Revised: thoughts on private servers

@squaz05 said in thoughts on private servers:

@dadiodude said in thoughts on private servers:

@squaz05 said in thoughts on private servers:

@dadiodude said in thoughts on private servers:

I hadn’t realised Rare needed player permission to do stuff.

OK, Rare you can do what you want re private servers and I really don’t care how much gold or XP people can earn on them.

It makes no difference to me.

It would make a difference to you.

If they add progression in the private server everyone will be doing missions there risk free, adventure mode will be only filled with grieffers killing new players convincing them to go in private mode. Effectively killing the spirit of the game...

Elite dangerous has that system and no one goes in open anymore, devs are removing activities from the private mode to force people back into open. It's a huge issue in that game having private servers.

My post was rather tongue in cheek as I’m sure you realise.

But you raise a very interesting and extremely important point. If you are sure there’ll be a mass exodus from Adventure in favour of servers running essentially exactly the same game but without PvP then doesn’t Rare have one doozey of a problem.

It would mean that the overwhelming majority of players just don’t like the game as it is and much prefer a more conventional co-op experience.

Now, if you’re correct and this genuinely affects the majority to the point where all Adventure is left with are the griefers then patently something needs done.

On a purely commercial level Rare would be obliged to follow the dollars, they’re a business, they just have to.

So, if you’re right, what’s to be done?
Do the masses get their PvE servers or, does Rare try to rework the game to broaden appeal by improving the PvP experience and remove the constant cry for an alternate game mode.

Not necessarily.

People will always go to the easiest fastest way to get something. People enjoy playing with pirates, but tell them they can get the same rewards risk free, they will go regardless if they like the PvPvE or not.

Do you want to do your dream job for minimum wage or watch paint dry for 1000$/hour...

Most people will take the 1000$/hour job, go crazy in about 2 weeks and move on to something else

Same thing with open servers (dream job at min wage) vs private servers (wat h paint dry for 1000$/h). Most People will pick the risk free private servers and get all the treasure/loot Pirate Legend in 2 weeks get fed up and move on to something else (another game)

I take your point but have two observations. Firstly, you make playing the game sound like a job of work, a chore. I don’t think an easy route is what people want but they do want a sense of progress and control. And secondly, that still leaves us with the same issue. Players preferring a game other than the one they’ve got. If the overwhelming majority would prefer the game with one element removed and get more enjoyment from battling the environment and attaining achievements then that becomes an undeniable fact.

It still only leaves the same two options. Adjust the game to widen the appeal or provide a version of the game people want. Of course there is a third option which is to do nothing.

People would only move on after a couple of weeks if there were only a couple of weeks gameplay and that applies to the game in any state. If you look at true achievements (not hyper accurate but reasonably indicative) only a minute percentage of people that try SoT actually stick with it for more than a few hours anyway.

A developer can make a business catering to exceptions rather than rules. All niche genres have their following so it isn’t always necessary to cast the widest commercial net. Perhaps those that like the design and PvEvP of SoT are in the minority. I guess it doesn’t matter so long as the player base can provide the ongoing revenue Rare/Microsoft are looking for.

Just one thought though. All the great games of recent years all have one thing in common. They offer the player the choice, usually at the main menu.

There is a recent trend toward online only games. It works well with BR formats, Sims, Minecraft and the like but adventure is tricky. As I understand it Fallout76 is to get an enormous PvE update with a lot of NPCs and of course their PvP is optional on an encounter by encounter basis. So, Fallout 4 with optional PvP. That’s where the demand appears to be for that franchise at least.

Anyway, this game is supposedly all about choices and I guess all people are asking for is an extremely common and popular choice. IF providing this choice leaves the base game deserted then clearly that in itself tells us and the developers something.

@x-crowheart-x
The thing is, arena isn't a pvp mode. And the concern isn't the amount of ayers, but the type of players. If they added private servers with full progression (even if it was seperate), adventures focus would shift to pvp. Also, no progression isn't narrow minded, as that's not what private servers will be intended for. They'll be intended for messing around with friends, or doing things like beacon brawlers.

Private servers would be the equivalent of Creative Mode in Minecraft. Except without the ability to build and no Randomness which is what makes this game what it is.

