Anyways I just stopped by to add I am not against PvE servers in games at all. I actually enjoy playing on them myself. I just think when it comes down to it SOT is too high risk and high reward based (relying heavy on other players to be that high risk) to be able to have a pure PvE server where one can do voyages or what not.
I think the best bet would be to allow Tale Tales to be done on their own server with the combination of the custom servers that are yet to come.
@glannigan Because as a solo slooper most of the time, I am at a heavy disadvantage when I don't care about loot and just want to solo quest, but I keep getting rolled by larger ships and crews. Nothing is more frustrating when I don't care about the loot I've come across while questing (tall tales), but I've spent a couple hours finding quest items, only to get sunk and lose things like keys and gems when I get sunk by a large crew. No need to change the game, per say, just add a peaceful server; still open world "PVP," players can work together on rituals, skeleton ships, kraken fights, etc., but players who betray that "peaceful" mentality lose server privileges. If this seems too easy and you want the high risk, high reward game, play on regular PVP servers. If it seems unfair that players who risk less are rewarded the same, perhaps scale the loot payout. All I know is I am tired of getting about done with a quest after a couple hours sailing around and getting sunk by a ship I don't stand a chance against. No checkpoint where those quest items are returned to you? Start ALL over! Dumb.
@cptphteven I don't think there is a lot of these players. If there were, I would be getting attacked regularly, which I don't. Weird, hm?
After reading many of these comments, I have come to recognize that many of the people writing them are neglecting an important concept, that being the solo Slooper. So many of these comments refer to PVPers and their crews, but fail to acknowledge that the disadvantage solo players face. It's been said a bunch that it's a "high risk, high reward" game, but that the PVEers have all the risk, doing world events and questing, etc, and the PVPers have only reward; I feel this entirely, as a solo slooper. As such, I have VERY little opportunity to even be a PVPer most of the time; I don't hardly stand a chance against even another sloop, let alone a 3 or 4 man crew. That said, I am most often a PVEer. I get on to enjoy the beauty of the game, the challenge the open world events can offer a single player, maybe a tall tale if I have the time (I don't always), etc. That said, I don't often get to enjoy the "high risk, high reward" gameplay. My experience is usually more of a low risk, low reward, which is why it's so frustrating when it turns into low risk, NO reward. PVPers simply take the fun away when I am just questing but get sunk by a large crew who probably thinks I have loot, but really my quest items are worthless to them. Again, low risk, NO reward. This is broken gameplay, IMO.
Point is, there needs to be SOME way to allow solo players to enjoy the game without being rolled by large crews. If this means PVE servers, so be it. If you don't like that idea, don't play in them. Maybe build in options of playing in sloop-only servers. Maybe servers with 2-3 man ships only, some with 3-4 man ships, but also servers where "hey, today, my 7 year old son and I don't feel like getting wrecked and just want to go fight some sharks and skeletons and, hell, maybe we'll run into the kraken." Scale the loot payout, I don't care, I just want to enjoy the game and stand a better chance against another 2 man crew if it comes to that.
I agree with the notion that PVEers have all the risk, and PVPers have only reward. Those of you that are saying "well my PVP crew has risk too, because after we've sunk all the other ships in the server and our loot has built up, we have a lot to lose..." Please. Getting that loot by sinking smaller ships is not risk, and RARE allowing you the pleasure of doing so, only at the displeasure and frustration of the the solo slooper, is just plain poor sportsmanship.
All that said, add more servers, and let the player customize their experience to their playstyle. Solo player servers, sloop only servers, 2-3 player crew servers, 3-4 player crew servers, 2-4, 1-4... But let us choose. Nothing about the gameplay needs to change, server options would better balance the game based on crew size and ship capability.
Lastly, if you are one of those people that thinks your 4 man crew is getting robbed by solo sloopers having the option not to play in your servers, that we should just embrace the "challenge" that is the original intent behind SOT, you'll have a great time taking on 4v4 fights when you don't have us little guys to feed on. Read a page out of your own book and embrace the challenge yourselves.
@xwakimx If you had been reading the previous comments, you would know that sorting the player base by intent, skill or crew size would negatively impact the whole game.
Also something to keep in mid is that your success is never guaranteed in SOT, and never should be. If we knew that every session would be successful, all the fun and mystery is gone from the game, our failures are what allow us to learn, do better in the future and appreciate our success, this is a core part of almost any pvpve sandbox.
@scarecrow1771
I never said sort the players, by any criteria. I said let the player choose their own experience every time they play the game. I can tell by many of your comments that you are under the impression that the player base will be so spread thin it will ruin the PvEvP experience. How many people you think play this game? Letting a handful (I say handful because I agree with the people who are saying the PvE ONLY players are a vast minority) isn't going to ruin the game for everyone else.
What does it matter to you, or Rare, for that matter, that some people's intentions aren't to embrace the mystery and uncertainty of the game, or the importance to learning to accept failure? Keep in mind, this is a video game, my dude. I don't turn on the xbox so my 7 year old can learn to "appreciate our success" and learn from our failures. He just wants to sail the boat and fight sharks and dig up treasure. It's a game.
Again, it's not going to negatively impact the game. Rare wants to keep players and get old players back, players who left because yes, it does feel like a huge waste of time to solo quest for a couple hours and lose everything. I agree that the experience will go unchanged for the vast majority of players who enjoy the PvEvP gameplay, and get even better for those who don't. I don't think the addition of the Arena (essentially strictly PVP) separated players, so why would the addition of PVE?
@scarecrow1771
Oh, and in regards to sorting players, again, let the players choose. If I want to take my sloop solo into a servers with 4 man crews, let me choose to do so. I honestly don't feel bad for those 4 man wrecking crews that MAY have fewer 2 man crews to hunt down and loot. I say "may" because I really don't know how many ballsy 2 man crews there are that would play in a server with Galleons, I just know my son and I are not one of them. For all I know, it would stay just as balanced as it is.
Point is, I think the experience would be the exact same for most players, and better for some. From a players standpoint, that's ideal. From a developers standpoint, they please a larger portion of their players. Win-win. Really though, what's the worst that can happen?
@scarecrow1771 said in [Mega Thread] PvP and PvE Playstyle Discussion:
@expsnailer Except, again I point out that Arena has not spit the player base at all.
There are still plenty of people loading into adventure and seeking out, or at least hoping for pvp.
Arena doesn't compete with Adventure, it complements it.
