[Mega Thread] PvP and PvE Playstyle Discussion

@cdr-alfonso said in [Mega Thread] PvP and PvE Playstyle Discussion:

And to come back to the Solo-Slooping issue; the game markets itself as accomodating to playing solo. It's not a valid argument to tell people "find a crew", "solo is harder" and whatnot if the game doesn't indicate that to customers.

Being outnumbered is a disadvantage, more news at 6!

I wonder why they removed this wording from the menu, it was always quite clear from the beginning that being solo was harder.

Suggesting people to find a crew is an entirely acceptable and logic answer. You choose to be by yourself, deal with the harder challenges. Some people actually like it!

@combatxkitty

Maybe I am to used to being solo, leaving someone at the ship seems unnecessarily boring for one party. If it works for you nothing wrong with that of course. The ship is always prepared to drop sails and move, yet after that I am not to worried to leave it alone (though I might move it based on where on the island we have to be).

I also play PvPvE games and frequently solo, the losses in SoT are so meaningless in comparison.

So I read more responses to this thread, and I thought of chiming in regarding the upcoming private/custom servers, and also this talk about "Game is flourishing better than ever".

Some people are claiming that private/custom servers are going to be a good compromise. While they certainly have a hard time making me agree with them because they have to state the "Zero progression" part at least five times in one sentence, I can at least agree and not be too fussed over the idea of custom servers not giving anything (After all, treasures are worthless, apparently.)
However them being paid-for really does not give me confidence that they are the "Perfect compromise". Because let's be honest, money is hard to come by at the present, and depending on their cost, very few people are going to really be able to take full advantage of them. Not to mention that it's kind of a hard sell to tell someone "Pay 40 Euros for the game, then 30 Euros a month to play something with no progression".

How about this? Client-side servers with no progression for free, paid-for servers if you want to play with more than two-four players.

And secondly, the whole "The game has never been better! It is thriving, it has fifteen million active players!"
WoW! That would be amazing, the game is doing better than World of Warcraft did back in Wrath of the Lich King!
.... Except how many of those "Active accounts" are actually active? How many of them are just Game Pass subscribers who have access to the game, but don't really play the game or tried it once but didn't stick around? Or how many players bought the game but stopped playing it?

I could be counted as an "Active account", but I haven't played the game since October. I wonder, if the game weren't on Game Pass and Rare stopped counting inactive players as "Active Accounts", then I wonder how big would the game really be. I will be fair and wager that it would be one or two million players, three million tops. However currently, saying that fifteen million people are active in the game? Somehow I have to give an X to Doubt on that.

@kalgert Last time Rare gave us an indication about player numbers it was in the area of 50 to 60 thousand people playing at the daily peak.
Those are decent numbers.
I doubt client side servers are viable, from what I understand, the average pc cant run an SOT server, thus why private servers will require a fee.

@scarecrow1771 said in [Mega Thread] PvP and PvE Playstyle Discussion:

@kalgert Last time Rare gave us an indication about player numbers it was in the area of 50 to 60 thousand people playing at the daily peak.
Those are decent numbers.
I doubt client side servers are viable, from what I understand, the average pc cant run an SOT server, thus why private servers will require a fee.

Steam routinely has between 5 and 10K concurrent users. If you assume the steam population is about 1/3 of the total population that would put the total users between 15k and 30K and any given time.

@scarecrow1771 5o-60k players certainly is a "Decent number", but that is far from "Thriving", especially if they like to boast how they have a massive number of active players.

That doesn't really explain why "Private servers will have a fee", let alone why they SHOULD have to be paid for. Client-Side servers don't look like rocket science, nor that they'd be incapable to be run by an "Average PC". If anything it shows that Sea of Thieves isn't that well optimized, considering there are games that have client-side servers that work reasonably well.
I still think it'd be a good gesture to have servers that you can play by yourself/Your crew for free with no progress, and then have to pay if you want more than one ship.

@CptPhteven I often heard that Steam players count for a third of the total playerbase. If that is true, then... Playerbase isn't as big as people want to make it out to be.

@cptphteven I could be misremembering this,
but during and update video, they said what percentage of the daily player base was on steam, which allowed us to extrapolate the daily numbers.

@cptphteven

There seems to be an awful amount of number plucking going on by the PvE crowd.. Where did you hear steam amounts to 1/3 of the player count?

Rare just said there is a current console/PC split of 50/50 for starters..
You're saying steam has 33% of that 50% or what?

