@reedski said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:
Plus if you don't have a huge amount of time and something goes wrong (pvp, a storm, the Kraken etc) suddenly you've lost everything you've worked for and that's pretty much your day ruined. Even if it wasn't much something for all that work would be much appreciated
And that is the bread and butter of this thread, yes :)
@reedski said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:
I've read a few more of these now, I think I understand some of the miscommunication. Now I can only speak for myself, but reading back I think people will agree with me. I'm lvl 40+ in each of the 3, and I have more money than I need, earning money isn't an issue, but if I ever hope to reach legend I need rep. As it stands though the only way to earn rep other than cashing in is via commendations. Most of these also require handing in. If I have three hours before work and I choose to use it playing this game I would like very much to see some sort of result from that. If someone robs me, or I screw up, or the Kraken does me in that's 3 hours down the s*****r. Now with private groups it should be a little better cos you can just hand in more often, but I don't think I'm alone in thinking it might be nice to receive a small amount of rep just for finishing the voyage. It would definitely increase PvP for me since I don't need the money, order of the souls especially, once I've killed the captain for progress towards voyage and commendation and achievement I could just leave the skull quite happily and fight, currently however even a foul bounty skull is worth ramming full speed onto an outpost for. If I got rep just for finishing the voyage though I could fight and win or lose I could pick back up where I left off. If this attitude was shared pvp returns would go up for the victors as more people would enter fights with something on them. It's a win win, I really don't see why anyone thinks it's a bad idea.
Exactly. Unfortunately people are being dismissive primarily because they don't want to see change. Several people on this thread have openly ADMITTED that they would be more likely to PvP, yet people are still finding reasons to disagree, including 'it probably won't help', yet you, me and several others (who are the target of this thread) have said it would help..
@blappo-spawn said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:
This tool will allow for the PVE players to transition from running to considering the anchor turn and fight option. But If all the value is in the treasure they already have there is 0% chance fighting is better than running.
Yet another person saying it would make a difference to them. I don't understand how people can be disagreeing at this point. The only valid reason to disagree is if you don't want to remove 100% loss as you enjoy that level of extreme tension, any other arguments to disagree is not valid... For people to say 'yea it won't make a difference' or 'I don't believe you' is childish when you are faced with lots of people admitting that it would make a difference to them, and they are the ones who would be affected by this change.
@lotrmith said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:
@reedski If you'd actually read even a fraction of the replies you'd know why some people think it's a bad idea.
And come on... three hour session for a level 40+ you know quite well the risk you take and have made conscious decisions to not turn even slightly aside to drop off at an outpost in that time frame. Be real.
In a 4 man galleon it's not really my decision, the new closed group thing helps because now I can just play with people sympathetic to my time based needs, but sometimes I'm just stuck with people doing what they want, I can have put one of my missions down, done most of the work for the thumbless idiots I've been stuck with, then had them ruin it for me. Even if you only got a tiny miniscule fraction of the rep for completion I could log off with a "oh well, better luck next time" attitude instead of feeling like my entire session was just a waste of time
@reedski Wow, this is actually a perspective I never even considered. If you do play with randoms, they aren't always going to cooperate.. and people won't always see eye-to-eye, if rep was awarded on VC people are more likely to complete their voyage and get rep for that, then even if you have to go in a session unexpectedly, or if you have joined a crew which wants to take massive risks but you don't, you have at least still gained something for your time.
Yes playing with friends is another solution but your friends may not want to play the game at the same time as you, or you may have no friends who are interested in SoT, people are going to have to play with randoms sometimes and this change would also make that side of the game more positive for players.
@angrycoconut16 Nobody has been dismissive.. you obviously haven't listened to our perspective, or don't know what dismissive means.
@reedski said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:
@lotrmith said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:
@reedski If you'd actually read even a fraction of the replies you'd know why some people think it's a bad idea.
And come on... three hour session for a level 40+ you know quite well the risk you take and have made conscious decisions to not turn even slightly aside to drop off at an outpost in that time frame. Be real.