When people say that a pve version of adventure would split the player base what they mean is, the player base will be split by intent, with players only doing events and voyages on the pve side, and only pvp happening on the regular pvpve side.
Despite what you may think, Arena has not had that effect, sure some of the more aggressive and competitive crews may spend more time there, but plenty of of pvp still happens in adventure, if Arena had split the player base like you are insisting, then there would be little to no people looking to pvp in adventure, and that clearly isn't the case.
Lets try this out, just to see how it sounds, shall we? Eh-hem...
(Pay attention to the subtle differences)
"Except, again I point out that PvE will not split the player base at all.
There will still plenty of people loading into adventure and seeking out, or at least hoping for PvE.
PvE won't compete with Adventure, it complements it.
When people said that a PvP version of adventure would split the player base what they meant was, the player base will be split by intent, with players only doing PvP in the Arena, and only PvE happening on the regular PvPvE side."
Now, I ask of you, how can you say all that, but follow with:
"Despite what you may think, Arena has not had that effect, sure some of the more aggressive and competitive crews may spend more time there, but plenty of of pvp still happens in adventure. if Arena had split the player base like you are insisting, then there would be little to no people looking to pvp in adventure, and that clearly isn't the case."
So, why should the aggressive PvP seekers get a game mode catered toward their playstyle, but PvE players not? You said yourself, the Arena, which attracts aggressive PvP players, had no effect on PvPvE. So, why would PvE servers? why should PvE players have to suffer the annoyance of PvP players? Because it would ruin the experience of the PvP players who have fewer people to hunt? And, why would they have fewer players to hunt if the addition of a game mode doesn't detract from the original intent of the sandbox?
I do acknowledge that there are inherent differences between the Arena and PvE, but I do not think they are as great as you think, nor do I think it would have as great an impact on the game as you think it would.
@xwakimx You might want to go back and read the comments again, almost everything you say there has been covered already.
FYI letting players choose their experience is sorting the player base.
@xwakimx said in [Mega Thread] PvP and PvE Playstyle Discussion:
@glannigan Because as a solo slooper most of the time, I am at a heavy disadvantage when I don't care about loot and just want to solo quest, but I keep getting rolled by larger ships and crews. Nothing is more frustrating when I don't care about the loot I've come across while questing (tall tales), but I've spent a couple hours finding quest items, only to get sunk and lose things like keys and gems when I get sunk by a large crew. No need to change the game, per say, just add a peaceful server; still open world "PVP," players can work together on rituals, skeleton ships, kraken fights, etc., but players who betray that "peaceful" mentality lose server privileges. If this seems too easy and you want the high risk, high reward game, play on regular PVP servers. If it seems unfair that players who risk less are rewarded the same, perhaps scale the loot payout. All I know is I am tired of getting about done with a quest after a couple hours sailing around and getting sunk by a ship I don't stand a chance against. No checkpoint where those quest items are returned to you? Start ALL over! Dumb.
There is no Sympathy for Self Inflicted wounds!
By Solo Slooping you are CHOOSING to play SOT’s on “Dark Souls” Difficultly!
@xwakimx I do agree with the point that the "Its a High Risk/High Reward game" being made by four man pirate legend galleons who are sinking solo sloopers is pretty bogus.
The issue practically with letting people choose ship size etc. is that I don't really think that it would make that much difference. The number of times PvP is a ship to ship actual battle is pretty low, and in a way it would take the brakes off some people's aggression. If you're a solo PvPer, knowing that you're as tooled up as anyone else on the server would probably just make you that much more aggressive.
Personally, I'd rather just see the claim of High Risk/High Reward made manifest. So if you sink someone the game counts up the number of ships their total crew has ever sunk, subtracts the number of ships your total crew ever sunk and uses the resultant number as a multiplier to your loot for the rest of the session. Actual High Risk/High Reward and Low/Risk Low Reward. Annihilate a solo sloop noob with a galleon and have your session zeroed for not playing High Risk. Take on a Pirate Legend Galleon with an inexperienced ship and see the money rain.
I think that one of the things that embitters PvE leaning players is being told "Its great, its High Risk/High Reward" by players who it feels aren't taking those Risks. If someone hangs about an Outpost with no loot on board all session they're not taking any Risk, they're just making it into a High Risk game for the PvE players, and then telling them how they should be thankful for them adding spice to the game. Just make it the same Risk/Reward prospect for everyone.
@expsnailer I do get your point, and I think I know where you're coming from, but I'm not sure that the principle in question is super worth the fight. I think there are a few lines here.
Where a PvE server is just SoT but with PvP play turned off, I think its reasonable to say that would not be a direct equivalent to Arena. Its hard to imagine what the direct PvP version equivalent of a PvE server would be. The equivalent to Arena would be a PvE world where there is, as we've said, Fishing and Racing and Chests to be sought out that win you its own separate set of ranks and awards.
I think its not unreasonable to say that a PvE version of Arena wouldn't split the player base but that a PvE server would (I will and have said that personally I don't happen to think that its true, but it is reasonable). I also don't think its totally contradictory to say that Arena diverts some players some of the time but doesn't, in a stricter sense, "Split them off", must as a PvE version of Arena would lead to some players enjoying it some of the time, but not constantly.
I think, and I may be wrong, that some of your ire might come from trying to spark up a debate on the subject and being shut down with "Rare said they didn't want to split the player base, so stop talking", and on that count I totally sympathize. People using what Rare have or haven't said in past interviews to use as a hammer to stop people working through ideas is pretty embittering and can lead to coming in swinging. Quoting Rare is not an actual argument, and what "Split the player base" means exactly and in relation to various modes is up for debate. You seem to think it means, diverting any part of the base from the core game for any period of time, others think it means something else. I don't think one is right or wrong, which is why using other people's words as an absolute when they're not there is probably a mistake.
Personally, I think that its possible that over time the mix of players will skew towards PvP and that Arena might have to some degree have been intended to balance that drift, but that's guesswork in the dark. The point is, sure, shooting down an idea because of an interpretation of what Rare said is rubbish debate. Suggesting that a straight PvE server is a bad idea because it might suck all the PvE out of the core game is something that we can all have a conversation about.
@gtothefo I've never viewed the "risk" side of the risk vs reward to mean treasure, or the gold and reputation it can bring. I believe the only thing we "risk" in SOT is our time, you can wager your time digging up an Athena OR tuccing on the ship doing the Athena voyage, either way both crews are wagering time spent, and the deciding factor is usually the skill and coordination of crews.