@kalgert The little that I understand about making video games, nothing is "simple" "easy" or "quick", SOT is pretty well optimised but the complex part of the game is, there is just soo much happening all over the map all at once.
I suspect this is partly why private servers will have to be paid for, as Rare will have to spin up a server, somewhere at will anytime someone wants to use one.
Keep in mind though, that private servers are not the fabled pve servers that us mean nasty pvpers have been gatekeeping away from people, they are tool for the more creative communities within SOT to hold their events without some of the more chaotic parts of a sandbox game intruding.

@scarecrow1771 And that is why I disagree with them being "A good compromise". I'd be happy to play on them, but I am not going to pay any more than I already did.

Although I was just anticipating someone to bring up "Muh content creators".
I wasn't saying anything about PvP players, but hey, at least you're self aware enough.

@kalgert said in [Mega Thread] PvP and PvE Playstyle Discussion:

@scarecrow1771 5o-60k players certainly is a "Decent number", but that is far from "Thriving", especially if they like to boast how they have a massive number of active players.

The game has been in the top 20 most played games on Live week after week for over two years at this point, only slipping below that threshold a literal handful of times. Seems to be thriving, especially when you consider the company it is keeping on that list.

That doesn't really explain why "Private servers will have a fee", let alone why they SHOULD have to be paid for. Client-Side servers don't look like rocket science, nor that they'd be incapable to be run by an "Average PC".
If anything it shows that Sea of Thieves isn't that well optimized, considering there are games that have client-side servers that work reasonably well. >

This shows your lack of knowledge on the subject. Most of the heavy lifting in the game is done server side like wave calculations and the like, an average PC or Xbox One would choke on that. Even running a dedicated server client side would be a strain for most systems (one that only runs the game that others can join), and someone would have to sacrifice their computer in order for others to play. This would limit the availability to those running the most powerful machines, ioes that seem fair? Also having a client sider server opens up the game to more potential hacks and cheats.

I still think it'd be a good gesture to have servers that you can play by yourself/Your crew for free with no progress, and then have to pay if you want more than one ship.

Further proof of your lack of knowledge in the field. You think a single player server should be free and pay for MP on customs? WHAT? If anything a single player server should cost MORE because it is an inefficient use of server space, giving one instance per player (or even crew). Many games offer paid, private servers such as those in Battlefield. If you don't want to play the game as intended by the developers, then pay for that privilege.

Custom servers were initially put forth with the idea to give streamers and content creators a place to do their thing. Since most are making some sort of profit from their work/creations/time, it is only fair that these cost money since they are using Rare's tools to create their content. They weren't brought forth with the mind that these would be a solution to the PvE server requests. But no problem if they do either, if someone wants to play in safety and willing to pay for it while sacrificing any progress I see no issue with that - it is their money.

@CptPhteven I often heard that Steam players count for a third of the total playerbase. If that is true, then... Playerbase isn't as big as people want to make it out to be.

Again, the game is CONSISTENTLY in the top 20 most played games on Live week after week (and never has dropped below 27), and I don't think (but not completely sure) that Steam players are counted in those statistics - I say this because there was no huge spike in the ranking once the Steam version launched. And we have Rare saying that the game has had 11 million players this year ALONE. I think it is you who is underestimating the popularity of the game in order to bolster your weak argument for pve type servers.

@dlchief58 said in [Mega Thread] PvP and PvE Playstyle Discussion:

Again, the game is CONSISTENTLY in the top 20 most played games on Live week after week (and never has dropped below 27), and I don't think (but not completely sure) that Steam players are counted in those statistics - I say this because there was no huge spike in the ranking once the Steam version launched. And we have Rare saying that the game has had 11 million players this year ALONE. I think it is you who is underestimating the popularity of the game in order to bolster your weak argument for pve type servers.

I don't know what to say... The only thing you can really argue with what I said is the assumption that steam represents 1/3 of the player base. But... even if you go down to 1/5 of the player base being on steam that's still only 25K to 50K concurrent players. Edit: You can call it cherry picking, or whatever you want - it's the only actual number that we have. I don't think the game is failing, but I do think it's churning through players rather than getting players to keep playing. Game Pass makes it easy to try out a game that's on the edge of what you might like, and that's a double edged sword. It inflates your user count, but can also get more long term players. Long and short of it is, though, if they are actually relying on the Emporium to keep the game going then player retention is the only number that matters, because a player who does not intend to continue playing won't be paying for cool cosmetics.

