Owning a ship and actual progression

@sir-lotus

I already have a galleon, my friends don't. Can we play together?

Yes.

I have a saved voyage in progress, so do the other people I want to play with. Who's ship/world/voyages do we spawn into?

Whoever starts the game uses their ship,and voyage(if they have one saved).

LFG posts would be a nightmare, everyone would want to be the captain and show off his fancy things and noone would be joining others.

If you say so. I don't see this being a problem.

And many other things that would have to be changed, tested and adjusted. And all this work for what? A few days/weeks later, we'd all have it all and be exactly where we are now.

No. We would be father down the road. We would have progressed. That's so silly, it's like saying why play a game at all? You start looking for a game, but when you finish the game your back where you started...

It's not something that would be user friendly for new players and the amount of new players would decline rapidly after a few weeks, since they would have to catch up to us, if they wanted to have the same experience as us.

No it would give them something to work towards/care about. You know how I know this? because literally EVERY game with progression starts new players behind old players... They see the cool stuff that older player have and say "oh that's so cool! How do I get that?" Also, it would be very hard to implement something that would give SoT a worse new player retention rate than it currently has lol

@enf0rcer said in Owning a ship and actual progression:

@stundorn said in Owning a ship and actual progression:

Progression only separates players and is for the [mod edit]fraction seeking for a meaning for their mostly unhealthy amount of time gaming systems instead of playing games.

Levels just segregate the players
Locked content behind achievements or levels seperates players. If you cant keep up or catch up you cannot partake.
Progression mostly creates powergaps and make people to work things if and game / exploit the system to their advantage, they lead to that efficiency is mandatory and playing for fun and the matter itself is punishing.

This is no Progression Game or a real Achiever game although they are unfortunately beginning to soften that and cater more and more to the Achievers and Progression Players. They are doing the biggest mistake i can imagine and try to satisfy everybody and start to praise meritocracy [mod edit], because a loud minority in this Forum is allways complaining.

Sad but true.
You will may get all you want in the future and will never be satisfied on your rush to whatever title you are.
Then leave the game anyway and leave the casuals alone with a chore of progression stuff they are not able to achieve in 10 years, because they dont make gaming the no. 1 priority in their life (or get addicted to gaming), but just play for fun and the matter itself.

I really hate that all the progression and achiever types allways destroy my gaming experience while i dont harm anybody.

It's all the agitation and greed in the world that make things bad, because human beeing allways crave and compensate.

Sometimes i'm tired of online stuff, because all this bigger, better, higher, further [mod edit].

Hey Studorn Levels don't Segrate Players Perks and skill trees do. What you Discribing here are Vertical Progression systems which are in herent to all RPGs and has bracnhed out to a few other Genres. There focus was to provide the Power Fantasy in games but do not work well in Multiplayer games as they were designed for a Single Player experiance. This has nothing to do with the Achiver Playstyle so please stop scapgoating them. We have Levels in SoT but it's an example of a Horizontal Progression system albiet a poorly designed one. There Have been many games multiplayer games that have well made Horizontal Progession systems though it's still a relitivly new concept in gaming History.
I can understand your fustration for the amount of games that shoed in and RPG style vertical progression system in to Multiplayer games and not dealing with the imment Power Creep issue that would occur. I to wish to avoid this in SoT but there choices in the design of the cosmetic progression system has lead to a new issue of Loot EoL/Player Apathy. Humans naturally want to find meaning in any thing they do. It's part of our physcology. Games are no exception you view games purpose as simple entertainment thats fine but not everyone consumes games that way or for that reason. Everbody finds enjoyment in different ways theres nothing un healthy about that. Althou i will admit there are some players that play too long but there is a minority in everthing where that group takes thing to an unhealth extreme. But they are the one with the most intermit knowlage of the flaws of there feild as they are exposed to it the most. Just cause you don't experiance a flaw doesn't mean it does'nt exist. You should thank these people for exposing these flaws so you can avoid them and so they can be fixed.

Horizontal games systems are only good for drip feeding mechanics so players aren't entirely overwhelmed with options. Beyond that they have no usefulness. Levels in SOT really aren't horizontal progression... they really aren't progression at all... as much as you can progress in M$ excel ticking a few numbers.

@davidbarlow spoiler alert: people left because the voyages were boring

@enf0rcer said in Owning a ship and actual progression:

@savagetwinky said in Owning a ship and actual progression:

@enf0rcer said in Owning a ship and actual progression:

@stundorn said in Owning a ship and actual progression:

Progression only separates players and is for the [mod edit]fraction seeking for a meaning for their mostly unhealthy amount of time gaming systems instead of playing games.

