suggestions around the pirate code

  • 2

    Article 1: The Sea Calls To Us All - Everyone is welcome in Sea of Thieves regardless of age, gender, race, sexuality, nationality or creed.

    Recently some argued that everyone and all playstyles are welcomed to SoT.
    Art.1 is not about all playstyles, people cheesing the system imho are not welcome.
    This includes Serverhopping as those who do do not accept what the game/server offers them, but cheese it to their desires, be it premade PvE only or PvP fort hopping.
    And for sure not those playstyles who game the system and use exploits, like the many we have with animation breaking.

    • Article 2: The Sea Unites Us as One Community - Outside the heat of battle or piracy on the high seas, all crews shall bond together as a community of like-minded souls.

    With many different aproaches and with some conflict of aims players a heading for, this is hard to accomplish, but a good intention.
    Suggestion, dont cater to much to this or that side and dont support extremes.

    • Article 6: Respect New Pirates and Their Voyage Ahead - May the old legends help forge new ones: treat new pirates with respect and share your knowledge.

    That Article let me think over how to aproach not only new, but all sailors in general.
    Should we not talk first and shoot later to see if the ones we want to shoot at is a landlubber or a veteran sailor?
    I stop attacking if i see i am much more experienced and there is nothing to win, but only to loose a new sailor who's experience i maybe made a bad one if i attack further.
    I dont want to protect sour loosers, but communication is king.
    If people get the game right it's easier for good sportsmanship in winning and loosing.

    • Article 7: Those Who Cheat Shall Be Punished - Pirates who show bad form and cheat their crew or others shall surely face bitter hardships and punishments.

    Many betray Alliances, and this is all fine, but maybe we should punish people who sink alliance ships.
    To make it not cheesable, have a timer for quitting an alliance.
    15 Minutes maybe, so if a ship leave an alliance, others know 15 minutes before they do and maybe want to attack, if you sink an allied ship or kill all of them you will earn 75% less on outposts on this session/server.

    I know betraying can be fun, but it made 99% of them worthless and nobody trust anyone else anymore.

  • 10

    He's finally done it. He's trying to rewrite the Pirate Code for his own gain.

    I'm not touching this any further. You all have fun, I'm not even gonna begin to get wrapped up in this descent into madness.

  • 10

    What's wrong with server hopping? Why I can't do it if I feel like it? Why should I get into a empty server even if it is boring?

  • 2

    @heavyreaper102 exactly the day has come, and the milk expired.

  • 2

  • 2

    @bugaboo-bill I think your on to something but i'm not going down with the ship on this one

  • 8

    @bugaboo-bill

    Recently some argued that everyone and all playstyles are welcomed to SoT.

    Art.1 is not about all playstyles, people cheesing the system imho are not welcome.

    This includes Serverhopping as those who do do not accept what the game/server offers them, but cheese it to their desires, be it premade PvE only or PvP fort hopping.

    And for sure not those playstyles who game the system and use exploits, like the many we have with animation breaking.

    All I will say, if you condemn one, better be condemning the other. Its silly that one is ok, but the other is treated in the opposite. Both could be argued against the spirit of the game.

    That Article let me think over how to aproach not only new, but all sailors in general.

    Should we not talk first and shoot later to see if the ones we want to shoot at is a landlubber or a veteran sailor?

    I stop attacking if i see i am much more experienced and there is nothing to win, but only to loose a new sailor who's experience i maybe made a bad one if i attack further.

    I dont want to protect sour loosers, but communication is king.

    If people get the game right it's easier for good sportsmanship in winning and loosing.

    Their is many ways to respect someone but still play normally. I respect the people I sink by treating you no different than I would any other ship. Equal treatment for an equal member. I am not going to pull punches, because that just feels insulting, especially when its done to me. I wouldn't want to be treated with kids gloves, so that is why I don't for other players.

    Many betray Alliances, and this is all fine, but maybe we should punish people who sink alliance ships.

    To make it not cheesable, have a timer for quitting an alliance.

    15 Minutes maybe, so if a ship leave an alliance, others know 15 minutes before they do and maybe want to attack, if you sink an allied ship or kill all of them you will earn 75% less on outposts on this session/server.

    Just no, no rules were broken, no mechanics manipulated, betrayal is supposed to be just as much of an option as cooperation. Tools not rules. If the player-base wants mostly betrayal, than that will reflect in the game. Maybe this is just how the majority want it?