In a 4 man galleon it's not really my decision, the new closed group thing helps because now I can just play with people sympathetic to my time based needs, but sometimes I'm just stuck with people doing what they want, I can have put one of my missions down, done most of the work for the thumbless idiots I've been stuck with, then had them ruin it for me. Even if you only got a tiny miniscule fraction of the rep for completion I could log off with a "oh well, better luck next time" attitude instead of feeling like my entire session was just a waste of time
Yah depending on the crew you get it ends up being a massive waste. I random all the time because my normal crew has had rl things to take care off. I generally don't find that finding a completely clueless crew is that difficult. But I do rejoin until I find some sane people usually takes 2-3 tries max... plus often I get free fort loot.
Also learn to recognize a completely dysfunctional crew and bail immediately. Nothing is worse if no one knows what they are doing or will listen. Not even from a loot standpoint. It's just frustrating.
@savagetwinky I hadn’t thought of that. With this idea implemented, people who use the Red Sea out of spite now will be able to say, “If I can’t have it, you can’t either, but I already got a bonus and you get nada... too bad, so sad.”
@entspeak Or how about this, this idea would solve the issue of players wanting to do this in the first place. Obviously some people would still be horrible and try to abuse the red sea, and in this case it literally would be spite, there is no way to justify it.. but if this idea WAS implemented I'd be heavily in support of your thread, remove the red sea method of destroying/removing loot from the game. Players in general would probably more readily accept that idea too as they are no longer at risk of gaining nothing from their voyage(s). Like I said on your thread, there is clearly a reason it is an issue in the first place, and it is not all down to spite.
I know you probably see no way to justify it at the moment either, but you have to try and be open minded enough to understand why people feel like they can justify it, and as you saw from your thread, it is nowhere near a minority who feel this way either.
@angrycoconut16 said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:
@reedski said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:
I've read a few more of these now, I think I understand some of the miscommunication. Now I can only speak for myself, but reading back I think people will agree with me. I'm lvl 40+ in each of the 3, and I have more money than I need, earning money isn't an issue, but if I ever hope to reach legend I need rep. As it stands though the only way to earn rep other than cashing in is via commendations. Most of these also require handing in. If I have three hours before work and I choose to use it playing this game I would like very much to see some sort of result from that. If someone robs me, or I screw up, or the Kraken does me in that's 3 hours down the s*****r. Now with private groups it should be a little better cos you can just hand in more often, but I don't think I'm alone in thinking it might be nice to receive a small amount of rep just for finishing the voyage. It would definitely increase PvP for me since I don't need the money, order of the souls especially, once I've killed the captain for progress towards voyage and commendation and achievement I could just leave the skull quite happily and fight, currently however even a foul bounty skull is worth ramming full speed onto an outpost for. If I got rep just for finishing the voyage though I could fight and win or lose I could pick back up where I left off. If this attitude was shared pvp returns would go up for the victors as more people would enter fights with something on them. It's a win win, I really don't see why anyone thinks it's a bad idea.
Exactly. Unfortunately people are being dismissive primarily because they don't want to see change. Several people on this thread have openly ADMITTED that they would be more likely to PvP, yet people are still finding reasons to disagree, including 'it probably won't help', yet you, me and several others (who are the target of this thread) have said it would help..
And what do you say about those who have admitted they would be less likely to PvP, pointing to more solid reasons than mere wishful thinking?
What do you say about the general idea that those who suppose they would fight more often are actually just blissfully ignorant of the reality that they are likely to run now because they are unlikely to win, and will find themselves just as likely to run under your suggestion because they are just as unlikely to win, and after a brief stint of fruitless losses will go right back to complaining about being sunk?
@angrycoconut16 That's a pipe dream. People want their loot. Why be satisfied with 33% when I can get 100%. And, if I am guaranteed to get 33% why would I allow someone else to get the other 66%? This idea will just give a greater incentive to deny chasers by running into the Red Sea - they will have less to lose by doing so.