Levels just segregate the players
Locked content behind achievements or levels seperates players. If you cant keep up or catch up you cannot partake.
Progression mostly creates powergaps and make people to work things if and game / exploit the system to their advantage, they lead to that efficiency is mandatory and playing for fun and the matter itself is punishing.

This is no Progression Game or a real Achiever game although they are unfortunately beginning to soften that and cater more and more to the Achievers and Progression Players. They are doing the biggest mistake i can imagine and try to satisfy everybody and start to praise meritocracy [mod edit], because a loud minority in this Forum is allways complaining.

Sad but true.
You will may get all you want in the future and will never be satisfied on your rush to whatever title you are.
Then leave the game anyway and leave the casuals alone with a chore of progression stuff they are not able to achieve in 10 years, because they dont make gaming the no. 1 priority in their life (or get addicted to gaming), but just play for fun and the matter itself.

I really hate that all the progression and achiever types allways destroy my gaming experience while i dont harm anybody.

It's all the agitation and greed in the world that make things bad, because human beeing allways crave and compensate.

Sometimes i'm tired of online stuff, because all this bigger, better, higher, further [mod edit].

Hey Studorn Levels don't Segrate Players Perks and skill trees do. What you Discribing here are Vertical Progression systems which are in herent to all RPGs and has bracnhed out to a few other Genres. There focus was to provide the Power Fantasy in games but do not work well in Multiplayer games as they were designed for a Single Player experiance. This has nothing to do with the Achiver Playstyle so please stop scapgoating them. We have Levels in SoT but it's an example of a Horizontal Progression system albiet a poorly designed one. There Have been many games multiplayer games that have well made Horizontal Progession systems though it's still a relitivly new concept in gaming History.
I can understand your fustration for the amount of games that shoed in and RPG style vertical progression system in to Multiplayer games and not dealing with the imment Power Creep issue that would occur. I to wish to avoid this in SoT but there choices in the design of the cosmetic progression system has lead to a new issue of Loot EoL/Player Apathy. Humans naturally want to find meaning in any thing they do. It's part of our physcology. Games are no exception you view games purpose as simple entertainment thats fine but not everyone consumes games that way or for that reason. Everbody finds enjoyment in different ways theres nothing un healthy about that. Althou i will admit there are some players that play too long but there is a minority in everthing where that group takes thing to an unhealth extreme. But they are the one with the most intermit knowlage of the flaws of there feild as they are exposed to it the most. Just cause you don't experiance a flaw doesn't mean it does'nt exist. You should thank these people for exposing these flaws so you can avoid them and so they can be fixed.

Horizontal games systems are only good for drip feeding mechanics so players aren't entirely overwhelmed with options. Beyond that they have no usefulness. Levels in SOT really aren't horizontal progression... they really aren't progression at all... as much as you can progress in M$ excel ticking a few numbers.

What are you Taking about? Horizontal progression system gives players the feeback on experiance and goal they can work towards. Horizontal Progression is a Staple of Skill based games getting player to focus on learning different playstlyes. As far as cosmetic only System well some would call that poor design it does give you some goal however but the cosmetics are meant to display Achments and feats of skill. Often to give player Honer and Glory and Braging Rights as it is proof of there dedication and skill. SoT does this quite Poorly. Althou they have improved on it.

Half your argument is what I said. Plus any since of a long term goal is pretty much done once the progression is done. It was a benefit of staggering mechanics in the first place.. at the end of the day your players have to enjoy the game if you want them to continue playing it.

SoT does this perfectly because, apart from a bad structure with voyages where the gameplay can be pretty lackluster without player involvement... its a game any one can drop in and play.

People who have time to sink 100s of hours into a game for bragging rights should probably find a more productive hobby, because those mechanics are just hostile to people with lives, if you can only invest a few hours a week all the content should be accessible to you as well as 100/week hour players. There is no reason to alienate people who pay for your product.

