@graiis You make a very good point. Perhaps the chest bonus should come purely from handing in more valuable items and the bonus should be a flat sum not dependent on the value of your loot.
Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.
@i-am-lost-77 That's a pretty cool idea. I do however think the suggestion should also take into account longer quests, for instance if you are given a map to an island with two chests as opposed to four, the four should award a little more as it will take longer. Not as much as sailing to another island, but still. But the % could easily take this into account too... 1% per island, 0.2% per chest/skeleton captain you need to kill or something.. I dunno.
@lotrmith I don't follow. It doesn't sit well with you that someone could gain progress without risk.. which is the case for 100% of the reputation on the VC suggestion, and yet with my suggestion you'd still have risk to get the remaining 66% rep. Yet the other idea is better?
@wafflingsumo @I-Am-Lost-77 Suggested something similar, a bonus based on the number of islands/maps you have to go to, which I also like the sound of.
I don't follow the second part, is it because higher quests take much longer and involve more islands? Thus would take longer to reach VC?
@touchdown1504 The risk makes the rewards matter. If you take even a little of that risk away it will make this game just a grind fest where even guarding treasure from theft doesn't matter. I don't want to be rewarded for never turning things in so long as I put in the time to get that arbitrary amount that this post suggests you get on completing a voyage. That's not an interesting adventure and it's not the stuff of legend. I don't think we should be rewarded for digging the most holes and let's be honest that's what gold holders would become if they did this. So I hate the idea. I want to continue to have the narrow escapes I have on my sloop and the devastating losses that have inspired some awesome battles.
@angrycoconut16 said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:
@lotrmith I don't follow. It doesn't sit well with you that someone could gain progress without risk.. which is the case for 100% of the reputation on the VC suggestion, and yet with my suggestion you'd still have risk to get the remaining 66% rep. Yet the other idea is better?
The other idea provides a tangible PvP incentive as opposed to yours which only offers some dubious theoretical byproduct for PvP.
Your idea boosts the value of chests and skulls to 150% and then removes 33% of the risk associated with turning in those chests and skulls. The other idea does not.
@redeyesith said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:
The more and more I think about it, the more I honestly believe that having a Reputation system in the game was just a bad idea from the start. It should have all boiled down to getting gold for turning stuff in, and that gold being used to acquire cosmetic items. Why do I fully think it was the wrong way to go, a few reasons:
- False illusion of a progression system in a game specifically not supposed to have one
- Pirate Legend is extremely underwhelming to most, should have just been expensive cosmetics (as it would covey the exact same thing)
- Makes people focus on "the grind" rather than "the journey" which was what RARE wanted people to enjoy, the fun of the session and not the payout (and thus losing doesn't have to hurt, cause it doesn't matter)
Basically, if it had just been cosmetics and gold it would have allowed them to do the exact same things they released with, but probably would have better accommodated their proposed desire with the game and installed a completely different sense in most of the community in regards to the vast majority of current proposed issues with the game.
Oh well, that is just my two cents in a nutshell.
I mean I like the idea of a progression system as you become 'stronger' and a more 'feared' pirate, thus I also like the idea of pirate legend and something to aim for. (but yea it probably needs more to it)
If you remove the 'pirate legend' idea and progression, you also remove the journey. Journey to what? A journey needs a destination. I think it is healthy for people to focus on both the journey and a little grind... some players want to be able to have a long term goal.
If they had only had gold and cosmetics I honestly think the game would have more issues than now - there would be no longevity to the game at all! I mean it could work, but for a lot of players they are playing because they want to reach PL. Now if you remove that what else can you aim for? There are limited cosmetic items in the game. If they released many more cosmetic items on launch and only had gold they yea it could work. (Alternatively Pirate legend could be based on how much gold you have - when you have earned a certain amount of gold over your pirate career you can then achieve PL)...
