After thought:
We absolutely love this game.
We love the PvEvP and do not want to get rid of it or change it.
This thread, from my understanding is to offer thoughts and suggestions of ideas for the game to "add". Not remove.
The game is still growing. It is our hangout. No, we do not want to get rid of the PvPers. No we do not want to make PvE only servers. (lame). Just offering ideas for other additional game play that would work inside of it.
@cdr-alfonso You have an agenda here, and you are willing to ignore facts and dismiss realities to attempt to make your point. People are backing up their arguments with quotes from developers, real world examples, and knowledge of basic human behaviour, and you come back with "I believe".
]
Also going to add, creating an opt out system, or separate servers is no "simple" change, this is something that the Devs have said before would be like creating and curating an entirely new and separate game, something that would take quite some effort and they have no interest in.
@scarecrow1771 Yep that is how it works right? Dismiss facts, human behavior, dismiss what the actual game developers have said and simply go by what they believe. Well I think I will go with facts and game dev statements over what someone "believes" especially when I would say from experience here most times these beliefs are coming from people who havent even been playing the game for a month!
@b4adle7 said in [Mega Thread] PvP and PvE Playstyle Discussion:
@wagstr Wow, didn't need to bait the breath for long to get good responses did you! It is nice to get responses from people not promoting to not play the game.
@Xultanis-Dragon What an amazing response/post! Thank you! And yes, to be fair the amazing content SoT has been adding is PvE, so I retract the accusation of PvP getting updates aside from the Reapers Hideout updates and the emissary flag. (Which we have enjoyed also.)
O.k. will accept the accusations of being biased thinking about the friends that just cannot defend themselves even after MANY hours of game play. (Working on helping them I am said in Yoda voice)
So there is where it isn't understood where PvP is on a tight leash? Do explain.
So when the game first came out it was very bloodthirsty and the algorithm they had for the game had more players per server than it does now. In those days it was incredibly common to see a ship on the horizon and it do an anchor turn straight towards you.
Unlike now that you see most ships on the horizon that avoid you.
Then there were forts that spawned on a 3 of 4 hour timer. Which in that time help facilitate PvE players into PvP and gave PvP'ers a location to fight and hunt. The seas were relatively quiet while everyone fought for the fort.
During this bloodthirsty period Rare released Alliances to curb the PvP a little and it worked. According to their update, open engagements were down and alliances were being formed. As many betrayals but just as many actual alliances. Since loot and rep were hard to come by players shared or split loot accordingly to what they needed.
So alliances were the first step. The next instance were the weekly events and monthly events that always had at least a few commendations that said "complete as an alliance". Again in an effort to get players to play together and not hunt each other.
However, this was all doable for most crews again because PvP'ers had a place to fight and hunt where everyone joined in, The forts.
Loot and gold was scarce, a lot more so. The only way to get loot was to find it, or quest for it. It wasn't in the water with barrels, meg and kraken dropped no loot. So it was Fort, Quest, or find it on an island.
The beauty of this scarcity and rarity is that when the forts finally popped, everyone would go for it. Even PvE players because why not. Sell all your loot and go fight for the fort. PvP'ers would go, PvE'ers would go, and the whole server would fight at one location for HOURS.
Sometimes there were ships on the server that used that time to do other things like questing or exploring because as long as that skull was in the sky, thats where all the combat would be.
Rare wanted to help players with the grind and with the fact that forts were so bloodthirsty. After releasing shrouded spoils update, Events were now a constant thing. One fort is done, another one takes it place almost immediately within 5 mins, sometimes 15 to 20 if the kraken spawned on someone.
However, with the introduction of loot with barrels, megs dropping loot, kraken dropping loot, loot being EVERYWHERE. There was NO reason to do Forts anymore.
When PvE players sink at a fort or someone comes to attack, they just leave and wait for the next one. Why not, it'll be up in like 5 mins. PvP'ers fight but the fight is just 2 ships and that last for maybe 30mins??
We went from a contested event that had players fighting over it EVER SINGLE DAY for 6 to 8 months straight. Players fighting for 2 to even 6 or even 8 hours for a single fort with the whole server coming, ships leaving and new ships coming in and fighting some more.
We went from that to no one even bothering with forts anymore. For multiple reasons. 1 why fight when another one will be up?? Also why fight over something that you can earn in less time than it takes to fight over it with the change they made to loot spawns in the game??
So they wanted to lower the amount of open engagements, and they wanted to give PvE'ers more content and something ELSE to grind for with commendations, all of these changes to give PvE players MORE to do and try to force PvP players into situations of Cooperation.
With everyone grinding to pirate legend in a week or less now because of the sheer amount of loot you had pirates that had pirate legend with nothing left to do. These are the PvPvE type players. All the PvE is done, so whats left?? Yup PvP. Alliances were now a joke because why make an alliance when I don't need specific loot I just need the gold. So why get 50% of something when I can have 100%.
So now you have Pirates who are pirate legend, with no PvE content that want PvP, and now you have PvP players with no contested event to fight over because no on wants to do it.
Where do all the PvP'ers go now with no central location for them to gather at and have measuring contest?? Hunt PvE players.
Being in the middle, granted leaning toward PvE do to the crew's desires, the encounters are varied. Have encountered many PvP that wipe us out in one shot or give us a great challenge and get to talk with them discussing the tactics we encountered and even shared ideas. But way more often encountered PvPers screaming vulgarity and talking constant childish insults. The pointing out of a PvEer being the worst may come from only attacking them. I will state that if we get destroyed by a PvPer, as long as they aren't toxic trash, I will always complement them on the thorough thrashing we had just received.
The thing is that most PvP'ers act that way to get a reaction. Thats it. Its like poking at your friend because you want to irritate them a little bit or the trash talking you do at a competitive match.
It gets worse when the PvP players realize you are taking it personally. What they want is a reaction thats all. Could it just be overzealous banter?? More than often probably is. Can some individuals take it too far sometimes?? Oh definitely but I only believe that when it comes to children in the game. Children SHOULDN'T be in the game but even if they are we should watch what we say to them.
I completely agree with you. Precaution on who you meet, and be ready for whatever does happen. Pointing out what happens with alliances is just pointing out what happens.
Pretty much. Again, alliances use to work better. The only downside is that there are thousands of players that would probably form actual alliances with you except they are all in the alliance servers. I found 3 of them and noticed that a lot of players stop playing the game once they complete everything and usually only takes about 2 weeks to farm up everything they need. As much as a month. Then those players leave the game and wait for the next update, do everything they need in less than a day then leave and wait another month.
I know why they did alliances, but they messed up with how it gave more rep and gold. 1000 chest is now worth 1500. In a game where gold income was an issue that community tried to address before it went insane as it is now.