SoT needs to avoid the vertical progression trap at all costs, since the freedom to do what you want, when you want, how you want is a vital part of what makes this game great. Start locking functional (rather than cosmetic) content behind levels or experience walls and you're going to end up with the same awful mandatory grind that most MMOs have. I would probably stop playing SoT if it became like that, since the classic sandbox aspect and free form player interactivity is what I love about this game more than anything else. None of this is to say that owning a ship or any suggestion of that kind are bad, but no functional aspect of the game can be locked behind a grind or the game just devolves into completing required chores instead of a setting for freely creating a unique experience. Horizontal progress allows people to grind for extras at their choosing. Vertical progression makes the grind mandatory and turns the game into a series of chores. In vertical systems, the game doesn't really begin until the chores are finished. In horizontal systems, the fun is available to be had immediately. Everything is completely within the players hands from the onset

@enf0rcer said in Owning a ship and actual progression:

@savagetwinky said in Owning a ship and actual progression:

@enf0rcer said in Owning a ship and actual progression:

@savagetwinky said in Owning a ship and actual progression:

@enf0rcer said in Owning a ship and actual progression:

@stundorn said in Owning a ship and actual progression:

Progression only separates players and is for the [mod edit]fraction seeking for a meaning for their mostly unhealthy amount of time gaming systems instead of playing games.

Levels just segregate the players
Locked content behind achievements or levels seperates players. If you cant keep up or catch up you cannot partake.
Progression mostly creates powergaps and make people to work things if and game / exploit the system to their advantage, they lead to that efficiency is mandatory and playing for fun and the matter itself is punishing.

This is no Progression Game or a real Achiever game although they are unfortunately beginning to soften that and cater more and more to the Achievers and Progression Players. They are doing the biggest mistake i can imagine and try to satisfy everybody and start to praise meritocracy [mod edit], because a loud minority in this Forum is allways complaining.

Sad but true.
You will may get all you want in the future and will never be satisfied on your rush to whatever title you are.
Then leave the game anyway and leave the casuals alone with a chore of progression stuff they are not able to achieve in 10 years, because they dont make gaming the no. 1 priority in their life (or get addicted to gaming), but just play for fun and the matter itself.

I really hate that all the progression and achiever types allways destroy my gaming experience while i dont harm anybody.

It's all the agitation and greed in the world that make things bad, because human beeing allways crave and compensate.

Sometimes i'm tired of online stuff, because all this bigger, better, higher, further [mod edit].

Hey Studorn Levels don't Segrate Players Perks and skill trees do. What you Discribing here are Vertical Progression systems which are in herent to all RPGs and has bracnhed out to a few other Genres. There focus was to provide the Power Fantasy in games but do not work well in Multiplayer games as they were designed for a Single Player experiance. This has nothing to do with the Achiver Playstyle so please stop scapgoating them. We have Levels in SoT but it's an example of a Horizontal Progression system albiet a poorly designed one. There Have been many games multiplayer games that have well made Horizontal Progession systems though it's still a relitivly new concept in gaming History.
I can understand your fustration for the amount of games that shoed in and RPG style vertical progression system in to Multiplayer games and not dealing with the imment Power Creep issue that would occur. I to wish to avoid this in SoT but there choices in the design of the cosmetic progression system has lead to a new issue of Loot EoL/Player Apathy. Humans naturally want to find meaning in any thing they do. It's part of our physcology. Games are no exception you view games purpose as simple entertainment thats fine but not everyone consumes games that way or for that reason. Everbody finds enjoyment in different ways theres nothing un healthy about that. Althou i will admit there are some players that play too long but there is a minority in everthing where that group takes thing to an unhealth extreme. But they are the one with the most intermit knowlage of the flaws of there feild as they are exposed to it the most. Just cause you don't experiance a flaw doesn't mean it does'nt exist. You should thank these people for exposing these flaws so you can avoid them and so they can be fixed.

Horizontal games systems are only good for drip feeding mechanics so players aren't entirely overwhelmed with options. Beyond that they have no usefulness. Levels in SOT really aren't horizontal progression... they really aren't progression at all... as much as you can progress in M$ excel ticking a few numbers.

What are you Taking about? Horizontal progression system gives players the feeback on experiance and goal they can work towards. Horizontal Progression is a Staple of Skill based games getting player to focus on learning different playstlyes. As far as cosmetic only System well some would call that poor design it does give you some goal however but the cosmetics are meant to display Achments and feats of skill. Often to give player Honer and Glory and Braging Rights as it is proof of there dedication and skill. SoT does this quite Poorly. Althou they have improved on it.

Half your argument is what I said. Plus any since of a long term goal is pretty much done once the progression is done. It was a benefit of staggering mechanics in the first place.. at the end of the day your players have to enjoy the game if you want them to continue playing it.