  • 0

    @guilleont sagte in suggestions around the pirate code:

    What's wrong with server hopping? Why I can't do it if I feel like it? Why should I get into a empty server even if it is boring?

    There is no empty servers due to server merging.

    People do not accept if there is no instant PvP action or active Forts and cheese it the same way as people who dont accept there is or can be PvP an therefore hop servers until they have big premade Alliances.

    Imho the intended way is to login and see what the server has to offer for you, the game is mixed mode, nit for PvP or PvE only.
    Cheesing it is maybe not the best or healthy way for servers, Pop, community in general.
    Playstyles cheesing i dont see in Art.1

  • 0

    @nabberwar sagte in suggestions around the pirate code:

    @bugaboo-bill

    Recently some argued that everyone and all playstyles are welcomed to SoT.

    Art.1 is not about all playstyles, people cheesing the system imho are not welcome.

    This includes Serverhopping as those who do do not accept what the game/server offers them, but cheese it to their desires, be it premade PvE only or PvP fort hopping.

    And for sure not those playstyles who game the system and use exploits, like the many we have with animation breaking.

    All I will say, if you condemn one, better be condemning the other. Its silly that one is ok, but the other is treated in the opposite. Both could be argued against the spirit of the game.

    Exactly what i say. Did i make mistake saying so in englisch?

    That Article let me think over how to aproach not only new, but all sailors in general.

    Should we not talk first and shoot later to see if the ones we want to shoot at is a landlubber or a veteran sailor?

    I stop attacking if i see i am much more experienced and there is nothing to win, but only to loose a new sailor who's experience i maybe made a bad one if i attack further.

    I dont want to protect sour loosers, but communication is king.

    If people get the game right it's easier for good sportsmanship in winning and loosing.

    Their is many ways to respect someone but still play normally. I respect the people I sink by treating you no different than I would any other ship. Equal treatment for an equal member. I am not going to pull punches, because that just feels insulting, especially when its done to me. I wouldn't want to be treated with kids gloves, so that is why I don't for other players.

    Communication dies not mean you get treated with kids gloves.
    The idea was to care more for your fellow player and sometimes show more understanding in others playstyles. If you treat all the same, say like KoS, this is as extreme as if you scuttle just before any interaction could happen.
    Maybe a middleground is better.

    Many betray Alliances, and this is all fine, but maybe we should punish people who sink alliance ships.

    To make it not cheesable, have a timer for quitting an alliance.

    15 Minutes maybe, so if a ship leave an alliance, others know 15 minutes before they do and maybe want to attack, if you sink an allied ship or kill all of them you will earn 75% less on outposts on this session/server.

    Just no, no rules were broken, no mechanics manipulated, betrayal is supposed to be just as much of an option as cooperation. Tools not rules. If the player-base wants mostly betrayal, than that will reflect in the game. Maybe this is just how the majority want it?

    Sure, agree, but the outcome seem imbalanced to me, so why not try on insiders?

  • 6

    @bugaboo-bill

    Exactly what i say. Did i make mistake saying so in englisch?

    Emphasized for the benefit of other readers. This was directed at no one in particular.

    Communication dies not mean you get treated with kids gloves.

    The idea was to care more for your fellow player and sometimes show more understanding in others playstyles. If you treat all the same, say like KoS, this is as extreme as if you scuttle just before any interaction could happen.

    Maybe a middleground is better.

    I am not referring to communication, I am talking about respect. Article 6 specifically mentions respecting new players, I demonstrate my respect by treating them like equals as I would any other ship. For me, to be treated like everyone else is respect.

    The goal is to respect their playstyle, but it seems I and others are the only playstyle that requires changing. That to me demonstrates that my voyage isn't being respected. Their is clearly a landslide on the level of people who complain about mine and others play-style. Respect goes both ways.

    Many betray Alliances, and this is all fine, but maybe we should punish people who sink alliance ships.

    Tools not rules. Punishment is used when people break rules. No rules are broken when players decide to betray. The whole point of an Alliance system is for the players to decide how they want to use that tool. Their is no wrong way to use this tool.

    I know betraying can be fun, but it made 99% of them worthless and nobody trust anyone else anymore.

    Why punish that fun, when it breaks no rules? As said before, maybe this is just what the majority wants now a days?

  • 6

    I understand the need to respect new pirates as per #6, but I've seen not so new pirates pretending to be new pirates, and well...

  • 0

    I really dont need a code im fine its for the pirates but they dont care xD they just like to sink a boat but arena got no fleetbattles and fort to have fun so its all in adventure hopping.

