To be honest, I had no more complaints after playing the beta, but i did have a lot of ideas on features that could improve the game that I was trying desperately to be heard.
However, with some of the recent datamines and sneak peeks at other aspects of the game, I've found that many of the ideas I had are, in a way, already going to be implemented into the game, and that makes me very excited.
I very much look forward to the official release and have already contributed to the stress test.
@AboveJupiter697
https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/le-miiverse-resource/images/a/a2/5aLZd4V.gif/revision/latest?cb=20150313191510
@Lenny2k3
Ruining the core gameplay right away by only allowing you to equip two weapons? Seems like a bit of an exaggeration matey.
Plus, this is scale test. It's not supposed to be seamless.
It's always interesting to see that first people complain that Sea of Thieves is "too casual" and then Rare adds an element that adds a, somewhat, strategic element to the game it's "ruining the core gameplay".
Wonder why that is..
@erinom3
Lul, had this discussion with some other [mod edited] earlier. Reducing the amount of possible choices in a game, does not increase strategy.
This is an absolute absurd mindset, and the greatest irony of it all, is that you are implying that I am the "casual" by complaining about it. You are essentially arguing that quake with only 1 weapon, would be a more strategic game than the current quake, or chess be a more strategic game with no officers.
Fair enough. I refuse to believe such a decision could have been made sober.
@lenny2k3 Your post has been edited due to inappropriate language. You are free to disagree, but name-calling is not acceptable.
@lenny2k3
I'm not complaining about anything, if you would read you would realise that I'm only observing that some people complain that sea of thieves is "too casual" and then when this element, of only two weapons, is added to the game they turn around and start talking about how it "ruins the core gameplay". It's an observation not a complaint.
Please illuminate me, why is bringing quake into this is relevant? Two very different games. Quake, is by all means, a maze like arena shooter where killing other people/things is the only goal. Sea of Thieves is a shared open world adventure game, killing other people isn't the only goal.
So, again, I'm not arguing anything in regards to quake. "I'm essentially saying" No mate. I'm saying that in Sea of Thieves, making players choose what weapons they will use (which most of us know has been planned for a while) is not a bad thing. You can change them anytime you want on your ship, just have to contemplate what you bring with you to the island or what to use in ship battles. It might not be perfect, but I like it more than being able to carry everything in a game where choices matter.
@lenny2k3 said in I've no more complaints now:
I disagree.
Playing the closed beta right now and they swiftly managed to ruin the core gameplay right away. Wonder what that is?You can now only equip two weapons and two weapons only. Enjoy having no melee, since that's out of the question and only 2 weapons to go. woho.
What ??? When i read the patch note, i thought it was only 2 firearms, everyone should have the cutlass by default and it should be excluded from the choice !
@erinom3
Is this an intentional strawman? I really cannot tell at this point. I said that i am complaining, something you are naturally misinterpreting. Then you go on about some wild story about how I am making the assertion that you are complaining? Even going as far as telling me to reread your post, when it's exactly what you should be doing yourself.
*It's always interesting to see that first people complain that Sea of Thieves is "too casual" and then Rare adds an element that adds a, somewhat, strategic element to the game it's "ruining the core gameplay".
Wonder why that is..*
This right here is clearly an implication, something I shouldn't have to point out. You of course play the victim while lying.
In relation to quake/chess. This is called an analogy which is important, when you are trying to explain your arguments, instead of lying or strawmaning.
Your original argument was that it added a strategic element to the, which it very clearly doesn't, hence the analogy in my original post. You however, ignore this completely and start arguing about something else entirely because staying on subject is hard and would require you to put some thought into your opinions.
@aenima123
Yeah, enjoy the new shell of a game. You don't even have the ammo to kill the skeletons on the skelly missions lul.
@lenny2k3
I did misread. My apologies, Thank you for pointing them out. Seems you're a little heated though. Calm down matey. Sometimes people do multiple things at once, everyone makes mistakes.
Now, to adress your "analogy", or rather, your lack of using one. Most people, when using an analogy, use one that pertains to the subject. An analogy that actually explains and helps provide clarity on the subject. One that makes sense. Your analogy does not.
As, if you want to get real specific, an analogy as a form of logical reasoning:
"a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects."
