Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.

@touchdown1504 said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:

@savagetwinky Well, for the most part you aren't wrong. But you are not 100% on the ball either. This is a form of entertainment. A distraction from life, career, whatever it may be people use to distract from. In my eyes (and obviously the eyes of a great many others) zero-sum is an issue. I don't (dare I say we don't) find a zero-sum game entertaining. Or rather that part of the game that is zero-sum.

Zero sum is not an issue. We aren't talking about economics or real-life where there might be real consequences. Chess is a zero-sum game... all game's with competition are zero-sum... And what you described had nothing to do with what I said. Your defense against it is its a form of entertainment and if people don't like it... what should be changed? What about the people that do like it? Why not choose another game that does entertain you? If you don't enjoy the potential of losing to other players why not just play another game where it's not designed around that specific idea so you are actually entertained by the entertainment you choose?

Zero-sum = PvP also. There is no other way to put it. If you are willing to keep PvP in the game you are willing to entertain a zero-sum game.

I love spaceship games but I'm not asking for a campaign in elite dangerous instead of its endless grind fest. I'm not entertained by a galaxy-sized sandbox but a small pirate sandbox where we can murder each other... all in.

Progression is important because it is part of the game. If it was not important there would not be a "finish line" (PL), nor would reputation exist. Or promotions for that matter. What is the purpose behind reputation anyway? In my honest opinion, having rep in the game to begin with is a mistake. It should have just been gold, and gold alone. This discussion would not even exist if that was the case. But here we are...

No, it's actually not. Just saying it's in the game is not a reason for its importance. You've got to delve deeper into how the progression is set up. Tell me how its an important part of the game. What is gated behind the progressions? Nothing. This games progression is less important than CoDs which unlock weapon/attachments. It's only really there to encourage players to play different aspects of the game instead of just farming chests for gold. Its enough to encourage diversity but its explicitly not designed to be overbearing, gating or really important between games. And it's not even the "finish line". It's just a line. And there is another after it. And its, not the end, it's not like WoW where you run out of structured content eventually.

So, where we differ is you say it is fun for you to lose chests. I don't find that fun. Differing opinions. Where you say my "mentality" ruins games...which games? And what mentality? I think you misunderstand me. You assume I dislike PvP, I am a Care Bear, I want a safe port at an outpost. None of that is the case at all. I happen to enjoy PvP, when crewed with my kids its all we do, they happen to hate voyages! I am against safe ports. I champion the idea of XP based in PvP accomplishments. If this is the "mentality" you are speaking of, then call me guilty. You have missed the point of everything I said early on. Which is fine, who does research on a forum anyway?

Differing opinions are great... there are already hundreds of games already saturating the market playing to your preferences. If you don't like the game it's not for you. Rare is going for an underserved market and we'll see how many people end up staying and whether or not more people find it.

I do not want any rep associated specifically for PvP. That's an awful idea. It will offset the balance and push everyone to PvP. At that point, I don't see any particular reason for rep on PvE only. Just make it a big game of capture the flag with ships and better structure. It's probably one of the more important aspects of the game that the rewards are shared for PvP so there is no direct incentive to PvP.. and no risk means there is no direct disincentive either.

The mentality I was speaking of... is enjoying the game at the moment for what it is. Enjoy defending your chests. Enjoy taking someone else's chests. Not worry about the rep so much because even if you lose the chests you have now... the game keeps throwing them at you... you'll have more later. And you'll inevitably reach PL... you can't lose rep. It might be zero sum but its restricted to active loot. Like chess don't be afraid to lose a game or a few pawns.

You see, this discussion, like the one that was locked, is NOT about PvP vs. PvE. It is about the rewards system and why some of us feel it needs to change. PvP and PvE are largely affected by that change, but that is not the focus. Progression and the ability to maintain consistent progression for time invested is. regardless of how I spend time in most games I have played (since the days of the Odessy pong) progression is made, saved, and carried to the next session. Most sessions in SoT that is also the case. But for the sessions that it is not....I will leave it at that.