@andyxxpanda1290 said in Revised: thoughts on private servers:

@dadiodude adventure mode has challenges, levels to progress, and titles people earn. Just imagine if call of duty private games counted towards their actual online level or status. They are kept completely separated. I’m not against private lobbies. I’m against the exploitation of a private lobby if it counted towards progression. And if it did cost money to have a private lobby in a roundabout way wouldn’t it be considered pay to win? Paying for a server to exploit for easier completion of progression?

Poor analogy. CoD has player and equipment progression. SoT has absolutely no progression save a skin or hull colour. Other people’s progress has absolutely no impact on you or your game.

If it doesn’t affect you then you’re concerned for all the wrong reasons. Non of them logical.

@d3adst1ck said in Revised: thoughts on private servers:

@x-crowheart-x said in thoughts on private servers:

It all depends on what a private server would look like. Same game run privately like Conan Exiles, Ark, Day Z, etc. is what I think private server would be for Sea of Thieves. Sea of Thieves performance issues may have an impact of such instances.

The difference is that, unlike all those games you listed, I don't see Rare/Microsoft giving out the server binaries and database set up for Sea of Thieves to whoever wants to run a private server.

If they provide this option, it will be through a rental setup on their Azure system. And they won't give everyone who wants to play by themselves or only with friends a server; they'll have to pay for it.

You forget that the overwhelming majority of players are on XBox. We already subscribe to XBL. An MS game on an MS console via the MS game network would not only have no issues with hosting, there would also be no charge. Many games have a setup similar to the one being discussed.

This isn’t a valid reason to not have a PvE only mode. There may be one but this isn’t it.

@glannigan
Yeah, I hope that when rare adds private servers, they add world editing tools to them.

@d3adst1ck said in Revised: thoughts on private servers:

@dadiodude said in Revised: thoughts on private servers:

@d3adst1ck said in Revised: thoughts on private servers:

@x-crowheart-x said in thoughts on private servers:
You forget that the overwhelming majority of players are on XBox. We already subscribe to XBL. An MS game on an MS console via the MS game network would not only have no issues with hosting, there would also be no charge. Many games have a setup similar to the one being discussed.

I'm not forgetting anything. You are forgetting that several of the games you mentioned are on Xbox live and have server rental for an additional fee on top of that. I don't see why you think they'd give you Azure rack space for free.

That's not an argument against pve servers, it's explaining that Rare is not going to hand out private instances to anyone who wants one.

I didn’t mention any games but never mind. I’ve played dozens of games that have private facilities and never has it involved a fee, even if hosted outside of the XBL network such as EA. A Microsoft game hosted within XBL (Microsoft) would not charge XBox Live subscribers.

This isn’t like some clan or club setting up their own hosting session. It’s just bog standard CPLs. There isn’t anything to charge for. XBox players already have all of the hosting they need.

@d3adst1ck

We’re talking about two very different things. You’ve highlighted some games that are developer hosted. They allow account holders to rent time to play any mode they like. I’m guessing but there’s probably a high cap like 2 teams of 12.

SoT PvE as I’ve seen discussed is simply a game mode in much the same way Arena is. Max would be 4 players in co-op in exactly the same world as we currently have. There’s no real cost to this and via XBL there is ample existing capacity. Could be an issue if your on PC though.

I think it sounds rubbish but hey! If that’s what people want then crack on.

I’ve said before, I think there’d be more mileage in a good, long, challenging single player/co-op campaign but that’s just me.

@lem0n-curry

Understood, but your argument is now quite shallow. Basically you argue that your wishes are more important than the wishes of others.

Let me ask, why do we not hear complaints from PvPvE players that Arena has removed their competitors.

I’m actually just playing devils advocate. I’ve alway said that for me they aren’t a thing I’d want. Unlike most though, I don’t try to impose my will on others. I just offer an argument. If they happen then fine and I hope people enjoy them.

So far, if I’m to be honest, the arguments against a PvE mode sound selfish and childish. I’ve yet to hear a single argument that isn’t emotional or “me me me”.

Just saying 🤭

@andyxxpanda1290 said in Revised: thoughts on private servers:

@dadiodude how is killing adventure mode not an argument? Emptier seas? The impact private servers with progression would have on adventure. This game is built around player interactions and that is the best part of it.

Your argument is so flawed it’s incredible you can’t see the futility of it yourself. If you believe that players would desert PvPvE on mass and flock to a PvE version of exactly the same game well then the game in its current state is a flop. Rare made a monumental error of judgement and they should without delay start working on an off-line and/or co-op only game. That isn’t my conclusion, it’s yours.

However, someone with perhaps a less pessimistic view would suggest that a PvE mode may well have the opposite effect. If you accept that TrueAchievements is reasonably indicative, a startling 40% of people that installed the game didn’t make it as far as the very first commendation. Fewer than 10% made any tangible progress and for many Bilge Rate commendations its as low as 1%. Only 2% completed TT even once. This by any measure is shocking. This game just doesn’t appeal to enough people. So, now consider what is the single most common complaint - it’s poorly executed PvP. And the single most requested feature - A PvP free session.

If PvE was introduced the take up by people not currently playing would be huge. Once you have active players you have active players. Of course they’ll come to Adventure to start working towards the commendations and cosmetics only available on the adventure server. They’ll also be more conversant with the game and more willing to get involved with PvP.

You think existing players would leave Adventure in favour of a PvE mode. Why would they? Anyone already at a reasonable level has already “done the game” so nothing at all to be gained. Perhaps the odd new player down in single figures may elect to move to PvE but all this talk of empty servers is stupid.

Should a PvE server give gold and XP, of course. It won’t give access to any commendations and unlocks associated with the PvP on the Adventure server but in everything else of course it should. Hell, I may as well be on a PvE server 80% of my game time so in many things there’s virtually no difference.

Now, Rare and the people completely resistant to PvE servers could dig in their heels and say no. They could say that “we are right and the 8M people that dropped the game are wrong”. It’s no skin off anybody else’s nose. But I’d ask you, if you were running Rare and the future of your company and staff depended on this one game, what would you do? I’m guessing you’d do the sensible thing and explore your options with an open mind. Never say never and all that.

@d3adst1ck said in Revised: thoughts on private servers:

@dadiodude said in Revised: thoughts on private servers:

SoT PvE as I’ve seen discussed is simply a game mode in much the same way Arena is. Max would be 4 players in co-op in exactly the same world as we currently have. There’s no real cost to this and via XBL there is ample existing capacity. Could be an issue if your on PC though.

Yes there is; you would still need a server instance specifically for those 4 people and no one else. Coop groups of 4 will use more instances than regular servers (since those will pack up to 5-6 ships of 4 people each). This means more instances, which means more server resources, which means more cost than is ordinarily required.

There are just so many games out there offering co-op as part of the basic game package that this isn’t even an issue worth worrying about. I have a few MS titles permanently loaded that provide exactly what we’re discussing. In fact it’s even easier in SoT because it’s a persistent world but a non-persistent game state.

@dadiodude said in Revised: thoughts on private servers:

@andyxxpanda1290 said in Revised: thoughts on private servers:

@dadiodude how is killing adventure mode not an argument? Emptier seas? The impact private servers with progression would have on adventure. This game is built around player interactions and that is the best part of it.

Your argument is so flawed it’s incredible you can’t see the futility of it yourself. If you believe that players would desert PvPvE on mass and flock to a PvE version of exactly the same game well then the game in its current state is a flop.

No it means that its human nature to take the easy way out. Why would anyone log into a server with a risk trying to earn the cosmetic? They wouldnt. They would go farm it real quick then hop back to the fun server

@lem0n-curry said in Revised: thoughts on private servers:

@dadiodude said in Revised: thoughts on private servers:

@lem0n-curry

Understood, but your argument is now quite shallow. Basically you argue that your wishes are more important than the wishes of others.

Let me ask, why do we not hear complaints from PvPvE players that Arena has removed their competitors.

Because Arena isn't the PvP version of the game. I'm not a PvP'er and I have played and will play Arena. I haven't gone around and asked everybody but AFAIK there are all kinds of Adventure-style players in Arena.

It’s academic what Arena is, it’s the fact that the playerbase has been split. It’was the division of the playerbase that you voiced concern over.

I’m actually just playing devils advocate. I’ve alway said that for me they aren’t a thing I’d want. Unlike most though, I don’t try to impose my will on others. I just offer an argument. If they happen then fine and I hope people enjoy them.

So far, if I’m to be honest, the arguments against a PvE mode sound selfish and childish. I’ve yet to hear a single argument that isn’t emotional or “me me me”.

I don't think "we" are the ones sounding selfish and childish here.

You’d have to be more specific and point out how my views are either selfish or childish. I’d contest that they were neither but hey!

But I’ll stick to my point. I’ve yet to hear a compelling argument against PvE.

Just saying 🤭

@nwo-azcrack said in Revised: thoughts on private servers:

@dadiodude said in Revised: thoughts on private servers:

@andyxxpanda1290 said in Revised: thoughts on private servers:

@dadiodude how is killing adventure mode not an argument? Emptier seas? The impact private servers with progression would have on adventure. This game is built around player interactions and that is the best part of it.

Your argument is so flawed it’s incredible you can’t see the futility of it yourself. If you believe that players would desert PvPvE on mass and flock to a PvE version of exactly the same game well then the game in its current state is a flop.

No it means that its human nature to take the easy way out. Why would anyone log into a server with a risk trying to earn the cosmetic? They wouldnt. They would go farm it real quick then hop back to the fun server

Two things.

1. Why create a problem that doesn’t even exist. What Adventure cosmetic do you think would also be available on a PvE server? I’ve said gold and XP should be earned but commendations and therefore unlocks would for many things be different or even possibly only available on Adventure. It’s for a developer to make sure they don’t leave gaping holes in there game design.
2. The whole point of this is that we’re discussing a massive group of people that don’t think SoT has a fun server. That’s kinda the nub of the thing.

@dadiodude
If you want them to earn gold and rep, then why not cosmetics too?

I just wanna point out i DID speak out against the Arena. I have never wanted to see the playerbase split in any way. Crossplay, pve servers, arena, etc etc.

This is also another reason why im against progression in private servers. Im all for having a place for players to just play around with their friends. Or content creators(using that word lightly) have a place to record stuff. But i want players to have a reason to log into the main game.

@nwo-azcrack said in Revised: thoughts on private servers:

@dadiodude
If you want them to earn gold and rep, then why not cosmetics too?

I just wanna point out i DID speak out against the Arena. I have never wanted to see the playerbase split in any way. Crossplay, pve servers, arena, etc etc.

This is also another reason why im against progression in private servers. Im all for having a place for players to just play around with their friends. Or content creators(using that word lightly) have a place to record stuff. But i want players to have a reason to log into the main game.

I think there should be gold and XP because on a server of the type being discussed they in so many ways will be having exactly the same experience as in Adventure. Consider fishing, killing Megs and a great deal of the grindy stuff. If you’re going to add a mode to a AAA title it has to be the full beans or the overall game will suffer. As for the “prizes” that the game doles out. Cosmetics are currently awarded by location and task. This is perfect. Not really any different to Arena and anything else that may follow. If someone wants a certain set and it’s to be found in Adventure then they have to achieve it in Adventure. But many cosmetics could also be found in both. Things that aren’t much affected by PvP being there or not.

I 100% agree with you in that Arena was ill-considered. I think it’s set a precedent that is opposed to the original concept Rare pitched. I would take the same view over people wanting a break from PvP or perhaps just the chance to enjoy the graphics, locations and puzzles of TT without the risk of being sent back to the start. I’m sure that with some creative thought this could be incorporated into the main game without too much detriment to PvP. Better to have one giant playerbase than a few small scattered ones.

And one last though that for me is really important. If you feel the need to corral players into a certain game mode then you have a problem. Rare must make Adventure a place most players want to be. The ball is, as ever, in their court.

@d3adst1ck said in Revised: thoughts on private servers:

@dadiodude said in Revised: thoughts on private servers:

@d3adst1ck said in Revised: thoughts on private servers:

@dadiodude said in Revised: thoughts on private servers:

SoT PvE as I’ve seen discussed is simply a game mode in much the same way Arena is. Max would be 4 players in co-op in exactly the same world as we currently have. There’s no real cost to this and via XBL there is ample existing capacity. Could be an issue if your on PC though.

Yes there is; you would still need a server instance specifically for those 4 people and no one else. Coop groups of 4 will use more instances than regular servers (since those will pack up to 5-6 ships of 4 people each). This means more instances, which means more server resources, which means more cost than is ordinarily required.

There are just so many games out there offering co-op as part of the basic game package that this isn’t even an issue worth worrying about. I have a few MS titles permanently loaded that provide exactly what we’re discussing. In fact it’s even easier in SoT because it’s a persistent world but a non-persistent game state.

Are those games are peer-to-peer?

No