But logically reasoning and comparing a Shared Open World Adventure Game to a Multiplayer Arena Shooter Game seems a little crazy, no? When both games have vastly different mindsets as to why the guns/inventory in the game work the way they work. When the only thing that is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect is that: both games have guns that have different strengths right ?
So, I won't bother you by deconstructing your "analogy". As your entire argument should be boiled down to something you said earlier: "Reducing the amount of possible choices in a game, does not increase strategy." Which, as an argument, is better than your analogy.
I must say, I find it very interesting that you imply that limiting the weapons reduces the amount of strategy you have in a game. I'd argue the opposite. Only allowing you two weapons adds a lot more choices, what to use when, when to change, why not to use etc. You'd have to be more strategic with your choices. Rather than having all 4 weapons and switching to whatever you need.
But, perhaps more interesting, is that you essentially disprove yourself. Lets use your example of chess. In chess, you have 16 pieces. As the game goes on, you'll likely lose pieces. Pieces that give you choices, pieces that gave you options. Now that you have less pieces, you have less choices, but you'll likely have to be more strategic with the way you do use your choices right? Is that not the case? Do in chess the possible "choices" not slowly dissapear as your pieces get removed, and does this not only further increase the strategy ?
As a strategy is "a plan, method, or series of maneuvers or stratagems for obtaining a specific goal or result". With limited pieces, do you not strategize more to obtain that specific goal (usually winning) despite having less choices in doing so?
If I can only choose two things I’ll take a hard rubber ball and a chew toy that looks like a rubber duck.
Discover the magic of the internet at Imgur, a community powered entertainment destination. Lift your spirits with funny jokes, trending memes, entertaining gifs, inspiring stories, viral videos, and so much more from users.
@lenny2k3 The new weapon limit does increase strategy. Merriam-Webster defines strategy as "a careful plan or method". You have to plan how you will go about your attack and what you need to accomplish your goal. Do you want to fight the battle from long range? Do you not want to worry about ammo? Do you want to do massive amounts of damage? Do you want to have a balance between damage and range? Theses are questions you have to ask so you know what weapons you will choose. When more weapons are added with increased variety of uses, more thought will need to be put into how you go about a certain situation, and thus increasing strategy even more.
@lenny2k3 The game is far more skill-based now. Having 4 weapons at once was like playing Halo with a large amount of weapons. It would be like taking a snipe shot at someone, switching to the rocket launcher and shooting one of those, then switching to your BR and shooting for a bit until you walk in closer and then just switch to your shotgun and one-shot them. SoT fights were very low-skill with the four weapons. You could just cycle all three guns and insta-gib people very rapidly with no-scopes. Trust me, before with 4 weapons, fights usually ended very quickly and it was largely inconsistent who would win. Now, I've already had experiences where just me and one other player board a 4 person ship and kill them consistently for several minutes on end just because we are the better players. That would never happen if each enemy respawning had four weapons a piece.
@lenny2k3 that was the intention from the start, to buy more weapons with the in game currency. And this is just a scale test. I'm the original closed beta, you also had the sniper
@lenny2k3 said in I've no more complaints now:
I disagree.
Playing the closed beta right now and they swiftly managed to ruin the core gameplay right away. Wonder what that is?You can now only equip two weapons and two weapons only. Enjoy having no melee, since that's out of the question and only 2 weapons to go. woho.
Love this aspect TBH.
Equip yourself as you see fit. It's your own fault if you brought all guns and no sword when you run outta ammo.
I'd hope to see something similar with gear. Every character should be able to equip and change out one piece of gear that's say 'epic' and provides a bonus.
You can wear your 'speed boots' when exploring islands and change out to your 'captains hat' when behind the wheel for increase turning .... etc.
Essentially every aspect of the game can have an 'epic' item associated with providing the maximum benefit of performing that role.
@firetadpole7469
It really doesn't.
If you cannot with good certainty tell what you will face, there will always be a correct choice in terms of weapons. In other words, if you are going to an island with skeletons? Sword, literally always, because you don't have ammo. Facing an opposing ship? Swap to shotgun/pistol. There is no strategy involved, because there is a clear superior choice.