You can say it's about the reward all you want but that is completely wrong. The rewards are based on the loot which is part of the structure that PvE and PvP are built on. You can't just change the rewards without effecting the relationship PvE/PvP have together. And persisting your progress is getting loot back to an outpost. Yes all games save progression but they also save them at different intervals. Many games let players lose progression if they don't make it to a specific interval (outposts in this case).

EDIT: As mentioned in the original earlier, PvE is not forced, PvP is. Yes, it is a PvP and PvE game. If the rewards are split, you MUST do both to progress. As it stands now you can opt out of PvE all you want, you cannot opt out of PvP. That is also zero sum.

That's the point. It's shared rewards... Its supposed to be that way. Its constructed a game around the premise and this is where the competition exists within the PvP. PvE and PvP is built together. Stop trying to seperate the two ideas. If your playing this game, your choosing a PvP experience. Its a choice that includes both... together.

I'd just like additional opportunities to earn XP on voyages, and I believe that's what this thread is about.

I don't understand how it would have anything to do with PvP vs PvE.

@i-am-lost-77 said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:

@touchdown1504 @AngryCoconut16
Don’t bother with entspeak or lotrmith. They don’t provide conversation and only reply to bait you and twist your words. They have proven they don’t care about the benefits that have been clearly outlined. They only argue to argue. Let them reply how they want. no one who understands the benefits of this thread listens to their posts that just put down this thread.

How constructive and not the least bit hypocritical.

@i-am-lost-77 said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:

try looking at it from another players perspective who plays the game for different reasons then you.

One might suggest following your own advice.

@angrycoconut16

How can you say having a Rep Bonus on hand in, will not make a Voyage worth doing? You still gain the Rep for each individual Item, PLUS a Bonus on top of it for handing all items in.

I care not for how many Seafarers or Castaways I get, the problem I have on that issue is bare bones Rep you receive. Gaining a Bonus for collecting these, would make the time worth it in the end.

Yes it will cause more stress on players who do end up getting in a Fight, and losing, but the positive out of this, is that due to the Rep being less of a "grind" would actually eliminate this frustration. Currently the grind is outrageous, so when people lose these items, it results in the feeling of loss and despair. If you are struggling to hand any items in, each and every session you play, then obviously there is something wrong, and that isn't the Game itself, but it would be your own playstyle.

I'll say again, and I'll always say, that gaining Rep on VC, would cause another form of grind, where players will care not for their items, and will be mainly after the VC Rep only. You already see this in Legend Questing. People grind these missions, don't loot any items, and only care for that 1 Chest on the 2nd Chapter.

Of course though, the Merchant side of that requires Items to be handed in before that section is complete, which is what it all should be about in my opinion. How would gaining Rep on VC make people want to play complete Voyages? It wouldn't.

I am a PvE'er. Do I enjoy PvP? No. I don't go out to look for it, and I will only attack if I have ran out of options. Yet I don't seem to have an issue with loss. Maybe it's because I'm an old school Gamer, and maybe it's because I have played Eve Online for years, which is all about feeling the loss.

I don't, and never will agree with Games that hold your hand, and award players for not even completing what they set out of achieve. I can understand people's frustrations to a certain extent, but maybe at the end of the day, a combination of PvE/PvP Sandbox, is probably not up your ally then.

@i-am-lost-77 said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:

@savagetwinky this suggestion in no way changes to relation of PvP vs PvE. Your reply suggests that the entire game would be altered under this being implemented however that is just a ridiculous assumption. Loot will still be very important and players will fight/run to keep it.

Instead of ignoring the benefits of this system try looking at it from another players perspective who plays the game for different reasons then you.

It does though. You're adding more value to skulls/chests you get in PvE. Currently, they are equal with PvP. That changes the relationship between PvE and PvP.. as in PvP becomes even less lucrative.

@nquarter said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:

I care not for how many Seafarers or Castaways I get, the problem I have on that issue is bare bones Rep you receive. Gaining a Bonus for collecting these, would make the time worth it in the end.

Wouldn't it be better to adjust the loot tables to get make seafarers/castaway either super rare or locked out after a certain reputation?