@angrycoconut16 said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:
@entspeak Or how about this snip
It wouldn't solve it at all because your missing that the evader is excepting total loss is acceptable outcome in the situation.
The point is player behavior doesn't support the claims that people will be willing to fight if they get some rep out of a VC. There are a sizable amount of people already willing to PVP which creates the problem of loss to begin with. I really don't think its a ubiquitous problem every time someone logs in to make a change like this reasonable. Basically so long as the majority of the value is still on the boat this is still a problem.
The alternate side is we don't want frivolous PVP which will potentially make it harder to complete voyages. Once you remove the importance of the loot from all players (especially if you can get rep explicitly from other peoples loot over your now devalued loot)… it will be always PVP... or trade chests.
Either way your not solving a problem. Your trying to protect people from failing bad occasionally.
@reedski said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:
As much as I want rep for voyage completion posts like this one are just the tail wagging the dog, we bought this game, we need to adapt to it not the other way around.
@entspeak That is completely unfounded. You are literally talking to multiple people on this thread who are telling you their reasons and their reactions if such a change would be implemented. Sure some people may still want to run and save their 66% and that's fine, but what we are saying is that for many players this would open up something which currently is never an option.... (relating to engaging in PvP)...
And as I just said - if it does give greater incentive for people to run into the red sea, tough, they wouldn't be able to if Rare removed that and the loot respawned somewhere like you are suggesting. I do agree with you I don't think that is what Rare would want the red sea used for... but at the same time you have to try and understand the reason people would want to do that in the first place.
@reedski Then the game will continue to make people leave, post angry or upset threads, and log out on occasions feeling completely dejected and deflated. Do you think that's really what Rare wants?
'We bought the game, and thus this is the way it is going to stay, so you have to get used to it' is not constructive thinking. We aren't discussing a board game with set rules, where you buy it from a shop and that's what you get. We are discussing an online game where the developers are ACTIVELY CURRENTLY shaping the game into what it will become in the future, and a large part of their changes come from player feedback - Rare have proven multiple times they listen to player feedback and the players who support this idea all agree that sometimes the game just isn't fun when all of your time invested in a game is literally sailing away from you... they can easily keep the core system of theft in the game whilst making the loss a little less painful for the people who spent the time voyaging and LITERALLY obtaining the items which PvPers are stealing. I don't care if a change isn't added in the format of a 50% bonus as I have suggested, but whatever happens, something needs to be done.
@angrycoconut16 said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:
@reedski Then the game will continue to make people leave, post angry or upset threads, and log out on occasions feeling completely dejected and deflated. Do you think that's really what Rare wants?
'We bought the game, and thus this is the way it is going to stay, so you have to get used to it' is not constructive thinking. We aren't discussing a board game with set rules, where you buy it from a shop and that's what you get. We are discussing an online game where the developers are ACTIVELY CURRENTLY shaping the game into what it will become in the future, and a large part of their changes come from player feedback - Rare have proven multiple times they listen to player feedback and the players who support this idea all agree that sometimes the game just isn't fun when all of your time invested in a game is literally sailing away from you... they can easily keep the core system of theft in the game whilst making the loss a little less painful for the people who spent the time voyaging and LITERALLY obtaining the items which PvPers are stealing. I don't care if a change isn't added in the format of a 50% bonus as I have suggested, but whatever happens, something needs to be done.
It will also continue to draw players into an engaging experience. It's not meant for everyone. See dark souls that is committed to causing players to lose hours of progress in a single player game, and is hugely popular.
While we all want the game to expand, unlike a board game... people would probably not want to play a second version of monopoly that introduces socialism so no one can lose until everyone loses. Basically, lets expand on what they sold us not undermine core features of the game.
@savagetwinky You can not compare this game to dark souls, not in the slightest. Lol. No game is meant for everyone, that's a silly point to make, but it is perfectly feasible to make this change whilst retaining Rare's principles of theft and paranoia on the ocean. We are not asking for PvE servers, or to remove PvP, or to remove one of the factions, we are literally asking for some new thoughts into how rewards are given, that is perfectly valid feedback. Anyway gunna stop replying now, before we go on a loop-de-loop again.