  • 3

    @galactic-geek said in suggestions around the pirate code:

    I understand the need to respect new pirates as per #6, but I've seen not so new pirates pretending to be new pirates, and well...

    Guilty as charged...… or really to lazy to customize my ship. LOL

  • 0

    there is nothing wrong with server hopping. if i get on a server with literally no other ships, and literally nothing i want to do then im gonna server hop. if not, then the game will die for me cause it will be pooping boring. I think part of my problem though is that im oceanic and i kinda think the oceanic servers are dead. i wish there was a way to know. but the game literally server hops me every minute anyways when im playing solo.

  • 2

    @bugaboo-bill said:

    @guilleont sagte:

    What's wrong with server hopping? Why I can't do it if I feel like it? Why should I get into a empty server even if it is boring?

    There is no empty servers due to server merging.

    People do not accept if there is no instant PvP action or active Forts and cheese it the same way as people who dont accept there is or can be PvP an therefore hop servers until they have big premade Alliances.

    Imho the intended way is to login and see what the server has to offer for you, the game is mixed mode, nit for PvP or PvE only.

    Well, server hopping is never a good thing for a game, cause it shows it has some lacks. But still, the intended way to play is the one that players intent. All of them, not only your way matey. And the game has to adapt to the way players play and the features they request.

    Let's face it, activating the FOTD is a tedious task. Sometimes I've got no time for a long session, so I hop servers to find a shipwreck, a skelly ship, a wood crate order, or a short voyage. There are lots of reason why players hop servers, and they all are legit. If you don't like hopping servers, don't do it.

    But anyway, what that Article 1 has to do with this?? Art. 1 is just a equality statement, in line with the respect of Human Rights:

    Article 1: The Sea Calls To Us All - Everyone is welcome in Sea of Thieves regardless of age, gender, race, sexuality, nationality or creed.

  • 3

    I don't see it that way.

    • Article 1 - addresses personal characteristics such as age, sex, sexual imprint, nationality, religion and color of the skin. It therefore rejects all behaviour that is oriented towards these characteristics, such as racism, nationalism. General player behavior is not the subject of this article, such as tricking, cheating.
    • Article 2 - does not mean anything else, but as we are passionately wrestling with and against each other in the game, we also should be aware that we are ultimately playing a game together.
    • Article 6 - is probably aimed more at your own crew members. We know this: §$%&, a crew member who joined is a newcomer, it is ignored, muted, locked up until it leaves the game. It can't adress players in foreing crews, because I can't tell from an opponent player whether it's a beginner or wants to set me up and pretend to be only a beginner to take advantage of my good faith.
    • Article 7 - is not clear, but in my understanding aiming at real fraudsters. Those who are using Auto-Aim, scripts and hacks to gain an advantage. These we should oppose together hard.
      Then there are those who deliberately harm their own crew, which we should not tolerate either. Generally unsportsmanlike behaviour will also be meant. Cheating an alliance or sinking allied ships ... well, in my opinion this is not meant. Means the article is somehow unclear, otherwise we could not conclude differently.
  • 0

    @heavyreaper102 You already did. As usual, with insinuations and guesses taken from the air.

  • 0

    @goedecke-michel said in suggestions around the pirate code:

    @heavyreaper102 You already did. As usual, with insinuations and guesses taken from the air.

    Seven other people don't seem to agree with you. Maybe that should say something?
    If you'd like to tell me I'm wrong, then I encourage you to. Is he or is he not suggesting that The Pirate Code be changed to his specifications?
    regardless, I ask that you not promote the kind of wanton toxicity on these forums that I get from you, especially now that you've followed me here since our last debate ended.
    Oh, sorry, am I just misinterpreting a joke here too? should I chuckle and say "insinuations and guesses, hurhur thats me all right!"
    Guess I've gotta open my mind.

  • 0

    @HeavyReaper102

    You asked me to tell you were you (might be) wrong.

    First of all: There are currently seven votes in favour of your contribution. I beg your pardon if the number changed while I type this. That's not seven votes that don't agree with me. The number of disagreeing votes will not be raised anywhere. If you really can't avoid nitpicking, at least try to do it right.

    In my understanding, nobody's talking about rewriting the code at all. We talk about suggestions around the code, not about the code. It is about interpretations, as far as the code has, or seems to have, room for interpretation.

    This is not everybodies matter, but no reason to mock or rage about. Nothing is wrong talking about this kind of stuff. But if it was, I would think a Moderator would pick it up. I can't recall you are one of them.