@i-am-lost-77

That completely changes the game. PvP is neither incentivized or disincentivized. Your make every interaction with other players PvP focused. There would never not be a reason to attack if you gave specific rewards for PvP. It's probably one of the governing principles of this game that both PvP and PvE share the rewards entirely. Even if there is a lot of hostility the lack of incentive to PvP is what gives most people room to... choose not to when interacting with other crews. Once it is an explicit goal or determined to be less worthwhile than PvE that dynamic changes. You'll either be pushing players TO pvp or avoid it with rep on VC or explicit rep for pvp.

And of course its the value of the loot. In order to "save your progress", you have to reach an outpost with your loot. The loot's value is time invested in collecting it. That's what the game is designed to fight over... the loot. Again the point of the game... to steal something of value from other players. That's the basis for the PvP... pirating.

I think I asked someone else already. What's so important about the progression? Why is losing a round and getting nothing so terrible when the progression is at best... ceremonial and a way to get players to do different activities?

@i-am-lost-77 said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:

This game allows people to do anything they want how they want. PvP from a reward/time perspective is not even comparable. PvP is a different gameplay style for a different kind of reward. From my own expirence and others comments the goal of PvP is for fun and the loot is more of an afterthought it’s not the reason for PvP. This is contradictory to PvE which is done for the loot.

The entire game is played for fun. That is a bad argument. I wouldn't PvE at all without the threat of PvP. They structured the PvE with PvP in mind. You're not playing a PvE game. You don't get that choice. You're playing an MP game with always-on world PvP and a lightweight PvE/Rep system to accommodate some bare bones motivation and ways to get chests for the pirating to happen in a game about ... pirating.

As for your “who cares about progression” question. Certain cosmetics are locked and it’s not up to anyone to determine why a person wants to do something. Maybe it’s for the sense of accomplishment, it doesn’t really matter. Its up to them to determine why they want to do something not you.

I didn't ask who cares about progression. I care about progression but it's not so important that if I lose some loot it actually matters... I asked why is it so important? The game doesn't present it as such. Everyone is supposed to progress over time... assuming they enjoy the voyaging being presented. Which is a PvP pirating game where there are no incentives to pirate, but also no disincentives.

And I'll further ask... you're saying your time is super important. The chests aren't hard to get, the game basically throws them at you via trivial tasks to complete... To do a voyage, it's not a major time or effort investement and over the course of playing, you have plenty of opportunities to... turn your loot in. Why is losing that losing time? It's intended that you have to make a risk/reward decision with how much loot you try to collect before turning in. That is the game. What your saying is people lose time if they lose a game. Do you think people that play chess wasted their time if they lose? What about baseball?

If you enjoy entertainment and are entertained then there is no wasted time. Games are entertainment. If you do not enjoy the game and you only play for arbitrary goals set within the game... that's pretty nonsensical. That's like if you reached state championship in chess but do not enjoy playing the chess.

@touchdown1504 said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:

@savagetwinky Ok, lets make a deal. We both need to make shorter posts!

... NAH

You make a lot of very valid points. But, so do I, and so do alot of other posters. Before I go further, which "Under Served" market are you referring to?

There are people that like PvP games in the context of MMO adventuring... many survival games kind of have this fun open world PvP... but... take huge amounts of time because there is usually base building in it... and those games are FAR worse with how much you can lose. In sea of thieves rep from turn-ins is permanent. Dying in some games... eve online comes to mind, about how much people can lose in the course of minutes. I see this as a short session PvP structured around adventuring, pirating and flimsy alliances. As someone that works a lot... and I might binge on an occasional weekend... I love this game. I don't feel pressured to get to PL like I would like getting to max level in an MMO or getting some equipment I need to progress. I can just sit down and play with... anyone regardless of time investment, have an adventure, and when the game ends it won't impede my next game in any way. When I start a session that's the beginning when it's over that's the end. The loot is important enough to fight over but not so important losing is just as fun.

And another by-product without real progression, all the areas are still relevant. It's not a thing I think anyone ever mentioned but having no area be rendered useless because it's too low. It's nice that all the areas can be utilized for any quest.

Pirate Legend is obviously important to this game. Thus so is the grind to achieve it. Which is why I feel like Reputation should have never been a part of this game, nor should promotions. It should have just been gold. But again, we have what we have.

