Suggestion to solve crossplay AND PvE issue at the same time without seperate servers! [TL;DR included]

  • TL;DR: I propose a matchmaking system that matches players with similar playstyles and attributes that players assign to themselves. That way, friendly casual players would encounter more friendly casual players, ambitious PvP players would encounter more of their counterparts, Xbox players would encounter more Xbox players. This would alleviate the issues without changing core game mechanics or dividing the playerbase.
    Read below for detailed version!

    Disclaimer: I am perfectly happy with the game as it is now. It's gorgeous, feels amazing and is very balanced. This suggestion is not about me.

    However, judging by frequency of threads popping up on this forum, there are two issues that seem to be pretty big problems for quite a few players.

    One issue is crossplay. Xbox players feel at a disadvantage because PC players can use the more precise mouse & keyboard as input devices, as well as typically having a higher framerate. The solution most Xbox players suggest is to make crossplay optional, allowing them to only be matched with other Xbox players.

    The other issue is PvE vs PvP. Some players enjoy the PvE aspects of the game, but dislike the PvP aspects. They feel that other players are overly hostile and have a kill on sight mentallity. They argue that friendly encounters happen to seldom and are not incentivized. The most common asked for solution is to have seperate PvE servers, where players could not attack or steal from each other.

    Both issues have been discussed at length. This thread is not a place to further discuss them.
    The biggest problem with the asked for solutions, optional crossplay and seperate PvE servers, is that they would divide the playerbase. That is something Rare explicitly does not want to happen, and it is unlikely they are going to change their mind, because inclusivity and a united community are a big part of the SoT marketing and appeal, pushed by both Rare and Microsoft.

    I would like to suggest a solution that could alleviate both crossplay and PvE issues, while keeping everybody in one single pool of players and servers. That solution would be matchmaking dependent on a players chosen playstyle.
    In the game Conan Exiles, a sandbox PvEvP RPG similar to Ark, people are given the following options to choose what kind of community they want to play with:

    Servers are then suggested to them based on that choice. In my 200 hours of playing Conan Exiles, that system seemed to work out pretty well.
    I propose a similar system for Sea of Thieves, but pirate based instead of server based.

    What could this look like?
    In the crew ledger in SoT, people could assign predefined attributes or playstyles to their pirate. These would stay with the pirate, but could be changed anytime you are in the crew ledger, so not in an active session. The matchmaking would then match pirates with similar attributes and playstyles, so people would end up on servers with more likeminded people that have similar playstyles.
    For example, let's say you assign the attribute friendly and laid back and the playstyle merchant to your pirate. This combination would describe more of a friendly, not so competitive PvE playstyle. The matchmaking would match you with people of similar attributes. The servers themselves would not change, but you would still be a lot more likely to end up on a server where most people would want to casually do voyages and be friendly towards each other.
    For another example, let's say you assign the attributes ambitious and notorious and the playstyle pirate. This would describe more of a competitive PvP playstyle, sort of a take what you can and give nothing back attitude. The matchmaking would pair you with people who are more likely to engage in PvP and fight over forts, and in general would be more aggressive. You would end up on a server where the population would be more interested in PvP and probably more hostile in general.
    In addition, people could state their gaming platform, so the matchmaking would try to pair them with similar platforms. If no attributes or platforms are picked, players would be matched more with others who also did not pick attributes. Those players probably wan't the game to be as the devs intended. This would be the equivalent to the "purist" community in the picture above.
    These are just a few examples. If we work out a proper set of attributes and playstyles, I believe we can create combinations for any sort of player and playstyle.

    What would the benefits be?
    The player base would not be divided, the servers could remain unchanged and there would not have to be any large changes to the game itself. My proposal is a more subtle, self regulating approach, that would also stay dynamic, because people could change their attributes and playstyles anytime.
    In addition, the core gameplay of SoT would not change. Even peaceful players would face the uncertainty and excitement of meeting other crews, which is an integral part of the game. The encounters would just be more likely to be friendly in nature.