  • 0

    @goedecke-michel said in suggestions around the pirate code:

    @HeavyReaper102

    You asked me to tell you were you (might be) wrong.

    I'm still waiting on that.

    First of all: There are currently seven votes in favour of your contribution. I beg your pardon if the number changed while I type this. That's not seven votes that don't agree with me. The number of disagreeing votes will not be raised anywhere.

    I proposed a statement that is perpetually meaningless. You've decided to take it literally. Very well. 7 people upvoted my comment. I take that as they agree with my words. Seeing as your stance is one of disagreement, it's not hard to come to the conclusion that, if they agree with me, they most likely also disagree with you.

    If you really can't avoid nitpicking, at least try to do it right.

    You say as you nitpick.

    In my understanding, nobody's talking about rewriting the code at all. We talk about suggestions around the code, not about the code. It is about interpretations, as far as the code has, or seems to have, room for interpretation.

    Mm, ok. Interpretations.
    Let's take a look back at his original post.
    The first, oh, 85% of this post? Sure. Those can be called interpretations, you're correct on that front.
    But if you look at his thoughts on Article 7, you start to look past the advertised content and see what's being slipped in there:

    Many betray Alliances, and this is all fine, but maybe we should punish people who sink alliance ships.
    To make it not cheesable, have a timer for quitting an alliance.
    15 Minutes maybe, so if a ship leave an alliance, others know 15 minutes before they do and maybe want to attack, if you sink an allied ship or kill all of them you will earn 75% less on outposts on this session/server.
    I know betraying can be fun, but it made 99% of them worthless and nobody trust anyone else anymore.

    He's plain and simple suggesting that alliance betrayals be made against the rules, I'm guessing so that they fall under Article 7. He wants it so that if you Betray an alliance, you're in violation of Article 7 and recieve punishment.
    Article 7 currently does not include a betrayal in the alliance system. He wants that to be different.
    He wants a change in the pirate code.

    This is not everybodies matter, but no reason to mock or rage about.

    My stance was of disbelief, actually. I didn't even have further plans to comment here. Until you instigated, as usual.

    Nothing is wrong talking about this kind of stuff. But if it was, I would think a Moderator would pick it up. I can't recall you are one of them.

    And I never made the claim that I was a moderator, nor that this was some sort of violation. Please don't put words in my mouth for the sake of your stance.

  • 3

    We all play the game differently. Some want to play hardcore super immersive and some people want to hop into action right away. Both are fine, can we all stop trying to condemn perfectly acceptable ways to play the game (and by that I mean ways of playing that exist because of the in game mechanics).

    You dont want to "cheese" the system... then don't, nobody is asking you to. But finding more efficient ways to make gold/dubloons or whatever is the same concept that exist in every other video game with an in game economy. Speedruns, farming etc has been introduced into even some of the most immersive games out there. Just because someone wants super immersive (exactly like real life) gameplay doesn't mean other players can't find more efficient ways to make the same amount.

    We don't all have to play the game the same way. These discussions where we keep trying to change how everyone plays is one of the reasons our community is so negative with each other.

    There are some great people in this community, talent, bright and most of all just cool people. Yet, all this constant bickering on why you should change the game because I like it this way (which I see almost everyday on the forum) is why so many people avoid the forums and call our community toxic.

    I love this community, but guys we have to stop this bs and start supporting each other. We don't have to be the same, that would be boring. Our diversity in all aspects of our play-style is what makes our community fun and enjoyable. Gives us options.

    Simply philosophy, if its a mechanic in the game you can use, then its perfectly fine. If there is a problem, Rare will surely change it, but I don't see them penalizing alliances or server hopping any soon. Doing so would result in most of the players leaving the game.

    I spent the whole first week of FotD grinding it out. I got my 50 completions in that first week. Sure, go on and tell me I cheesed it. But after 12 hours a day for a whole week, losing gold, watching alliances fall, pvp, I had the most fun I had and I have great story to tell at the end of it. Thats what its about, the story, the legends we create in our journey. Whether thats slow walking on every island to be super immersive, or grinding your butt off for a whole week to be one of the first to get that new commendation.

    Just do you, and let other people be them.