You are just saying it is. What makes it important other than achieving it? Most people getting into other nonvideo games like chess aren't trying to get to world championships immediately. They play the game to enjoy it. Likewise, PL is set up for a long-term goal but is ultimately unnecessary to enjoy all that the game has to offer.

You can have long-term goals but PL is not a destination... it's an achievement that you'll get for investing time in the game. But you need to enjoy a single session as is because it's not a game where... anything really changes from game to game. It's far more like playing many games of chess. Not reading a novel. There is no beginning/middle/end long term. You just play each game and from a functional standpoint... completely isolated from other sessions. Even the voyages don't persist.

... Not everything is equally important. And it's pretty clear PL isn't nearly as much of a goal as players are treating it. That mentality is just being carried over from other MMORPGs.

Rep for PvP. Your opinion is noted. Having XP awarded for "doing" as in killing a skeleton, defeating the Kraken, solving a riddle, would make no sense without rep for PvP accomplishments. even if it was a tiny fraction. The PvP portion, as you have pointed out, is an important part of the game.

It is, but so is the incentive structure. The PvP is designed around stealing people's loot, the loot is the value, getting loot to an outpost is what increments your progression. It's designed that rep/money increases are independent of how the loot is acquired. That's part of what makes this game special and how the PvP is differently structured from other mmo's.

Mentality...You are basically telling me how to enjoy the game. I enjoy it in different ways than you do, and for different reasons. Diversity of thought and opinion. Moreover, I never said I don't enjoy the game. I love this game, otherwise I wouldn't be in a forum talking about it. There are aspects I don't like. The rewards system chief among them. Disliking one piece of the game does not mean I don't enjoy it. And the old "this game isn't for you"...That is not for you to decide! I decide what game is for me. Player feedback decides the direction this game will take. Yourself and others are doing your due diligence to add your feedback as well, and you should. Thats what sharing ideas are about.

I'm not telling you how to enjoy the game, I'm telling you how the game is meant to be enjoyed. Based on well documented governing principles in dev videos and how developers portrayed the game. Games aren't unlimited in scope and ways to play. And a lot of the arguments against PvP or for easier ways to attain rep I don't think are built on reasonable presumptions. It requires PL to have greater importance than it actually does. Those people are suggesting to make the PvP more and more related to something like WoW world PvP where dying and running back to where you were is the extent of the point of the PvP... to just not be the one that runs back.

Bottom line...Rare asked for feedback. They do every time they drop a video, or twitter news, or anything else. This is the feedback I am giving. It is also the feedback others are giving. We don't all agree on how the rewards should work, but we do all agree that the current system is not fun, not rewarding, and somewhat punishing. Like the death tax, and 4 man sloops, moving the bell, and nerfing skeleton cannon gunners....All player feedback. And yes, the current PvP situation is a zero sum game, I don't like that, and neither do a lot others according to what I am reading here. Anyhow, thats, that. I honestly believe the system will see changes, if I had to guess, we will start seeing reputation for doing things that make sense for XP.

First. Stop saying zero-sum... that's just pvp. Anything you can lose in PvP is zero-sum. The very nature of PvP is zero-sum. So when you say zero-sum. You mean all of the pvp. Pretty much anything that is competitive is zero-sum. I don't see any scenario where they make the PvP a minor inconvenience and any players being happy without an overhaul of the PvE, and those players that want that won't ever be happy until the PvP is a minor inconvenience or heavily disincentivized.

Great, I'm giving my feedback poking holes in what I think would break this game as it stands. I think the major principles I think really core to the experience...

1. Loot is shared with PvE and PvP and is a physical representation of the rewards, and neither mode of play is really weighted as more important.
2. PvP is neither incentivized or disincentivized.
3. Games are session based, everything can be experienced in a session without excessive setup/grinding to get there in previous sessions

So great keep giving feedback. But if it goes against what I like about this game I'll feel free to give my feedback on your feedback so they have all the feedback. And yes there a lot of people on the forums complaining. That's generally what happens on forums especially with new games where... people might have seen parts of a game that is interesting and end up not liking the other half of the game. Which is what happened to SoT... it's got a broad appeal from a visual standpoint... it's very niche on the premise.

P.S. Like the space sims myself, especially Star Citizen. Damn it, long post. Sorry. Next one shorter.

