Instead of Safer Seas giving way less gold, it should have a seperate gold account

@foambreaker
Yeah, I'm literally advocating for B. I just want it to pay the same INSIDE Safer Seas. And I think that players should be able to Only play Safer Seas if they want to, I don't see how more choices are a bad thing. It gives players who would often run or be not very skilled at combat to play the game in a way that they enjoy more, and also removes those players from the Base game to leave more room for players who would actually be more fun to fight against. It's a win/win for everyone.

@d3adst1ck
I don't really see how it wouldn't work but I don't know How this stuff works. I just suggested this, it's up to Rare to figure out the best way to implement it if they choose to. I do expect some changes to what I said, I'm more just seeking to be more of a very basic concept to be based off of because I don't know what is best for this game and I am not a developer.

@foambreaker
I'm sorry, I'm really not trying to argue with you, I just don't understand what you mean. What don't you understand about what I said?

@capt-pilotes said in Instead of Safer Seas giving way less gold, it should have a seperate gold account:

Grinding won't be a thing in Safer Seas as it is not worth at all. A normal Skull fort (FOF and FOTD won't be on Safer Seas) is worth between 25,000 and 45,000 gold without an emissary. Safer Seas only gives 30% the reward, which means you will get between 7500 and 13500 per Fort.

Do you really want to spend your time for that money?

I think is way better to just go to High Seas and do a skull fort without the emissary (less risk as you are not marked to reapers and skull forts are not interesting for sweats in general)

True, although it's still a good option for people who can't bear taking any chance to lose anything. Playing in high sea will always be a roll of the dice, you might not see anyone during your event, or you might and then either win or lose.

Safer sea will negate all chances of loss but make the grind longer, some people might prefer doing 3 forts and knowing they have a 100% chance to keep it all, rather than roll the dice on the one they would in high sea.

Personally I think the way Safer seas will currently be implemented is a great compromise that doesn't replace the main game while still giving reasons for everybody to go in both. (And for people to go out of their comfort zone if they want more rewards or the high sea exclusive ones).

@bigoli3740 the point is to decrease the value of actions performed on safer seas. With less risk comes less rewards.
If there is separate gold it may as well be a need currency all together so it doesn't get confused.

@capt-pilotes
That's exactly what I'm trying to say. Forts Should be in safer seas and you should get more money INSIDE of safer seas, but only 30% should transfer over to high seas.

@magus104 dabloons are fine as is, it seems the intent is to allow the purchase of old season cosmetics which should be expensive

@magus104 said in Instead of Safer Seas giving way less gold, it should have a seperate gold account:

@captain-fob4141 I have been arguing that for years to try and get them to remove doubloons since they literally didn't add any use for them for years. Which gave people the idea that they had abandoned the currency so why not min max converting doubloons to gold during gold and glory weekends and rush hour. Now they are finally adding stuff that cost an insane amount of doubloons to try and over compensate for neglecting the currency. They keep coming up with the wrong solution to problems they created.

Honestly I find the realization very funny, because they retroactively created more incentive for people to go hunting after this currency with items that truly add to that value.

Though, what they added, I mean, a free way to start up FotD, dig up some kegs, get some cursed treasure for free, and Seasonal items that only veterans don't have to ever worry about for as long as they participate fully in every season (which with them getting longer it's pretty inevitable to complete the season pass unless you literally hard quit the game for a year).

Their solution is only a shot in the face to those seeking coin but not seeking much effort, and I don't think labelling a fellow pirate a lazybeard for a get-rich-quick decision turning into a regret is something I want to perform.

Safer Sea, at this point, is not meant to be a way to obtain gold easily risk free. It is a way to learn the rope, do the Tall Tales and explore the world uninterrupted.

Some people wanted to have dedicated PvE servers, Rare said no. Rare then introduced a way learn the rope and do the Tall Tales in a peaceful environment and the same people take that as a sign of change of heart from Rare but it isn't. Not at this point at least.

@tiberi0n a dit dans Instead of Safer Seas giving way less gold, it should have a seperate gold account :

SoT is like a nicely done steak to me and the pvp is the ugly bit of tofu on the plate along with it.
Shure I can get better at forcing it down my throat but I rather leave it on the plate.

The thing is : it isn't a steak with tofu on the side. SoT, using your analogy, would be a tofu stuffed steak. Sure, you can ask the chef to take the tofu out of the steak, but he's not gonna love that. Maybe you should order a simple steak. There are plenty of great coop pve games out there.

why do you care how much gold someone can make there? It won't affect you.

@cp-felons said in Instead of Safer Seas giving way less gold, it should have a seperate gold account:

They just need to buff the rewards allow players to captain their ships and stop the ridiculous restrictions.