    Self regulating
    But what if a bloodthirsty pirate sets his attributes to friendly to get paired with easy targets?
    There will always be a minority of people who seek to abuse a system to gain an advantage. I do not believe these people would pose a big problem, or that there would be many of them, because most PvP players actually enjoy a challenge. Slaughtering casuals is only entertaining for so long. Also, a server of mostly friendly and peaceful people could band together to get rid of overly aggressive ships.
    However, if those players should still prove to be a problem, there could be a few subtle additions to the matchmaking, like a covert ranking system invisible to players that would track kills and thus adjust the matchmaking accordingly. Other ideas would be one of the bounty systems people keep proposing, or the ability to flag aggressive players so their attributes and playstyles could not be set to friendly if they make too many kills on a friendly server (I don't like this idea since it's open to abuse).

    In summary, I believe my idea would alleviate a lot of the problems people have with this game, by pairing like minded players with each other. However, the core gameplay would remain unchanged, keeping the spirit of the game intact, and ensuring that you would still keep your spyglass at hand and #bemorepirate.

    Also, please keep in mind that the new PvE and PvP content currently in the pipeline is likely to alleviate the issues anyway, by providing players with more things to do. Rare has also said that some of that content would incentivise crews to work together.

    Thank you for reading. I'm looking forward to feedback and constructive debate.

  • 33
    Posts
    28.3k
    Views
  • I'd rather see an automatic system that switches you to a different server in case you get sunk too often or sink other ships too often.

    Ofc the game needs to check first whether or not one of your crew members hide a skeleton key or some treasure chest on an island and in this case no server switching should take place.
    But for this too work they need to improve the time it takes to switch servers so it becomes seemless.

    Your idea is great too though, just like you said, it will get abused.

  • @sanni
    I don't think that would properly tackle the problem. It would get rid of aggressive players for one server, but then they would just be a problem for the peaceful people on their new server. It also seems complicated to check for treasure, and making it seamless and the additional "server hopping" would increase server load.

    "it will get abused"
    The question is, how much? I don't think it would be an issue. Maybe the game could also track your playstyle in general and take that into account.
    Kinda like that hat in Harry Potter. You can tell it what house you want to be in, but if it does not fit you at all, it will place you in a more appropriate one.

  • I thought this topic would gain more traction tbh. Maybe I should have chosen a more inflammatory title?

  • @nebenkuh said in Suggestion to solve crossplay AND PvE issue at the same time without seperate servers!:

    I thought this topic would gain more traction tbh. Maybe I should have chosen a more inflammatory title?

    It's a lot of text to go through. Most people do not have the patience to read that much, let alone write a response afterwards.

    Anyway, I like the idea of choosing what type of people to be matched with. Would make for some more enjoyable gametime.
    So you have my vote.

  • @danish-crusader
    Good point. I will make a TL;DR. Thanks!

  • Personally, I have no idea what the crossplatform argument is all about.
    I love the chance (as a pc player) to finally be able to play with my friends who have only got an xbox.
    Add to that, I use an xbox 360 controller on my PC to play the game, because, well, it just feels right for this game.
    Which is saying something, because I usually prefer mouse and keyboard.
    The controller puts all vital functions at your fingertips.
    I find it works a treat.
    I don't see myself at any disadvantage because of it.
    Admitedly aiming is somewhat slower, and not as accurate, but I'm willing to accept that tradeoff for comfort of playing in general.

  • @sledgezapper64
    Many people feel at a disadvantage tho. But that should not be discussed here. :)

  • What are the most extreme scenarios this type of approach would yield?

  • @sledgezapper64 said in Suggestion to solve crossplay AND PvE issue at the same time without seperate servers! [TL;DR included]:

    Personally, I have no idea what the crossplatform argument is all about.
    I love the chance (as a pc player) to finally be able to play with my friends who have only got an xbox.
    Add to that, I use an xbox 360 controller on my PC to play the game, because, well, it just feels right for this game.
    Which is saying something, because I usually prefer mouse and keyboard.
    The controller puts all vital functions at your fingertips.
    I find it works a treat.
    I don't see myself at any disadvantage because of it.
    Admitedly aiming is somewhat slower, and not as accurate, but I'm willing to accept that tradeoff for comfort of playing in general.

    I feel the same. I am a beast with a controller, but give me a mouse and my wrist gets annoyed before long. I also like to have all commands below my fingertips so that's why I prefer controllers as well.

