Why every player should embrace a PvE Mode

@ViperishEmu2992

I don't see why a PvE would be enticing for new players. You mention that it is the most requested feature on every SoT forum. That would mean it is being requested by people who already play the game. It's not being requested by people who don't even play the game.

At a base level, this game has been marketed as a pirate adventure game. If that doesn't already entice a new player then I don't believe anything else will

As for the possibility of a new player being discouraged by the lack of instruction, and being hassled by more experienced players, that is definitely a possibility. I would suggest that new players be given the option of being placed into a passive mode for at least the first few hours. I would even say that all new players should be taught how to do things for the first time, instead of having to figure it on their own. Once their introduction time is up, then they get the full Sea of Thieves experience

@wildbloodoz I will admit that a PvE mode isn't as exciting a sounding marketing strategy as Arena. But (for better or for worse) there are customers out there who buy their games with PvE in mind. (Parents of little kids are one example).

Popular games attract others by word of mouth. So Keeping players happy is an important tool in attracting new one's. Every update and patch that Rare has released has been aimed at keeping the player base happy for this reason. Because people talk. So yeah, a PvE mode (of some sort) is a smart way to do this. Obviously a lot of players are asking for it.

@viperishemu2992 said in Why every player should embrace a PvE Mode:

@wildbloodoz I will admit that a PvE mode isn't as exciting a sounding marketing strategy as Arena.

Sure. But to be clear, the Arena is not the core of this game. The Adventure mode is what comprises the true Sea of Thieves experience. That is already being marketed as a game with various facets, both PvE and PvP (though not explicitly using those terms). If it was PvE only then how do you market it? Sea of Thieves.... but without thieves?

Popular games attract others by word of mouth. So Keeping players happy is an important tool in attracting new one's. Every update and patch that Rare has released has been aimed at keeping the player base happy for this reason.

When SoT released, the main criticism of it was essentially "there isn't much to do in this game". I wonder if anybody at that time would still be playing if there were a PvE only mode. Because it was very, very bare bones back then. Having the PvP element was key to people sticking around. What Rare has added has been fantastic, but was also sorely needed just to maintain interest from the current users

This game will never make everybody happy. The players who enjoy the game for what it already is and was meant to be are also the ones who spread the word. There is a possibility that by having a separate PvE mode, you are essentially cutting off an arm just to save a leg.

Read a few articles about the new Anniversary update. People are excited. Journo's are interested again. Of the articles I have read, the absence of a PvE mode is not an issue I have seen anybody discuss. The new additions have been welcomed and warmly received. This is the type of marketing the game needs

@gunstooog Even the most successful online games lose most of their players after a few months, the exceptions are rare. If only 70% stop playing, that's actually good.

Now if I don't hang-off that random estimate you give but instead address the principle of your point: that 'there are no(or few) PvPvE games because people don't like the game mode'. I can make a more generous and accurate version of this argument: that the potential audience is too small. Most games deal fine with being a genre that 'most people' aren't into, as long as the people who are into it make up a large enough group for it to be successful.

I will point out that not so long ago, the same was thought of turn-based strategy games and that was why 2K wanted to turned the beloved X-COM franchise into a first-person shooter and then a third-person shooter when it looked like they were more 'flavour of the month'. The whole fiasco demonstrates my point perfectly: the 'wider audience' they were chasing is fickle and non-committed, lost as easy as they are gained(ask PUBG). Turn-based strategy, with many old fans for X-COM were a dedicated fanbase who snapped up a new installment in the right game mode when 2K offered one up as an after-thought PR-driven move. It was a much larger success than the game they wanted to make aimed at the 'wider audience', which ended up flopping.

If companies do not make games of a certain type, they do not know who wants those games and is willing to pay for them. The PvPvE genre is not under-served because it is unpopular; there is no end of janky survival games out there, serving an audience that wants it but what they are't delivering is a polished and accessible experience. SoT has been the closest, but has been hamstrung by being Windows Store-only and by Rare compromising it at every crossroad before them.

@jonaldinho Where did they publicly state this? I've never seen that statement. They have to know that's not possible with a rated T for teen rating and it being a shared world multiplayer game. Private servers would be the only way they could responsibly make that claim come true.