Cosmetics like your ship, perhaps some sort of house/pirate hide out... card/dice games and a wagering system? Lots more applications of naval combat (bosses, some sort of PvP faction system/navy system or more to do on that side of things) I don't know what else but there would need to be much more as well so that players always had something in mind. The game would still be fun without a goal of course, it's a beautiful and fun game, but I think many players like to have some kind of goal when they play MMORPGs. Just my initial thoughts anyway.
@lotrmith Yes my idea boosts the value of chests but the other idea removes 100% of the rep risk, mine only removes 33% of the rep risk.... And how does the other idea provide PvP incentive? Because the chests are associated with gold? With my suggestion my chests would be worth gold and 66% rep...
@daiaoth-mawgrim VERY controversial views. If you take away a small amount of the current risk by awarding players for some of their earlier work prior to sailing with the loot, in my mind it makes the current risk a healthier experience for players. I honestly don't feel like players need to be gripped in the edge of their seat worried and fearful that if they lose their loot they lose all of their rep/gold from a session in order to enjoy the risk part of this game. It is perfectly feasible to allow player progression whilst retaining the risk element in the game.
No player will be efficiently rewarded for never turning items in, I really don't think that's a concern. If people want to get HALF of their current progression repeatedly, and accumulate loooads of loot on their ship, OR abandon their loot and leave it on the shore to go and get another VC bonus, that is completely up to them and I'm sure whoever sinks them/stumbles across the free loot will be more than happy. Only fools would throw loot away with my suggestion...
You have to remember this is a game, my suggestion is about providing a more positive experience in the game. And considering you don't even get faction rep for killing the kraken I think it's very strange what counts as being a legend in this game, apparently delivering a couple of white chickens is more legendary than defeating the kraken or fearsome pirates on the sea.
But I do respect your stance. Some people do thrive off of the risk of total loss. Many others don't however and a suggestion of this sort would not negatively impact you at all.
@angrycoconut16 I think you have missed the point that the game isn't about progress but about the stories and the journey and that's what your suggestion takes away from this game we might lose out when our stuff gets taken and we are sunk, but the chase or the fight we can remember and learn from. You keep touting progression but Rare constantly says it's not about getting somewhere it's about the journey the easier that journey the less it matters and I don't think enjoying a casual game where nothing really matters for giving me an interesting experience instead of a grind is "very" controversial. I like the thrill and I like the scenery I don't care if you take my loot in the long run but I find it rewarding if I get bested in a battle and my hats off to anyone that gets my booty. And a leisurely adventure of digging treasure and friendly pirates is just as cool.
@angrycoconut16 Look I don't hate your idea I actually think it sounds good, and more balanced than other suggestions. I just don't feel it's something that should be implemented, because I think it detracts from the experience.
@angrycoconut16 said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:
@lotrmith Yes my idea boosts the value of chests but the other idea removes 100% of the rep risk, mine only removes 33% of the rep risk.... And how does the other idea provide PvP incentive? Because the chests are associated with gold? With my suggestion my chests would be worth gold and 66% rep...
The other idea (which I am not 100% behind, it's just better than yours) provides for additional rep by doing things like killing skeletons. It doesn't remove the rep or risk associated with turning in skulls. It also specifically suggested giving rep for killing other crews. Does that somehow not fit your definition of a PvP incentive, or are you just not reading everything?
@lotrmith said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:
@angrycoconut16 said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:
@lotrmith Yes my idea boosts the value of chests but the other idea removes 100% of the rep risk, mine only removes 33% of the rep risk.... And how does the other idea provide PvP incentive? Because the chests are associated with gold? With my suggestion my chests would be worth gold and 66% rep...
The other idea (which I am not 100% behind, it's just better than yours) provides for additional rep by doing things like killing skeletons. It doesn't remove the rep or risk associated with turning in skulls. It also specifically suggested giving rep for killing other crews. Does that somehow not fit your definition of a PvP incentive, or are you just not reading everything?
What you say doesn’t really make sense. The point of on vc is for 2 reasons.
- it’s a lot easier to code.