Game Pass churns players through the game. Rare has recognized that. Rare is implementing a progression system that specifically separates loot turn in from progression. Edi2: the Season progression, from what I understand, more or less addresses all the issues I had with excessive PvP since now you can make progress that can't be stolen. I'd still like a Tall Tale server but it's not going to happen.

@cotu42 said in [Mega Thread] PvP and PvE Playstyle Discussion:

@combatxkitty

Maybe I am to used to being solo, leaving someone at the ship seems unnecessarily boring for one party. If it works for you nothing wrong with that of course. The ship is always prepared to drop sails and move, yet after that I am not to worried to leave it alone (though I might move it based on where on the island we have to be).

I also play PvPvE games and frequently solo, the losses in SoT are so meaningless in comparison.

I use was a solo slooper for a long while and when I was I was always checking and my lil sloop was ready to get out quick too. Part of me thinks everyone should give solo'ing a try for bit, its such a great skill set you acquire from it. Maybe it did make me abit paranoid though lol. I never lost treasure to another crew though and as a gal out alone on the sea's I am a tiny bit proud to say that. I did lose treasure to myself though like having a hole in boat not noticing and sinking lol but I was a noobie then.

Anyways it wont work for everyone but it works for us. We do not get bored. We girl chat and we can both do whatever needs to be done really quickly and we take turns. So if say she dies by a skelly I will go out to island and she will watch ship and then if I die she will take over and I will watch ship. Like I said we are rather disciplined from other much more intense games so SOT is mere kiddies play for us.

I just think for me its important to always have someone on the ship. We have caught sneaky row boaters that way, cannon over pirates that way and ships trying to creep up on us that way. Dont get me wrong most our sessions are peaceful but not every single one.

@bloodybil said in [Mega Thread] PvP and PvE Playstyle Discussion:

@cdr-alfonso said in [Mega Thread] PvP and PvE Playstyle Discussion:

And to come back to the Solo-Slooping issue; the game markets itself as accomodating to playing solo. It's not a valid argument to tell people "find a crew", "solo is harder" and whatnot if the game doesn't indicate that to customers.

Being outnumbered is a disadvantage, more news at 6!

I wonder why they removed this wording from the menu, it was always quite clear from the beginning that being solo was harder.

Suggesting people to find a crew is an entirely acceptable and logic answer. You choose to be by yourself, deal with the harder challenges. Some people actually like it!

Right? People really need to be told going it alone on a PvPvE game is harder than having a group? Isnt it kind of common sense?

Do games really need to say "Warning! If you choose to play alone this multiplayer open world sandbox game may or may not be harder for you!"

@cptphteven said in [Mega Thread] PvP and PvE Playstyle Discussion:

@dlchief58 said in [Mega Thread] PvP and PvE Playstyle Discussion:

Again, the game is CONSISTENTLY in the top 20 most played games on Live week after week (and never has dropped below 27), and I don't think (but not completely sure) that Steam players are counted in those statistics - I say this because there was no huge spike in the ranking once the Steam version launched. And we have Rare saying that the game has had 11 million players this year ALONE. I think it is you who is underestimating the popularity of the game in order to bolster your weak argument for pve type servers.

I don't know what to say... The only thing you can really argue with what I said is the assumption that steam represents 1/3 of the player base. But... even if you go down to 1/5 of the player base being on steam that's still only 25K to 50K concurrent players. Edit: You can call it cherry picking, or whatever you want - it's the only actual number that we have. I don't think the game is failing, but I do think it's churning through players rather than getting players to keep playing. Game Pass makes it easy to try out a game that's on the edge of what you might like, and that's a double edged sword. It inflates your user count, but can also get more long term players. Long and short of it is, though, if they are actually relying on the Emporium to keep the game going then player retention is the only number that matters, because a player who does not intend to continue playing won't be paying for cool cosmetics.

Game Pass churns players through the game. Rare has recognized that. Rare is implementing a progression system that specifically separates loot turn in from progression. Edi2: the Season progression, from what I understand, more or less addresses all the issues I had with excessive PvP since now you can make progress that can't be stolen. I'd still like a Tall Tale server but it's not going to happen.