@angrycoconut16 said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:
@savagetwinky You can not compare this game to dark souls, not in the slightest. Lol.
Yes I can, and just did. And to continue that comparison. All gains in dark souls are permanent once you've spent the souls, or reached specific points. PVP players can come in and cause you to lose everything via invasions.
We understand what you asking for. We are pointing out it doesn't solve an actual problem, the people that are most upset measure their time exclusively by how much rep they gained. And all player feedback is valid. But there is obviously not a consensus on this one. There is no in-game pressure to need that rep to undermine the fun of PvP which is a distinct difference to DkS. But there are also carely crafted points to cash in souls, which SoT leaves up to player discretion.
@angrycoconut16 said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:
@entspeak That is completely unfounded. You are literally talking to multiple people on this thread who are telling you their reasons and their reactions if such a change would be implemented. Sure some people may still want to run and save their 66% and that's fine, but what we are saying is that for many players this would open up something which currently is never an option.... (relating to engaging in PvP)...
And as I just said - if it does give greater incentive for people to run into the red sea, tough, they wouldn't be able to if Rare removed that and the loot respawned somewhere like you are suggesting. I do agree with you I don't think that is what Rare would want the red sea used for... but at the same time you have to try and understand the reason people would want to do that in the first place.
The reason people want to do that in the first place is because
Your suggestion does nothing to alleviate either of those motivations.
@lotrmith said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:
@angrycoconut16 said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:
And what do you say about those who have admitted they would be less likely to PvP, pointing to more solid reasons than mere wishful thinking?
What do you say about the general idea that those who suppose they would fight more often are actually just blissfully ignorant of the reality that they are likely to run now because they are unlikely to win, and will find themselves just as likely to run under your suggestion because they are just as unlikely to win, and after a brief stint of fruitless losses will go right back to complaining about being sunk?
I haven't seen anyone say 'yea this change would make me less likely to PvP', if I have forgotten or not acknowledged it by all means remind me. This thread is quite long and it would take me far too long to sift back through every post to find it. I don't recall anyone actually stating 'oh yea if this change was implemented I would engage in PvP less because..'
The only argument to that effect I recall is where people were worried about players just grinding voyage complete to get their rep and not turning in/ignoring loot, to which my response was well I don't see why people would want to miss out on 66% of their reward, and if that is an issue then the 50% bonus can be scaled down. The bonus isn't the main change I'm looking for here, the main change I'd like to see is this PRINCIPLE applied, whereby you don't lose 100% when you sink. I don't care how that's implemented.
You can't say blissfully ignorant of the REALITY, you don't KNOW the reality! You can't see the future! Now, obviously I can't either, however my comments are based on more than wishful thinking as they are based on several peoples (including my own) experiences and responses to this idea! Yours aren't. You are literally speaking primarily from your opinion, and savagetwinky's opinion...
And 'unlikely to win' shows just how much attention you have been paying to my arguments.. this is why having a discussion with you is so painful. We don't know how 'unlikely they are to win', my point which I have said so many times, is that the current system DISCOURAGES PvP, thus we don't know if those people fleeing would win or not! It's really silly to assume that just because they are fleeing they are weak at PvP. But why would they risk fighting? It's far less risky to just flee. Perhaps they would actually be really strong in a PvP fight! But we don't know because people almost always make the choice to run because of the risk of loss! I don't know why you have such a pessimistic view of people?
Listen, if people are going to complain about being sunk till the end of time, then I would agree with you and support you, that is ridiculous and PvP is a core part of the game, including winning or being sunk. That is not what this thread is about, so I don't understand why you're even bringing it up. I will repeat myself again. No one here is objecting to the idea of loss, no one here is objecting to being sunk, what we are objecting to, is the current loss when these things happen. Losing is a part of any game, but in this game you can end up losing quite a bit of potential progress and gold when it happens, and we would like to still receive something for the tasks we have successfully completed... now if you don't want it to change that's fine, but that is what we are fighting for. If we were complaining about being sunk, we would not be here.. we'd be with the 'PvE server' brigade.