- it creates an incentive to do all parts of a missions lessening the reasons to recycle missions to get “a good one”
All the suggestion your supporting does is reward for each individual action where you could a lot more simply just award it on VC which is must less likely to create bugs/ exploitables etc. it’s a simple and easy solution. Just adding it for individual actions doesn’t change the “value of the loot” that would still technically be changing. just because it’s split up even farther doesn’t change that fact
They could easily add a bonus for sinking enemy ships or a bonus for turning in stolen loot with this suggestion however that is not so much the point of it. This suggestion mostly focuses on the people who put in a lot of time only to walk away with nothing and with a bad taste in their mouth that could turn them off the game. This happens to be more relatable to PvE players.
The biggest complaint from the PvP crowd i have seen is people running away/Red Sea, not that they log out with no treasure. This suggestion has already shown how this could increase the likelihood of PvP and players willing to fight.
@angrycoconut16 said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:
@redeyesith said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:
The more and more I think about it, the more I honestly believe that having a Reputation system in the game was just a bad idea from the start. It should have all boiled down to getting gold for turning stuff in, and that gold being used to acquire cosmetic items. Why do I fully think it was the wrong way to go, a few reasons:
- False illusion of a progression system in a game specifically not supposed to have one
- Pirate Legend is extremely underwhelming to most, should have just been expensive cosmetics (as it would covey the exact same thing)
- Makes people focus on "the grind" rather than "the journey" which was what RARE wanted people to enjoy, the fun of the session and not the payout (and thus losing doesn't have to hurt, cause it doesn't matter)
Basically, if it had just been cosmetics and gold it would have allowed them to do the exact same things they released with, but probably would have better accommodated their proposed desire with the game and installed a completely different sense in most of the community in regards to the vast majority of current proposed issues with the game.
Oh well, that is just my two cents in a nutshell.
I mean I like the idea of a progression system as you become 'stronger' and a more 'feared' pirate, thus I also like the idea of pirate legend and something to aim for. (but yea it probably needs more to it)
He's just saying it needs less. And I agree we don't want to become stronger. One of the benefits of not having a real progression system is everyone can come and go and enjoy the game to its full extent without anything being gated. All the areas in the game stay relevent also.
If you remove the 'pirate legend' idea and progression, you also remove the journey. Journey to what? A journey needs a destination. I think it is healthy for people to focus on both the journey and a little grind... some players want to be able to have a long term goal.
The journey is what happens in a session. The game caters to everything that can happen can happen in a single session. Thus the journey doesn't really propagate across games but there is something that is there for long-term players.
If they had only had gold and cosmetics I honestly think the game would have more issues than now - there would be no longevity to the game at all! I mean it could work, but for a lot of players, they are playing because they want to reach PL. Now if you remove that what else can you aim for? There are limited cosmetic items in the game. If they released many more cosmetic items on launch and only had gold they yea it could work. (Alternatively Pirate legend could be based on how much gold you have - when you have earned a certain amount of gold over your pirate career you can then achieve PL)...
You don't have to aim for anything apart from enjoying a session. The game wasn't designed for player progression thus the players only playing for PL will likely be disappointed and will not stick around since PL doesn't really mean anything.
Cosmetics like your ship, perhaps some sort of house/pirate hide out... card/dice games and a wagering system? Lots more applications of naval combat (bosses, some sort of PvP faction system/navy system or more to do on that side of things) I don't know what else but there would need to be much more as well so that players always had something in mind. The game would still be fun without a goal of course, it's a beautiful and fun game, but I think many players like to have some kind of goal when they play MMORPGs. Just my initial thoughts anyway.
This isn't an MMORPG. It's a large scale arena with asymmetrical goals, built around the concept of pirating and shared world adventure. The progression system being superfluous, it's mostly there for a reason to turn in chests along with getting gold for cosmetics. In order for the game core mechanics to work as designed need value to be represented in physical form for players to fight over.