My grammar tool broke... there may be some weird mistakes I couldn't be bothered to fix.

@i-am-lost-77 said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:

From my own expirence and others comments the goal of PvP is for fun and the loot is more of an afterthought it’s not the reason for PvP. This is contradictory to PvE which is done for the loot.

This simply is not true. Freshly spawned ships at or leaving outposts are targeted so much less than ships out at sea or at islands because of their lack of loot. Players who PvP over skull forts complain constantly when they 'win' but someone else makes off with or denies them the loot reward.

@i-am-lost-77

When a 3 min engagement waste hours of time and you're failing to deliver loot over the course of 2 hours/week... you're doing something wrong. Your playing way to risky. If you want less risk... play less risky. What your asking for is reducing the significance of loot. The loot needs to be important enough that people are willing to fight over it and carry it. It's already not important enough PL quests people leave it all behind.

What they need for players that don't have much time... which has been solved in other games already... double xp up to 2 levels for the time you don't play. Even if your turning in chests if you don't have time to play and turn in the most amount of loot each session, it's gonna be a slog. Additionally, they can lock out c******r loot at higher levelers so you get better rewards.

@touchdown1504 said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:

We don't all agree on how the rewards should work, but we do all agree that the current system is not fun, not rewarding, and somewhat punishing.

For the record I think it's fine as is.

@lotrmith said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:

@touchdown1504 said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:

We don't all agree on how the rewards should work, but we do all agree that the current system is not fun, not rewarding, and somewhat punishing.

For the record I think it's fine as is.

I think accruing double xp while offline and better loot tables for high-level voyages would go along the way to ease the grind.. but how it functions I also think is fine.

@touchdown1504

Great way to start out being completely dismissive and then presume your ideas are held by the majority and better for everyone.

You can keep saying time needs to be rewarded, and it is. Loss is also part of the game which is why the PvP is meaningful. Rep is the only thing of significance worth losing that can create those stakes currently. To me, that loss is important for the PvP to be fun. It's like dark souls... It consistently puts players in positions where they can lose everything they haven't spent yet and all the progress for small sections of the game. That's what builds tension in shorter game sessions and a sense of accomplishment in an evening instead of something your just grinding towards and... that sense of relief accomplishment participation awards give.

I like the fact that we can lose everything in a session. It's unlike a meat grinder that is most competitive games where there is no loss and rewards for all actions just devolve into mindlessly shooting each session. Where winning is pointless. When there is something to protect that is meaningful in some way... it's more fun than if we were rewarded participation rep and everything becomes consequence free. It's what makes winning anything in pvp whether it be defending loot or stealing it feel like an accomplishment.

And there is nothing to progress to that's important. I completely understand in games like WoW or CoD that unlock functional content for players to utilize or experience requires players to move forward...

And forums are always going to represent people that have issues far more than people enjoying the game... because they'll be playing the game. That's the problem with forum feedback... it's a vocal minority. I already feel like I'm talking to the same group of 20 or so people most of the time.

@touchdown1504 said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:

@savagetwinky I'm not being dismissive. If it seems that way, all I can say is we have both covered our opinions. There comes a point where we are beating a dead horse. I have read, and I respect your opinion, I simply disagree.

"And there is nothing to progress to that is important" said @SavageTwinky

In that case moving reputation to the "VC" screen or another mechanic from the many ideas thrown around should not bother you at all. Reputation is only for progression after all! To some folks, it is important. Myself for example.

EDIT: I meant to ask "I think accruing double xp while offline and better loot tables for high-level voyages would go along the way to ease the grind.. but how it functions I also think is fine." What do you mean by "Offline"?

In some games where you earn XP in one way or another, you accrue a certain % length or time of your XP bar as a 'double' or 'rested' status while you are not logged in and playing the game.

IE: You log in and kill monsters, they are worth 100XP each. You log out and don't play for a three days... every hour that you are offline, you get a bonus multiplier of 2x applied to a total of 1000XP for when you log back in. So 72 hours later, you log back in and kill monsters. You get 72,000 XP after killing only 3,600 monsters instead of having to kill 7,200. (Please excuse any math errors)