacking group to have to stop the pursuit.

Perhaps unless ALL of them click the cargo it could not be diced and picked-up by whomever among them wins it ?

just an idea....

[valkiria]

If you weren't in a fallback ship nor had you been killed recently they would have gained a pvp mark or two which can be turned in for rewards (when you get enough of them.)



Interesting.....
Being in a fallback default ship grants no rewards to the sinker ?

That's interesting because it makes me even less possible to understand why on earth a player attacked me twice in a row while I was trying to get out of Havana after it became contested (red zone). I had logged out the previous day there and it was not yet contested back then.

I mean, the first time I can understand that the guy could not know that I had no cargo whatsoever on me (even though sailing with the default fallback may hint to something here...) but the second time ?

This was twice in a row like he sinks me, I spawn into port, get back out to sea and he/she attacks and sinks me again.

So, if he/she received nothing for attacking me the second time in a row, why did he/she attack me again a second time in a row in the first place ?

Because of the no rewards obtainable, can this attitude be reasoned as a "griefing" attempt at me which the game engine should punish as behaviour potentially damaging for the overall well being of the game (may drive players away and cause loss of subscriptions) ?

[Black-Duke]

/demand 100% of your French Wine & Women on board and I only will Sink you 50%

/tiphat

/thanks

/see you later

The surrender is bugged and gives the same for 25% surrender then 100% DEVs looking into it next patch will fix that. I don't PVP because of MoV or Loot... I do it for Fun... not Grief

[thegreywolfe]

You can't dump cargo in a PvP ad hoc encounter unless you are allowed to leave the zone.
If you offer unconditional surrender in PvP and it is rejected, if you lost the battle, the victor doesn't get anything from your cargo hold.

Looks good except for one item. It looks now like there should only be offers surrender, not a percentage choice. The way this reads, if you only offer 25% or 50% in your surrender and they sink you, the victor gets your cargo. Can anyone confirm this for me?

[Ionium]

Why not then only allow Surrender, or the award of a Mark, if there is > 0 tons of cargo? The system would be exploitable anyway (hold with 1 unit of Gravel for example) but as it stands, the only incentive for accepting surrender is if you know the victim is carrying something of value, and that is worth more to you than the Mark.

There would be far fewer cries of "griefing" from the Carebear Crew if Pirates were given some reason to accept surrenders rather than "ganking" all the time (with the exception of a very few, i.e. our famous Beta MVP, Capt. Jack Simple).

I really want to know what you consider griefing? and who are the carebear crew?
Seriously the pvp in this game is UTTERLY imbalanced and only encourages level 50's to sit and camp ports. Personally I am so sick of the griefing in this game if it ain't fixed then I am taking my god damned society to another game as we are all sick and tired of being ganked by groups of lvl 50's camping our ports with deep harbours which we need to make freaking large upgrades etc!

[argIjustWANTaGMticket]

look i really don't know what to write, i'm just dumbfounded that 100% surrender means nothing

i'm a free trader, i ran a red zone, i got caught, all fair enough
i offered 100% surrender and it got rejected buy all 5 attackers

so i sit here for 10 mins trying to run as they slowly ware me down and get me anyway

10 minutes of frustration,
i already surrenedered

now i'm forced to sit here for 10 mins and have my faced rubbed in it

I don't have a problem with the fact the pirates got me
BUT I HAVE A HUGE HUGE HUGE PROBLEM WITH SURRENDERS NOT BEING ACCEPTED

I play to have fun,
i took a risk, i got caught, fair enough, let the pirates have their loot, win etc
being forced against my will to sit there and not have fun after already surrendering is the sort of thing that is going to make me cancel my subscription

I'm so appalled that my surrender was not accepted i come here to the boards to read why they might do that. I much prefer to play games rather than write about them and i find time writting on boards is wasted play time

so i hear about this problem with mark farming
easy answer: after you have been farmed for one mark you no longer offer a mark for ?? say an hour, maybe 6 hours.

What this game needs is
if you don't accept surrender then you get nothing, no mark, no ship, no cargo
sure you can have the satifaction of torchering someone in a hopelessly onesided battle for a bit but that is it, no treasure, no marks, no incentive at all. once a side has surrended that should be it. game over.

[TheMaster42]

i took a risk, i got caught, fair enough, let the pirates have their loot, win etc


Except that's not how the mechanics of this game work. Let me correct for you:

i took a risk, i got caught, fair enough, let the pirates do whatever they want to me

If you get caught in PvP, you suffer the penalty in this game, which may include getting sunk, 100%. It's not under your control.