@savagetwinky And again, trying to tell people that they shouldn't care about rep. That is not your place man, not your place at all. And no you can't compare it to another game, dark souls is LITERALLY advertised as what it is, anyone who can be bothered to do a bit of research into dark souls would see what sort of game it is! On the other hand SoT is advertised and shown as a much more laid back, casual experience, not hard core like DS. Different games, different games.
@lotrmith said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:
The reason people want to do that in the first place is because
- they don't like people taking any amount of their stuff
- they don't like sinking
Your suggestion does nothing to alleviate either of those motivations.
If people don't like sinking, they run. That's irrelevant.
So yes, it's because people don't like their stuff being taken by other players. Now carry it on, continue that.. why don't they like it? Why do you think they don't like it to the extent that they may use the red sea in this way? Because it represents 100% of their time investment from a voyage(s).... That's what needs solving. If you think that this suggestion wouldn't solve it, then that's fine, but please do come up with something better rather than just raining on this suggestion. I am all ears.
@angrycoconut16 said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:
@lotrmith said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:
@angrycoconut16 said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:
And what do you say about those who have admitted they would be less likely to PvP, pointing to more solid reasons than mere wishful thinking?
What do you say about the general idea that those who suppose they would fight more often are actually just blissfully ignorant of the reality that they are likely to run now because they are unlikely to win, and will find themselves just as likely to run under your suggestion because they are just as unlikely to win, and after a brief stint of fruitless losses will go right back to complaining about being sunk?
I haven't seen anyone say 'yea this change would make me less likely to PvP', if I have forgotten or not acknowledged it by all means remind me.
You realize some of the people that have said they would PvP more kind of acknowledged to being inconsistent.. or someone like touchdown has completely acknowledged any rep loss would make him avoid PVP because other players don't deserve his effort... plus the motivation to dive into the red sea is completely based on spite not the value of their time so any change to the value proposition wouldn't really tackle the motivation there...
Your idea is really... really only taking into consideration when the point of loss happens and not the rest of the game.
@angrycoconut16 said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:
@savagetwinky And again, trying to tell people that they shouldn't care about rep. That is not your place man, not your place at all. And no you can't compare it to another game, dark souls is LITERALLY advertised as what it is, anyone who can be bothered to do a bit of research into dark souls would see what sort of game it is! On the other hand SoT is advertised and shown as a much more laid back, casual experience, not hard core like DS. Different games, different games.
Regardless the game allows people to not care about rep and designed the PvP with loss because of that, and didn't build up the PvE to something fulfilling on its own. So there is structure built around reputation loss.
I also wouldn't be disingenuous about the advertising.. because it's never been exclusively casual material. Generally it points out other players are a danger... or you can be.
@savagetwinky said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:
You realize some of the people that have said they would PvP more kind of acknowledged to being inconsistent.. or someone like touchdown has completely acknowledged any rep loss would make him avoid PVP because other players don't deserve his effort... plus the motivation to dive into the red sea is completely based on spite not the value of their time so any change to the value proposition wouldn't really tackle the motivation there...
Your idea is really... really only taking into consideration when the point of loss happens and not the rest of the game.
Yes, I do acknowledge that, however touchdown has more extreme views than me. More to the point, he has never said he would PvP LESS because of this suggestion which is what lotr claimed. Me and touchdown both believe in the same principle but he wants to take it a step further than I do - he wants NO rep to be associated with the loot. I on the other hand think that would be far too extreme, of course you need some rep associated with the loot, so that everyone has strong incentive to defend it still, that's my perspective anyhow.
