I don’t think you understand the meaning of “to gloss over”. I did not comment on your feedback. That is not to say I tried to conceal or dismiss its importance. I just left it where it was.
First of all, and maybe my wording was not clear enough, but I only meant temporarily disabled as far as shooting the victim’s ship is concerned. If surrender is accepted, the attacker cannot shoot the victim for a certain period. But if surrender is declined, the attacker can simply start firing again.
Second of all, yes, being flashing red and sitting there is going to be a problem for the attacker in various ways, and some of them may not be considered fair. It would generally not be considered fair in EVE for Concord to just hold them there disabled and flashing red for anyone to get a risk free kill. I personally don’t have an issue with that, but I can see how gankers and would-be highwaymen would rage quit, yes.
Upon consideration, I am going to have everything tied to a one time ISK ransom offer from the victim (to avoid spamming offers and speed the process) combined with a slight delay in Concord response time to compensate for the time the surrender feature clicking will take. The following ideas will assume that is how the surrender button works, with methodology for ransom payments to be worked out later. ( I am also considering ways of getting rid of or altering Concord response dramatically but its too complicated for me to sort out in this post. Maybe some other time).
So it could simply be that the attacker loses the criminal status with regards to the victim immediately when that surrender button is hit. Concord will not engage or cease engagment (provided no other Concordable flashy) and no player can engage the attacker from that point (but if already engaged, too bad). If surrender is accepted I see a potential programming problem there though, because now the red flashy has to be tied to individual victims. That could be already a part of the system, simple to fix or cause a cascade of issues. IDK. But if that is all doable then generally attackers can take surrender and isk and just walk away. OR decline surrender, regain the criminal status and its just like any other gank with a slight hiccup of a pop up window and re-engaging weapons.
Another issue would be that outlaws (very low sec status) and those with a separate criminal flashy already will likely never have the time to complete the gank if the victim receives extra tank, surrender is accepted AND Concord shows up. They might have lost the criminal flashy and timer specific to this victim, and antigankers’ help may or may not arrive, but Concord will be oblged to blow them up as soon as they do arrive. I was thinking of some ways around that, including temporary Concord protection (in light of surrender) but everything seems subject to abuse and excessive technical difficulties ATM. So for those with separate Concordable status I have 3 options 1) screw em. They are outlaws and criminals. They need to improve their sec status to gank, or gank after the flashy expired. Anyway, they got raw isk for their lost ship. Isn’t that enough? 2) Withdraw the defensive boost of the victim I proposed. All the victim gets is a temporary disabling of the attacker’s weapons and the hope surrender is accepted. Very little time would be lost in this exchange providing the attacker is not a slow poke clicking “NO” to the surrender pop up and re-engaging weapons. 3) No more disabling of warp drives before Concord even arrives on grid OR re-enable in the event of a surrender. Outlaws better just take the surrender and the ransom and warp away before Concord arrives. Move on to the next victim or die there.
I feel I need to emphasize that what propose would take very little time for the attacker. The ransom/surrender pop up window appears, they either accept or decline, and re-engage weapons if they decline, with no need to even get a fresh target lock. Could be under two seconds for the speedy and prepared. Whether to delay Concord 5 seconds or 10 or whatever would be a matter of trial and error I think. The extra time for AG’s to arrive would be negligible.
I think that covers your questions/issues well enough for an initial response to them.