As a separate question, if I'm a pvper and I'm not interested in cargo (or I'm fighting other PvPers, who won't ever have any worthwhile cargo), why should I ever accept a surrender?

[David William]

As a separate question, if I'm a pvper and I'm not interested in cargo (or I'm fighting other PvPers, who won't ever have any worthwhile cargo), why should I ever accept a surrender?

From a sense of honour/dignity, etcetera.

I'm a student of history, and also a big fan of the age of fighting-sail. I play a British Naval Officer, and in the period of 1720, it would be unthinkable for a NO to refuse a surrender, be it from a Spaniard, French, or even a Pirate (admittedly the pirate would be swingin' from the yards right quick, though).

Even if I'm hunting for MoV, if I am offered a surrender, I will always take it. I will not sink a ship that has struck its colours, no more than I would run a man through when he offers me his sword.

Granted, this is a game; I respect and will acknowledge that fact. If others don't accept my surrenders, I won't break a sweat. It's part of the game. I'll roll with the punches, re-outfit my ship (or get my next one in the water), and slough on.

I digress, though. You see my (and many other's) point. You play a game to be immersed, and to entertain yourself. Respecting a player's offer to surrender has its rewards; the fact you have coerced your opponent to strike his colours, with your presence alone, and the honour you've earned by accepting it.

With that said, I would be highly appreciative if FLS would reconsider the surrender system, and perhaps refit it so it would be more desirable for others to use it. It's a fine system, and highly accurate. A smart Captain worth his salt would never put his ship or his crew in any unnecessary danger. When he realized he would not win the engagement, he would be compelled to haul down his colours. Very rarely would ships of war fight to the death, and only would they do so under the most dire of circumstances.

Along that same line of thought, enemy captains would always accept a surrender. It was part of the rules of war, after all.

My $0.02! :)

[Pookie]

PVP in this game is all about finding and picking off people lower level than you or ganging up 5 vs 1. Fair fights don't happen, and nobody accepts surrenders. If this was like WoW where you could avoid PvP until you were in the mood for it, then this would be OK, but you can't and it isn't. The PvP system is about bullying and there is no way to avoid it.

I quit.

Deactivating my accounts tonight.

[cybris]

Hey i got it just give everyone lvl 50 from the get go and everyone will be happy then nobody can really gank cause everyone is on a lvl playing field :P. Ok kidding aside

I agree a surrender should be auto accepted use a random number generator to detrime what the capor gets he could get a mark or cargo and make the percentage of cargo random just like with sacvenge.

It's unfair for lowbies to have try to get to ports camped out by lvl 50's, With the current system that's all that happens. they just sit outside the port waiting for lowbies trying to run to them. I feel that if someone is not with in 10 level's of you they should be unattackble.

[Shady McGrady]

I don't have a problem with the fact the pirates got me
BUT I HAVE A HUGE HUGE HUGE PROBLEM WITH SURRENDERS NOT BEING ACCEPTE

As it stands now Pirates get no Marks of Victory for surrender, which is what most of them are after. Until they start giving Marks of Victory for surrendering too don't expect it to EVER be accepted, because quite frankly there is no point.

[MrOsterman]

If you get caught in PvP, you suffer the penalty in this game, which may include getting sunk, 100%. It's not under your control.


And that's one of the problems that the developers (and the no-surrender accepters) seem to miss. It's not just the lost cargo. We can replace that. It's not JUST the grind, we can do it again. It's the loss of control of our characters for a block of time. It's the 10 minutes putting up some kind of fight after our surrenders are refused, or the 5 minutes sitting while they circle us and sink us.

Which leads us to two more quotes of significance when put together:


I'm a student of history, and also a big fan of the age of fighting-sail. I play a British Naval Officer, and in the period of 1720, it would be unthinkable for a NO to refuse a surrender,

Even if I'm hunting for MoV, if I am offered a surrender, I will always take it. I will not sink a ship that has struck its colours, no more than I would run a man through when he offers me his sword.

As it stands now Pirates get no Marks of Victory for surrender, which is what most of them are after. Until they start giving Marks of Victory for surrendering too don't expect it to EVER be accepted, because quite frankly there is no point.

And that leads to:


I quit.

Deactivating my accounts tonight.

I see this as a REAL problem that is more an elephant in the room than the gank squads, the speed buffs for groups and the lack/abundance of red circles.

When an honorable player is motivated to do the dishonorable strictly by the mechanics of the game (not some character choice) then we have a problem.