Red sea isn't completely based on spite, no, but spite plays a factor I'm sure. However that spite has come from somewhere, that's the part people forget... in general the SoT community is a much friendlier one than many other gaming communities I've been a part of, there are so many great people here, so where the hell is that spite coming from? It's the fact that loot represents so much of our time and so people feel extremely bad about losing it. That's what I'd like to see changed, in a healthy way. You can't solve this by telling people 'oh yea rep? that old thing? you shouldn't care about that it's not important' because whether you like it or not Rare have introduced PL, rep, and the unlockables associated with it. So yes, it can feel really awful when you see 100% of your rep for your session or for your couple of voyages sailing away into the horizon.
My idea is supposed to take into account quantity of loss more than anything. I want loss to be in the game, and I want the game to remain to its core ideas of theft on the open seas, the part you and I disagree on is you believe that the loot has to represent 100% of an individuals times to keep this concept of theft important. I don't, I believe it would still work fine so long as it is valuable enough, but that value doesn't have to equal 100%.
@savagetwinky I do agree, it shows combat, it shows PvP, it shows danger, however personally I think it is understandable why so many people thought it was a bit more casual even with the combat and thus had a reward system which was structured a bit more accordingly. Obviously this is partly subjective however what we can say is that a fair number of people are dissatisfied with the reward system currently. I am not saying a majority of the game, but a fair number of people judging by the support this thread has at the moment...
I agree, the game allows people to not care about rep, because it isn't a game which unlocks new weapons, new skills, new power etc BUT there are still items which are unlocked! And people would like to strive for those! Or perhaps they just want the 50/50/50 PL title! Perhaps they want the cool PL sails! Whatever it is, some people have said their sights on that, and so rep should be awarded in a more consistent and positive manner....
There isn't any fulfilment to PvE when you lose your loot, that's the fundamental issue here. If you successfully located the chest, and got a bit of rep, if you killed the skeleton captain for the order of souls quest, and got some rep, etc etc.. THEN it would be fulfilling.. and players mindsets would change accordingly.
@angrycoconut16 said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:
Yes, I do acknowledge that, however touchdown has more extreme views than me. More to the point, he has never said he would PvP LESS because of this suggestion which is what lotr claimed. Me and touchdown both believe in the same principle but he wants to take it a step further than I do - he wants NO rep to be associated with the loot. I on the other hand think that would be far too extreme, of course you need some rep associated with the loot, so that everyone has strong incentive to defend it still, that's my perspective anyhow.
Or the other person that kind of acknowledged that his argument was a bit inconsistent and turned around and said maybe we need to adapt to what the game is offering.
Red sea isn't completely based on spite, no, but spite plays a factor I'm sure.
It's completely based on spite. When your decisions are:
A) Try to fight
B) Try to salvage by making a few passes or crash and sell
C) dump everything out of bounds so they can't have my value.
There is no other way to interpret that that. It's solely motivated based on spite and ignores any sort of value that can be retained.
My idea is supposed to take into account quantity of loss more than anything. I want loss to be in the game, and I want the game to remain to its core ideas of theft on the open seas, the part you and I disagree on is you believe that the loot has to represent 100% of an individuals times to keep this concept of theft important. I don't, I believe it would still work fine so long as it is valuable enough, but that value doesn't have to equal 100%.
Again ignoring everything else about the game, thus, you are one of the people that consider time = rep and that's the only way to measure the enjoyment of this game. It's completely ignoring what it's trying to create for players.
If the rep is a measure of how much loot you've turned in... and that's the primary goal of the game... And the game has been designed completely around that idea... and the ability to steal it to create tension... and functional rep = voyages that turn out more loot. Everyone is supposed to be collecting loot, the voyages just point you in direction of loot, but you can take that loot from other players.
@savagetwinky Wow I thought we were actually having a constructive discussion that time, how foolish of me. I never EVER stated that it's the only way to enjoy the game, don't put words in my mouth. This is pointless lets stop our conversation here.
@angrycoconut16 said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:
@savagetwinky Wow I thought we were actually having a constructive discussion that time, how foolish of me. I never EVER stated that it's the only way to enjoy the game, don't put words in my mouth. This is pointless lets stop our conversation here.
But that's the only way your argument works. That's kind of what you don't see. The game isn't trying to reward you for killing skeletons. It's trying to reward you for delivering loot to alliances successfully.