I also suspect this is how the development team views the risk/reward, otherwise, why are there not penalties for every time we sink, why don't we have to spend our gold on cannon balls and planks, or ammunition for guns.
There are other PVPVE sandboxes out there with these mechanics, but I doubt the introduction of them will make the pve crowd any happier.
@scarecrow1771 Sure, but I'm not clear on how that makes a specific difference. An inexperienced solo sloop is still running a far higher risk of losing that time than a pirate legend packed galleon, and if the two get into a combat, the Risk of that being wasted time for the galleon vs the Risk of it being wasted time for the sloop is not an even risk. The point remains that an experienced crew has less risk, whatever it is that you think they're risking, and yet their rewards are the same when they enter into PvP. If a single noob takes on a pack of Pirate Legends their odds of losing whatever they've invested there, time, gold, however you view it are almost 100%, and 0% visa versa. For an experienced PvP player to say, well, its a game of High Risk and High Reward when they're getting an equal pay-out for comparatively less risk just seems a little rich is all. Its simply not High Risk/High Reward for everyone, for some people its High Risk/Low Reward and for some its Low Risk/High Reward. I don't get a multiplier for being the least combat experienced player on a server, despite the fact that I'm clearly at a far higher risk of losing my invested time than the other players. I don't personally happen to mind that, but sometimes being told by people who are more likely to be at the Low Risk/High Reward that its High Risk/High Reward can be a little grinding is all, particularly when there's a way of making the equation actually true.
@thehunggamer Largely I'm personally inclined to agree, but there is a counter side to the argument, a lot of which I suspect hinges on some psychological factors. I'll try to summarize what seems to me to be some of the sides of the debate, but I'm sure people will feel free to correct me.
Pretty much the main counter to a PvE server with whatever, 50%, 10%, progression is that there are PvEvP or PvP players who think that whatever progression you got, even if it were 1%, there would be an unfairness to a bunch of worker ant pirates carefully grinding out their path to Pirate Legend. Risk from player assault is to some degree seen as an ultimate value there and not exchangeable with work or other risks. The response seems to be that if there were a full PvE version of adventure mode there would have to be 0 advancement.
It seems that at that point the PvE players take the position that they would be doing well over 0% of the work and taking more than 0% of the risk still, so a 0% reward seems like a slap in the face, which makes them unhappy. At that point, there seems to be something of an impasse.
I think that the issue here comes down to a point of psychology. So, for example, if there were two servers, one with PvEvP and one with PvE only, it would be possible to set it up so that a certain number of the chests in PvE would be empty, and that percentage would exactly match the number of chests that don't make it back in PvEvP mode. It could even be matched closely to a player's experience level. So, the rate of time invested to progress made in the two modes could run at a pretty much identical rate. Furthermore, there would be a risk, of a different type, in each server. However, the players in the PvE server would never run the risk of having something that they know is worth X in their hands and then seeing it ripped away. They would never have to risk the psychological pain that comes from endowment, the fact that if feels far worse to have something given to you and then taken away than it does to never have had it in the first place. Now, if players find the risk of such psychological punishment to add spice to their proverbial burrito, or at least if such players existed in an equal proportion to those that didn't, the two servers would be equally popular.
I think that one of the issues is that the "Risk" in PvEvP mode is largely perceived rather than present, and so its impact on the game is very difficult to moderate across players. More and more it seems to me that my perception of risk is decreasing, not because I'm picking up more skills, even though I am, but because my perception of my losses and my experience of the encounter rate on the seas is becoming more accurate. I'd say that the vast majority of PvE in the game is done without another player within 5 nautical miles at any point in the game. The actual risk that most people are actually running most of the time is neither ever present not actual, but the perception of that risk can vary wildly from player to player. The issue that I, and I think other players, find hard to square is that some days that perception is just a drag and I'd like to opt out from it. When I'm not in the mood its not sugar on my churro (can you tell that I've not had lunch yet?), its just a sense of gnawing emptiness in my belly and I'd like to enjoy what I enjoy without that, but instead I go and play a different game because the psychological ickiness is just not worth the pain in my neck.
That's part of why I'm so down on people trashing your ship when you're not even carrying, because the sense of horribleness then doesn't even have a chance of being a thrill of loss. Then its just like someone graffitiing your newly painted home, the slightly sick feeling that there are just nasty, destructive people in the world who want to smash things just because they have a hammer. Which isn't 100% fair, but it takes a gloss of the game far in excess of its value in my opinion.
@glannigan I think that's not really fair, since the option to construct an open crew doesn't give people the chance to signal their intent it can mean that if you just want to do a Tall Tale waiting until you find a Galleon's worth of people who feel the same way based on nothing but luck can take more time than actually playing. If its just a difficulty switch there should be more filters on the open crew build screen so I can actually pick up a Galleon full of people who want to play the third Tall Tale on my first try.
First off, you said it yourself you are brand new to the game. I'm pretty sure someone mentioned solo slooping somewhere and we addressed it as if you want to solo sloop then solo sloop but its not easy. If you aren't good enough then get good enough. If you don't want to then find players to play with.
It is not difficult at all to find players to play with especially if you are a PvE player. Said thing is that you are a castaway with like 20 different other castaways saying the same thing, which makes me wonder if the accounts are even real or just alt accounts.
Even if they weren't alt accounts all of the points have been discussed. I solo sloop all the time and I don't feel as if I'm at a disadvantage. Hell tell that to the Galleons and brigs running away from me. Try to find all the other threads with rookies talking about not being able to solo sloop and read all the comments from the veteran players who say that solo slooping is possible and easy and that players do it all the time with lots of success.
Basically get better at the game if you want to play hard mode.
No one is forcing players to play solo. 4 pirate legend crew sinking a solo slooper. You sure that even merits mentioning when Pirate legend is a worthless title?? You can get Pirate legend in a single day, don't believe me? Well it was done on a sloop and they even got attacked by a brig and a Galleon and sunk both ships.
Trying to say someone who is a pirate legend is far superior because they are is a false statement.
Also, to the point, solo slooping is a choice. I solo sloop and have no problems with it. Other solo sloop and have no problems with it. Why should the game be changed around players who don't want to learn the game?? The surprising thing is that this game is highly docile and passive.