  • 0

    @heavyreaper102 sagte in suggestions around the pirate code:

    Let's take a look back at his original post.
    The first, oh, 85% of this post? Sure. Those can be called interpretations, you're correct on that front.
    But if you look at his thoughts on Article 7, you start to look past the advertised content and see what's being slipped in there:

    Many betray Alliances, and this is all fine, but maybe we should punish people who sink alliance ships.
    To make it not cheesable, have a timer for quitting an alliance.
    15 Minutes maybe, so if a ship leave an alliance, others know 15 minutes before they do and maybe want to attack, if you sink an allied ship or kill all of them you will earn 75% less on outposts on this session/server.
    I know betraying can be fun, but it made 99% of them worthless and nobody trust anyone else anymore.

    He's plain and simple suggesting that alliance betrayals be made against the rules, I'm guessing so that they fall under Article 7. He wants it so that if you Betray an alliance, you're in violation of Article 7 and recieve punishment.
    Article 7 currently does not include a betrayal in the alliance system. He wants that to be different.
    He wants a change in the pirate code.

    This is not everybodies matter, but no reason to mock or rage about.

    Actually, literally, he clearly suggests adding a (strange) mechanic for alliances. Your arguments are fictional.

  • 0

    @goedecke-michel said in suggestions around the pirate code:

    Actually, literally, he clearly suggests adding a (strange) mechanic for alliances. Your arguments are fictional.

    This is just insulting at this point, lol.
    So you're not going to mention how he specifically uses the word "punish"?

    "But maybe we should punish people who sink alliance ships."

    The literal definition of the word punish is "to impose a penalty on for a fault, offense, or violation."
    Offense? Violation? Violation of what?
    Of a rule. Of a rule he has thought up and wants to impose on our current pirate code.
    Why do you have to be so demeaning to me, hmm? You don't seem to talk this way to anyone else, only I seem to get this tone off of you.

  • 0

    @heavyreaper102 sagte in suggestions around the pirate code:

    @goedecke-michel said in suggestions around the pirate code:

    Actually, literally, he clearly suggests adding a (strange) mechanic for alliances. Your arguments are fictional.

    This is just insulting at this point, lol.

    Of course not, there is his text and your quote with his exact words 😃😃😃

    So you're not going to mention how he specifically uses the word "punish"?

    Why should I?

    "But maybe we should punish people who sink alliance ships."

    So, what does this have to do with your false insinuation: "He's trying to rewrite the Pirate Code for his own gain."

    The literal definition of the word punish is "to impose a penalty on for a fault, offense, or violation."
    Offense? Violation? Violation of what?
    Of a rule. Of a rule he has thought up and wants to impose on our current pirate code.

    No, you're completely out of line. As he concludes, he thinks that this is part of the code, so we are talking about it: Interpretation of the code, here whether breaking the alliance violates the code or not. He is pro, I am contra.

    Why do you have to be so demeaning to me, hmm? You don't seem to talk this way to anyone else, only I seem to get this tone off of you.

    Demeaning? 😂 By how? You make - in my eyes - a false statement in your answer to a forum post of a comrade, to whom I answer.

  • 0

    @goedecke-michel said in suggestions around the pirate code:

    No, you're completely out of line. As he concludes, he thinks that this is part of the code, so we are talking about it: Interpretation of the code, here whether breaking the alliance violates the code or not. He is pro, I am contra.

    Hate to break it to him; Betraying an alliance does not violate the code. If you're attempting to tell me that he wouldn't have it so that betrayal IS a violation, we both know the answer to that. He proposed it as an "interpretation" but anyone with two eyes and a brain can also see it translates to "it should" just as much as it does "should it?"

  • 0

    Agree and disagree.

    As far as server hopping, they already prevent mergers around a fort. May it would be a reasonable request to block server merges and new spawns for 30 minutes after a FOTD is started? I believe that the fort should be a PVP hotspot and a risk, however would have no issue if that risk was based on who was already on the server.

    As far as alliances though, the system itself is OP. Lets not try and make it worse by forcing players to stick with it.

  • 0

    I do respect your comments about new players though. I try to scout first when you see that basic ship anchored with its sails down at an island. Swim over, see what they have, steal fish and cursed cannonballs and leave if its all low level stuff.

  • 0

    @heavyreaper102 sagte in suggestions around the pirate code:

    ... but anyone with two eyes and a brain can also see it translates to "it should" just as much as it does "should it?"

    You just keep insisting on your fantasies. I am out here.

  • 0

    @heavyreaper102 sagte in suggestions around the pirate code:

    I proposed a statement that is perpetually meaningless.

    Oops, I missed that. On this point I see no reason to disagree with you.