Dude Ofcourse players have to enjoy the game inorder to want to play. That applies to any game and has Nothing to do with Game Design. Just Like You can have a masterpiece of a Movie and saying people only Watch it unless there interested in the Plot. Were talking here about Progression systems and there purpose and How SoT Progression system doesn't hold up.

SoT does this perfectly because, apart from a bad structure with voyages where the gameplay can be pretty lackluster without player involvement... its a game any one can drop in and play.

The Drop an play aspect does limit the system we can have as it is skill based. So the only thing we can't have is a Vertical Progression System in player abilities do to power creep. I don't see How owning a Ship effects a players ablity to play at All. If you want to play on a Gally you still can it just wonpt belong to you. Heck we do That now as players don't own anyship Owning a Ship takes away nothing it just adds a Goal and a reward thats it.

People who have time to sink 100s of hours into a game for bragging rights should probably find a more productive hobby, because those mechanics are just hostile to people with lives, if you can only invest a few hours a week all the content should be accessible to you as well as 100/week hour players. There is no reason to alienate people who pay for your product.

What is with you? Why do you care so much on how people spen there time? Also you want to Talk about Productive. People who dedicate That much time on anything are the Most Productive People as they are not satisfied with just being Good They are Motivated to be the best and stop at nothing to be the most successfull as they push boundaries. These are the Competive people in the world they are the one we talk about. Your argument is akin to get a job losers. Which is an adhomen attack not a vaild Criticism of system and design flaws. Rather on your opinion on what you consider Productive which your argument is not.

I care about how others play their game because it effects how a game is designed thus it effects me. Games have steadily increased in requirements up to the point where they are willing to sell "convenience" boosters to customers that do not have as much time to play. Hungering deep.. kill a shark doing this event 1 time. It was fine an interesting. Fast forward to shrouded spoils... kill 40 sharks. Whats fun an interesting about this? Limiting the way players play for a short amount of time because they need to complete a useless goal of kill 40 sharks? I miss the days where achievements had a lot more singularly unique challenges and not a factory line of murdering sharks.

Games are entertainment. If you want to play 1000 hours and master the mechanics.. thats fine. Thats different than asking for progression grinds that limit other players so you can feel better about the hours you spent playing. There is no benefits to making a game like that. By most measures it would likely be considered indulging in unhealthy gaming habits. One is a mastery and I have respect for. If you look at games like GTA online there are videos of people landing planes on builds or managing or achieve ridiculous feats that show mastery of the mechanics. Reaching PL is not "productive" nor is it prestigious because everyone does it.. even bad players. A progression system that unlocks any mechanics should be accessible to everyone.

@davidbarlow said in Owning a ship and actual progression:

@ambiguousmonk The captaincy update will allow players to have their own unique ship. Only for pirate legends though. I don't believe this will result in a galleon with some fancy new cosmetics, cuz cosmetics are implemented way faster than an update like this.

So in a sense there will be vertical progression. You can play 3/4 ships on start-up. 4/4 ships after the grind. I don't imagine them making the 4th ship worse either.

Let me put it this way: the game cant and wont survive without vertical progression.

Name a few other sandbox games that dont have vertical progression. Do it. GTA5? Skyrim? Minecraft? They all have SOME vertical progression.

How the inventor of Mario designs a game

The inventor of Mario (one of the most succesful designers in game designing history) names 3 aspects of designing a game which he deems most important. One of them is giving the player the feeling they have accomplished something. This excludes titles and cosmetics since those don't make you progress.

Be more open for vertical progression and help Rare think about solutions that would suit sea of thieves. Once they make it so that you keep your ships inventory on log out, the game will have players that have tons of cursed cannonballs vs new players that dont. So as I've mentioned before (or in another thread?), a grappling hook would be a funny idea of sea of thieves. Instead of a secondary weapon. Or if they ever make a ship fully customizable, let players switch the amount of cannos (maybe -2 cannons for a battering ram in front of the ship). A harpoon on your ship to pull yourself slightly to another ship or meg.

These are just some ideas. But if they balance things well, everyone still stands an equal chance of "winning". It wont become mandatory to unlock things. Either way, would you mind spending a few hours PLAYING THE GAME for an unlock?