@mubhcaeb78 said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:
This will lower pvp rewards, but imo, the reason to pvp is to win fights, not steal what is on their ship.
It’s a pirate game. The reason it is set up this way is because the aim of a pirate in attacking another ship is to steal what is on their ship. That’s what piracy means. And, not to mention this is one of those negative impacts on other players that people keep denying will occur.
Even under the other plans suggested, if a PvE player gets their stuff stolen, they still earn reputation for the loot they lost. If a PvP player gets their loot stolen, they earn nothing.
@daiaoth-mawgrim Reasonable points. Here is mine. As of now there are two types of "content" in the game. PvE (the factions, shipwrecks, exploring) and PvP (forts, other crews, random encounters, etc.) The issue I see is a component to the content is "players". As we speak, a player that invests time in doing PvE missions becomes the content for PvP oriented crews. Believe it or not I am fine with that part of it, it is how the system is supposed to work. Where I am not fine is the balance of risk vs. reward. The Attacker has zero risk, stands to lose nothing (there will be a caveat to attacker loss at the very end, so bear with me.) The attacked individual stands to lose everything they have worked for in the current session. For me personally, that is a waste of my time. I am not going to bother to engage if it is an "all or nothing" gamble. That makes no sense at all. Keep my reputation in place and I will engage more often. All or nothing...then it will be nothing, for the attacker and me...yes, I sail the Red Sea in those cases. Which is why I say PvP is pointless at this point in the game.
Caveat: It can be argued that attackers lose their "time invested" as well, if they lose the attack, or attack an empty ship. Well...Here is the difference. PvP doesn't guarantee any rewards at all. There is no inherent gold or reputation tied into attacking a ship. In PvE there is inherent progression tied in. That is the difference. I also strongly believe most PvP attacks are not motivated by the desire to get loot. The loot is the icing on the cake. The attacks are attacks for the sake of attacking. Anyhow, its all how I see it.
@angrycoconut16 said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:
But I do respect your stance. Some people do thrive off of the risk of total loss. Many others don't however and a suggestion of this sort would not negatively impact you at all.
Except that it lessens our enjoyment of the game. Diminishing the tension for you means diminishing the tension for me - that is a negative impact for me. I mean, sure, we could pretend that the game didn’t get easier, but that would be simply lying to ourselves, wouldn’t it?
It can be argued that attackers lose their "time invested" as well, if they lose the attack, or attack an empty ship. Well...Here is the difference. PvP doesn't guarantee any rewards at all.
Neither does PvE. You are trying to change that. But, if a PvP player invests their time and does get loot - just as a PvE player would by killing skeletons... and then loses it to another crew, just like a PvE player might, the difference with this suggestion is that the PvP player earns nothing, while the PvE player in the exact same situation earns reputation despite the loss.
The vast majority of players aren't split into PvE OR PvP. Your reasoning is built on a false premise or is represented by very small parts of the community. The vast majority of players that are hostile do try to steal loot... and do voayges.
The PvP loot is shared intentionally with PvE loot. That's one of the nice things about PvP in this game is there isn't any real incentive to do it other than its fun. And on that note it shouldn't be risky to do, its a huge component of the game and people should freely be able to participate in it. And people that invested time into voyages are SUPPOSED to defend their loot... that is largely the point of Sea of Thieves.
The reason things are heavily PvP oriented and there's a divide between the community with hostilities is ultimately because players turned this game into a kill-on-sight PvP game. Most of the hostility actually comes from those who mock the PvE crowd, not the other way around. Go look at Reddit if you want to see what types of posts get majorly upvoted - you'll notice that they like to make fun of PvE suggestions quite a bit. There's also a heck of a lot more "Sea of Thieves is a PvP game", use of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy ("you're not a real pirate if you don't like PvP"), and any ideas to lessen PvP's dominance or put consequences on it results with people leaping to the attack and saying that Sea of Thieves will die with those suggestions.