  • @arch-fable
    I guess the most extreme scenarios would be PvE minded players sailing around in peace, while PvP minded players would get to battle each other more often.

  • @nebenkuh

    Honestly, as you stated, with an increase in the amount of content I feel the overly aggressive PvP will die down. The biggest factor behind it right now is boredom. Even my friends and I will start pirate hunting after an hour or two of quest grinding. Anything to change up the monotany.

    That said, I feel your system would have the same issues introducing a PvE server would bring. That being putting players in a server with no conflict and being able to farm without any risk. The only challenge in this game comes from the PvP encounters. Take that away and you may as well be playing Ship Simulator with skeletons.

    Sure the cosmetics have no intrinsic value, but they're the only thing players have to work towards. Why should some people have the option to acquire that stuff easier than anyone else? Because they don't like conflict? That's a little childish in my opinion.

    I don't see this kind of system being introduced, simply because it's really just a roundabout way of getting PvE only servers and dividing the player base into different sections.

  • @subaqueousreach
    "putting players in a server with no conflict and being able to farm without any risk"

    There would still be risk tho, because it would not actually be seperate servers. You'd just be more likely to meet friendly people, or people who play more defensively. But it would still be a normal server where you could be killed by others.
    But I take your point.
    I guess I'm just looking for a way to accomodate the different playstyles without seperating the community and without telling those who don't enjoy PvP to suck it up.

    I'm also thinking that this system would lead to crews of similar skill levels being on the same servers. Recently, PvP became somewhat boring, because no matter what ship or crew we encountered, they were all very bad. It's not fun to sink the same galleon 3 times in a row in a matter of seconds. We'd much rather face a decent challenge.

    My goal was to suggest something that would allow everyone to enjoy the game in their own way, so pairing like minded peolpe seemed like a good way to do that without restructuring the entire game. :)

  • @nebenkuh said in Suggestion to solve crossplay AND PvE issue at the same time without seperate servers! [TL;DR included]:

    @arch-fable
    I guess the most extreme scenarios would be PvE minded players sailing around in peace, while PvP minded players would get to battle each other more often.

    I think I prefer the idea to just flag my crew as a pure PvP crew at the crew screen to give a small edge to my targets afar in the field; to state my business merely be sinking ships and killing pirates as cutthroats so anyone can try to develop such course of action to secure their goals as best as they can.

    Changing flag colour is simple and allows us to focus on PvP by reminding ourselves of our alignment.

    We don't need voyages so those could be denied from us while sailing under a blood red flag as well to further help us keep our focus.


    Note: Maybe the outpost we happen to first come in contact with could become our headquarters for the duration of the session and any other outpost would have couple scout towers shooting at us on sight. Getting thorough the outpost resistance would deem the towers under reconstruction for a short moment and within that moment we could have an opportunity to quickly travel to the middle of the outpost to light up a huge signal fire at the top of a mountain to state that we have changed our headquarters. I think this could work as a minigame of sorts.

    A lit signal fire would also signal any nearby player that the outpost they see has been claimed by a crew of cutthroats so they can stay alarmed.

  • @arch-fable
    I don't like the idea of flagging yourself as PvP, or utilising outposts for that.

    The charme of this game is that you don't know the intentions of a crew until they are pretty close, and that you can get distracted from whatever you were doing to engage in PvP. It's a chance encounter, opportunism. We should keep it that way.

  • @nebenkuh

    I get your intent and it's well thought out. However, even with the ability to still kill one another, the fact that people could match with others that dont want to do PvP means they're able to avoid the risk simply because no one will attack them if all 6 ships on the server are more interested in doing PvE or being friendly.

    There won't really be that sense of "what if" either, since setting your preference to aggressive or passive or whatever will pre-determine who you're going to bump into. That takes away a big aspect of what Rare wants the game to be.

  • The real solution is people just need to toughen up a bit when they get killed or sunk.

  • it's really good idea, in ideal world it would work, but as already stated, it would ptobably get abused unless somehow penalized, if you were playing outside of the parameters you chose. And that would end up being even worse than it already is.

    You have something there, but i feel like it's still missing something to get more people onboard with it. I don't know what tho...

    Get ready for some people b*tching, that's inevitable, but we can use more ideas like this from active users...