Mr.O

[Aeruleus]

You know, PvP is always a tense subject. Namecalling on both sides and various accusations and even complete garbage flying around. However, the fact remains that this game needs players to survive. And a lot of people having very negative experiences with PvP encounters means fewer and fewer players. And regardless of how often the uber-cool, uber-kill you and laugh PvPers say, "quit crying, carebear" or "get over it", the fact is, people won't get over it. They'll quit. And that hurts everyone.

The "just stay out of the red" defense does NOT hold water either. So please stop using it. Yes, a person can usually avoid PvP water. But when you make every effort to keep certain ports red (Port Royal, for example), you lose that defense. Guess what? We have to go places. The new cool-down period helps, but we still have to get places sometimes, believe it or not. So give that a rest. Please.

So, now that that's out of the way, everyone needs to accept that if nothing is done, we will lose players. Regardless of how you feel philosophically about PvP (yes, I do enjoy good, fair PvP), we need to address the problem.

I think the surrender thing is a great idea, just poorly executed. It's hard to make the mechanic work and still be realistic and true. I think we're limiting ourselves in how we're looking at it.

For instance, should a level 50 be able to attack a lvl 1? Yes. There was nothing stopping it from happening in 1720. Should they be praised and heralded as a hero of their country and paraded around and presented to the crown (i.e. Mark of Victory)? I don't think so. I think a mark should not be a foregone conclusion. There should either be a scaling CHANCE of getting a mark, or you should only get one if your enemy would actually present a challenge. That holds for if 6 lvl 50s attack a lvl 1. The higher the attacker to defender ratio is, the lower the challenge, and the lower the chance of a mark should be.

If too many people are too lazy to actually earn a mark rather than gang up on little people, then perhaps there should be other penalties for turning down a surrender. Sure, we can dump our cargo in defiance, but consider this:

In real life, no one HAS to accept a surrender. But in real life, there ARE consequences. Think about this in the context of 1720: As already stated, official vessels would always accept surrender. Even pirates would accept surrender, usually. That's why they designed scary pirate flags with skulls and what not. They HOPED for a quick win. But, if they showed no mercy, they also became more hated and HUNTED. A pirate was just a pirate, but a sadistic person who enjoyed killing for the sake of killing and torturing their victims, etc (some of you bloodthirsty PvPers should take note), gained a reputation. And a higher bounty, more chance that official ships would spend their time in its entirety hunting them down, and a guarantee of no quarter when they were found.

Therefore, I suggest this: find a way to make life harder on those who turn down 100% surrenders. Do you have to accept it? No. Do you face the consequences? Yes, you should. And it could be conceivably anywhere in the game, not just a combat thing. Maybe trouble with merchants. Maybe reputation point losses (even with your home faction, which is perfectly reasonable, since you make them look bad). There are a million things you can do. Make them vulnerable to losing actual money from their wallets in PvP, even, though that's harder to explain... (maybe bribes?). Anyway. Let them have the silly mark, as long as they pay for their dishonorableness in some way.

All that said, it boils down to this: Can I, age 28, 200 lbs, go beat up a 10 year old to watch him bleed and take his lunch money for my collection? Yes. Should I pay for it if I do? Absolutely.

[Aeruleus]

Sorry for the double post, but another thing just occured to me. If a Mark of Victory is not a foregone conclusion, then it leads to an interesting thought process.

When I'm hunting players, I have to make decisions as to whom to attack. Let's say that I'm level 50, and I'm presented with a lvl 48 in a big ship that can defend itself and a level 27 trader, who would be no challenge. If I'm after a mark, I attack the 48, as I'm more likely to earn one. If I'm after cargo, then the level 27 is better, since they'll likely surrender, and even if not, I can pulverize them easily. If I'm after contention or unrest points, then either would work, even if they surrender and I don't get a mark.

That's the thought that occured to me. To get that thought process going, we need these things:

1. Marks are earned based on the battle, not given away like candy.
2. Surrendering counts as defeat. Period, including the possible mark reward and any unrest/contention points. If I can cow a player my level into surrendering to save his ship, then I deserve the recognition it brings.
3. There need to be rewards and penalties. Perhaps instead of a mark reward for accepting a surrender, some other reward, maybe a reputation gain or some other, less-than-a-mark reward that is guaranteed if you accept. If you refuse, you lose their loot, and have the penalties applied.

The rewards and penalties should scale based on the power ratio between the groups. Like, 50 v 48 would mean a decent reward or moderate penalty for accepting/declining a surrender, whereas 50 v 15 would mean a decent reward or severe penalty for the same choice. The reward should gradually increase the closer the levels are, but the penalty should get much more severe as the power gap widens. This encourages and rewards players for attacking players closer to their own ability, and discourages them from ridiculously one-sided matches.