When more weapons are added with increased variety of uses, more thought will need to be put into how you go about a certain situation, and thus increasing strategy even more.
I find it difficult to see how people cannot see the irony in this statement, since this is what most of you ultimately lean on. Having more weapons with different uses equipped at the same time, increases the need for good decision making skills for players, because you need to utilize your tools to the greatest effectiveness at the given situation. You however, want to remove this aspect, because apparently "picking the right weapon for the situation" is more strategic then having to actively use them correctly.
Imagine a normal game of chess with all it's pieces (all your weapons), in comparison to a game of chess where all officers were removed except one, which you could choose. Each side would then have 8 pawns each, with a king and one random officer. You do not know which officer your opponent takes, so naturally you take the strongest officer left (the queen). Would you argue that this game of chess, would have a higher amount of strategy than normal chess? Because if you do, you are factually wrong.
@Natsu-v2
I don't need to "trust you", because what you are saying is completely nonsensical. Cycling weapons and using the correct one forces decision making on the player. Limiting the amount of weapons the players has access to, does not make it more skill based, but a whole lot less.
Counter strike would not be 'more skill based' if you removed grenades and secondary weapons or the knife. Quake would not be more skill based if you removed all weapons except the machine gun, even if the would take longer to kill the opponent. Chess would not be more skill based if you only had pawns. Starcraft would not be more skill based if you only had one type of unit.
@NaoShadowpaws
Not an argument furryboy.
@stem589
See above.
@Erinom3
Nice one, makes an apology for clearly misreading and strawmaning, then ending it by trying to make me look small by claiming I am "heated" top lul.
Good argument though. I can boil it down to "Your analogy is bad, because I say so". Seriously, that's literally all you managed to conjure from those sentences.
I mean look at this: comparing a Shared Open World Adventure Game to a Multiplayer Arena Shooter Game seems a little crazy, no? Why go out of your way to misinterpret? I am clearly not comparing the game types, but a certain aspect which they both share, were one shows a game with a high amount of strategy, while the other has next to none. This was to make the point that reducing (active) player choices, does reduce strategy.
In regards to chess... You do know the basic rules of it, right? There is always a best move in chess. Always. The different is that as you lose pieces, the amount of choices increases, then decreases, depending on the amount of pieces left on the board. This means that the endgame is often the most difficult, exactly because the amount of choices you have are so many, so it's difficult to find the right one. So, it boils down to, find the best choice, in the shortest time possible, much like how you would swap to the best weapon in a combat situation.
Time constraints is the point here. Picking the right loadout, when there's a literally "best loadout" for a given sitaution, is not strategic at all. I pointed this out earlier in this massive post, in regards to picking the strongest officer in chess. So by limting weapons, you've basically just watered down the actual gameplay, for some miniscule feeling of "strategy" in choice, which in reality isn't strategic at all, because there is always a correct answer.
In a troop of soldiers, you outfit individuals differently to overcome different unforeseen obstacles.
Sure, you could put 100 different pieces of kit on one soldier, but they wouldn't be very combat effective.
Maybe the group you play with needs to discuss how everyone's outfitting themselves? Probably a good idea to make sure at least someone has a sniper.
No different than jobs on the ship. Not everyone is at the same time behind the wheel, fixing sails/holes, bailing water and shooting cannons.
@lenny2k3 Ever heard of the quote "restriction breeds creativity?"
Your analogies are really bad. Like I said, the perfect analogy to this situation is a game of Halo where a player has a BR, energy sword, shotgun, and sniper rifle all at once. That is horribly unskilled. You mention CounterStrike without grenades or flashbangs. Actually, the 4 weapons in SoT is more accurately similar to a game of CounterStrike where every single player has every single weapon in the game at once.
"Cycling weapons and using the correct one forces decision making on the player."
This is so utterly flawed. In practice in SoT, players aren't making serious decisions over what to use when they hold 4. They are just spamming them and switching to the next that still has ammo in it.
@lenny2k3 Again, I disagree. In chess, you don't know what you're going to face exactly. It becomes variable depending on what the other player does. Plus, the way you use the chess as comparison doesn't really work because in SoT you are in control of a single person, not an army.