The other half of your argument has nothing to do with this. Players want to strive for PL. Go right ahead. But the game is adjusted that some nights might not be successful, and that should be ok because the rest of the game is designed around it.
@savagetwinky the big difference between SoT and Souls is the speed at which you can recover from losing everything. In Dark Souls PvE you just go back to where you died, in PvP you don't lose everything so same applies, but even what you do lose can be farmed back quickly. In SoT if you lose a bunch you have to do all that again, and thanks to the Gods of RNG there's no guarantee you'll even get that amount again. I think people just want something to show for all that time investment, not necessarily a lot, just a little to make it slightly less painful.
@angrycoconut16 said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:
@lotrmith said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:
@angrycoconut16 said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:
And what do you say about those who have admitted they would be less likely to PvP, pointing to more solid reasons than mere wishful thinking?
What do you say about the general idea that those who suppose they would fight more often are actually just blissfully ignorant of the reality that they are likely to run now because they are unlikely to win, and will find themselves just as likely to run under your suggestion because they are just as unlikely to win, and after a brief stint of fruitless losses will go right back to complaining about being sunk?
I haven't seen anyone say 'yea this change would make me less likely to PvP', if I have forgotten or not acknowledged it by all means remind me.
raises hand along with every other player who weighs the value of reputation gains via PvP against the value of reputation gains via voyaging
Well that's where the player discretion comes into play. The game isn't crafted at good stopping points... and it leaves it up to the player. Voyaging for 4 hours straight would be like never lighting any barn fires then dying at the bottom of blight town. While you haven't lost everything yet... you have to do the 4 hours over again any way with it all on the line.
So how much you lose in in SoT is completely up to how often you choose to secure it. So your free to hit a bonfire whenever but you lose that second chance because your not forced to get to a particular point with that stuff. You also don't have to do the same exact content again, it lets you recover it away from where you just died.
I'm not saying they are identical but they play of the same sort of, lets break the player so his successes matter significantly more. I said it earlier in this thread. Dark Souls turns climbing a hill into a massive feat while Word Of Warcraft puts you on a gondolier to the top. The parts of dark souls that make the gameplay compelling are similar to what makes the PvP compelling in SoT.
@savagetwinky yeah, fairynuff mate, I just wanted to say I've enjoyed this argument, unlike some people on these forums you seem to have the knack of back and forth, I think we'll probably remain on opposite sides of this particular debate but it's nice that you take the time to change my mind instead of just being rude, hope we both get a result we're happy with
@reedski So in other words to add onto what savage said, the game discourages risk taking because of the current reward system. It discourages people from doing any more than one voyage because if you do and you lose loot, it's your fault for not going to an outpost sooner... it discourages PvP when you have loot, because why would you take that risk when you stand to lose so much.
It's like you said, just to make the loss less painful and open up more options for players. Now perhaps 50% bonus is too much, that's fine, I do however think it needs to be a minimum of something equivalent to 25% to be meaningful enough to have the positive impacts I have suggested.
@SavageTwinky Again, I am not debating what the game currently is. I know it is trying to reward you for delivering loot successfully to alliances. And your main reward would STILL come from this!
Yea, like you said, the game is made in such a way that some nights you get no progress towards PL, but no, the game isn't designed around it at all. It's designed so that is the consequence, and that is the reality of what happens now, but you can't justify it by saying 'oh yea the rest of the game is designed around that', it isn't.. like you say, you can log off having lost everything from that session and feel deflated around it. There is no reason that you couldn't still get SOMETHING for your time. None at all. The only valid reason you have given is 'well it reduces the severity of the risk', which I can agree with, all your other arguments boil down to 'well this is what the game tries to do, this is what the game is.. this is what the game is trying to achieve', no one is debating that and we know how the game works we are trying to come up with a system which is an improvement on the current one and would be more positive for players. You can state what the current game is as much as you like, we already know that. With a mindset like yours the game would never move on and become something even better.