@xixaxap said in Why every player should embrace a PvE Mode:

Open world PvPers struggle to admit how much of the open world PvP joy they experience is from pursuit and battle with someone who doesn't want to fight.

This is incredibly presumptuous, and based on zero evidence. It is the poster child for fallacious statements. It makes one wonder how you know the mind of open world PvP'ers so well. You lead a therapy group or something? PvPer's Anonymous? "Hi I'm Peter, I'm an open world PvP'er." "Hi, Peter."

@xixaxap Cool. You keep using that "wet thumb". It still isn't evidence.

"We'd learn..." How?

"Recruiting people to attack anything near equal power."

No way to know what that is in this game. A powerful solo slooper can wipe a galleon.

"the bulk of who we encountered."

And? Doesn't support your claims at all. This game doesn't work like other open world PvP games. As such, simply applying assumptions based on other open world PvP games is a exercise in fallacy.

In this game there is little way to know who has loot and who doesn't - who is an easy target and who isn't. It's a gamble. I've seen and heard of few instances where people have just spawned in and were attacked at an outpost "just cuz." Usually, it's because someone needs to turn in and you just happen to be there and are, understandably, viewed as a threat. Those at or leaving outposts tend to have little to lose and, in fact, tend to be the aggressors, in my experience.

Also, it makes total sense to go for someone you think is beatable... that's human nature. In fact, many PvP'ers play on this in order to draw ships in... by looking weak.

And, given a couple of your quotes, this appears to be based on your opinion that stealing someone's loot shouldn't be accepted as the "right thing" to do. That's just not this game. I mean, I'm not a hardcore PvP'er and I love sneaking up on and attacking players to get their loot... it's incredibly satisfying. If they have nothing, I may kill them for resources and leave. Yes, there are griefers who repeatedly kill other players just to have fun ruining their experience and getting them to "scuttle." But, when that happens to me, I don't care about what they think., because, at the end of the day, it's a game. I scuttle and move on.

I view other players like I do the PvE elements of the game - just another obstacle to my turning in loot. That's the best way, in my opinion, to approach an open world PvPvE game.

As for your percentages... again... means nothing. Based on your arguments in this thread, your "wet thumb" has a confirmation bias.

Private servers will be coming at some point. Then your issue will be resolved.

@xixaxap said in Why every player should embrace a PvE Mode:

@entspeak said in Why every player should embrace a PvE Mode:

@xixaxap Cool. You keep using that "wet thumb". It still isn't evidence.

Anecdote is evidence. It's not the best, but it's what we have, and when weighing anecdote vs. anecdote, we're just down to differing experiences or opinions about those experiences.

No, I'm not making sweeping generalizations based on limited anecdotal evidence... that's the difference.

"We'd learn..." How?

In some games, via things like not getting a reply when they were needed and seeing they were in newb zone and asking. Other times from reports. I mean... imagine all the ways you learn anything and add them to the list.

Not getting a reply means nothing in this game considering the issues with communicating on Xbox (parties), and the ability to mute other players.

"Recruiting people to attack anything near equal power."

No way to know what that is in this game. A powerful solo slooper can wipe a galleon.

Yet one of the best tips I was given early was don't pilot a Sloop and you'll be attacked less often, by someone who largely disagrees with me re: PvP. It was 100% accurate.

This only proves the point I was making with this statement.

"the bulk of who we encountered."

And? Doesn't support your claims at all. This game doesn't work like other open world PvP games. As such, simply applying assumptions based on other open world PvP games is a exercise in fallacy.

Except the same thing is true here on the forums and in Discord. I'm not coming across a "what we really enjoy is combat with others of similar power who enjoy combat also" vibe.

You're basing your opinion on a lack of statements? Again, a lack of statements is meaningless. The game has 3 ship types, a limited server size and, intentionally, doesn't matchmake based on experience. So, as I said before, there's no way to know.

One thread had multiple people decrying the idea of a PvE server because it would only leave those behind who want to PvP.

To which I say again, this is a pirate game the reward system of which is based on the risk of theft. So, yeah... I've said it myself, being that a PvE server would mean a complete disconnect from the regular PvPvE server, it would mean there are fewer people to steal from.