That is your problem, you'd he (the person I replied to) are basing the premise on an ASSUMPTION not a fact. Furthermore, he never stated whether that assumption was based on total population or the PC population (much less where he might have heard such a thing, so forgive me if I don't take it seriously)...and I doubt anyone has those numbers outside of Microsoft and Rare. You are making an assumption regarding "Game Pass churns players" idea, you have no facts to back that up either. If that were truly the case, we'd start to see a plateau and decline instead of continued growth, as there is a limited amount of Game Pass Ultimate, Xbox Live (required for playing on consoles without Ultimate) and PC players. So I call this assessment bogus, as with any other claim of the game shedding huge amounts of players when available facts and official statements directly dispute that premise.

Last week the game was sitting as the 21st most played game on Xbox Live, and as I said it has consistently held a similar or better position for well over 2 years - peaking at #11 and only dropping as far as #27 at any point during that time. Joe Neate has said the game has seen year over year growth, which bucks the trends of most games (especially single player ones that fall off rather quickly after release). But as you infer a large portion of the player base may be due to Game Pass (while not proven I feel is a pretty safe conclusion, that is how I play it after all), which in effect makes it almost equivalent to a Free to Play game. With the continued work being done on the game, reliance on Emporium and Plunder Pass for revenue should be expected since any sales a this late date (outside of the Steam launch) would likely be due to reduced prices/sales on the game (resulting in lower revenue).

Xbox Gameplay Chart: Fallout 76 re-joins the top 40

Our latest Xbox Gameplay Chart shows a number of games reappearing in the top 40, including Fallout 76 and Watch Dogs: Legion.

Accounts dont didappear when someone stops playing.

@stundorn Server hopping is a symptom of a larger issue.
Any crew looking for a thrill and any kind of challenge will tire of the pve quickly.
You put an end to server hopping without addressing why people hop and you will only compound the issue of the seas feeling empty and unchallenging.
Sandboxes are about tools and not rules, so make pve challenging and exciting and repeatable, make events that bring the entire server together again to interact, either with cannons and cutlass, or speaking trumpet and accordion, find "new and exciting ways" to encourage players to loot stack and then be willing to still engage with events and other players.
My belief is that if Rare does this, or some form of this, we will see far less server hoping from bored crews.
As far as alliance servers, there is no point to balancing the game around their actions, they form such a small minority of SOTs player base, and if they want to harm their own engagement with the game, and cut themselves off from the community, thats up to them.

To be honest, getting large crews to start an event will work for...about 1 day. The PvE players will stop once its clear that they are being used to farm up loot for the PvP crews, just like with every other major PvP focus.

At this point I want to wait and see how seasons change things, because I dont see how churning through players interested in PvE is a sustainable business model. I could be wrong, but I dont see it.

@scarecrow1771 said in [Mega Thread] PvP and PvE Playstyle Discussion:

As far as alliance servers, there is no point to balancing the game around their actions, they form such a small minority of SOTs player base, and if they want to harm their own engagement with the game, and cut themselves off from the community, thats up to them.

Just out of curiosity, what do you mean by "Engagement" exactly? I'm asking because everyone has their own definition of what "Engagement" means in this game. Personally I was plenty engaged with sailing through storms and fighting anything that crawled out of the ocean, or going onto islands and taking on skeletons.

In regards to Alliance servers, I can agree that they ought to not be the kind of crowd that should direct how the game's developed, but their existence does show that there are players who want something out of the game, but aren't getting it. At least not from Rare. Though they're not exactly perfect, as it is player-run and the average player can be either.... Great company, or not so great company.

In all honesty, I still don't see why there shouldn't be an alternative to playing the game, even if there are downsides to it. I think the suggestions I posted should prove to be a decent enough compromise to let people play them and still get stuff done, while custom servers being the more "Personal Touch" feature.

And before you reply with something along the lines of "But but less effort!"; 50% reduction, fewer activities and capped reputation (So you can't max it out) Should be considered as a good way to drive people to Adventure, not to mention that people who WANT "Added danger and risk" will stick to Adventure.

Only reason I am so persistent in this desire is because I'd like to play the game that I foolishly bought, not knowing that the Game Pass exists (Though chances are it wouldn't work in my country), and play with players knowing that they're out to want to have a good time with other players, rather than just out to ruin other people's enjoyment by degrading them.
As it stands in the time I played this game, there were no "Pleasantly surprised" moments that were introduced by other players, only people telling me to "Quit the game" because I was a "Noob", people attacking me without a word despite me engaging with words first, and ontop of that, I have yet to see a convincing forum post that tells me "It's not so bad as you think it is" or "But this is actually what makes the game so good"

I also don't think that the "Fear" that people have, that PvE servers would make people join the game, play it for a bit and then leave is a genuine concern. Because from where I am sitting, players interested in PvE don't even try the game, or if they do, they discard it soon as they find out that the charming game that promises an open ocean with dastardly adventures to be had with or without players, is actually a game that has a welcoming facade just to drag people down in to a miserable pit.