  • I love your idea but I think it's the wrong way to go about PVP aggression and Xbox disadvantage.

    What I think is the main problem is the lack of things to do in the game. I find myself hunting players a lot, just because I got bored. Also there isn't any profit or advantage in not sinking another player's ship.

    In my view, enriching the PVE experience, bringing new threats to the game and as well as giving you reason to not kill another pirate is the way to go. We need depth.

    If I have ton to do while having fun and profit, I can't see myself hunting another pirate.

    Also, we need AI Ships if you expect to lower the PVP as well, one of the most amazing things in the game is the Naval Battle, and there isn't any AI to hunt and sink it.

  • @nebenkuh said in Suggestion to solve crossplay AND PvE issue at the same time without seperate servers! [TL;DR included]:

    @arch-fable
    I don't like the idea of flagging yourself as PvP,...

    Pure PvP, that is. This basically means any non-voyage activity during which I sink ships or kill pirates and so on is my business stated by the blood red flag. At any scenario with other than flagged crews, the surprise opportunity stays the same so it only affects my crew and those who spot us.

    Point is to allow players show their true colour if they wish so. Flagging is totally optional.

    We can't escape PvP anyway so giving some leverage against players who sincerely just want to PvP is what we should consider, especially if they flag themselves. It's an honoured gesture toward our opposition, raises alarm when sighted and allows us to bestow greater fear upon our foes.

    If you want to keep your alignment hidden, that's totally up to you.

    ...or utilising outposts for that.

    The idea is to give leverage to players and allow them to play the game in a different way should they so choose. As the option doesn't take away anything from the game, but merely adds to it an additional layer to emphasise certain playstyles, I don't know how it could lessen the impact.

    On contrary by stating something boldly enough, the message is emphasised greatly.

    The charme of this game is that you don't know the intentions of a crew until they are pretty close, and that you can get distracted from whatever you were doing to engage in PvP. It's a chance encounter, opportunism. We should keep it that way.

    It still would be and the fantasies are still kept intact. Such is the nature of optionality. Options only boost the intended messages, not hinder the hidden.

    The crews that sailed under blood red flags were actually those the pirates were very afraid of. It meant that the crew showed no remorse and any mere pirate crossing their path was killed. This is why the pirates usually jumped overboard and drowned themselves if they didn't have a chance to escape. Even a way such as drowning, it was recognised as a more peaceful death than the one received in the hands of the crew under the blood red flag.

    What I offer is just a mere gesture given to our doomed brothers and sisters... and a fun minigame too.

  • @nebenkuh I don't think this will help. People need to understand ANY system which attempts to separate PvE and PvP preferring players is only going to make the problem worse. The PvPvE system works because each player is unique. Fighting is always a potential but never a guarantee. You encounter a pirate, you may run, you may engage, they may run, they may engage, you may see a ship docked on an island you need to go to and may be friendly, or you may choose to sink them, the same if it happens the other way around, but you never know, there is a feeling or paranoia and unknown whenever you encounter another player.

    If you attempt to put more aggressive players on one server you are making hostile PvP encounters far more likely which is not good for the game. I prefer PvE but I like the fact I never know what an enemy ship is going to do and have to judge their intent by the direction they sail, their decisions etc.. I don't want to be forced to choose between different servers and as such be on a boring server with minimal PvP and people who flame me if I try to attack them 'YOU'RE ON THE WRONG SERVER!' or be forced to choose a hard core server but as such every ship I see wants to kill me and few people are actually doing voyages. This is not going to work.

    The solution is simple: This is a PvPvE game and people need to realise that and accept it. This is how the game is marketed, this is what it is, and this is what the majority of people love about it. We are never going to have separate servers for anything and separate servers or gamemodes or whatever you want to call them will be a bad move for the game. Instead, by all means suggest ways to improve the PvP system and make it healthier and more enjoyable for everyone but stop trying to separate it!

  • @subaqueousreach
    Well in theory you can already avoid pretty much everyone to do PvE in peace.
    But I get the concerns. I figured the matchmaking preferences would not have to be absolutes tho and still throw a few PvP oriented players into the mix. But I guess that would only lead to another round of crying.