You'll notice I don't assume the majority or even a plurality of players are jerks. I do think a majority of "Open world PvP is awesome" enjoy it for reasons which include attacking those who don't want to be attacked.

You didn't use those exact words, no... in fact, you used no qualifiers at all... hence why I called it a sweeping generalization.

Also, it makes total sense to go for someone you think is beatable... that's human nature. In fact, many PvP'ers play on this in order to draw ships in... by looking weak.

It's good we've left anecdote and experience behind as evidence. rolls eyes

I do it, many of the streamers I've watched do it. It's an excellent tactic when you want to draw PvP - better than raising a Reaper. It makes sense that many PvP'ers would do this.

No, it's an opinion that people hide behind "stealing is expected" to mask their hunting down those who are passive for sport.

No support for this. Unless you can read minds, you can't know that people are hiding behind anything and that what they say isn't what they mean. This is your bias at play.

There are bigger gains to be made than attacking solo fisherman, but they carry risk, and despite the preaching re: risk vs. reward as joy, they seek out the elimination of risk more intensely than any solo passive player.

1. You can't know how many fish a player has on board until you've boarded... given that they are inventory items and stored in barrels.

2. There is no way to know who is a "solo passive player." And, in fact, anyone who expects to be a solo passive player in a shared PvPvE world is missing the point of the game, deluding themselves, and bound for a disappoint of their own making.

At least we agree these players exist. We just disagree evidently how common they are.

I never argued otherwise.

I think it's about 1 in 4.

I understand that you do.

Private servers will be coming at some point. Then your issue will be resolved.

I hope not. I prefer games be social and competitive+cooperative. I'd prefer a resolution similar to RDR2's recent implementation of defensive mode. No immunity, risk remains, but it's reduced enough to discourage malignant behavior.

Given that theft is a core aspect of this game, it makes no sense to punish those engaging in piracy for playing the game or offering people who participate in an open world PvPvE piracy game a means of escaping piracy.

@xixaxap said in Why every player should embrace a PvE Mode:

@entspeak said in Why every player should embrace a PvE Mode:

No, I'm not making sweeping generalizations based on limited anecdotal evidence... that's the difference.

"In fact, many PvP'ers play on this in order to draw ships in... by looking weak."

Mmhmm.

Already explained that.

Not getting a reply means nothing in this game considering the issues with communicating on Xbox (parties), and the ability to mute other players.

"and seeing they were in the newb zone and asking." - They did not reply when a call went out for help. We saw they were in a newb zone. We asked them what they were doing. They told us.

And? What did I say in response to that? Simply repeating what you said won't change the response.

This only proves the point I was making with this statement.

It demonstrates that people assume Sloops are weak and Brigs are less weak, in enough of a majority that it's an effective deterrent. How this proves that people do attack enemies of near equal power or that they understand they cannot know who is powerful and who is not is a mystery to me.

And, yet... you can't know. That was my point. In this game, you can't make plans to take on enemies of "equal power." There's no way to know what that means. And, given the limited ships per server, it would be quite dull to make that attempt. If the game was about fighting those of "equal power" or as close as the devs could get, it would be built like Arena - servers with only one ship type, and there would be matchmaking based on experience. They intentionally do neither of those things.

No, I'm basing it on the statements made which do not align with the idealistic view, or neutral view, you have of PvP player motivation. I didn't say no one says anything.

Never said you did. Nor did I ever claim to have either an idealistic or neutral view of PvP motivation. I just take issue with the implication that PvP players are somehow deluding themselves with regard to their motivations.

To which I say again, this is a pirate game the reward system of which is based on the risk of theft. So, yeah... I've said it myself, being that a PvE server would mean a complete disconnect from the regular PvPvE server, it would mean there are fewer people to steal from.

There would be an equal number of people to steal from. Just because you enjoy PvP doesn't mean you don't have things to steal. See what I mean? You're saying it out loud here. Somehow, players who don't enjoy PvP are people to steal from but people who enjoy PvP are ... what? The people who steal? You can't steal from someone who fights back?

Strawman. I didn't say there would be nobody to steal from. Fewer is not equal.

The servers would have equal population as they have today. If you mean less people globally, then you have to make the assumption that the population overall would decrease as a result of this change. There are no examples of games which make the case this would be true.