Do I sound miserable? Yes I do. I got a game that I really wanted to try and like, but got beaten down by, with no friends who want to play this game either, be it trying to get new players in to it, or veterans who are tired of the game as it is.

I just want one day with this game where I can feel happy. That is all.

Edit: For a goof I decided to take this "Pirate Personality Quiz", and it put me on Hunter's Call in terms of playstyle. Which I consider to be quite accurate. Just wish it were possible to play without being set upon by a strike of nausea due to stressing myself too much worrying about other players (Because as it was established: Other players aren't interested in having a fun time with other players, which is why I considered some of the qeustions in the quiz humorous as they literally never happen).

@syn-tepes It shouldn't also go without mentioning, that no one wants to "Get rid of Adventure" as it is now. If people want the classic experience, it will stay there, unchanged for the most part. Only change that I can see really happening is that there will be more players ready to fight for their treasure as opposed to people who want none of it, if PvE servers were to be a reality.

Especially if you see players say that they don't mind the possibility of PvP combat happening, but are bothered that the PvP combat is for the most part the only thing that happens.

I've seen too many posts about people bragging that they attack ships that are parked, or speak poorly of PvE players and equate them to "Content in the game", to think that the game's community isn't as terrible as "Whiners" make it out to be.

@mferr11 said in [Mega Thread] PvP and PvE Playstyle Discussion:

It's funny how I never see any PvE server advocate respond to "why did you buy a game with PvP in it if you didn't want PvP?"

How about this: I wanted a game with an "endless range of emergent player interactions" as was promised when the game was sold to me, and I was willing to put up with a certain amount of combat based PvP to get that. PvP doesn't just mean combat, and an endless range of emergent PvP absolutely doesn't mean just combat. That would be why.

@limend said in [Mega Thread] PvP and PvE Playstyle Discussion:

After all you bought PvEvP sandbox game so complaining about core of the game and hoping change for it may tell you that it may not be game for you. I don't see any PvP:ers complaining about PvE as an playstyle.

A) There are people complaining about the lack of PvPers and the excessive number of PvEers on servers on this thread.
B) Even then, PvE leaves PvP alone, PvE doesn't stop PvP doing what it wants to. PvP effects PvE, it makes PvE harder.

It just makes more sense for PvE players to complain about PvP players and not the other way around doesn't it? Thieves generally are less likely to complain about people earning money than the other way around aren't they?

@kalgert In relation to your ideas. I don't think that a PvE server with anything like progression in the main three guilds is realistically on the table, either as something that Rare has any interest or as something that's a particularly good idea. In the end, anything from the Merchants/Hoarders/Souls can be taken off you during a mission and so doing it in a PvE server would have a very different quality. There is a debate over whether that different quality would seriously alter the make-up of the population of the game or not, but there doesn't really seem to be a debate over whether it is likely to be offered, so the first debate seems largely moot.

Whether other elements such at Tall Tales or Hunter's Call which seem designed to offer rewards that cannot be stolen from players, and which are earned in a much more PvE style, might be offered on a separate server is a tiny possibility, but even that receives a lot of antipathy. The big issue with a PvE server, whether full or as a light version it seems as though it would require a high degree of increased server load to keep available and a not inconsiderable amount of work for Rare.

In the end, what seems like a more likely, and helpful, solution, is an attempt to incentivize non-violent and generally 'positive' player interactions. For example, the game is capable of tracking racing occurring between ships. Now, I don't happen to want to sink other people, so there's really no incentive to go near other ships, but if I was empty and could gain gold by offering a race to another ship, I'd seriously consider doing so. In the end, this is a PvPvE game, the issue is that that doesn't mean to many players P combat v P v E, it doesn't to me. I have a range of vs interactions in my life, almost none of them involve assault with a cutlass. A large part of the irritation from a lot of PvE leaning players that have been bought to the game by the offer of a huge range of emergent interactions is that they were expecting a huge range of emergent interactions. A solid solution to a lot of the problems, and one that might actually arrive since it would be in line with Rare's expressed intent is more likely to be actually offering that.