Everyone complains about it being aggressive and a greifers holy land, can't be greifed in this game by enemy players though. However, this game is incredibly passive and docile. The players complaining about being attacked at outposts repeatedly or by island campers or being attacked everytime they set voyage or get to an island, basically any claim that they get attacked every 10 to 15 mins is completely and utterly made up.
This is why we will never agree because PvE players are talking about how they get attacked constantly but PvP'ers know that just doesn't happen because if a PvP ship is on the server with another PvP ship then why aren't there any fights?? When I solo sloop, how am I able to do athena runs completely from start to finish without being attacked?? How am I able to start FoTD's without being attacked or events, or quests or tall tales??
Don't get me wrong, I might get the one ship every 4 hours or so but thats 4 hours. That is hardly the picture of "EEEHHH MEEEEHH GEEEERRRD SHHHHIIIIPS ATTAAAAACKING"
Players want to play off getting attacked left and right when they tell us a story of how and when they lost their loot "I got attacked and greifed every game, how is it that I lost 6 hours of loot from being attacked!! this game is so unfair" - They talk as if they got attacked every 10 mins but if you look at their story they got attacked at the 6 hour mark.
You made the same mistake and many others "Why is it fair for someone to lose 6 hours of progress" - you do realize you just admitted to the frequency of how often you get attacked you know this right?? You only have 6 hours of progress if you weren't attacked for 6 hours.
You do see how empty the argument is from the PvE players right?? You see where the major hole is in the argument and why we just will not agree with the PvE crowd??
TURN IN YOUR LOOT - The only reason players horde loot onto their boat is for 2 reasons, they think its saves time turning in later or they think nothing bad will happen and they want to take some kind of screenshot to show are awesome they are with all the loot. So they want to show off how cool they are even with all the risk involved. I know if I was someone who got attacked every 10mins like they say they do I would turn in every chance I got so there would be no way I would lose 6 hours of progress.
Another hole in the argument see.
@gtothefo That's how pvpve games have always worked, there is always a bigger fish. Its what is supposed to push you to improve and learn from your mistakes. Rare have done their best to keep the skill gap down but at the end of the day, and in any game with pvp really, anyone who isn't good is going to lose to someone who is.
I can see this is a popular discussion, and I'm not surprised to be honest. And I think that Rare might have been partially responsible for this. Perhaps giving out player stats on things such as how many ship you sank last year was not the best idea. Clearly people are now bolstering those numbers and attacking solo sloopers they normally mightve just passed by so their stats will look better next time.
What I just don't understand is this elitist mentality that everyone has to look over their shoulder for fear of being murdered. Some people don't enjoy getting rolled, and they want a more calm experience. What's so bad about that? People want PvE only servers because they love the game and they want the opportunity to play it without the pieces that would frustrate them and turn them away from the game completely. Or to be able to play it in shorter time windows. What's so bad about that? If PvPvE is an option and PvE only is an option, how does this hurt the PvP player in any way?
@xultanis-dragon Firstly, yes, no-one is forcing people to play solo. If the only thing you happen to want to do on a given day is complete Tall Tale number four, for example, you can wait until you find a set of people who also want to do that, or some people that you nag or force into doing it, or just not do what you want to. You're not literally forced to do it, but people can be forced into choosing between two things they don't want to do. Saying, you're not forced to do X, there's a second more unpleasant alternative so you have a choice doesn't really run.
Secondly, are you saying that the people who picked up Pirate Legend in a day never had Pirate Legend previously? Or that progress of that kind is even close to normal? Because I've watched the vid in question, of two extremely experienced players (not even then are they willing to solo sloop it) and the whole point of the video is that its an extreme achievement. In the vast, vast, majority of cases, a player with no titles has far less experience than one who has Pirate Legend, and even then, Pirate Legend is, in this case, a short hand for a huge range of metrics that could include time in game, number of kills, percentage of loot returned or any number of other statistics that could, if wished, reasonably be used to measure the relative experience and ability of the two combatants. Hand on heart, if I picked a single player at random with no titles and no kills and put them in a solo sloop, then picked at random four players all with Pirate Legend and put them in a galleon, or for that matter one person also in a sloop and got them to fight off against each other, if you had to bet money on one winning and not the other would you be dropping your cash on the guy with no titles?
But the point of the no title VS pirate legend is purely as a response to the High Risk/High Reward argument, its not about the titles, its a measure beyond that, high experience means low risk, which is fine, which I don't have a problem with. But it just does not mean that its a High Risk/High Reward equation, that's all.
Thirdly, I'm not saying, hey, why do I lose 6 hours of progress. I'm saying firstly, hey, why can't I enjoy this amazing world on two settings rather than just one to match my varied moods? But secondly, a 6 hour session really isn't the problem, as you say, players can learn to deal with the issues there. Its the 45 minute session that's the problem when PvP encounters can regularly add 20 minutes to a session meaning that sometimes its just not possible to get something done. Even the extreme expert players that you talk about at the top of your post ended up in an hour long battle, having a game where a single session, where progress can't be saved or stored, can be of a length that's totally outside of the player's control is a serious issue for some players. I'm not worried about losing the progress from a 6 hour session, I'm annoyed that its often pointless logging on for a half hour or 45 minute session.
If I want to loot stack and roll like a boss, then obviously I'm welcoming the chance of being attacked and indulging in a second part of the game. But if I just want to sneak in a quick mission between a couple of real world activities, spinning around and seeing someone coming at me, knowing that even if I win the battle I'll not have time to turn the loot in I might as well just log out and get on with something more enjoyable. Some people don't have masses of time to set aside for their gaming, and they want to enjoy the world along with everyone else. Worse to those people is the perception that if they were PvP players they could just jump into Arena for a half hour blast, but since they're PvE players they just have to go off and play something else.
Did you read my post just two above your response where I pointed out that the perception of risk was significantly higher than the presence of risk?
@scarecrow1771 No, I totally get that and accept that, that's fine. That the game sometimes has an inexperienced player getting rolled by a master of the game is fine with me personally. What's not fine with me is the idea that the result of that event is High Risk/High Reward, that argument just doesn't float. I'm not questioning the facts of the game here, I'm questioning the matching of the argument "Well, its inherently a High Risk/High Reward game" to the reality of the game state. The point is that its clearly not High Risk to the very experienced player taking on the very inexperienced player. Again, that's fine, and again, that's the nature of a certain sort of learning curve. But its just not simply "High Risk/High Reward". All I'm saying is that particular response doesn't fly is all.