    @Trickrtreat01
    Usually I'd agree. Just got reminded on how Conan Exiles did it, so figured I'd throw this out there. Fact is, some, or a few, rather loud people seem to really want PvE servers very badly. So instead of telling them to git, I thought I'd try to find a compromise. :)

    @Sir-Lotus
    Yea I suppose it would require a lot of fine tuning to get a good balance, and some oversight to keep the system from being abused. Guess at that point it would already be too complicated and just cause more problems than it would solve. :D

    @RVallez
    Agree on everything except AI ships. I like that everytime you see a sail, you know it's another crew. I also feel like AI ships would be extremely hard to do well. If the skeletons are any indication, I'd rather not see AI ships tbh! What I'd like is some sort of PvE event similar to the skull fort, but with a skeleton ship sailing a predetermined (random) course. Unsinkable, surrounded by fog, you need to follow it and board it to kill the captain, after which you can loot his chambers. But once the captain is dead, a fuse to the gunpowder storage is lit, leaving you only a few minutes to take everything you can. The entire event would be timed too because eventually the ship would just sail out of the map.

    @Arch-Fable
    But why would I do that when it means other outposts will be shooting at me?

    @AngryCoconut16
    You make very good points. Thanks.
    How about, instead of my originally proposed system, there would be some sort of covert elo ranking? Sinking a ship increases your rank, losing one lowers it, both depending on the rank of the opposing crew. Matchmaking could try and pair crews with similar elos.
    That way, we'd at least have roughly similar skill levels across servers.
    Voyages should increase your ranking somewhat too, so that people who are good at the game but only do PvE are not paired with noobs.

    Tbh I just want the whining to stop and fight some decent crews for a change! :)

  • @nebenkuh I like this idea! I made a similar suggestion to that effect here:

    https://www.seaofthieves.com/forum/topic/49649/new-faction-combat-pvp

    Not saying my suggestion doesn't have its own flaws but yea.. I do agree that perhaps it would help if people who are more experienced at PvP could somehow engage people who are better at PvP and if this could be encouraged some how....

    I agree. I want there to be more positive thoughts about the game experience and less threads about people complaining about losing their loot, the trouble is.. at the moment I understand where they are coming from. :/

  • @danish-crusader Yeah, except for the fact that there are so many super-t***s in this and many other PvP games. These people would just choose to be matched with peaceful people so they could do their usual griefing and trolling without getting counter-attacked.

  • @northman737 Myes, well, sadly no system is foolproof.
    Never will be.

  • Some people are always going to be [Mod edited]. more comments on galleons balling empty solo sloopers are becoming more frequent in the forums. I love going solo, and when doing my thing on an island have heard cannon fire many times then see a galleon peppering my empty vessel. A quick rolls on deck laughing then back to it. Shame there's no [Mod edited] message for these people.
    My final conclusion; different servers , simple.

  • @angrycoconut16
    I like your idea a lot.
    Thanks for the link!

    I guess we just gotta try and be heard with our constructive ideas amongst this sea of tears. :D

  • @reluctantdragon You haven't stopped to consider the indirect consequences of different servers.

    Plus how do you define a horrible person, someone who is good at PvP?... If you play solo that is the risk you take... if you don't like it don't play solo... join a crew... there are obviously going to be additional risks when you are sailing solo.

    If you want it to be changed then suggest changes for solo play but different servers it NOT a simple solution and not a healthy one either. I enjoy seeing a variety of ships and crews in the ocean, separating different types of players, or different ships etc is not a good idea imo -.-

  • @reluctantdragon Please avoid name calling and foul language, including misspelling swear words to circumvent the profanity filter. These are violations of our Forum rules, and your post has been edited accordingly.

  • @angrycoconut16
    I do indeed understand the complications of multiple servers. This really isn't that difficult for one of the world's largest software companies to undertake. Some people like solo play . There needs to be rules, or the whole sot world will get very empty very quickly.

  • @lady-aijou sorry....frustrated and irritated. Sort the morons out or people will leave.

  • @reluctantdragon There is nothing wrong with solo play, and I'm sure rare are capable of doing it, it's just that they have already stated they won't, and I agree with this.. it would cause more problems then it would solve

  • @nebenkuh Just saw this, it is an excellent idea!

33
Posts
28.3k
Views
21 out of 33