Just saying, don't act like PvPers are the victims here. You sure as heck worded it that way, but the hostility is the result of folks trying to suggest changes to a crowd that doesn't want the game to change in a way that might impact the way they personally think the game should be played. Instead we have folks telling others how they should be playing the game, or that they think PvE would be boring if it became more of the focus, etc. They ignore the balance aspect of the game in favor of their preferred playstyle, and that is where hostilities come from because PvP as it is is fully able to ignore the rest of the game to hunt other players while PvE simply cannot function that way. The balance is currently heavily tilted in favor of PvP and the community hasn't helped at all with pushing a very hostile mentality forward which has turned off a lot of folks who don't want PvP shoved in their face 24/7.
Anyway, bonus rep for completing maps/orders/voyages before turning them in would certainly help cushion the blow and be overall positive. It's something folks have been requesting quite a bit and I hope Rare considers doing it. Right now play sessions can be completely ruined/wasted if you get into one bad chase/scuffle with a single ship, and it's silly how much power other players have in controlling your personal experience with the game. It just leads to more people not bothering to play the game or they'll stop playing the game for the adventure aspects (remember, this is a "shared world adventure game") and instead focus on PvP, further contributing to the problem that PvP is overrunning the rest of the game in the absence of compelling/rewarding PvE content.
Hypothetical:
PvP player has fought a crew and gains a castaway chest. A PvE player digs up a castaway on an island. They encounter one another on the sea. The PvP player with only a castaway to lose decides to engage the PvE player. The PvE player, with only a castaway to lose, fights back. Two possible outcomes: PvP player wins, PvE player wins.
If the PvP player wins, he gains the chest and reputation, in addition to the one he already has. The PvE player keeps a 50% (amount debatable) bonus.
If the PvE player wins, he gains the chest and reputation, in addition to the one he already has, PLUS the 50% bonus. The PvP player gets zilch, zero, nada.
This is the issue this suggestion creates. It negatively impacts PvP players by giving PvE players more reward in the event of a fight... and, a guarantee of, at least some reward if they lose - lose LITE.
Or... we paid for the game as pitched and don't want the fundamentals changed. Proposing to punish PvPers for PvPing in a game designed for PvPing around a pirate-themed arena will destroy the game. We don't want the game refocused on progression systems and loot already gives plenty of rep and is so widely available that people should never end up in a position where getting loot back to an outpost will be impossible.
@daiaoth-mawgrim Fair enough if you are a casual gamer but the game attracts a wide demographic of gamers, shouldn't it be appealing to as many people as possible? Either Rare need to remove PL and the idea of reputation... Otherwise yes, some players will make PL their goal and that's a perfectly valid thing to aim for. I think it's up for Rare to clarify on this topic, if they want it to be truly casual remove the pirate legend status and make everything cosmetic, otherwise keep PL and make it a more positive and rewarding experience for those players who decide to aim for the goal post Rare themselves set.
@daiaoth-mawgrim But the fact that PL is already in the game already detracts from the experience in my opinion :) I'd have NO problem with losing 100% of my gold, as gold is easier to obtain anyway. But the grind to 50 is a steep one for PL.... and thus I think this suggestion will do the opposite of detracting and actually improve the experience, providing a more encouraging journey to PL and making other avenues of play feel more viable to PvE/voyaging players.
@angrycoconut16 said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:
@daiaoth-mawgrim Fair enough if you are a casual gamer but the game attracts a wide demographic of gamers, shouldn't it be appealing to as many people as possible? Either Rare need to remove PL and the idea of reputation... Otherwise yes, some players will make PL their goal and that's a perfectly valid thing to aim for. I think it's up for Rare to clarify on this topic, if they want it to be truly casual remove the pirate legend status and make everything cosmetic, otherwise keep PL and make it a more positive and rewarding experience for those players who decide to aim for the goal post Rare themselves set.
No, see demon souls / dark souls / bloodborne and now the credible spinoffs nioh / the surge. Games that don't appeal to everyone (which is all of them by the way) find a market and succeed if they execute on the core mechanics and idea well.