If the response was "Well, yeah, its kind of like a skill pyramid scheme, you get rolled by better players until you get the skills to be the better player and then you basically have no real threats or risks and get to roll like a boss, and the view from the top of the pyramid is pretty sweeeeeet.", then I have no problem with that argument matching to the game state. Its just the idea that "Oh no, we're all taking the same Risks for the same Rewards, so I with my 1000 hours of clocked game time is taking exactly the same Risks as the person who hasn't worked out that right mouse button makes you block yet." is just, please, really?
My point is, only one argument can be true, either its a skills curve and your risk diminishes as your skills climb, and so in fact its generally High Risk/Low Reward and Low Risk/High Reward (which is fine, and I think maps to the game, which is also why Rep level pops are exponentially graded) OR its High Risk/High Reward. I just don't think the High Risk/High Reward position stands up to examination is all.
@gtothefo said in [Mega Thread] PvP and PvE Playstyle Discussion:
@xultanis-dragon Firstly, yes, no-one is forcing people to play solo. If the only thing you happen to want to do on a given day is complete Tall Tale number four, for example, you can wait until you find a set of people who also want to do that, or some people that you nag or force into doing it, or just not do what you want to. You're not literally forced to do it, but people can be forced into choosing between two things they don't want to do. Saying, you're not forced to do X, there's a second more unpleasant alternative so you have a choice doesn't really run.
Unpleasant choices are subjective right? So why plan around people who are just going to whine about something? We do the same thing with children who don't want to do things and say they have no choice in the matter and yes I am equated the very same people as children.
The reason being is that again like we have mentioned, this game has been marketed, showcased, and interviewed to be exactly as what was released. A shared PvPvE world. Plenty of interviews that said the devs will never do a PvE server and that their vision for the world is shared where everything is a big what if and where you have to dictate your story. Same thing with the solo play. They gave players solo play not because it was something they planned but something that the player base begged for and Rare stipulated that if they do that the game is not going to be balanced around solo play. That players are choosing to play at a harder setting. That they are giving them the choice but the player will have to face the consequences of that choice.
So everyone that complains is being a child because they have the choice but are saying its too hard.
Who do we use as the common denominator?? They nerfed the Kraken because players said it was unfair against solo players. Really?? Was it really?? 4 Tentacles, 8 shots each. Thats it. So they nerfed it. 2 tentacles 8 shots each, STILL TOO FREAKING HARD. 2 Tentacles 3 or 4 shots each. I can kill the Kraken solo slooping in less time than it takes for it to spawn.
You want to know what critically acclaimed games use as their denominator?? Their best players.
I can solo sloop and do whatever I want. Another player can't. Who is right?? Should we dumb down the game because of someone who doesn't want to learn or put the time into getting better??
This is the fallacy a lot of game developers choose to do. They try to cast a wide net to catch a lot of demographics which ALWAYS fail. You can't make everyone happy because when you try to you get a lack luster game that is just pure garbage. No game that has tried to cast a wide net has succeeded. Games that focus on demographics have always been the best games on the market.
Rare said they wanted to cater to the PvPvE crowd. Players who want to do both, players who can do both. Said thing is that even Hardcore PvP'ers can PvE and are better at PvE then almost any PvE player. However, hardcore PvE players are not capable of PvPing.
So who do we cater to?? I bought a game that was marketed a certain way and you want to change that game. Is every single player allowed a refund if Rare changes their core vision for the game??
Secondly, are you saying that the people who picked up Pirate Legend in a day never had Pirate Legend previously? Or that progress of that kind is even close to normal? Because I've watched the vid in question, of two extremely experienced players (not even then are they willing to solo sloop it) and the whole point of the video is that its an extreme achievement. In the vast, vast, majority of cases, a player with no titles has far less experience than one who has Pirate Legend, and even then, Pirate Legend is, in this case, a short hand for a huge range of metrics that could include time in game, number of kills, percentage of loot returned or any number of other statistics that could, if wished, reasonably be used to measure the relative experience and ability of the two combatants. Hand on heart, if I picked a single player at random with no titles and no kills and put them in a solo sloop, then picked at random four players all with Pirate Legend and put them in a galleon, or for that matter one person also in a sloop and got them to fight off against each other, if you had to bet money on one winning and not the other would you be dropping your cash on the guy with no titles?
The fact that the got pirate legend in a day isn't a testament to their skill. Even though they are experienced, the ability to get to Pirate Legend in a day is a testament to how worthless the title is now.
You think players getting that in a day is skill based?? They did it in less than a day because they wanted to see what it was like to do it with just them. Now picture server alliances. Players getting Pirate Legend and Athena 20 in 3 days or even 2. I think I heard of a character getting Pirate legend in like 8 hours because of FoTD stacking with a full server alliance turn in loot with emissary.
The title Pirate legend is worthless now. Pirate Legend used to make players take a moment now its just garbage.
Again a testament to how easy things are now in the game. Players complaining about hours of work when the game literally throws loot at you from every direction.
Did you play this game at launch? Do you know how big the struggle was and how powerful the Pirate Legend title used to be?
But the point of the no title VS pirate legend is purely as a response to the High Risk/High Reward argument, its not about the titles, its a measure beyond that, high experience means low risk, which is fine, which I don't have a problem with. But it just does not mean that its a High Risk/High Reward equation, that's all.
Yes except everyone started that way. WE ALL started that way. The truth is that the game was significantly more dangerous and bloodthirsty during launch and about 6 to 8 months into release. Honestly all the way upto the shrouded spoils update it was pretty blood thirsty but the worst was the first 4 months of the game.
We were all new to the game once before. No one starts at this game and is a super awesome god player. So what should we do with players who can't take the heat and want to complain when we have thousands upon tens of thousands or even millions of players who went through the baptism of fire and came out the other side??
Again who is the common denominator that we balance around?? The ones playing the game and enjoying it or the ones begging for something else entirely.
Thirdly, I'm not saying, hey, why do I lose 6 hours of progress. I'm saying firstly, hey, why can't I enjoy this amazing world on two settings rather than just one to match my varied moods? But secondly, a 6 hour session really isn't the problem, as you say, players can learn to deal with the issues there. Its the 45 minute session that's the problem when PvP encounters can regularly add 20 minutes to a session meaning that sometimes its just not possible to get something done. Even the extreme expert players that you talk about at the top of your post ended up in an hour long battle, having a game where a single session, where progress can't be saved or stored, can be of a length that's totally outside of the player's control is a serious issue for some players. I'm not worried about losing the progress from a 6 hour session, I'm annoyed that its often pointless logging on for a half hour or 45 minute session.