Also, there isn't always a clear superior choice. Usually I go to islands with the flintlock and blunderbuss, unless doing a bounty. The reason being that you don't really encounter that many enemies, and can easily go back to your ship for ammo without losing progress. Sometimes when boarding I use a sword and blunderbuss. The sword doesn't require a reload and can stunlock, the blunderbuss can one-shot or hit still do damage when I'm not accurate. It's mostly about your playstyle.
There isn't any irony in what I said, and the same evidence I have already given explains this. In fact there's irony in what you said. If you have all the weapons, it becomes a game of just knowing when to use what, and then a clear superior choice emerges. If you don't, you have to find a way to work around your problems with what you have equipped, which might not be what you need. You need to know what obstacles you can handle and what you can't, then choose based on that.
If you dislike the idea of not being one man army then go play a different game because that's not Rares vision. They want a need for teamwork and coordination, and a one man army would work against that need.
@NaoShadowpaws
Not an argument furryboy.
Actually it is a valid argument. I can list off several games that only have two weapon slots. It's the most pathetic thing to throw a fit over. Oh waa, you cant carry an arsenal with you everywhere you go, so sad is the world. You have two weapons, crying about it wont change anything. Get good or play something else.
No sympathy for someone who feels more weapons makes up for lack of skill. This game is all about skill, from the sailing to the combat. Sink or swim, adapt or die.
@natsu-v2
All weapons in SoT functions differently, with the exception of the sniper/pistol which is relatively similar. The developers not differenciating their weapons enough, has literally no correlation with the discussion we are having.
Again, what is this way of arguing? "Your analogies are bad, because they are bad." "This analogy is good.... Because it's perfect" At least argue for your points and point out why mine are wrong. Make a f- effort. Is this kindergarten?
Last "point". They are making a decision. "Should I close the gap and use the shotgun?" "Oh, he didn't die from the shotgun blast, should I back off and shoot him with my gun, or melee?" This is called a decision. DUM DUM DUM
Having only the sword on the other hand, reduces the possible decisions a player could make.
@FireTadpole7469
In chess, you don't know what you're going to face exactly. This is actually hilarious.
Secondly, the "SoT is not literally chess, therefore you cannot compare one aspect of it". Of course you can. Can you not compare the speeds of a car and a plane because one can fly and one can't? Again, completely absurd.
Also, there isn't always a clear superior choice. Usually I go to islands with the flintlock and blunderbuss, unless doing a bounty. The reason being that you don't really encounter that many enemies, and can easily go back to your ship for ammo without losing progress. Sometimes when boarding I use a sword and blunderbuss. The sword doesn't require a reload and can stunlock, the blunderbuss can one-shot or hit still do damage when I'm not accurate. It's mostly about your playstyle.
Man, you are even spelling it out for yourselv. This is a superior choice. The difference is, there is no time constraint, there is no uncertaincy. You know the answer. Everytime.
In combat, when you have time constraints, this choice becomes muddled, which adds strategy. But what the hell, you are probably right. Quake is p**s easy, because the superior choice in the middle of a fight that could last for less than half a second is easy to figure out though. Much easier than having to choose from using a melee over a shotgun before you enter a fight. Hilarious.
@naoshadowpaws said in I've no more complaints now:
@NaoShadowpaws
Not an argument furryboy.Actually it is a valid argument. I can list off several games that only have two weapon slots. It's the most pathetic thing to throw a fit over. Oh waa, you cant carry an arsenal with you everywhere you go, so sad is the world. You have two weapons, crying about it wont change anything. Get good or play something else.
No sympathy for someone who feels more weapons makes up for lack of skill. This game is all about skill, from the sailing to the combat. Sink or swim, adapt or die.
"Actually it is a valid argument." He says, while giving no reasoning! What a surprise!
You are probably right though, those idiots playing quake, chess or starcraft has no idea what skill is. You, with your xbox in hand, grasping your dakimakura picturing simba in the other, is the incarnation of talent and knowledge.
@lenny2k3 The reason your analogies suck should be obvious. You're bringing up games like Starcraft and Chess, which are 1v1 games. Let's look exclusively at a team composition game, which is what Sea of Thieves is, such as battlefield.