In the end they will adjust these restrictions due to new players not wanting to spend 8X as long to gather gold or rep just cause they don't want to deal with the toxic stuff pvp brings.

A lot of games in this genre have a larger playerbase because they have always allowed pve only servers/private servers. It would only increase the player base for SoT if they did it also.

False equivalency as you have done nothing to show a direct correlation between private servers and the game's success. It is like you are discounting the game itself and attributing all success to the existence of PVE/private servers which is laughable as it is blatantly false. They have a larger player base because they are more popular, have dedicated player bases AND have been around on Steam longer (since those are the only stats you can produce, disregarding all others that counter your agenda).

I'd actually say those games are more popular because they are more punishing than this game which is survival lite in comparison, and there is a definite audience for those games.

@cp-felons said in Instead of Safer Seas giving way less gold, it should have a seperate gold account:

They just need to buff the rewards allow players to captain their ships and stop the ridiculous restrictions.

In the end they will adjust these restrictions due to new players not wanting to spend 8X as long to gather gold or rep just cause they don't want to deal with the toxic stuff pvp brings.

A lot of games in this genre have a larger playerbase because they have always allowed pve only servers/private servers. It would only increase the player base for SoT if they did it also.

How do you come by 8x as long ? Do you use the false assumption that on Higher Seas all loot is turned in at a 2.5 multiplier every time ?

Playing on Safer Seas servers gives you a 30% decreased amount of gold - for that you don't have to spend time looking out for other crews, fighting with (or fleeing from) other crews, have the server for yourself, so you don't waste time sailing to a World Event that already has a crew working on it &c.

@cp-felons said in Instead of Safer Seas giving way less gold, it should have a seperate gold account:

@lem0n-curry said in Instead of Safer Seas giving way less gold, it should have a seperate gold account:

@cp-felons said in Instead of Safer Seas giving way less gold, it should have a seperate gold account:

They just need to buff the rewards allow players to captain their ships and stop the ridiculous restrictions.

In the end they will adjust these restrictions due to new players not wanting to spend 8X as long to gather gold or rep just cause they don't want to deal with the toxic stuff pvp brings.

A lot of games in this genre have a larger playerbase because they have always allowed pve only servers/private servers. It would only increase the player base for SoT if they did it also.

How do you come by 8x as long ? Do you use the false assumption that on Higher Seas all loot is turned in at a 2.5 multiplier every time ?

Playing on Safer Seas servers gives you a 30% decreased amount of gold - for that you don't have to spend time looking out for other crews, fighting with (or fleeing from) other crews, have the server for yourself, so you don't waste time sailing to a World Event that already has a crew working on it &c.

The 30% payout is unnecessary as emissary flags won't exist, along with double gold events.
People who avoid PvP are already making less, as they never use emissary flags.

You are probably right about that.

That's 100% payout vs 250%, which is 2.5x more work. It becomes 5x during double gold.

As they wouldn't use the emissary as you pointed out, they would not be getting 250% anyway, so comparing emissary pay out to safer seas payout is wrong.

During double gold also has more risk as other crews are even more interested in loot of other crews.

Safer Seas' reduction makes it 30% vs 250%, which is 8.33x the work. DG is insanely more.
Basically, an hour of High Seas will be worth between 3h 20m and 8h 20m in Safer Seas

See above and my earlier post.

Doing a fort on Higher Seas takes longer than on Safer Seas if and when you take some time to check the map for Reapers or other crews close-by, checking for tuckers &c.

Doing forts also gives rep for GH, OoS, MA and AF, so even if you'd put up an emissary, not all loot would have the multiplier.

Also, less time needed for resource gathering as you will need less balls, planks & fruit for just the PvE you encounter and not for PvP encounters.

When you're finished with world event or voyages you can go to the closest outpost instead of using one further away to make sure you won't meet another crew.

You also can stack, as "don't sail around with more loot than you care to lose" isn't needed anymore, all time savers.

@cp-felons said in Instead of Safer Seas giving way less gold, it should have a seperate gold account:

@dlchief58 said in Instead of Safer Seas giving way less gold, it should have a seperate gold account:

@cp-felons said in Instead of Safer Seas giving way less gold, it should have a seperate gold account:

They just need to buff the rewards allow players to captain their ships and stop the ridiculous restrictions.

In the end they will adjust these restrictions due to new players not wanting to spend 8X as long to gather gold or rep just cause they don't want to deal with the toxic stuff pvp brings.

A lot of games in this genre have a larger playerbase because they have always allowed pve only servers/private servers. It would only increase the player base for SoT if they did it also.