K, I'll try to go do something else now...

[Aeruleus]

OK, I know. But I'm on a roll, I'm sorry. I had two more thoughts. Well, I'm having a lot of them. But these two warrant posting.

First, a clarification and explanation. I keep saying penalty, but there really should be several. Instead of one really bad penalty, if there are several moderate ones, then there is less chance of players either not caring or finding ways around it. A combination of consequences also adds up better. This way, if for some reason, rejecting the surrender is actually justified (I don't know, maybe you found an enemy SoL and would rather take the penalty and sink it), then it's more of an option. That way, people who only reject for specific, rational reasons are not penalized as severely as those who are just being jerks. A single trespass is different from just being mean as a rule.

Secondly, as one of the penalties, some type of rating system could be implemented to track a person's 'notoriety'. The game could track offenders much as the FBI does, ranking them according to their misdeeds. There would be no direct penalty associated with this ranking, but instead, a reward system for a player who sinks one of these 'public enemies'. Of course, you wouldn't see people from your own nation on the list, since you can't attack them anyway. This would mean that your actions could catch up with you, as more players started to look for you, and pick you out of groups. You wouldn't want to be involved in a port battle if you were on the list, you'd be the prime target. Anyone who sank you would be eligible for a reward of varying quality, depending on how bad you are. They would only get the reward from a kill, though. If you don't accept surrenders, why would anyone accept yours?

I promise I'm going to try to think about something else, its just this has got me going, and I'm facinated by the possibilities...

[redreed1]

I think a surrender related honor/dishonor system should be imposed. It might go something like this...

Surrendering will cost experience point equal to ((100 x level) x %), where percent equals the percent of surrender offered, even if surrender is not accepted. (1 penalty per battle equal to maximum surrender offered). A level 50 surrender has a xx% chance to lose a level (where xx equals the highest level of surrender offered).

If a person offers to surrender:
25% and you refuse, then you still get 100% of a mark if you win the battle, but 1 Dishonor point. Plus 50% of cargo is automatically lost to gunfire. Plus you have a 10% chance of losing a level.

50% and you refuse, you only get 75% of a mark and 2 Dishonor points. Plus 75% of cargo is lost to gunfire. Plus you have a 20% chance of losing a level.

75% and you refuse, you only get 50% of a mark and 3 Dishonor points. Plus 90 % of cargo is lost to gunfire. Plus you have a 30% chance of losing a level.

100% and you refuse, you only get 25% of a mark and 4 dishonor points. Plus all cargo is lost with ship. Plus you have a 40% chance of losing a level.

If you get defeated in a PVP and you have:

1 dishonor point: you have a 5% chance of losing a level (as a result of being hanged).
2 dishonor points: you have a 10% chance of losing a level
3 dishonor points: you have a 20% chance of losing a level
4 dishonor points: you have a 40% chance of losing a level
5 dishonor points: you have an 80% chance of losing a level
6 dishonor points: you have a 100% chance of losing a level
7 dishonor points: you have a 50 % chance of losing 2 levels
8 dishonor points: you have a 50% chance of losing 4 levels
9 dishonor points: you have a 50% chance of losing 8 levels
10 or more dishonor points: 50 percent chance of losing 10 levels

You can get rid of 1/2 of a dishonor point by accepting a surrender.

If you have no dishonor points, then accepting a surrender gains you 1/2 an honor point.

Honor points could be turned in for rewards of some sort, such as 100 honor points could be exchanged for a knighthood. 1000 for a baron title, 5000 for a dukedom...or some such title, along with an increased allotment of ships to go with it. Titled people could also pay lower taxes in foreighn ports due to their political sway/admiration by the locals.

Also, dishonor points could be increased by attacking those smaller than you by a formula like the following:

Level 50 attacks a level 45. Formula is 45/50= .90, 1 minus .90 = .10 meaning 10% increased chance of gaining an additional dishonor point.

Level 50 attacks a level 20. Formula is 20/50= .40, 1 - .40 = .60, meaning 60% increased chance of getting an additional dishonor point.

Attacking a defeating one larger than you in pvp combat could have the opposite effect.

Ganging up could have the same type of effect if it is not in a contested zone against attacking/defending player.

Attacking at ANY odds should be OK against an attacking/defending player in a contested zone. That is the nature of war after all. No penalties awarded (except in the case of refusing to accept surrender).

Honor level should be prominently displayed after a players name.

Any thoughts?