I am totally against this model, at least for multiplayer games, and especially sandbox multiplayer games that incorporate PvP. It works, and is necessary, for single player games because the player is interacting with nothing but the game itself, but the point of multiplayer sandboxes is that the players are freely interacting with EACH OTHER. The game doesn't, and shouldn't, curtail player's ability to interact with each other. The game doesn't, and shouldn't, focus on prebuilt accomplishments for the player to necessarily grind through since the sandbox model lets players create their own accomplishments. Grinding out Pirate Legend isn't an accomplishment, it's a chore. It's just doing the same thing over and over again, there's no player choice, decisions, or half the time thought put into it. Pulling off a fort heist to steal the loot from under another crew's nose, pulling off that 2v1 against an alliance that attacked you are accomplishments, or juking out a bigger ship to make it back to the outpost and cash that athena's chest. Those are accomplishments. They're totally player invented, planned, and executed, which is so much more exciting than repeatedly digging up chests and carting them back to an outpost unopposed 400 times. Meaningful accomplishments are the ones you set for yourself, not ones that the game makes mandatory for you to slog through

You're totally right than most other sandbox games have some form of vertical progression, and it's that progression in those games that I hate. Red Dead Redemption is one of the best open world games I've ever played and even then, multiplayer was boring and awful until you ground out all the levels. That's when the real multiplayer experience BEGAN. Skyrim was a great game, but also totally frustrating and unfun when you discovered a new area you wanted to explore, only to find out you couldn't because some numbers attached to your character weren't big enough yet. Minecraft does vertical progression in an acceptable way, but it's not what makes the game fun. Minecraft quickly becomes bland and unexciting, until you start playing with friends and then it's a blast. Grinding out diamond armor and tools isn't what makes it fun. Building that sweet base for your crew, exploring with your friends or figuring out new ways to exploit the mechanics are what makes it fun.

There aren't many MMOs that don't have some sort of hard or soft vertical progression, but that's because vertical progression is easy to make and people somehow eat up the 'rinse and repeat' mentality. There are better and more interesting ways to make MMOs than to keep repeating that boring system though. Space Engineers is a great example of a fantastic sandbox without any persistent vertical progression. Games like DayZ and all it's clones were an example of an MMO with no prebuilt vertical progression and that game was revolutionary. Sure you can find better weapons than someone else, but from day one no one has any artificial barriers to finding those weapons. Just like cursed cannonballs in SoT. Despite being PvP only, all the battle royale games do something similar: no player has a non-skill/knowledge advantage over any other player. Again, sure players can find better weapons than other players, but everyone has the same chances, there's no mandatory 'rinse and repeat' grinding to reach that state, and the better weapon advantage isn't persistent across matches (just like no functional progression in SoT is persistent across sessions)

I greatly, greatly hope that any captaincy update doesn't introduce a unique locked ship for pirate legends (I've also never read anything about this being the case), that ship inventories become persistent in any way, or that the number of cannons on a ship become customization (at least not in any way that isn't immediately accessible by all players). That being said, the grappling hook idea is a pretty neat one (however, boarding tactics don't need any help right now), but again, it would be terrible unless it's available to all players just like how all the current weapons/equipment are. Any degree of vertical progression demands mandatory grinding (except if you somehow don't care about being handicapped). Instead of "balancing things well" (all balance-necessary games end up with a tiered meta, no matter how well balanced), just do away with the balancing altogether and make everything immediately available. That way, no player ends up with an artificial, involuntary disadvantage compared to any other player. Lastly, yes, I would mind spending a few hours GRINDING the game for an unlock. I don't want to the game to tell me what repetitive actions I must necessarily do in order to be on the same playing field as everyone else. I want to be able to make my own decisions from day one while having my performance reflect those decisions and my personal ability, rather than having my performance at least partially dictated by what grinds I did or did not spend my time going through. Sandbox, especially multiplayer sandbox, games are all about freedom of choice. Vertical progression systems, at least persistent ones, constrain that freedom by forcing you to give up advantages relative to other players in order to do what you want, if they even allow you to do what you want at all without submitting to the grind

I think the freeform, even-playing field player interactivity is literally the best thing about SoT. Without the commitment to horizontal progression, I think this game would be a flop. I certainly wouldn't play it. I'm on the polar end from you because I feel like if Rare stands transforming SoT into the same rehashed grind we see in every game, they'll be killing off what makes this game special.

@davidbarlow said in Owning a ship and actual progression:

@ambiguousmonk Everyone has their own opinion ofcourse :)

TL;DR: To say there is a meta (most effective tactic available), MOST EFFECTIVE, is just plain ignorance. Meta in a game is formed by the OPINION of a random guy/girl on the internet. Experiment yourself first.

