The Surrender System

@genuine-heather said in The Surrender System:

The ideal situation would be if players in Sea of Thieves engaged in this type of action without artificial mechanics to "enforce" it. Unfortunately, this won't happen because our ships and our lives have no value. There are no consequences for dying. Without the fear of death, players have no motivation to "surrender." In the real world, pirates depended upon fear of death (and worse) to force their victims to comply. When a crew spotted the Jolly Roger bearing down on them, and heard the shot across the bow, they knew that if they didn't surrender they'd likely fall victim to a horrible fate. There is no such fear in Sea of Thieves.

This is basically the reason systems like this won't work. Its also a main reason why I think that the "bounty" and "capture" systems that people continually propose on these forums is just a waste of time.

You can die over and over and suffer no penalty for it, so there is very little incentive to stay alive when you could try to kill your attacker instead; if you die, nothing is lost.

In order for surrender, capture, bounty, etc... systems to be worthwhile, your character's life needs to have meaning and persist between sessions. With the way the game is designed, it would be difficult to persist a lot of states between sessions that can be wildly different and lots of deaths are unavoidable. It's very unlikely that they would ever put in some kind of stat or bonus based on character lifetime to try to entice people to not die so all of these suggestions based around real life situations where people are going to choose life over death are doomed to fail.

@duke-of-spire Most people will just quit and start on a new server which will reset everything and makes the sunk cost of developing a system like this a huge waste of development time.

@nabberwar said in The Surrender System:

Ah, but you see I am not offering you the option to surrender. I decline your surrender and subject you to my ruthless, you get nothing, option. If someone gives up they don't deserve anything, sorry. I don't see why anyone deserves a 25% of stuff they didn't turn in. I mean the statement has been shared around alot, "Its not your loot til you turn it in." Why do you get a 25% of my loot, its no longer yours, you gave up rights too it?

Then you best be flying the red... the Reapers mark. You can override my surrender if you are. Just read a little slower and not be so quick to hit "reply" next time :)

The reason the surrender crew gets to keep something is that it mimics the idea that... they get to keep something. Something the aggressor crew didn't want, for whatever reason. That's the lore reason. The game reason is so that we can finally make some progress toward fixing the problem where other people can steal ALL of your time.

@omnipotence13 said in The Surrender System:

I have to oppose any idea that removes choices. No different then the alliance, a surrender would need to have the ability to betray or be betrayed.

Neat thought pattern though. I would encourage further developing this idea. Maybe agreed upon terms rather then magical expansion of loot value

Yep, could add the ability to betray if you think it's a good idea... we're just discussing here. I like the idea also of agreed upon terms, but I'm trying to think of ways to keep the interaction and interface for all of this clean and minimal.

I'd like to hear all of the strengths and weaknesses of the idea from others!

@needsmokes said in The Surrender System:

I value my resources more than treasure. I would rather go down fighting than sit idly by under a surrender condition and watch all my resources stripped from the barrels.
Be better off with a new ship then to be left with nothing.

Then you sir are a candidate for NOT surrendering :)

@genuine-heather said in The Surrender System:

The problem with this idea, and others like it, is that it creates an artificial mechanic that imposes unrealistic restrictions upon the players. This doesn't sound even vaguely "fun" to me. The excitement of these sorts of situations is rooted in uncertainty. We're talking about pirates here. There must always be the possibility of deceit, betrayal, and general shenanigans. Without this, the gameplay is robotic and meaningless.

Real pirates didn't kill on sight all the time. I'm trying to create a scenario where theft is an option without engagement... which was far more often than not. We can keep betrayal in if it makes sense.

Without the fear of death, players have no motivation to "surrender." In the real world, pirates depended upon fear of death (and worse) to force their victims to comply. When a crew spotted the Jolly Roger bearing down on them, and heard the shot across the bow, they knew that if they didn't surrender they'd likely fall victim to a horrible fate. There is no such fear in Sea of Thieves.

I did add some possible motivations to comply, perhaps there are better ones? But we can never make death matter in video games, and certainly not this video game. So there has to be other gamey mechanics.

I really wish this sort of situation happened more often on the Sea of Thieves, but I don't see how it would. In a world where death is meaningless and there's always a new ship waiting for us, surrender is never a viable option.

That's all I'm really trying to do here, is hash it out in a public discussion... this is the same kind of scrutiny Rare or any game dev studio puts on their initial ideas even before prototypes.

@duke-of-spire said in The Surrender System:

I have thought of this also in a different sense. A surrender option & Offer quarter option should be added to both the chat and emote radial Wheels. You get no special protection and can use these options as a decoy as much as a true surrender. If you stay in the surrender emote the enemy can offer you and your crew "Quarter".
Quarter would be nothing more than an "alliance" with the exception that the balances are skewed differently. If you are the crew that surrenders you will only receive 50% of the gold you turn in from that point on while the other crew receives the other 50%. It will be a tax on your earnings for your cowardice ways. You will recieve nothing from the victors cash ins. The only way to remove the 25% penalty will be to sink your aggressors or quit the server. It's a different and more harsh surrender than yours but hey, to some it will be worth it.