False equivalency as you have done nothing to show a direct correlation between private servers and the game's success. It is like you are discounting the game itself and attributing all success to the existence of PVE/private servers which is laughable as it is blatantly false. They have a larger player base because they are more popular, have dedicated player bases AND have been around on Steam longer (since those are the only stats you can produce, disregarding all others that counter your agenda).

I'd actually say those games are more popular because they are more punishing than this game which is survival lite in comparison, and there is a definite audience for those games.

Direct correlation?

Games with private servers/pve servers have more players.

[mod edit]

Good luck out there!

Pretty obvious you cannot handle when someone points out the flaws in your argument, and resort to attacking the messenger because you cannot support what you say. I am having a legit conversation, pointing out nothing you have presented shows direct correlation between a game's success and the existence of private/pve servers, you obviously are not as you resort to attack and denial mode. Two unrelated statistics trending similarly with no relation to each other is not proof as there is nothing to show that the PVE/private servers is the causation of the games' higher population. There are many more factors you are ignoring or minimizing.

PVE servers did not cause the game to be successful in any example you presented as "proof" of your supposition, they already were based on the gameplay itself. And none of them "doubled" their player base by introducing such modes either - there is proof of that if you care to investigate. I'm not here to shut down discussion (unlike you), I am here to point out obvious false equivalencies you keep throwing around as some undeniable proof you are right. Don't feel special though, I'd do the same for anyone making the same absurd comparisons and fail to back it up with anything of substance.

If you would actually debate in good faith, such as providing some actual link/correlation between increase in player population and the introduction of PvE/private servers instead of attacking me and others, there would be less chance of driving the conversation to the point it gets shut down. I have done so, why are you incapable of it? Good ideas can stand up to scrutiny, dishonest arguments do not.

@redbaron1673 a dit dans Instead of Safer Seas giving way less gold, it should have a seperate gold account :

why do you care how much gold someone can make there? It won't affect you.

Giving the players a way to do the same thing they can do now, but without the risk, would simply make it so a majority of the playerbase will do their PvE on the safe servers and go on the regular servers only for PvP. Meaning that the PvPvE players stubborn enough to keep playing their way will face a way more hostile environment than they do currently.

I'm liking the game as it is : sometimes peaceful, sometimes intense and always unpredictable. I would lose that if a PvE server without restriction came up (either still doing PvE activities in a way more aggressive environment or ditching the PvPvE gameplay). So I'd say that it would indeed affect me.

@crashink6060387 I don't enjoy PvP non-stop though. I enjoy going on my adventures, doing the easy peezy PvE activities while fending off players once or twice an hour. Like I do currently, basically. That is what was advertised to me when I bought the game, that is what I played ever since.

If PvE servers without restriction were a thing the High Seas would become a bloodbath over time, having to fight players non stop and I'm not interested in that. That isn't the game I bought.

@crashink6060387 said in Instead of Safer Seas giving way less gold, it should have a seperate gold account:

@grog-minto said in Instead of Safer Seas giving way less gold, it should have a seperate gold account:

@redbaron1673 a dit dans Instead of Safer Seas giving way less gold, it should have a seperate gold account :

why do you care how much gold someone can make there? It won't affect you.

Giving the players a way to do the same thing they can do now, but without the risk, would simply make it so a majority of the playerbase will do their PvE on the safe servers and go on the regular servers only for PvP. Meaning that the PvPvE players stubborn enough to keep playing their way will face a way more hostile environment than they do currently.

I'm liking the game as it is : sometimes peaceful, sometimes intense and always unpredictable. I would lose that if a PvE server without restriction came up (either still doing PvE activities in a way more aggressive environment or ditching the PvPvE gameplay). So I'd say that it would indeed affect me.

People should be able to choose their experience.

If they have no interest in attacking other crews they probably aren’t interested in being attacked either.

Forcing everybody on to servers with PvP enabled is like operating a slaughterhouse.

Only the willing and able to defend themselves should be sailing on the high seas.

That’s what the high seas is supposed to be. A sandbox for players who enjoy PvP.

No, it is for players who want to enjoy ALL the game has to offer - PvPvE. I am one of those, mainly peaceful but enjoy the uncertainty of the sails on the horizon. You would have that balance shifted to purely PvP which the MAJORITY of players do not want, they want a mix which is why the game has had success. I do not want to be attacked every time I set out to do something and I most certainly do not want to participate in the sterile Safer Seas (other than to complete one of the more annoying Tall Tales). As it stands I have about an even mix of friendly to hostile encounters, making Safer Seas too attractive would shift that to more hostile in the High Seas which is NOT the point of introducing Safer Seas.