I'd love it if they tried to generate positive interactions. Rare routinely does the opposite though.

They introduced fire tornadoes, which concentrated all the reward in a single piece of loot that you needed to actually sell (not just be in an alliance that sells) to work on the commendation.

Thats not the odd event out, thats their typical approach. everything is put in with a focus on "how can we make people want to steal this"

@cptphteven In fairness to Rare, I don't think that's actually 100% true. Tall Tales are an addition that clearly aren't intended to make people want to steal their results, others can't even see the Tall Tale elements let alone steal them for any worth. They introduced the Megs with a voyage that required co-operation alongside an entire guild based around items that can be kept from being stolen. The single most loot valuable item in the game is one that is earned by non-violent PvE grinding and can't be stolen from you once you've got it. They introduced musical instruments and a range of commendations based around non-violent interactions, in fact far more commendations that care about the existence of other players are based around playing instruments, sharing grogs or sailing in alliance with other crews than blasting them out the water. The balance of intent from updates seems far closer to 50/50 and its certainly not true that everything is put in with a focus on how to make people want to steal it.

@combatxkitty said in [Mega Thread] PvP and PvE Playstyle Discussion:

@bloodybil said in [Mega Thread] PvP and PvE Playstyle Discussion:

@cdr-alfonso said in [Mega Thread] PvP and PvE Playstyle Discussion:

And to come back to the Solo-Slooping issue; the game markets itself as accomodating to playing solo. It's not a valid argument to tell people "find a crew", "solo is harder" and whatnot if the game doesn't indicate that to customers.

Being outnumbered is a disadvantage, more news at 6!

I wonder why they removed this wording from the menu, it was always quite clear from the beginning that being solo was harder.

Suggesting people to find a crew is an entirely acceptable and logic answer. You choose to be by yourself, deal with the harder challenges. Some people actually like it!

Right? People really need to be told going it alone on a PvPvE game is harder than having a group? Isnt it kind of common sense?

Do games really need to say "Warning! If you choose to play alone this multiplayer open world sandbox game may or may not be harder for you!"

Its not entirely common sense no, and certainly not without experience of the game. Its clearly more than possible that a game could build in balancing features for solo players. At the moment players are told that sloops are more nimble, the implication being that each ship has advantages and disadvantages rather than more people just being advantageous.

Without wanting to be cynical, its possible that putting up a "Warning, playing solo is harder than not playing solo." would reduce the amount of money coming in from people who read the current Steam page which implies Solo play is a totally reasonable and balanced option. Which might be the motivation for not putting such a warning up.

@gtothefo said in [Mega Thread] PvP and PvE Playstyle Discussion:

@combatxkitty said in [Mega Thread] PvP and PvE Playstyle Discussion:

@bloodybil said in [Mega Thread] PvP and PvE Playstyle Discussion:

@cdr-alfonso said in [Mega Thread] PvP and PvE Playstyle Discussion:

And to come back to the Solo-Slooping issue; the game markets itself as accomodating to playing solo. It's not a valid argument to tell people "find a crew", "solo is harder" and whatnot if the game doesn't indicate that to customers.

Being outnumbered is a disadvantage, more news at 6!

I wonder why they removed this wording from the menu, it was always quite clear from the beginning that being solo was harder.

Suggesting people to find a crew is an entirely acceptable and logic answer. You choose to be by yourself, deal with the harder challenges. Some people actually like it!

Right? People really need to be told going it alone on a PvPvE game is harder than having a group? Isnt it kind of common sense?

Do games really need to say "Warning! If you choose to play alone this multiplayer open world sandbox game may or may not be harder for you!"

Its not entirely common sense no, and certainly not without experience of the game. Its clearly more than possible that a game could build in balancing features for solo players. At the moment players are told that sloops are more nimble, the implication being that each ship has advantages and disadvantages rather than more people just being advantageous.

Without wanting to be cynical, its possible that putting up a "Warning, playing solo is harder than not playing solo." would reduce the amount of money coming in from people who read the current Steam page which implies Solo play is a totally reasonable and balanced option. Which might be the motivation for not putting such a warning up.

I agree with your last point entirely, they could add something along the lines of "recommended for solo players or duo's, compact and easier to manage." next to the sloop, and "not recommended for solo players or duo's" next to the Gally. This would benefit newer players, more experienced players will carry on like they normally do anyway.