Your argument is literally that of "more options = more strategy." In a Battlefield setting, this would be akin to letting every infantry player play as all classes put together. Playing with a medkit, a rocket launcher, a sniper rifle, and extra ammo, among other things, all on the same class is essentially what you're arguing for. "Oh I missed with the sniper rifle, do I continue to shoot from here or move forward and use my underslung shotgun?" These aren't interesting decisions from a team composition standpoint.
@ant-heuser-kush I'm thinking right now on what i'll use, the pistol is a great emergency tool, shotguns are a must in close range, and what if i run out of ammo without a sword? What about a cannon in the distance? Where is my sniper?
Playing devils advocate, I see how this change would be a real issue for the solo player.
Maybe the solo player should be able to carry 3? If they're out there alone, being a bit of a one-man army, this makes a bit of sense.
Just spit ballin.....
@stem589 The game really shouldn't be balanced around solo play. It's intended to be more of a higher difficulty game for experienced players. I think it's totally okay for that to be essentially a different game mode (some have likened it to a survival horror, which fits in with having limited guns anyways) for masochists and experts.
@natsu-v2
Again with the damn "X is literally not the entirity of Y, therefore you cannot compare one small aspect of them". This literally makes no sense and it baffles me that you don't see why.
Yes, that is my argument. Having more options makes a game more interesting, having next to none, makes a game uninsteresting and will kill it in the long run. In class based game, which you are bringing up now (which is a completely fair argument by the way), they always try to make sure that the classes carry enough 'content' if you can call it that to stand on their own. Those that don't, are usually hot garbage.
Sea of thieves in terms of gameplay, is relatively bare bones as it stands and if you reduce the already scarce option, you are not adding anything, you are killing gameplay. Secondly, 'team composition' is completely out of the scope in how sea of thieves plays as well.
edit:
The game really shouldn't be balanced around solo play. It's intended to be more of a higher difficulty game for experienced players.
??????????????????????????????
Then why are you so insistent on making the game the most casual plebfilter avaiable on the market then? This is insanity if i've ever seen it.
@lenny2k3 I find it hilarious that you have to act condescending to get your point across.
Our arguments both seem to be centralized around time constraint, unpredictability (which is part of time constraint), and how clear choices play into strategy. So, if a strategy is something that is careful plan or method, then quick decisions are not strategy. Of course you do have to know what weapon to use, but because you are given all the weapons, this isn't much of a problem as you won't have to coordinate with your team. In SoT you are limited, and must chose what is right depending on what the enemy has, and then coordinate with your team so they know what to use as well.
When it comes to clear choice, it doesn't ruin strategy. If it did, then both of our arguments become invalid. In wartime strategies, the strategy that has the best overall outcome is the clear choice, yet it's still considered strategy.
@lenny2k3 The game is significantly more hardcore and skill-based with only 2 weapons. I've played this game for over 600 hours, most of that with 3 weapons, some of that with 4, and some with 2. The game is honestly far more skill-intensive with only 2.
I'm also a very hardcore gamer who has competed in high level Starcraft, card games like MTG, Yug, Force of Will, and tons of other competitive games/e-sports. Sea of Thieves is full-on casual with 4 weapons; It's very hardcore and interesting with 2.
@lenny2k3
If I apologize for misreading, as what I misread made the base of my post, it means that I withdraw what I said as it was clearly a post based on my limited capabilities in multitasking. Meaning, that I apologize for "strawmanning" you as it was based on an invalid thing. (And, since you got me started, doesn't strawmanning mean that I intended to misrepresent, which was clearly not the case. As my post was based on misreading, not on actually intending to misrepresent your argument)
The only reason I said you were getting heated is because you first had a moderator step in to remind you of language. But then you continued with a, in my opinion, heated tone in your reply. That's not trying to make you small, that's me trying to bring the conversation down a notch and make you realize how you are coming across. No ill intent there.
Clearly, in my eyes, you are not capable of discussion on a respectful and calm level. I've made my argument, apologized for my mistake, and see no reason to continue arguing with you as we clearly differ on opinion regarding what a good design decision for Sea of Thieves is. Best of luck with this, and all the other discussions you seem to be getting yourself into matey!
imgur.com