The overall global population of the official PvPvE Adventure Mode servers would not decrease if PvE servers were implemented? Unless nobody switches to PvE servers, the global population of PvPvE servers would decrease... that's basic math.

I do it, many of the streamers I've watched do it. It's an excellent tactic when you want to draw PvP - better than raising a Reaper. It makes sense that many PvP'ers would do this.

Again, it's good to see we're not using experience and anecdote as evidence. This is definitely not either of those. ;)

It's also supported by the obvious nature of the tactic, as I said.

No support for this. Unless you can read minds, you can't know that people are hiding behind anything and that what they say isn't what they mean. This is your bias at play.

You just said if the game only had people who enjoyed PvP there would be fewer people to steal from. I'm not the one struggling with bias here.

That's not bias, that's a mathematical fact.

Given that theft is a core aspect of this game, it makes no sense to punish those engaging in piracy for playing the game or offering people who participate in an open world PvPvE piracy game a means of escaping piracy.

I know you feel this way. Many said the same thing re: RDR2. A game about outlaws letting people escape outlaw behavior? The game's doomed. The sky will fall. The creator's vision will be destroyed and no one will ever play their online games again.

RDR2 is not SoT. RDR2's reward system is nothing like SoT's. Apples to Oranges.

How much experience do you have with SoT?

@xixaxap Not an answer to the question.

And, I never said there weren't people like that, did I? So, I don't know why you keep bringing it up like I have. Nor does he seem to be misrepresenting his motivations based on what you've quoted.

As to your other post. I need more time to respond.

@xixaxap Still not an answer to the question.

There are less than 44,000 players who have posted to the forum in the last 3 months (less than 12,000 who have posted since the last update)... out of millions of players. And, you've found a few among those thousands within millions who appear to have the mindset you claiming is common. Insignificant.

Me, I tend to ignore people when they say that because there is no way I'm going to change their mind on this relatively anonymous forum where I don't really know anyone I'm responding to.

Are you now condemning people for not electing to engage in futile discussions? It's not to say I've never called people out for this; you just learn that there's no point - especially when the focus should be on something else in the thread. There were people making these types of statements at launch... but you wouldn't know that because you don't have much experience with this game. (To answer the question.)

@xixaxap said in Why every player should embrace a PvE Mode:

Condemning, no, but the goal isn't getting them to change their mind. The goal is to remind them and anyone else watching they don't actually represent you.

Why do I care whether or not they feel they represent me? If I could downvote posts I didn’t agree with, I would. But, there isn’t - and shouldn’t be - any assumption that someone represents me or that we have like views unless I upvote them or say so in a post. My lack of response is not tacit agreement since there are ways for me to overtly agree.

It's pointing out to the passive players that you are not like that, and maybe your arguments for keeping the game as-is come from a desire to make the game better, not to get joy from the anger of passive players.

I don’t feel the need to prove to anyone what I’m like. I allow what I’ve said throughout the forum to represent me. And, if a “passive player” is interested in knowing if I agree or disagree with something, they can ask.

It's fine to be exhausted by it. But when everyone in a community gets exhausted, that kind of stuff spreads.

Didn’t say “exhausted.” What’s exhausting is having to change constantly remind you that I didn’t say the things you claim I have. I realize that twisting my words may make you feel like you have a point, but you don’t.

We should all, as much as we can, try to be antibodies against that kind of infection.

Heh. You’ve yet to show an infection of any significance. 1 in 400, 1 in 1000? Let’s say it’s the latter... that’s 0.1%. 1 in 400? That’s 0.25%. Even the numbers you pull out of your rear end don’t make this a “common problem.” To hit your 25% mark it’d have to be 1 in 4. Or, out of those active on these forums in the last 3 months, 11,000. The statements you’ve seen don’t even come close to 1/10th of a percent of that. There’s a search function. You can certainly restrict that search to within the last 3 months. If what you say is true, you should easily be able to find thousands of different posters saying the same thing. Post the link to the search results for me, will ya? But only if you find thousands of different forumites with this “motivation.” Otherwise, don’t waste my time.

@xixaxap

Again, with trying to make some point, but failing. Allowing something to simply happen is just that - people either read what I’ve stated or don’t, or they can ask. I don’t care and it is not my responsibility to actively challenge every post I see where someone expresses the motivation you perceive as common. There is nothing contradictory in what I said there. Stop trying to make it seem like there is - it’s not helpful to your credibility.