I like this line of thinking!

@d3adst1ck said in The Surrender System:

In order for surrender, capture, bounty, etc... systems to be worthwhile, your character's life needs to have meaning and persist between sessions. With the way the game is designed, it would be difficult to persist a lot of states between sessions that can be wildly different and lots of deaths are unavoidable. It's very unlikely that they would ever put in some kind of stat or bonus based on character lifetime to try to entice people to not die so all of these suggestions based around real life situations where people are going to choose life over death are doomed to fail.

I am certain that certain players, call them PvErs, Care Bears, people on Tall Tales, or whatever value their time so they would want to keep their pirate alive at all costs. I don't think persistent sessions enter the discussion. This is mostly about both sides of an engagement having multiple options to settling it.

@duke-of-spire said in The Surrender System:

@d3adst1ck That's a fair assumption but some will stick and maybe just maybe do enough work to earn their aggressors respect and gain alliance status and maybe better yet new friends.

No one is going to do that when they can just reform their crew on a new server for free, without penalty and with zero delay. This is already happening in the Arena. They can continue doing what they were doing before, without needing to be subjected to some other crew because of a poorly thought out surrender system.

@nwo-azcrack said in The Surrender System:

@lethality1
You can ready surrender now. You just get nothing for doing so.

Why should a player who surrenders or refuses to defend themselves get any gold or rep? This makes no sense at all.

I can't surrender. I try repeatedly. Players just want to kill.

This is to introduce a mechanic whereby they CANNOT kill if I surrender.

The loot percentage is negotiable.

Do you know how to even have a rational adult discussion or no?

@nabberwar said in The Surrender System:

Be a good sport. Sea of Thieves is a pirate game, and stealth, stealing and battles are all part of the fun. All pirates on the seas accept that, but be a good sportsman in both victory and loss.

Playing the game in a normal capacity, isn't a problem that needs to be fixed.

I didn't see killing without consequence anywhere on that list. And that is ultimately will kill the game.

I am trying to find a middle ground where it would make a) much more interesting gameplay options b) more interesting social interactions c) more player choices...

... and at the same time, try to stop bleeding players and attract new ones who might stick around for a pirate game, but not a murder box.

@duke-of-spire said in The Surrender System:

@d3adst1ck So abort a Tall Tale you're 50-75% done with? Abort an Athena that you only have two stops left to do? I think you're over estimating those who will quit. As of now they have no options other than to fight,quit or be harassed. Quarter gives them an option.

Why would either of those two ships choose quarter?

Tall tales generally have no loot, so them choosing quarter will allow them to continue doing the tall tale (assuming the attacking ship doesn't just take their stuff anyways) and the ship that made them surrender essentially gets nothing. After the tale is done, they can just quit and join a new server. This is just the same scenario that we currently have with a different name on it.

A ship on an Athena that is two steps from completion has less incentive to choose quarter because they can sink all they want before the final step, the Chest of Legends, which is the only part that matters. They can just fight it out and win or lose, continue on with their Athena and get 100% of the value.

You can take loot from any ship you want without sinking them if you want to because that is up to you. Its also up to the other ship to comply or not. Its basically this exact system being proposed except without all the loophole prone rules.

@duke-of-spire said in The Surrender System:

@d3adst1ck That's the point! They would have a choice! The Tall Tales rewards money as does the Athena. Most players incentive is to finish those quests. The money is secondary. Having the ability to offer quarter to a crew that surrenders opens correspondence between two otherwise hostile groups of players. That correspondence can take the sessions down many paths. Revenge, redemption, alliances, friendships & mortal enemies all come to mind. As it stands now we catch, kill & sink our opponets because they literally have no option other than engage us, scuttle or sit on their ship waving as we take their loot & supplies. I think an option of giving quarter would get used and be a very viable part of the game. Sure you'd have the Salty players that jump servers (which is an action that already happens currently) but with "quarter"those numbers will decrease substantially. Any options that further advance player interactions can be nothing but good for the game.

This system reduces player interactions, because once surrendered you never have to interact with them again.

You can already do everything this system proposes without having to rely on exploitable rules, messing with flags or finicky status settings. If you want to make a player surrender, you can offer them the option to hand over loot and continue on unharmed. If they want to do that, they can; or not.

No need to put a pointless status system on top of this, which will actually get in the way of natural player interaction.

@duke-of-spire said in The Surrender System:

@d3adst1ck To answer your question of why? Someone offering Quarter is more than likely leaving you with your relics! Refusing Quarter is a sure 🔥fire way of getting your Athena Stolen! That's why you accept it. So you lose 50% of your cash but your completing commendations.
Scenario: So you jump to the next server and you get sunk in the middle of a tall tale. So you quit and jump yo the next one and it happens again. With "Quarter" you know your poison. You might not like it but at least you know you're finishing quests.

You make it sound like that is a 100% certainty, but it's not.

Surrendering doesn't guarantee you get to keep anything.
Refusing quarter doesn't guarantee you get your Athena stolen.

This system doesn't improve anything.