Thats what the Arena is for. Its the condensed version of the game. Arena is not the PvP server. Its the game condensed.
Also I doubt every session is like that because again the games. I'm sorry but if you want to get on for 30mins to do something that isn't even long enough to do anything. I've been testing it out and timing and I rarely even see ships within the first 15 or 30mins and unless I'm actively looking for it I could go days without being attacked in this game.
I'm sorry but players want to play off that they get attacked every session or a majority of their sessions repeatedly within the first 10 or so mins. Just doesn't happen.
So why should we cater around the one offs?? You have 3 good sessions and then 1 bad one. Why should we balance around that 1 bad one you had??
Thats also something I want to point out. A lot of you discuss that its not about the progress or anything you just want to enjoy the game without being chased. Then why is a server with no progression a bad idea?? You get to enjoy the game like you said if thats really all you want to do. You can do the quests, you can kill that shark, you just don't get any progression. Its because its not about the enjoying the game, you guys want a guarantee on progression.
Like how some accuse PvP players of just wanting targets, PvE players just want easy mode because they are to lazy to get better at the game.
Now you are going to get mad or triggered slightly at the comment because its not true, but guess what, thats how PvP players feel when you guys use that comment about easy targets.
You don't want to PvP well sorry to say you bought a game with PvP in it. Why should the rest of the community who bought the game as is and are happy with it, be punished because of your mood?? You will be killing the game because of your "mood". Why is that right??
If I want to loot stack and roll like a boss, then obviously I'm welcoming the chance of being attacked and indulging in a second part of the game. But if I just want to sneak in a quick mission between a couple of real world activities, spinning around and seeing someone coming at me, knowing that even if I win the battle I'll not have time to turn the loot in I might as well just log out and get on with something more enjoyable. Some people don't have masses of time to set aside for their gaming, and they want to enjoy the world along with everyone else. Worse to those people is the perception that if they were PvP players they could just jump into Arena for a half hour blast, but since they're PvE players they just have to go off and play something else.
Arena is for everyone, not just PvPers. Arena is not the PvP server.
You are making a huge mistake by splitting the game into PvE or PvP. It is PvPvE. It is both at all times everytime. That is the issue at hand. You guys keep thinking of the game as one or the other. It is not. The Arena is a super condensed version of it which doesn't make it the PvP server and honestly not a lot of players play arena because its fun. If you haven't noticed a lot less players play arena because they got their commendations.
We never wanted Arena. We fought against it like hell, so trying to use Arena as a showcase is hurting you guys more than us because we didn't want it. PvE'ers wanted Arena because they thought it would pull PvP'ers away from the game. I know I never wanted Arena.
Did you read my post just two above your response where I pointed out that the perception of risk was significantly higher than the presence of risk?
Yeah I saw it. Except heres the thing what type of game did you purchase? Perceived risk is subjective. You see a ship off in the distance your perceive a threat and a risk. That is tied to your confidence and your skill. I see a ship off in the distance I perceive a ship off in the distance. I make note of the direction of the wind, how far they are and what island they are at.
You can learn a lot of information about a ship from location and among other things.
Also this again ties into what I was saying a lot earlier. You keep suggesting that the only way for you to be happy is if you had an option to choose what you wanted to do when you mood suited you. So you wanted a different server a PvE server.
Remember what I mentioned before?? How players get blinders on their ideas, thinking its the only option. PvE servers, segregating the community. This is not the only way to do things.
There are other ways to keep PvP'ers player busy in adventure without having to make PvE players the target 100% of the time.
Forts during launch were the perfect example of this. PvP'ers would wait for the Fort or just fight at the Fort. Majority of the complaining and crying wasn't from players attacking other ships doing quests. It was from PvE'ers complaining that they spend 40mins or an hour or even longer doing the fort and someone comes in and steals it or sinks them and finishes it and takes the loot.
Like I said there are ways to compromise and find a way for both sides without PvE servers. Take your blinder off and think about the game from a PvP'ers side. What is there for us to attack?? What is there in the game where a PvE player would take their chances at a contest event?? How would the game need to be set up so that these events would stay popular for months.
Just to let you know the Forts were constantly contested all the way up until Rare broke them with cursed crew. So about 6 months. 6 freaking months every single fort was contested for hours, multiple ships coming to fight sinking, respawning and coming back to try again. I've been in fort fights for 6 hours a few times. This went on every day, every single day for us PvP'ers. It brought the WHOLE server in for a fight for hours. The whole community fighting over a single event, 6 months of fighting over the same event, the same loot. PvE players and PvP players. BOTH constantly and EVERY FREAKING DAY
Then shrouded spoils came out and no one touches forts and look at the events they keep releasing, you see players doing it for maybe a week tops and then nothing. A single week and the event is worthless and dead.
Do you finally understand our side of this at all? Do you finally understand where your pain is coming from?? Its not the PvP'ers.
SIDE NOTE The unintended consequence to the Fort and how the game changed from Shrouded Spoils made it to where the main target wasn't the events or the players at those events. The main target are the players sailing now. Changes have unintended consequences when you are trying to go against your vision or try to make a bunch of players that aren't even part of your demographic happy.
@gtothefo said in [Mega Thread] PvP and PvE Playstyle Discussion:
@glannigan I think that's not really fair, since the option to construct an open crew doesn't give people the chance to signal their intent it can mean that if you just want to do a Tall Tale waiting until you find a Galleon's worth of people who feel the same way based on nothing but luck can take more time than actually playing. If its just a difficulty switch there should be more filters on the open crew build screen so I can actually pick up a Galleon full of people who want to play the third Tall Tale on my first try.
But that’s not true. Everyone has access to the built in XBOX LFG Tool.
I can make a post right now for a Sloop/Brig or Galleon and have a full crew with the same exact goals
And expectations in 5 minutes or less.
Hell half the Groups posted are stuff like Tall Tales Chapter 3, Tall Tales Speed Run, Tall Tales 2 Sloop Alliance, Tall Tales - All Chapters 5x Brig, etc, etc
Or even people in the middle of it! Tall Tales this or that need help with this or that. People jump in help you and leave.
It’s literally THAT EASY!