@lotrmith What are you talking about?! I don't think you understand his suggestion! You get 100% rep for VC, meaning you have NO reputation at stake in the form of loot, thus it removes 100% of the risk associated with skulls (well, 100% associated with rep anyway)...
I'd be happy for my idea to be implemented in the form of rep for doing other things :) I only suggest a 50% bonus for simplicity (Someone said it would probably be easier for Rare to implement and I couldn't care less how the rep is rewarded, players just need to get SOMETHING for successfully completed tasks prior to sailing to an outpost in my opinion), but if there was no bonus BUT you still got rep from doing things like solving riddles, killing skeletons etc, that'd be a fine solution too :)
@entspeak Fine, and that is a perfectly valid reason to be against this suggestion :) So fair enough.
@savagetwinky said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:
The vast majority of players aren't split into PvE OR PvP. Your reasoning is built on a false premise or is represented by very small parts of the community. The vast majority of players that are hostile do try to steal loot... and do voayges.
The PvP loot is shared intentionally with PvE loot. That's one of the nice things about PvP in this game is there isn't any real incentive to do it other than its fun. And on that note it shouldn't be risky to do, its a huge component of the game and people should freely be able to participate in it. And people that invested time into voyages are SUPPOSED to defend their loot... that is largely the point of Sea of Thieves.
I don't disagree with you on some, but I do on the "Risk" part. First, there is an obvious segment of players in this game that have divided themselves into PvE or PvP. Do we all engage in both aspects...yes. But, as evidenced in these forums, Reddit, Rare's own twitter, among other places, the community does have a divide on preference between the two aspects of the game. "Vast Majority" is a stretch, and cannot be proven one way or another. This thread alone, that is not devoted to PvE or PvP but the rewards system, is very obviously divided between PvP and PvE. As for risk. Again, my personal opinion on the matter. An attacker has none (unless they attack with their own ship filled with loot, in which case I ask WHY?") The attacked is the only one that stands to lose it all. All players stand to lose it all from effects other than PvP as well. This idea, all of the ideas in here, and the last thread, benefit all players, regardless of their chosen method of playing the game.
@touchdown1504 said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:
@savagetwinky said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:
The vast majority of players aren't split into PvE OR PvP. Your reasoning is built on a false premise or is represented by very small parts of the community. The vast majority of players that are hostile do try to steal loot... and do voayges.
The PvP loot is shared intentionally with PvE loot. That's one of the nice things about PvP in this game is there isn't any real incentive to do it other than its fun. And on that note it shouldn't be risky to do, its a huge component of the game and people should freely be able to participate in it. And people that invested time into voyages are SUPPOSED to defend their loot... that is largely the point of Sea of Thieves.
I don't disagree with you on some, but I do on the "Risk" part. First, there is an obvious segment of players in this game that have divided themselves into PvE or PvP. Do we all engage in both aspects...yes. But, as evidenced in these forums, Reddit, Rare's own twitter, among other places, the community does have a divide on preference between the two aspects of the game. "Vast Majority" is a stretch, and cannot be proven one way or another. This thread alone, that is not devoted to PvE or PvP but the rewards system, is very obviously divided between PvP and PvE. As for risk. Again, my personal opinion on the matter. An attacker has none (unless they attack with their own ship filled with loot, in which case I ask WHY?") The attacked is the only one that stands to lose it all. All players stand to lose it all from effects other than PvP as well. This idea, all of the ideas in here, and the last thread, benefit all players, regardless of their chosen method of playing the game.
It's not a stretch. Most people take part in both. PvPers do voyages because there aren't enough players to have constant PvP.
The rewards system is NOT divided though. Functionally the rewards are shared. The only potential PvP rewards are fueled by PvE activities which most people partake in. And again I don't see why we should punish people for taking part in a major part of the game. The PvE is set up specifically to allow PvP to have some meaning...