But also look at one of your lines:
"There aren't many MMOs that don't have some sort of hard or soft vertical progression, but that's because vertical progression is easy to make and people somehow eat up the 'rinse and repeat' mentality. There are better and more interesting ways to make MMOs than to keep repeating that boring system though. "

"That boring system", It's not just one system. Games do it in different shapes and sizes. Your line also contradicts itself. Why are there more interesting ways to make a MMO, but hasnt it been done yet (a game being popular ofcourse)? Why do development companies use the "boring" system you're talking about? Because it's fun for 99% of players and it just works.

The freedom you're talking about is called open world, not "no vert progression". A game can still be open world with vertical progression.

The player interactivity is fun;

• For some people
• For a while..

Even for you, the game in it's current state will get boring. No matter the content. All you're doing is gathering cosmetics. You havent accomplished anything. The title means nothing because slaying a meg is done in a whiffy. Lighting beacons is no challenge at all. There is no grind in vertical progression. None. If weapon X or ship Y has other utilities, you're not forced to get them. There is still the freedom you desire in this game.

"But others are stronger than me now!" Nah. Notice how I said utilities and not stronger/faster/better. At the start of sea of thieves the blunderbuss and sniper had a purchasing costs. Were they better? No. Were all 3 guns situational? Yes.

Does it matter if a gun costs 1000 gold? You probably said no because it's easy to obtain. Would 5k matter? 10k? Even if you said yes, 1 gold then? Even if "grinding" the gold is tedious, thats another problem. The quests are boring and repetative.

Now imagine if the guns stil cost something. Should we remove them because of a "competitive" edge? Let's remove the blunderbuss and eye of reach. Everyone gets a flintlock and how fun the game is now, yay!

Now imagine this vertical progression:

• Battering ram on your ship instead of 2 cannons
• Grappling hook (takes secondary combat slot)
• Swinging rope (takes secondary combat slot)
• Different sails that make you move slower but turn faster
• Front cannon instead of 2 side cannons

Everything that is vertical, could have a tradeoff. The argument I hear most from folk like you is that you only have set amount of time to play and others that have a "no life" amount of time, get an advantage over you. It will only give them diversity and uniqueness in their kit.

There is no such thing as meta. That's in everyone's head. Let's take League of Legends for example: build X is obviously meta. week later a korean dude finds an explosively good build that beats all others. everyone forgets the first build and moves on to the next. while the second build was in the game already, for months??? Meta stands for most effective tactic available. What it should be is metaimo (in my opinion). Just because the internet tells you one thing, doesnt mean it's true. To say there is a MOST EFFECTIVE way in a game is just plain ignorance.

But once again, everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Opening up mechanics and options in a sandbox is a massive difference to the day 1 player even if there are tradeoffs. The day 1 player is playing a limited functionality set, and choices are limited. I'd restate I'm ok with systems like that if the system only serves to introduce mechanics slowly so players will mess with them instead of all at once. But once you hit MMO themepark territory where its designed to block off content for months its a problem. Especially for sandboxes.

@davidbarlow said in Owning a ship and actual progression:

@savagetwinky Why introduce them slowly when we have an open and free world for players to discover them? :)

What if there are more then 100 options (more then 10000 possible gear combinations) and each of those 100 options only costs 1k ~ 5k gold? What if you can find one in a chest? What if the player can choose his first 4 combat gear pieces himself?

When I say slowly I mean 1 at a time for specific things. Like a tuturial with missions that ask the player to utilize mechanics just to let them get their bearings. I just bought X4 and I'm still trying to figure out how to land the ship. Sometimes all at once means trying to figure out what bit of information matters for what your currently trying to do. Getting players to focus on one thing/mechanic to start out with is just good if you don't want to scare off a large portion of players.

I think you missed something, you see players did leave because the voyages where repetitive but you have to ask yourself why they were repetitive? And it's because they don't have any progression either. You did get the central idea down right. When there's barely any progress in achievement, leveling up, weapons, voyages, etc... why should anyone continue to play? Being PL only gives you more of the same things. PL voyages are more maps of the same voyages you had done before with stronger of the same enemy types you dealt with before, with rewards that are some what the same as other rewards. (Bone crusher or kraken cosmetics aren't better than the PL cosmetic, they're about the same in how cool they look). Titles are great but they don't add much, once their are so many titles flying around, having one specific one doesn't make you stand out anymore., especially when so many might already have it.