But the idea of a support emissary "forcing" you into something? Is this a False Dichotomy fallacy? The support emissary is simply a suggestion for people that are a polar opposite of the PvP only crew. How would that force anything?
Well not support emissary but emissary in general was a try at an idea right?? PvE players want to gain extra rep to make their grind easier then the flag would help but make them targets.
PvP players want people to fight then Fly the Reaper flag and hunt the emissaries or hunt other Reaper ships.
Only problem is what is the incentive for the PvE player to fight the PvP ship?? Do you have one at all??
What incentive does the PvP player have to fly a Reaper flag when other players on the map can see him and leave almost immediately??
LOL, I've seen Reaper Galleons run away from Merchant sloops lol.
Obviously the Reaper Galleon was PvE'ers trying to get their reaper rep and the merch was the PvP crew trying to earn merch, but still lol.
Good idea but bad for this game. Bad implementation.
I so dislike the idea of PvE servers. More than half of the game would be taken away. The upcoming "custom servers" can be for them. But no, have not noticed a lot posts for PvE servers comes from new players. Do you have a citation for that?
Check the names of the posts whenever you see a post complain about PvP or request that PvE servers be allowed. They are castaways and if you check their profiles they have less than 1m meters sailed and have only played the game for about 2 weeks.
I'm not trying to exaggerate or push my agenda, its what a lot of us have noticed. There are a FEW vets that might advocate for PvE, but the major outcry is from newer players.
Nope, not one side nor one or the other. Feels biased on your end as only PvP.
As noted in the post it is just ideas for a support emissary with a lot of balance to think about. No one would ever be forced into anything. Keep in mind stating that if you are so good that you only do PvP, wouldn't trying out support be a challenge? Or wouldn't be a challenge to go against someone with support be bragging rights?
It boils down to incentive.
In a game where there is a shared world of PvPvE, PvE players are going to be the target. How do you mitigate this?? You incentivize the PvE players INTO PvP. Now we majorly PvPvE players in the community but they lean slightly to one side or the other depending on whats going on or whats available.
In the past, forts made everyone lean towards PvP because you didn't lose anything you didn't bring with you. PvE'ers took a chance and with the PvE'ers taking a chance it brought the PvP'ers.
This wasn't a mandatory thing, there was no commendation for this. It was just the best place for high tier loot. Difference between this and FoTD is that no one had to activate this so no one has any stake in it. Its just like a beacon that says "FREE FOR ALL IF YOU WANT THIS BOOTY!!!"
PvE'ers would form alliances to take on the PvP ships and work together.
Now you are going to ask how do we incentivise PvP'ers into PvE?? Well the game pretty much already did that. With skelly ships, kraken, megs. When they spawn we have to take care of it and honestly I have those spawn almost everytime I about to approach a ship or I'm fighting one. IT IS SOOOOOO ANNOYING lol.
Look at it this way. The game in the beginning had a contest event called forts that spawn every 3 or 4 hours, where the whole server would come together and fight. EVERYONE. PvE, PvP, PvPvE, someones grandmother.
This happened everyday, almost every single fort, 2 to 5 ships fighting for HOURS and HOURS. This went on for 7 months. Everyday, one event.
Look at the current state of events. Look at the updates. Its just a grind fest. Do this event this many times for this commendation once your done no one does it anymore.
How often do you see events and just KNOW in your heart of hearts going there is a waste of time because more than likely no one is there.
The game pushed us apart because of the reviews at launch and pushed us apart because Rare got scared. Instead of building on their shared world they instead tried to do what every other game does to keep players playing. By praying on humanities addictive natures. How many friends do you know who played WoW or a game that has a daily or a weekly?? They tell you "yeah man I'm in, just let me finish this daily/weekly". They aren't getting anything more or better. They just don't want to feel as if they missed out.
They then took away the fighting grounds for PvP'ers and put a leash on us trying to make us play nice with everyone with forced alliances and forced commendation farming.
The game went from Loot and Rep being the important thing to commendations.
@Scarecrow1771 & @COMBATxKITTY
I'm yet to assume anything that isn't a direct and logical end-point to arguments presented to me. If I'm ignoring certain arguments made it's because they're wholly irrelevant to the conversation here.
@combatxkitty said in [Mega Thread] PvP and PvE Playstyle Discussion:
You bring up another game [...].
Let me explain why I bring up other games... as evidence to suggest that what I'm asking for is possible without the supposed consequences stated by people against what I'm asking for.
Games are certainly different between each-other, and nobody is claiming otherwise.
You claim people who want to PvE only are leaving the game when they were never Rare's target customer to start with. Who cares?
Nobody needs to care, and I've already mentioned this. If the ultimate argument is that dev-time should be dedicated to the currently captured (and retained) audience, then okay, sure. I am suggesting additions that may also serve to capture and retain more players - more profits. By all means, this isn't necessary profit at all.
You wont answer whether or not you get attacked every time you try to play and then go on to say "it doesnt matter even once is too many" which I find to be totally ridiculous.
From the perspective that it will neither change the course of the argument because as demonstrated by @xultanis-dragon (said in [Mega Thread] PvP and PvE Playstyle Discussion ), no matter my answer you've got an unsatisfactory answer; nor is it relevant because I'm arguing for the option to opt-out.
Saying "But you can eaaaasily avoid it!" or "5+ hours of uninterrupted gameplay is great!" is not a compelling argument when the position you're trying to convince is someone who wants an option to just not deal with it.
Like, if I say that every hour of playtime I'll encounter another ship not flying a flag suggesting that they're friendly; so I need to plan my course around them (which means perhaps go do another activity instead because they're at an island I need to be at). Sometimes, that player, lets say 50% of the time (generously) actually comes after me. I now have to spend a chunk of time running away (which will lead to me just sailing off-map if they don't give up). Say (generously) that 90% of players that have chased me haven't given up the chase. That's a 45% chance that if I see a player, or a player sees me (which are both likely to happen simultaneously); my session ceases to be enjoyable (and I generally put down the game for the day).
This is a perfectly reasonable assessment of the situation; no, I didn't need to PvP, I avoided it. It has nonetheless ended with me not being able to continue enjoy the parts of the game that I find truly compelling. That's why it doesn't matter how often it happens, because the fact it does occur means that the option to opt-out (by having a singleplayer or private server for example) is still relevant.
So basically your only argument is all anyone who wants PvE servers can come up with:
- Everyone should be happy.
- It will be simple!
Way to do what you're accusing me of doing, but hey. I can reverse that on you right now if you'd like.
Your arguments are;
You then discredit any argument presented as to why it could make others happy and why it's not that hard to do.
For example;
The developers are, in fact, producing private servers. Now, they're planned to have no progression enabled, but the core is there. If the developers so wished, the servers could have progression.