You attack with loot on your ship because you don't have the time to dump it before someone else turns in their loot. You have to make that call at the moment whether or not you want to take that risk. More risk, penalties for sinking, would just push more people to avoid the main part of the game.
It's like punishing people for jumping too much in Mario... if you don't like platformers... its really not the game for you.
@angrycoconut16 said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:
@lotrmith What are you talking about?! I don't think you understand his suggestion! You get 100% rep for VC, meaning you have NO reputation at stake in the form of loot, thus it removes 100% of the risk associated with skulls (well, 100% associated with rep anyway)...
I'd be happy for my idea to be implemented in the form of rep for doing other things :) I only suggest a 50% bonus for simplicity (Someone said it would probably be easier for Rare to implement and I couldn't care less how the rep is rewarded, players just need to get SOMETHING for successfully completed tasks prior to sailing to an outpost in my opinion), but if there was no bonus BUT you still got rep from doing things like solving riddles, killing skeletons etc, that'd be a fine solution too :)
Where in the following do you see "100% rep for VC" , "Removal of Rep from loot entirely", or anything remotely like that.
Reputation for engaging with the world/environment. Simply gain Rep for actually doing things. Killing a skeleton, solving a riddle, defeating another crew, and so on. I strongly suspect this is the type of change we may see in the future. Rewatch the development road map video. They mention more than once new ways to earn reputation, they don't mention new ways to earn gold! If I had to guess my #2 option is where we are headed.
Honestly you are so into your own idea that you lack the ability to see or comprehend something different. This above suggestion calls for new, additional ways to earn rep and does not suggest removing rep from loot entirely. How could you possibly come to that conclusion? You must be trolling or just ridiculously biased.
@touchdown1504 said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:
An attacker has none (unless they attack with their own ship filled with loot, in which case I ask WHY?")
I imagine for the same reason you don't return to an outpost after every single island visit, or why you still go exploring/questing on large islands where you lose sight of your own ship.
It's because risk is a fundamental part of the game.
@savagetwinky Everyone takes part in both! Here is the difference. You choose to take part in PvE every session you log into. You don't get to choose PvP. It happens, whether you want it to or not. Ok, to be fair some PvE happens too, (The Kraken for example). The point is, those that prefer the PvE side of the game are punished for doing PvE when they are forced into a PvP encounter. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the ship battles myself (not a fan of the clunky sword play, but whatever). I simply do not find taking an unnecessary risk worth my time. If my ship is empty (or has a foul skull/castaway chest/white feathered chicken) by all means, I am all about slinging cannonballs and drawing flintlocks. But, if I just spent the past hour give or take a couple minutes collecting stuff, why would I bother risking it? For me, and me alone, it is about the time I spend. We are just going to have to disagree, I am not a gambler, I don't like all or nothing bets. And it is obvious that a great many people don't either. EDIT: Reputation or XP, being awarded on the "VC" screen, or during the course of doing piratey things (defeat skeletons, kill the Kraken, defeat another crew, complete a fort, etc.) hedges that bet. Allowing people that prefer to not lose all they have a better choice. When the risk is a zero sum game less people are willing to take that risk. With the risk buffered a bit, more people (myself for sure) are more willing to engage, less headed to the Red Sea, etc. It improves the over all play for everyone.
@entspeak
True ent, but as the game sits now, winning pvp battles will, in my experience, yield chests to turn in 1 out of 5 battles. Only 2 battles ever had enough treasure to warrant seeking out a battle instead of voyaging, due to the time invested vs the amount of treasure, and both times were after a skull cloud disappeared and attacked them leaving the fort.If this idea had with it the "combo" idea of a multiplier suggested elsewhere, then players would hoard a few more chests before turning in to get the multiplier working.
Then it makes sense to pvp even with a lesser amount per chest that was taken out to balance the voyage completion. Again this is only rep.
Rep stops being of any importance once you reach cap.
Gold will always be what you want, as new items in updates will cost gold.You chose to play a PvP game... the PvE is structured with PvP in mind. There is no "PvE only"... The PvE is part of the PvP... And the PvP is part of the PvE.