@scarecrow1771 Your assuming that a PvE server would be adventure with no PvP. It dosn't have to be that. Much like that lady who seems to think she can speak for me did in the forum I posted, your trying to use what some PvEers are requesting as a way to legitimize the argument. This is simply false. I don't care what PvEers are asking for my argument isn't to defend what they are asking for it's to show exactly how a PvP server is just as much splitting the community as a PvE server would. Weather you think it's slight or big isn't the argument, it is splitting the community at some level much like a PvE server would.
@ajm123 said in [Mega Thread] PvP and PvE Playstyle Discussion:
@stundorn so your saying all pvp is wrong and all pvpers are toxic
I'm at 21 million meters. I can assure you it's the pve people who are toxic because they got sunk because they had a emissary flag. I've been called way worse by people who send us on a goose chase for a hour for no reason other then refusing to pvp.It is a game there is winners and losers. I get refusing to lose but don't send msgs threating people ext.
I've said it once and i will say it 1000 times more..If I reported any of the screenshots I have from pve players and what they say when they sink in msgs in game or on Xbox they would be banned.
I choose not to.Also I find it funny any time I get in a good battle and fight back id say 95% of the time it's just a GG. So I think the issue has more to do with people not knowing how to pvp or shoot a cannon.
I 100% disagree with everything and I'm there least biased person when it comes to this
OMG YES the not knowing how to shoot a cannon is a massive problem and I feel the only real way to fix that would be to add a easy pve mission in the maiden voyage
@combatxkitty Don't speak for me, your flat out wrong. You used arguments that validate nothing because they didnt pertain to what the forum was posted for. Anyhow it's clear to see that altho you said "nothing personal" in that forum that it is. You must still be upset about me missing your comment, as if Im somehow obligated to even reply to everyone, I had already apologized for missing it, but by then you didn't even want to truly discuss anything you just literally shot down anything I said with argument, again, that didn't pertain to the original statement. I will say it again as I said in the forum, you are misunderstanding me and need to re read what it was about. ❤️
@expsnailer said in [Mega Thread] PvP and PvE Playstyle Discussion:
@combatxkitty Don't speak for me, your flat out wrong. You used arguments that validate nothing because they didnt pertain to what the forum was posted for. Anyhow it's clear to see that altho you said "nothing personal" in that forum that it is. You must still be upset about me missing your comment, as if Im somehow obligated to even reply to everyone, I had already apologized for missing it, but by then you didn't even want to truly discuss anything you just literally shot down anything I said with argument, again, that didn't pertain to the original statement. I will say it again as I said in the forum, you are misunderstanding me and need to re read what it was about. ❤️
I wasnt trying to speak for you, I was just trying to save @Scarecrow1771 time and headache.
Has nothing to do with you missing my comment and I really do not take what you say personally. Again was just trying to warn someone not to bother going down that road. You have your thread about it, no need to drag that hotmess here too.
@combatxkitty Your proving my point, it's not personal yet somehow you think that telling people not to enter discussion with me isn't personal. You don't know me and clearly don't understand the standpoint I have, all your trying to do is devalidate anything I say with no credibility. You could have easily replied with something constructive but you didn't, your goal was to devalidate me with no credibility.
@expsnailer You have your own thread, it died because people got tired of trying to explain to you how your argument has no legs. Is this for PvP and PvE playstyle or is this for how Arena splits the community?
I never told @Scarecrow1771 how to think, I simply was trying to save someone aggravation.
Stay on topic please.
Also I have nothing more constructive to say on your misbelief that a full PvE server where you can do voyages , forts on ect is equal to Arena isnt accurate(which is why one is not a hypocrite as you like to claim for being ok with Arena but not with a full PvE server). I already posted on your thread and this thread isnt for that.
I will give you this, I should have PM'd him, my bad on that.
@xultanis-dragon Again, I'm not saying to plan around people who complain about something, my issue there isn't about the disagreement, its about the response. The point is that saying "You're not forced to solo sloop" doesn't really fly, sure, you're not shackled to doing solo sloop, but picking a crew blind does put you in the position of doing what they want to do not what you want to do. Wanting to do a Tall Tale and not a Ghost Fleet, or visa versa really isn't that unreasonable an ask, and saying that you're only forced to solo sloop if you want a modicum of control over that choice is kind of like saying you're forced to solo sloop, at least sometimes. I'm still not clear on why there couldn't be an option on the crew seeker screen to set filters on what you're up for doing when seeking a crew to help with that. Even with children we don't force them to spend their free time performing an activity picked from a sack. If you could have some small control over what you're doing with a blind picked crew I think that would really help with the solo slooper issue, and I'm not clear on what the counter argument would be.
The thing is, its all well and good to say that the game wasn't balanced for solo play and that Rare stipulated that, but frankly, its not stipulated on the Steam page that the game isn't balanced for Solo play. If its true, it shouldn't be a huge surprise when people react to that.
Again, I feel like you're missing the point that I'm making about the High Risk/High Reward debate. I'm not saying that there's a problem with the game there, I'm really not, I'm saying that there's a problem with the answer to people who don't like the game that its High Risk/High Reward. The point is that its not, its a sliding scale where ability reduces risk and increases reward. Which is fine, I'm fine with that, I'm honestly not making a point about the game here, I'm making a point about a response to people who complain about it that happens to be fallacious.
My point here is that saying "Its High Risk/High Reward, so that's okay" happens to be false. That's not any kind of suggestion that the game needs to be changed, the point there is that that particular defense of the game happens not to follow. The point about high skilled and low skilled players being in the same bucket that I'm making isn't that its a problem, or even that its actually unfair, the point I'm making is that it happens to make the exchange something other than High Risk/High Reward, that's all.
30-45 minutes is plenty of time to pick up a couple of fish and run them out to the Hunter's Call, its plenty of time to go and read a couple of journals towards a commendation. In relation to why 1 bad session should be given more weighting than 3 good ones, because that's how people's memories work sometimes. Its the same as the endowment fallacy that people suffer from, its a matter of perception, and its about how those shorter sessions get wasted and the nature of the progress that early players experience because of them that matters because it drives new players away from the game.
The thing about the changes in the game's difficulty is, on release day there were no more experienced players, and now there are, which means that new players have a new and far more deadly threat to face than anyone who started the game on day one. No in game threat is close to that offered by a human player that's been learning the game for a couple of years. I suspect that the reason Rare have modulated some of those PvE threats down is because the overall death rate of new players has probably stayed pretty stable despite those changes. People here talk about how a PvE server would kill the game, I'd suggest that a perception of a game that is impossible to get going in because its full of unbeatably experienced players could kill it just as hard. I agree that this is a perception rather than a reality, but its perception that will drive people away, and its new players that bring most of the revenue to the game, and its the revenue that is going to keep the game alive.