You’ve been playing the game a week... and you claim to know the makeup of the community and their motivations? Come now.

Guess the search wasn’t fruitful. Not important enough? You get “exhausted” on your quest to address this common problem? Actually proving what you’ve claimed is difficult, after all, given that there is no evidence that it is anywhere near as common as you claim.

@xixaxap

Again, either there is evidence that this problem is as common as you claim or there isn’t. The limited evidence you’ve provided is not evidence of the pervasiveness of that motivation - only that there are players with this mindset. And some of that evidence isn't, because you are twisting their words in order to make it fit your argument. As I said, if it were as common as you say, you should very easily be able to find thousands of forum posters with that mindset.

You haven’t even attempted to do the one thing that could actually support your claim? If the problem were anywhere near as pervasive as you say, that’d be easy. The fact that you are unwilling to actually support your claim does say a lot about why you’re posting on these forums. Says something that you aren’t even willing to to actually prove it - given your holier-than-thou responses regarding the character of others.

“Put up or shut up,” I say.

It is hardly thoughtful to disparage the character of others and make wild claims with no actual support. If that’s why you bother, I wouldn’t.

@bloodybil what progression? There is literally no progression in this game. ToS is a joke, and the grind is disgusting, GH is mind blowingly boring, merchant is ok at best tedious at worst, TTT take about 1.5-2.5hrs a piece which is mostly filled up with boring uneventful sailing and a meager reward overall. When you do get anything decent (usually from a fort or skeleton ship) you can spend ages doing it (my first fort took about an hour as I just kept dying), just to have ALL exp and gold taken from you just because someone "felt like it". They didn't earn that loot, I did. Hell if you really don't want a pve mode to exist then how about the people who stole the loot only get half the reward and no exp. Want the exp? Earn it properly. I don't mind the PvP, I have made dumb mistakes like leaving the lights on, but even with lights off its so easy to see another ship. I once had someone chase me for over an hour, all around the map. It only ended thanks to a scheduled maintenance thank god. I enjoy the heck out of a good ship to ship fight but having to restart a Tall Tale or having half if not all my loot stolen because people are ****s is just a waste of my time.

Even if I outrun the enemy galleon while in my sloop/brig, I just spent 30mins to an hour doing nothing 'fun'. I could have spent that time actually making progress on a game that actually HAS real progression. If I want to chill out sailing the seas in a private server lock THAT progression away from adventure mode.

I understand there are plenty of people who would never leave private/pve but leave them to it. Make the time spent in the separate modes a visibly tracked stat so that people still have bragging rights, seeing as those bragging rights are all the game has to offer. Megalodons and Krakens are easy and boring. Skeleton ships offer a bit of a challenge but with a fully communicating crew are easy. Open lobbies are damn near cancerous as people don't listen to each other or work together (in my experiences anyway).

To throw an example from a different game in, I only play Ark private now as every online server is just populated by tribes who ruin it for everyone else. Let the hardcore pve players have their mode. They will get bored and half of them will come back to adventure so they can get an adrenaline rush from the unique pvpve that it offers.

No game can please every player. I have a friend who thinks this game is boring (mostly because he just sits in the crows nest like an idiot) but even when we get into a fight he just moans so him being in a pve/private server would have zero affect on you. I know however that there are people who would try private/pve then move to adventure mode for the thrill of it.

Adding a pve/private option WONT hurt the game anymore than its current standing is. So test it out. Give it a chance. Neither side has a categorical answer on this subject, so why not try it out. If the pro pve/private people are right then THE TOPIC CAN BE DROPPED. If the anti- pve/private people are right then THE TOPIC CAN BE DROPPED.

Either way we would get a definite answer.

Last note, if there was a single player pirate game of the same calibre as SoT then I would be 100% against the pve/private thing, but there isn't.

@sneakler This was something that the devs took into consideration. In researching this game, they looked at DayZ and Rust - two other games where you lose everything and can be set back to absolute zero when you die. They felt that would be too much for this game. The current system is what they came up with to achieve a balance between loss and reward while keeping risk and tension.