First I'd ask why is progressing so important as to even view the loot as that important. The rep is largely useless apart from getting a few cosmetics for people that stick around long term. I think views like your largely ruin games. In fact, most of your opinion depends on the loot being valuable. It's easy to get and generally not worth that much unless you hoard for hours before hitting an outpost.
The problem I see with your mentality.. is it doesn't work for this game. You measure "productivity" with and how much time you waste if someone takes your stuff. The people that understand it's a PvE game in the context of PvP are willing to risk loot because the game has built them in as a McGuffin and nothing more. For us it's even fun to lose chests and their importance largely depends on rep because it's the only thing that they contribute to cross many games. But the rep isn't so important losing a few makes a big difference.
Also calling it zero-sum isn't necessarily a bad thing. Nearly all games throughout human history can be described as such as there is always a winner at the expense of a loser... not much different here. Although in this game you can have multiple winners and multiple losers... and seeing as this is a game about thievery, its built a constructive experience on the zero-sum game.
@mubhcaeb78 said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:
@entspeak
True ent, but as the game sits now, winning pvp battles will, in my experience, yield chests to turn in 1 out of 5 battles. Only 2 battles ever had enough treasure to warrant seeking out a battle instead of voyaging, due to the time invested vs the amount of treasure, and both times were after a skull cloud disappeared and attacked them leaving the fort.Being a pirate (stealing from other ships) also requires strategy - in fact, moreso. If you’re blindly sinking any ships you see, of course, you’ll have less of a chance of getting ones with chests. But, there are ways to strategize to maximize profit. But ultimately, that’s not my point. The multiplier suggestion doesn’t change the fact that, in the situation I described, the PvE player still earns even if they lose, while the PvP player doesn’t... for the same fight.
Again this is only rep.
Rep stops being of any importance once you reach cap.Only rep? Is the cap so quickly reached? No. And, while most player’s are grinding, gold means very little. Gold is not progression in the game.
@savagetwinky Well, for the most part you aren't wrong. But you are not 100% on the ball either. This is a form of entertainment. A distraction from life, career, whatever it may be people use to distract from. In my eyes (and obviously the eyes of a great many others) zero sum is an issue. I don't (dare I say we don't) find a zero sum game entertaining. Or rather that part of the game that is zero sum.
Progression is important because it is part of the game. If it was not important there would not be a "finish line" (PL), nor would reputation exist. Or promotions for that matter. What is the purpose behind reputation anyway? In my honest opinion, having rep in the game to begin with is a mistake. It should have just been gold, and gold alone. This discussion would not even exist if that was the case. But here we are...
So, where we differ is you say it is fun for you to lose chests. I don't find that fun. Differing opinions. Where you say my "mentality" ruins games...which games? And what mentality? I think you misunderstand me. You assume I dislike PvP, I am a Care Bear, I want a safe port at an outpost. None of that is the case at all. I happen to enjoy PvP, when crewed with my kids its all we do, they happen to hate voyages! I am against safe ports. I champion the idea of XP based in PvP accomplishments. If this is the "mentality" you are speaking of, then call me guilty. You have missed the point of everything I said early on. Which is fine, who does research on a forum anyway?
You see, this discussion, like the one that was locked, is NOT about PvP vs. PvE. It is about the rewards system and why some of us feel it needs to change. PvP and PvE are largely affected by that change, but that is not the focus. Progression and the ability to maintain consistent progression for time invested is. regardless of how I spend time in most games I have played (since the days of the Odessy pong) progression is made, saved, and carried to the next session. Most sessions in SoT that is also the case. But for the sessions that it is not....I will leave it at that.
EDIT: As mentioned in the original earlier, PvE is not forced, PvP is. Yes, it is a PvP and PvE game. If the rewards are split, you MUST do both to progress. As it stands now you can opt out of PvE all you want, you cannot opt out of PvP. That is also zero sum.
203 out of 800