Personally, I wouldn't mind a singleplayer mode (a client-side server, again, not impossible nor necessarily hard) in which I can play with my friends on a single boat as some type of solo boat on the seas; even if it meant the progression there couldn't be transferred.
The categorical refusal to acknowledge the feedback and requests from a certain portion of players (new or not) is what you're doing. I'm happy to listen to improvements you suggest to the game, I've also acknowledged logical/ good arguments you've made in this discussion. In those cases, I've accepted that they're plainly a difference of opinion.
@cdr-alfonso Feedback is fine, but you are suggesting things that are contrary to the core vision of SOT, damaging to the game and its community in the long and short term and just plain unfeasible. It does not seem unreasonable to me that the community here on the forums wants you to understand the game, and at the very least, know what you are talking about.
From what I understand of SOT, most peoples computers cannot run an SOT server, never mind last gen consoles. This is partially why the upcoming private servers will need to be rented. And again, any changes to eliminate pvp from SOT would require a massive rework of the game and its mechanics, to pretend otherwise is wilful ignorance.
@scarecrow1771 said in [Mega Thread] PvP and PvE Playstyle Discussion:
[...] damaging to the game and its community in the long and short term and just plain unfeasible.
This is precisely what's causing arguments. It's certainly not settled whether or not the changes would do the damage being claimed. I can understand that it may not be the original and current vision of Sea of Thieves, and I have admitted as much.
Here's the options I think would be interesting to introduce;
By no means does Sea of Thieves need to include this, simply my position.
@cdr-alfonso said in [Mega Thread] PvP and PvE Playstyle Discussion:
- Private servers, as they are being developed, will be rented. I understand they're currently not planning on adding the ability to gain anything in them but as we've been arguing, there really shouldn't be a reason to allow for it. People could host private servers that are "PvE only" servers, where you'd be banned for doing PvP. It doesn't require any rework at all, but perhaps a shift from the 'core vision'.
The existence itself of a potential PVE space, with or without reward, is already a shift of the core vision, to which people should already be grateful to have access someday. Considering that the devs are always encouraging player interactions and tailoring events and activities in that optic, it is perfectly fair and reasonable to incentivise and reward players who choose to take part and contribute to the ecosystem.
PVE people keep asking for a choice, and that's exactly what they will have, the choice to play in peace at their pace without any worry of losing loot to other players (or PVE threats for that matter), or taking the same risks as everybody else to have access to the same rewards as everybody else.
You don't seem to quite realise the fair compromise being presented (and accepted by pretty much everybody else, even PVEVP people), and simply ask for the core vision to be changed for you without any middle ground.
- Expand Maiden's Voyage to provide the world as a true sandbox in solo, and perhaps over time the addition of Co-Op as a single crew in the Sea of Thieves world could be achieved.
Agreed! Maiden Voyage definitely needs to be extended to give more training to players and prepare them better for the journey and adventures ahead of them. Rewards should be the same as custom/private servers though. Same situation, same risk/reward compromise.
@combatxkitty sadly having spent some time with the UK fire brigade and been part of their failed support for an attempt to have the signs supported legally for the emergency services I'll have to respectfully disagree with the New South Wales police spokesperson, emergency service members do take notice of those signs. I apologize for the lecture, but having seen the lives that the I truly believe a proper respect for the signs could have saved, I'm not likely to lose my anger on the subject. And even the wiki article you quote says that the Massachusetts father bought the idea from a woman who found a version of the sign already being used in Germany, where it was already in circulation, he was led to purchase their company due to his driving experience, he didn't invent or even come up with the concept of circulating the sign in the US. But yes, I think it best to move on.
@cdr-alfonso said in [Mega Thread] PvP and PvE Playstyle Discussion:
@Scarecrow1771 & @COMBATxKITTY
I'm yet to assume anything that isn't a direct and logical end-point to arguments presented to me. If I'm ignoring certain arguments made it's because they're wholly irrelevant to the conversation here.
@combatxkitty said in [Mega Thread] PvP and PvE Playstyle Discussion:
You bring up another game [...].
Let me explain why I bring up other games... as evidence to suggest that what I'm asking for is possible without the supposed consequences stated by people against what I'm asking for.
Games are certainly different between each-other, and nobody is claiming otherwise.
You claim people who want to PvE only are leaving the game when they were never Rare's target customer to start with. Who cares?
Nobody needs to care, and I've already mentioned this. If the ultimate argument is that dev-time should be dedicated to the currently captured (and retained) audience, then okay, sure. I am suggesting additions that may also serve to capture and retain more players - more profits. By all means, this isn't necessary profit at all.
You wont answer whether or not you get attacked every time you try to play and then go on to say "it doesnt matter even once is too many" which I find to be totally ridiculous.
From the perspective that it will neither change the course of the argument because as demonstrated by @xultanis-dragon (said in [Mega Thread] PvP and PvE Playstyle Discussion ), no matter my answer you've got an unsatisfactory answer; nor is it relevant because I'm arguing for the option to opt-out.
Saying "But you can eaaaasily avoid it!" or "5+ hours of uninterrupted gameplay is great!" is not a compelling argument when the position you're trying to convince is someone who wants an option to just not deal with it.
I think those are great arguments. Lots of others thinks so too. The option is there, its called not getting a game that has PvP that you hate.
Like, if I say that every hour of playtime I'll encounter another ship not flying a flag suggesting that they're friendly; so I need to plan my course around them (which means perhaps go do another activity instead because they're at an island I need to be at). Sometimes, that player, lets say 50% of the time (generously) actually comes after me. I now have to spend a chunk of time running away (which will lead to me just sailing off-map if they don't give up). Say (generously) that 90% of players that have chased me haven't given up the chase. That's a 45% chance that if I see a player, or a player sees me (which are both likely to happen simultaneously); my session ceases to be enjoyable (and I generally put down the game for the day).
Okay, so the game is not enjoyably to you when PvP is involved at any time. Then why did you get a game with PvPvE in it?? An open shared world game that has no safe zones.
This is a legitimate question. You don't like PvP. You got a game that CLEARLY has PvP and was marketing as a no safe zone game where every ship could or could not be friendly and you would have to defend yourself.
This is clearly not your cup of tea so why did you get it?? Again. legitimate question. I want to know why you chose to get a game you obviously would hate.
This is a perfectly reasonable assessment of the situation; no, I didn't need to PvP, I avoided it. It has nonetheless ended with me not being able to continue enjoy the parts of the game that I find truly compelling. That's why it doesn't matter how often it happens, because the fact it does occur means that the option to opt-out (by having a singleplayer or private server for example) is still relevant.
Yeah sure with no progression. You have stated multiple times to other players to just not that you find parts of the game compelling. You want to do those parts freely. Thats fine. With zero progression. Why do you need progression when all you want to do is play the game and enjoy it. Nothing in the game gives your character a boost in atk or any type of buff, so if all you want to do is the quest why do you need progression for it??
So basically your only argument is all anyone who wants PvE servers can come up with:
- Everyone should be happy.
- It will be simple!
I mean you haven't come up with any actual valid reason. Just like you say we haven't come up with a valid reason why they shouldn't add it, you haven't given a reason to why they SHOULD add it.
All you say is "its what I/We (even though the "We" is just like you, brand new players that haven't touched the game for any longer than a few weeks or even days.
Almost all the players who actually stick with it start to recant their previous position and start actually talking about how "PvP" and the "shared world" is actually very important for the game.
So what reasons do you have??
Way to do what you're accusing me of doing, but hey. I can reverse that on you right now if you'd like.
Didn't I say I would take a page out of your book or did I not say that in the post?? Sorry, wasn't meant to look as if I didn't know what I was doing. I was suppose to say "hey let me do what you do and see how easy it is". So yes, I would doing exactly what you were doing as a way. Wasn't an accident, I did it on purpose to let you see what it was like.
You did exactly what I thought you would and validated that your argument has no ground.
Your arguments are;
- I should be happy.
- It's too hard to do.
No, those are the arguments I used because what you were using. You have completely ignored all the previous attempts I have made to explain WHY the game needs to be built on its shared world vision and I have stipulated a lot and I mean A LOT in other posts that I want them to build the world and make it better for both PvE'ers and PvP'ers. I even stated that I want both sides to be able to play and have commented on how the game has done things poorly to where PvE'ers are the targets because there is nothing else for PvP'ers to contest. How in the past the way the game was set up that even the PvE'ers would fight over contested events DAILY, and how the fort event has ships fighting over it EVERY DAY.
I've shared my ideas and what were the reasons why the game changed, why its in its current state now, and even shared some ideas to help facilitate its growth for the betterment of the game.
However, you came in and saying "no one gives any reasons" - "all you say is that git gud, learn to avoid it, play something else".
You use the statements of someone who is arguing until they are red in the face because they've been taught that if you just keep arguing, doesn't matter what reasons you give, people will cave and give you what you want.
You are pretty much being a STRAIGHT UP KAREN right now. Wanting to talk to the manager even though every customer around you and the employees around you think you are acting entitled.
You then discredit any argument presented as to why it could make others happy and why it's not that hard to do.
I have never presented that your idea would make others happy. I said your idea would make YOU happy and how anyone who wasn't NEW to the game and could form VALID opinions of the game learned to realize the beauty and uniqueness of this game.
For example;
The developers are, in fact, producing private servers. Now, they're planned to have no progression enabled, but the core is there. If the developers so wished, the servers could have progression.
They do not wish it. They said multiple times they do not wish it. The only reason private servers is coming out is to give players an option to set up their own little events and what not.
Also for players like yourself who say they want to play the game and just enjoy it free of PvP. Just again with zero progression.
You haven't explained WHY you need progression or WHY its a good idea for you to have progression.
Personally, I wouldn't mind a singleplayer mode (a client-side server, again, not impossible nor necessarily hard) in which I can play with my friends on a single boat as some type of solo boat on the seas; even if it meant the progression there couldn't be transferred.
Thats great, with zero progression.
The categorical refusal to acknowledge the feedback and requests from a certain portion of players (new or not) is what you're doing. I'm happy to listen to improvements you suggest to the game, I've also acknowledged logical/ good arguments you've made in this discussion. In those cases, I've accepted that they're plainly a difference of opinion.
Thank you, and I want to say the same but I don't think you'll believe me because at its base, lets be honest.
Do you know a lot about the game?? No.
Have you played the game to form a valid opinion on its core mechanics?? Not trying to be mean, but no you haven't. A few weeks is not enough.
This is what I want. For them to build up the shared world even more but to freely let players build on it like we use to. Instead of focusing on commendation farming, revert the game back to the importance of rep and gold.
I don't want to discredit your opinions, I really don't, but you bought a game where PvP is open, this is fact. So in my head I'm not thinking "OH WELL, lets just make a mode where he can be happy." No, I'm thinking "wait.....you don't like PvP?? Then why did you buy the game??"
Then I try to understand your opinion but realize you are still incredibly new to the game, I don't think you've even had the game a month yet, and that actual testimonials is that most players that are NEW complain about PvP, but when they actually get their sea legs their stances change.
I'm trying to exaggerate to make my story better, I'm being honest. I've seen players in the forums say "I used to hate PvP in games and in this game. Always having to watch my back etc etc etc, but after playing for a good while and learning how to defend myself I realize that PvE servers would be very bad for this game and how awesome this game is" - (Clearly I'm paraphrasing but yeah)
I've even run into players IN game who have said roughly the same exact thing.
You are a player that doesn't like PvP. Granted. However there were MANY like you in the past that have switched sides after playing the game for a good amount and getting the experience they need.
I'm sorry broski but less than a month game time and you want to change the core mechanic of a game that a majority of us love. Why would you expect anything else than the feedback you've been given when all you say is "I hate PvP and want to be left alone!!" - Why...why did you buy the game then?? - "Other games do it, why can't we with this one!!"
You haven't given a valid reason outside of other games have done it, you don't like PvP, and players are requesting it. This game is unique and I know I've been playing it for almost 3 years, I enjoy this game and want it to be better. I don't want to separate the community anymore. They've already pretty much did that unintentionally.
@xultanis-dragon said in [Mega Thread] PvP and PvE Playstyle Discussion:
I want both sides in the same game. I want BOTH. I want the classic game......sigh
Well, I blame everyone who was around when they changed things. You guys dropped the ball badly on that one.
Instead of increasing the amount of loot, they could have increased the teir making them worth more rep and gold. A GH quest where its just a chain of islands that lead to a single island that has like a chest that is tier 10 or something. A OoS quest where you have to combine piece of a skull to make a teir 10 or something.
I guess the issue there is that it seems to be increasing session length rather than difficulty or intensity. Would you be able to checkpoint save, if even only during a logout, in that case? Personally I'd far rather have an hour long tough as hell session than a two or three hour long very tricky one. If the extension basically meant that you needed to have sessions of X length or you were pretty much counted out of it I think that would be a bad thing.
Athena's being tied to special forts, lucky message in a bottle quest, a quest to grab like 5 keys that are needed to open the vault that has a tier 2 chest with a vault full of athena loot but when the vault is open a beacon hits the sky. So if you were careful throughout the whole quests, now you have to figure out, "did someone see that?? if they did do I have time to gather ALL this loot or do I leave it behind?? and just take what I can??
I think generally things which beacon your presence when triggered are a nice idea for the high risk/high reward PvPvE side of things. The issue does remain that at that point the reward has to be sooo juicy since to go after it I've got to drop what I'm currently doing and then risk you having gotten away clean and my not being able to beat you that I'd think the actual level of engagement that it would have would be quite low.
A meg that drops an athena??
Really anything that encourages actually going after megs would be interesting to me personally. Generally I think that the hunter's call should be a more interesting guild than they currently are.
Like SOOOOOOO many different ways that we could find and do stuff without being FORCED to do "oh hey i need to do 20 of this for a commendation"
No argument there. It does seem that a lot of the commendations are just pure grind in that respect. Just out of curiosity, would people be okay if, for example, the commendation that popped for doing a Tall Tale 5 times would let you do whatever, two or three of them on a proverbial PvE server?
This was my idea for a death tax in the game...
You don't have to repurchase them, just you can't wear them again until your rank goes back up.
If nothing else I like the idea of getting sunk and waking up in your skivvies because your fancy duds just got cancelled out.
There is a HUUUUUUUGE problem with this idea though, this will be detrimental towards players not wanting to scuttle, which is one of the reasons why I know this idea just will not work. I don't want to punish players for scuttling.
Also I guess for just quitting the game right? You'd need to stop people from quitting out once they know they're sinking to protect their rank, which would be hard to do.
But basically something like that. That way is if you see someone wearing something you realize how awesome they are.
How about something based on how long you manage to keep an unbroken emissary flag run for? So at least X percentage of your time on server has to be flying an emissary flag and if you manage a run of X amount of time without losing your flag, just with you voting to take it down then you'd allowed to wear the super duper duds? That way you can't quit out to avoid it, but you can at least quit the game.
Also if you sink a player that is higher rank then you, you get a token to turn in for whatever special whatever. I don't know. Thought of SOMETHING just can't figure out the logistics.
That's something that I really think should be included. I raised it before and was conclusively told that ranking was meaningless as a measure of ability. I still think that there should be more reward for sinking someone with 10/100/1000 more kills than you, and actually visa versa.
SIDE NOTE 2 Something you have to opt into. "Do you want to become a Pirate Lord?" - Then you opt in, all your gold is removed (which is a very bad idea lol I just can't figure out the logistics just spit balling) but now you are put into a teir where if you sink, you lose rep and gold and its completely optional so you can wait till you buy everything that is unlocked below rank 100.
So the idea is to offer something to do with a stretch of unsunk time? I guess my issue is that it sort of rewards disengaging with the game doesn't it? I mean, if you go Pirate Lord and then grind about picking up Loot from wrecks and quitting out whenever you see so much as a sail on the horizon that feels like it wouldn't deserve all that much respect. Also, I hear a lot said about how the core of the game is the unpredictability, putting a system that rewards not engaging with the biggest and coolest events and then punishes you for the fact that sometimes sink happens seems a bit counter to that.
In the spitballing ideas pool, I'd like it if when you killed someone on an Outpost their loot took a huge price dip on that Outpost if you sold it there, but if someone turns in their loot and then you both go to the Tavern and have a grog, whoever sold the most loot in X amount of time gets a reward, ideally one that's more than you'd get for selling the stolen loot at that Outpost. So if I see you turning in loot its almost certainly worth more to me to let you turn it in and then try and out boast you in the tavern, plus if I do attack you then you're pretty certain to get a shot at getting your swag back since I'll have to skip to another Outpost to sell it. Personally, I only want the Tavern bit, but I can't figure out a way to make people want to turn in on an occupied island without the localized penalty bit, but I still think that wouldn't be a bad thing.
@wagstr said in [Mega Thread] PvP and PvE Playstyle Discussion:
@wagstr Wow, didn't need to bait the breath for long to get good responses did you! It is nice to get responses from people not promoting to not play the game.
Nope.....still...baited.....I'm...afraid...
(I did upvote your last post though!)
FYI, it is BATED breath. The other is what you get from eating worms. So I wonder what that other guy is doing...LOL!
@cptphteven said in [Mega Thread] PvP and PvE Playstyle Discussion:
You cannot grief enemy crews is probably the most toxic statement that can be made. You absolutely can greif enemy crews, just because the game allows an action doesn't make it not griefing.
I 100% disagree if I choose to put 5 mega kegs I earned on a enemy crews boat and wait for them to come back even if it's a sloop that is not greifing.
IF I did the same thing and yelled racist things sent msgs ext.. That would be griefing.
LOL, I've seen Reaper Galleons run away from Merchant sloops lol.
Obviously the Reaper Galleon was PvE'ers trying to get their reaper rep and the merch was the PvP crew trying to earn merch, but still lol.
best move ever - we do this to #bemoreppirate ☠☠☠ XD
i mean a really good pirate would not be a reaper, but a Merchant, no? :)
btw. still repeating myself with if events were scarce and serverhopping not possible...
we would have a complete different community.
Also agree with loot floating around every corner, getting richer and richer make a fort or say event not that moment you talked of when the whole server, be it half or even just a third of the server (less isnt possible btw :D) fought for it and others did their thing.
I'd still say doing an event attracts also PvP, but with the less importance of events in general i agree with you.
Wasnt it a shock, when loot floated around in the water?
To me it was, it took away a lot of immersion.
I understand why, but for me this wasnt neccessary and meanwhile maybe not good to do like many other things they did.
Sloop scaling is one of these things i disagree with still.
It wasn't impossible before to even do the old Fleets solo, although it was something you nees nerves of steel.
Same for the Kraken.
Yeah we figured out a lot and players today know what awaits them, they are not that unprepared like we were.
And all is easier today, everything they added was far more harder than it is now.
Meg, Fleets, Volcanoes, Sniper Skeletons, Briggsy... XD
@cdr-alfonso said in [Mega Thread] PvP and PvE Playstyle Discussion:
@Scarecrow1771 & @COMBATxKITTY
I'm yet to assume anything that isn't a direct and logical end-point to arguments presented to me. If I'm ignoring certain arguments made it's because they're wholly irrelevant to the conversation here.
@combatxkitty said in [Mega Thread] PvP and PvE Playstyle Discussion:
You bring up another game [...].
Let me explain why I bring up other games... as evidence to suggest that what I'm asking for is possible without the supposed consequences stated by people against what I'm asking for.
Games are certainly different between each-other, and nobody is claiming otherwise.
Yes games are different and that is my issue when people in general compare games to other games like "oh see this game does this so this game can too!" Also like I said for every game you can say hey look this has PvE servers where people can grind in peace on I can point out another PvPvE game where you cant.
You claim people who want to PvE only are leaving the game when they were never Rare's target customer to start with. Who cares?
Nobody needs to care, and I've already mentioned this. If the ultimate argument is that dev-time should be dedicated to the currently captured (and retained) audience, then okay, sure. I am suggesting additions that may also serve to capture and retain more players - more profits. By all means, this isn't necessary profit at all.
There are other ways though games can create additional profit without having to change the core concept of their game in order to bring in "new players" who arnt part of target market. We see this with the pirate europium. Get your target market into the game, attract new players within your target market, create new ways to make money from your target market. I have experience helping run a business and I am actually in process of starting up my own. Sorry if I sound rather cut throat about the business aspect of the game but the simple truth is no not every game needs to cater to a pure PvE player like yourself and they can still rake in good profits by not doing so.
You wont answer whether or not you get attacked every time you try to play and then go on to say "it doesnt matter even once is too many" which I find to be totally ridiculous.
From the perspective that it will neither change the course of the argument because as demonstrated by @xultanis-dragon (said in [Mega Thread] PvP and PvE Playstyle Discussion ), no matter my answer you've got an unsatisfactory answer; nor is it relevant because I'm arguing for the option to opt-out.
Saying "But you can eaaaasily avoid it!" or "5+ hours of uninterrupted gameplay is great!" is not a compelling argument when the position you're trying to convince is someone who wants an option to just not deal with it.
I think it is compelling because if someone wants to change the core of the game to me they should have a good reason other than "I bought a PvPvE game and I just do not want to deal with PvP". Atleast if someone is having a truly rough time I actually can sympathize with them. People who buy a PvPvE game and just do not want to be bothered with it? I cant sympathize with them at all.
Like, if I say that every hour of playtime I'll encounter another ship not flying a flag suggesting that they're friendly; so I need to plan my course around them (which means perhaps go do another activity instead because they're at an island I need to be at). Sometimes, that player, lets say 50% of the time (generously) actually comes after me. I now have to spend a chunk of time running away (which will lead to me just sailing off-map if they don't give up). Say (generously) that 90% of players that have chased me haven't given up the chase. That's a 45% chance that if I see a player, or a player sees me (which are both likely to happen simultaneously); my session ceases to be enjoyable (and I generally put down the game for the day).
This is a perfectly reasonable assessment of the situation; no, I didn't need to PvP, I avoided it. It has nonetheless ended with me not being able to continue enjoy the parts of the game that I find truly compelling. That's why it doesn't matter how often it happens, because the fact it does occur means that the option to opt-out (by having a singleplayer or private server for example) is still relevant.
Well private servers with zero progression are coming so on days you want to chill and sail you can. Why do you need progression if you just want to hang with friends and enjoy the game?
As far as single player, the devs did not create a single player game and they seem to have no interest in it being single player. From what I can tell SOT is meant to be a true multiplayer sandbox experience, why would devs create a single player mode for a game they designed to be social? Which by the way I do think they need to work on the social aspect of the game.
So basically your only argument is all anyone who wants PvE servers can come up with:
- Everyone should be happy.
- It will be simple!
Way to do what you're accusing me of doing, but hey. I can reverse that on you right now if you'd like.
Your arguments are;
- I should be happy.
- It's too hard to do.
But that is your argument. Your argument is literally why not make a PvE game server that way everyone can be happy right? You are also acting like creating a PvE server is a simple thing to do. Who cares if it takes up devs time,resources and can affect the core of the game?
That is what you want right? Now you are talking about a private server or single player server with separate progression. This is where I get confused when people advocate a PvE severs, are you talking about a mode like main voyage where anyone can join in as a possibility as well? That to me would be the mode detrimental to the game but maybe you were never. suggesting that?
My argument is not you should be happy. On contrary my argument is not everyone can be happy and that Rare should focus on their target customer and not people who only want to take part in part of their game.
My argument for PvE servers is not its too hard to do; my argument is it could very well destroy the already fragile balance of the game and also it would be difficult for devs to implement it would require new coding ect and even devs said it would not be easy and that brings up the point of why waste so much time and resource on customers who arnt even who they arent after? Of course Rare could do it but it boils down to why should they?
You then discredit any argument presented as to why it could make others happy and why it's not that hard to do.
For example;
The developers are, in fact, producing private servers. Now, they're planned to have no progression enabled, but the core is there. If the developers so wished, the servers could have progression.
When I say its difficult I am talking about a PvE server mode that involves having other people on it and that is basically adventure with no PvP. If there are other people on this server, even if its just people you invite devs would have to make coding to ensure - 1) you can not kill anyone 2) you can not pick up others loot to steal it and cash it in 3) you can not damage the another persons ship and whatever other things they would need to do.
Yes of course if they wanted progression on the custom private server it would not be too over the top to add in as long as your ship was the only ship allowed and no other crews can join. I just was never talking about their custom servers having progression because Rare has already said that is not what they will be used for so why even discuss it? Also that goes back to Rare basically making this a single player game when that is not what they wanted to create.
Personally, I wouldn't mind a singleplayer mode (a client-side server, again, not impossible nor necessarily hard) in which I can play with my friends on a single boat as some type of solo boat on the seas; even if it meant the progression there couldn't be transferred.
For me if that were to happen Rare would need to add in more PvE threats because lets be honest the PvE threats now arnt that threatning. Maybe they could make the skelly ships more aggressive , maybe they could add another type of sea monster, I mean I play on PvE servers so dont think Im someone who hates them because I am not but they actually have lots of different threats going on to keep things interesting. I feel like the PvE aspects of SOT would need to be bumped up quite abit if Rare wanted to do that inorder to keep it a fun and exciting challenge.
I just dont know about the idea because it in no way compliments the game it just turns it to a single player which I think ive already said two or three times now that is not what Rare is going for.
The categorical refusal to acknowledge the feedback and requests from a certain portion of players (new or not) is what you're doing. I'm happy to listen to improvements you suggest to the game, I've also acknowledged logical/ good arguments you've made in this discussion. In those cases, I've accepted that they're plainly a difference of opinion.
Have you? I dont recall you acknowledging any of my arguments as logical or good.
I do not refuse to acknowledge feed back but I certainly will not agree with feedback that will hurt the game I very much enjoy playing. Sure people can make requests but I do not have to agree with them just like you do not agree with me.
For me a PvE mode that does not compete with the main game would be a great addition. Lets say a mode where you can fish, do tall tales, invite friends to your server , have ship battles and races with friends, sail around find ship wrecks, captains on islands, loot on islands , you know just chill? Faction work and Forts, fleets , boss fights would be locked. I personally would not care if you could earn gold.
Another idea would be a PvE mode like Arena,. Its own faction like how Sea Dogs is. That would be abit more tricky though because PvE modes are more expensive for gaming studios to upkeep in the long run which is why so many are moving towards this PvP/PvPvE mode trend.
So anyways I am not completely against some sort of PvE game mode but for me it need to make sense and it needs to be in line with what Rare wants. I will be honest I think its a total waste of time to discuss single player modes or Pve servers where you can do all you can in main voyage because the game studio is just not into that. I would love to discuss actual possibilities that wont have a negative impact on the game or goes against the devs vision.
@ajm123 said in [Mega Thread] PvP and PvE Playstyle Discussion:
@cptphteven said in [Mega Thread] PvP and PvE Playstyle Discussion:
You cannot grief enemy crews is probably the most toxic statement that can be made. You absolutely can greif enemy crews, just because the game allows an action doesn't make it not griefing.
I 100% disagree if I choose to put 5 mega kegs I earned on a enemy crews boat and wait for them to come back even if it's a sloop that is not greifing.
IF I did the same thing and yelled racist things sent msgs ext.. That would be griefing.
If the reason you are doing that is to steal their treasure, or get revenge, sure. If the reason you are doing it is to cause them grief, then it is griefing. That's what the word means. I do want to point out, though, that the second thing you pointed to is still something you can do to the enemy crew - and the person I was responding to was claiming that there was no way to grief an enemy crew.
I recognize that a lot of actions it's really hard to prove, or even tell, if one player is griefing. But, just because it's hard to prove doesn't mean it's hard to do. Players can still be greifing even if I can't prove their intent -- I just won't know they are (unless they admit to it - which some do).
@cptphteven said in [Mega Thread] PvP and PvE Playstyle Discussion:
@ajm123 said in [Mega Thread] PvP and PvE Playstyle Discussion:
@cptphteven said in [Mega Thread] PvP and PvE Playstyle Discussion:
You cannot grief enemy crews is probably the most toxic statement that can be made. You absolutely can greif enemy crews, just because the game allows an action doesn't make it not griefing.
I 100% disagree if I choose to put 5 mega kegs I earned on a enemy crews boat and wait for them to come back even if it's a sloop that is not greifing.
IF I did the same thing and yelled racist things sent msgs ext.. That would be griefing.
If the reason you are doing that is to steal their treasure, or get revenge, sure. If the reason you are doing it is to cause them grief, then it is griefing. That's what the word means. I do want to point out, though, that the second thing you pointed to is still something you can do to the enemy crew - and the person I was responding to was claiming that there was no way to grief an enemy crew.
Lol man I don't even wanna discuss with you. An in game feature is not griefing. If I wanna keg you I'm gonna do it. If I wanna put 500 kegs on your boat after you load in I can do it. It's not griefing just because you think it was "mean"
@cptphteven SOT is a sandbox game, you cannot be griefed by any other crew but your own unless someone is breaking TOS.
A certain amount of messing around with other crews is just part of the game, why else would the devs have made us kegs to play with XD.
I’ve played on and off since the start on Xbox, and this is an excellent game- apart from the lack of a PVE mode, or at least the ability to play with only the same type of ship. I say that as a player that’s not very good by all accounts, and as an introverted person that prefers either solo play or friends only.
The PvP only system is very off-putting for someone like me who isn’t very good, and sometimes doesn’t do any missions but just likes sailing aimlessly. And I’ve tried to get better but I can’t devote the time to this game (or any) to get as good as others. I can’t get any better when I’m constantly getting my sloop sank just for being in the lobby by a crew in a Brig, or when random players you’re paired with don’t actually help you how get any better, they just lock you up or kick you off of the crew. It’s very offputting, and for me often a one-sided battle that I always lose.
That’s why I also mentioned playing with only the same type of ship as a possible idea.
Granting us the option to play with console only players was a great leap in the right direction. Perhaps a PVE that follows the same crew limits for each ship is worth considering, especially if it includes more difficult AI challenges in lieu of players.
The PvP system as it is now is rather frustrating, if I’m honest. Which sucks, because I really want to enjoy the game but don’t. Too many games alienate people like me who want a PVE experience we can share with friends and a game as good as SoT doesn’t need to continue to be one of them.
@originalxfreaky said in [Mega Thread] PvP and PvE Playstyle Discussion:
The PvP system as it is now is rather frustrating, if I’m honest. Which sucks, because I really want to enjoy the game but don’t. Too many games alienate people like me who want a PVE experience we can share with friends and a game as good as SoT doesn’t need to continue to be one of them.
Frankly, this once more sounds like a case of the wrong game for the wrong person. It happens, not every game is for everyone and it's normal. The game was always advertised as a PVEVP shared world, and being off put about a crystal clear core aspect of the game just makes it more obvious really. You can already have a PVE experience with friends, its something that can happen way more often than people pretend, it's simply not guaranteed.
Why wouldn't the devs want SoT to continue to be a game whose population keeps growing year after year and obtained 11 million players this year alone, with a proven successful gameplay recipe?
Nobody is being alienated, everybody is welcome within the world put at our disposition, and welcome to partake in any activity they enjoy. The upcoming renown system will even make it so people can progress in some ways despite not being able to finish a voyage, while playing every aspects of the game.
@scarecrow1771 said in [Mega Thread] PvP and PvE Playstyle Discussion:
@cptphteven SOT is a sandbox game, you cannot be griefed by any other crew but your own useless someone is breaking TOS.
A certain amount of messing around with other crews is just part of the game, why else would the devs have made us kegs to play with XD.
I agree. If someone just runs up and kills you for fun, that really isnt "griefing" some may say its being a jerk but not griefing.
I feel like they need to be breaking TOS too such as glitching( im talking serious like god mode) or using discriminatory language or killing or harassing in a discriminatory manner.
@bloodybil said in [Mega Thread] PvP and PvE Playstyle Discussion:
@originalxfreaky said in [Mega Thread] PvP and PvE Playstyle Discussion:
The PvP system as it is now is rather frustrating, if I’m honest. Which sucks, because I really want to enjoy the game but don’t. Too many games alienate people like me who want a PVE experience we can share with friends and a game as good as SoT doesn’t need to continue to be one of them.
Frankly, this once more sounds like a case of the wrong game for the wrong person. It happens, not every game is for everyone and it's normal. The game was always advertised as a PVEVP shared world, and being off put about a crystal clear core aspect of the game just makes it more obvious really. You can already have a PVE experience with friends, its something that can happen way more often than people pretend, it's simply not guaranteed.
Why wouldn't the devs want SoT to continue to be a game whose population keeps growing year after year and obtained 11 million players this year alone, with a proven successful gameplay recipe?
Nobody is being alienated, everybody is welcome within the world put at our disposition, and welcome to partake in any activity they enjoy. The upcoming renown system will even make it so people can progress in some ways despite not being able to finish a voyage, while playing every aspects of the game.
Hey, that's awesome Bil, Sea of Thieves goes Fortnite and not in a bad way if it helps it's longevity. Something for everyone there.
Everyone moans it's a bit stale on both sides.
@ajm123 Did I even use that word? I think not. I full on understand that this is a pirate game and my main compulsion is the fact that I can’t hold my own- and I want to! Jeez.
I’m pretty sure I did reference the community itself, and you only proved my beliefs that this is an extremely toxic community for inexperienced people like myself. Hate on them for wanting a PVE experience so they can get better and actually enjoy the main aspect of the game... That’s exactly how you get more players in a game 🙄
@originalxfreaky not sure what your referring too.
If your not good solo join a lfg of experienced players.
When the game came out everyone was in the same boat.
I do agree most new players are running into experienced players.
I also think a solution can be made that doesn't involve only pve servers because that will do more harm then good if your not good enough to hold your own.
This game was literally my first FPS shooter ask anyone who has played with me gun to gun I'm ok as long as it's in water. You can t just say eliminate pvp and add a pve mode it would be a waste of development money imo.
Custom servers will help but will have pvp
What an awesome debate.
To note, I only have time to speed read through all the responses.
IMO, never get rid of the PvEvP. This is Sandbox. We absolutely love the wild west of it. (wild Caribbean?)
Yes, there are PvP only players. Fantastic. I keep up with a couple of Twitch/tubers. And by golly, they sure do make 3x more from wiping out poor souls that aren't.
Keep in mind there is a lot of content in this game, and much more coming. The main argument isn't so much about being attacked. That can be an interesting event. When a PvP player complains about being attacked by a skelly ship, and that it is annoying to them, do we need to ask for PvP only servers for them?
We absolutely love this game. Sandbox. Grind? We've had so much fun figuring out the riddles, tales, quests.
Entering these posts was simply to offer another player type, support. Probably would be as difficult to find someone that wants support as a PvP player, as is to find someone to fight.
Would even give PvP players another type of play style to give them the combat they want.
Helping a PvE player while other PvP players are pounding players that aren't interested in a fight. Support and PvP get the real fight they are after.
er.. unless the PvPer wants just easy targets.
@b4adle7 PvP'ers like a challenge. Someone who is a "pvp'er" does not want easy targets, I see people say that often and as someone who does PvP on other games I can tell you a true PvP'er wants a fight. We want to get our adrenaline pumping and that wont happen fighting some poor defenseless noob. Actually I will leave a fight if its providing me zero challenge.
Im not saying people who engage in PvP in this game do not go after easy targets. Not that you ever truly know if its an easy target or not. Back when I was on a sloop with my old crew mate we would have galleons attack us thinking easy target I am sure and we would end up sinking them. Anyways I think people are more likely going after "easy targets" in this game not so much for the rush of PvP but more so they are just pvping to get loot, they want easy loot , sure they can have fun during the fight but still its about the loot. So many divide this game as in PvE players and PvP players and completely leave out PvPvE players.
I hope my point makes sense.
@needsmokes Dont think I haven't tried, and it wasn't once or twice for that matter. 99% of the players I find are, well, terrified? I've come across some brilliant exceptions, but mostly just nothing. I know my comment is utterly caustic but it was written under growing frustration which had to errupt somewhere. Hoping the gilded voyages revive the servers for a bit.
@john-arkham You do have a point, the game really takes the wheel at somepoint but that can also cause boredom. I really don't even know what I'm supposed to do in a server with no people to fight. That's the entire reason I bought SoT, interaction with other players. Sometimes it's really disappointing wanting to play SoT and finding no one. Yes I know we can't always have what we want but when it happens in every single session (first few days after an update are an exception) it really builds up that frustration and disappointment.
@combatxkitty
Tell me the challenge in outnumbering a solo sloop and spawnkilling?
What challenge do you speak of?
What challenge is there to beat others while exploiting and glitching around?
@stundorn said in [Mega Thread] PvP and PvE Playstyle Discussion:
@combatxkitty
Tell me the challenge in outnumbering a solo sloop and spawnkilling?
It matters which solo you meet out on the seas. Yet there is no way of knowing beforehand. Just because some are unable to put up a fight doesn't mean all of us are left incapable of doing so. Some solos are the attackers.
What challenge do you speak of?
The challenges you face, from catching the other ship to the battle to the recovery. Have you never been in a proper fight?
What challenge is there to beat others while exploiting and glitching around?
Software will always have bugs, but the devs work on fixing them. There is nothing they are doing that is unavailable to you.
@stundorn Try this perspective.
My crew and I are bored of hitting the same skeletons, doing the same long and dull voyages, repeating the same events and delivering the same crates that we have already done so hundreds if not thousands of times, and purely cosmetic rewards are no longer enticing us.
So when we play now, we mostly hunt. We would prefer to interact with pvp and pve in a balanced way, but the pve on offer is dull and Rare seems to think that repetition of dull content for cosmetics will entice us to engage with it... it will not.
Would we prefer to have good fights over piles of loot, but unless we server hop, a process that is time consuming and boring and more than a little cheesy, we cannot guarantee the fights we seek, so we take what we can get, so if that mans we sink a solo doing a tall tale, so be it, its still far more entertaining than yet another x marks the spot, or listening to Flameheart waffle as we bop his toy ships for the 20th time.
As far exploits and glitches, as long as they don't break TOS they are fair game, if its in the game as far as Im concerned, we can use it, and it is up to the devs to either not introduce them and/or patch them out, not us players to regulate ourselves.
@mferr11 said in [Mega Thread] PvP and PvE Playstyle Discussion:
This is impossible because it can always be abused. Chuck up the friendly flag, let em get close, and broadside them before they can react. Pretty sure this is what happened with the alliance flag, you know? Say you want to alliance and then sink them.
I'm not sure how the fact that something can be abused makes it impossible. Sure it can be abused, but at least it can be used.
Now before anyone blasts me down for saying what im going to say let me begin with this. Any free game that i play i always put quite a bit of money into them. Im a big fan of this game and a Solo Slooper. I prefer to play most games by myself so there is no arguing over where to go what we are doing.
Big problem for me is obvious PvP. I can usually handle a 2 man Sloop crew but the bigger ships are just too much. The should be an option to join a server full of solo sloopers. Let the people who want to battle it out do it against ships their own size. I cant remember how many times i have had a larger ship sail over and sink me in 20 seconds. What challenge is there in this i would ask? I usually just laugh at them and quit the server. Sadly though i am here now typing this out because im starting to get tired of the same old thing...loot up...blown up (yes im careful). For those that would say go play another game...i like this one...having said that...im starting to think the same.
Seasons, Merchant Detectives and the Festival of Giving: Sea of Thieves News December 2nd 2020