You ask who the game should be balanced towards, the ones who have already bought all the upgrades they're interested in or the ones who haven't spent any of their money on it yet and I think I know which of those crowds need to be bought in if the game is going to carry on into the future.
Again, its not about a guarantee on progress, its about not wanting to waste time. If someone hunts out and reads a journal in no progress PvE mode, are they then forced to run around and read it in progress PvEvP mode to pop the commendation? The work's been done, having read it can't be stolen off them, does anyone doubt that they can get to the journal in the PvEvP server if they found it in the PvE one? Making them do it twice just seems petty at that point.
You seem certain that having a PvE mode will kill the game, I'm not so sure. I'd suggest that if the game becomes too unwelcoming to new players that will kill it in a much more real sense. Why should your unwillingness to let people progress without the blood, sweat and tears that you put into it be allowed to kill it? Why would that be right?
My point is that perceived risk is subjective. What I'm talking about is that finding ways to help new players deal with that perception is important. My point is that the number of actual encounters in the game is tiny, but the psychological impact on a new player is all out of whack with that. As I've said, if I get attacked and lose a Captain's chest its what, one of a hundred, easy come, easy go. But for a new player, that can be losing half of all the loot they've picked up in the entire game. What I'm saying is that to help the game keep rolling, picking up the new players that it needs to carry on that impact has to be dealt with in some way, and its not currently being done. I think having a separate PvE mode similar to Arena where players can pick up separate progressions in a mode where loss is less possible might be a good way to do that. If people can have a sideline progress that can't be lost in a separate mode they can, say, at first run all their sessions in that mode, then take one out of five sessions in the 'real world' then more, then more, until they're fully in the real world.
I'm not saying there is one answer, I don't think I've ever suggested that, and if there is, I don't by any means think that I've got it, I really don't think that suggesting that I'm looking at this with blinders is a fair comment based on the positions that I've shown here. I really don't think that active interesting PvP encounters is the problem in the game, and I don't think I've put forward a point of view that personally suggests that. I think that the real issue is a feeling of nastiness about certain sorts of PvP encounters, the Outpost campings, the empty ship Tall Tale sinkings. I don't think that's being done by PvPers hungry for interesting encounters, I think that's coming from a very different set of drives. I agree that interesting massed battles sound cool, and I'm sad to not have been playing in those games, when I was new to the game I spent a few sessions sailing to the Flameheart event thinking that I'd see players from all over the server swinging in so that we could fight shoulder to shoulder against this supposed great threat. It seems to me now that everyone just ignores the big red faced idiot and gets on with what they're already doing, which is a shame.
I never said I had the answers here, all I'm saying is that there seem to be a lot of people with issues, and I'm not sure that nothing should be done about that.
@illroyalpanda I think personally I've said this since I first tried maiden voyage. The pirate lord should warn you about other pirates. Explain some are good and some are bad.
Maybe you should have to sink a skelly ship or hit targets with the cannon.
Even block the exit with a ship and when you sink it the area opens
This is all after the fact easy to come up with but it would help a lot
I learned how to shoot cannons sinking the 500 skelly ships
I learned how to shoot guns in arena (triumphant legendary seadog)
Everything in the game teaches you something.
this literally was my first FPS GAME so if I can do it anyone can I literally only played UFC and nhl games before getting into the alpha of sea of thieves and it took arena for me to learn how to shoot the guns lol these kids need to try harder and learn
I'm mainly focused on PvE but I don't have the same issues some have with PvP. I've come to terms with the game breeding antisocial behaviour and I enjoy the interactions that are more positive - whether that involves PvP or not.
The problem, I think, is the lack of any kind of real matchmaking. You throw the baby lambs in with the wolves and they're going to get slaughtered, and you can't expect them to be happy about that, or expect the wolves to conceed.
How do you get around that? Just one idea: maybe allow new players to progress to level 10, with a gold/doubloons cap, in all factions on a private server and then they have to talk to an NPC (the mysterious stranger?) who will let them progress further on public servers (or at any point before reaching level 10 they can talk to this NPC to move on). At least let new players get a proper feel for the game before they get thrown in at the deep end.
Add to that the communication issues (whether that's the issues a lot of people have with mics in-game or that consoles don't allow players to be in a party and have in-game chat plus private chat) and it's easy to see where some players dehumanise others to a point where empathy goes out the window. One of the biggest selling points of this game, the social aspect, is also one of its weakest features.
Finally, I would say you need to be more consistent on the "Pirate Code & Community Code of Conduct". In game, you have the Reaper's Bones denounce the Pirate Code and this gives the impression to a lot of people that the IRL code doesn't mean anything either.
I have played PvPvE games where the balance has been destroyed and good luck doing any kind of PvE work, only way is to lag out your own server.I feel like SOT really has been able to balance the two nicely, I am a life long gamer, trust me ive played many many games for many many years so I know what I am talking about.
I feel like its a good balance at the moment. As a PvPvE'r I worry if there is a full PvE playstyle adventure mode many would elect to grind in safety there and many would do so to only come back into main adventure mode even more aggressive since they just did everything they needed to do on the PvE server so now are only on the PvPvE server to soley fight. I just feel like I would end up on more aggressive servers as a PvPvE'r and would have to go to play on the PvE to play.
Even if Rare did a PvE server where nothing transfered to main adventure still would affect server population and most like have more aggressive servers.
PvE within reason would be fine just not a full version.
@realstyli I agree with you. They need to fix the matchmaking. The PvP combat is perfectly fine, but it is NOWHERE NEAR fair. You have a single person on a sloop defending against a maxed out galleon. In a game where skill determines power, you HAVE to have a good matchmaking system, or nobody will have fun. And there needs to be something detrimental about PvP combat, because otherwise what stops people from simply attacking that one sloop that spent the past 12 hours gathering over a hundred chests? I think that stolen loot should be worth twice as much, but every ship on the server is the same size. Furthermore, if you raise the offer alliance flag outside of combat, or if you form/join an alliance, you cannot be attacked, or attack someone who isn't in an alliance. And if you leave an alliance, you cannot attack anybody who was in the alliance for 45 minutes.
Available on:
