[Mega Thread] PvP and PvE Playstyle Discussion

@gtothefo

Your equation is off:
PVE with no encounter, gives the highest guaranteed rewards.
PVE with a successful run tactic, gives the rewards with a higher time investment.
PVE with a loss, means they lose their reward.

PVP with no encounter, gives them no reward at all.
PVP with a lost encounter or a PVE crew that manages to sell the goodies before the battle, gives them no reward.
PVP with a won encounter, gain what ever the crew had on them which can between 0 and a lot...

PVE is by far not always at the bottom end, as it is not uncommon to be left alone for longer periods of time in which they can gather treasure and sell it.

Tig for tag is by far the best tactic in this game, because there is a dynamic to the world you are in. Sometimes you are left alone and come across nobody, so if you do both you can capitalize on them. Sometimes you are meeting many other pirates and have the ability to steal their loot. They are by far the most agile type of players that can maximize their rewards on the seas.

Yes veteran players are pulled and shift more to the PVP over time...
Yet this is not because of the rewards! It is because of the gameplay and the challenges they face. I play more and more PVP, because even as a solo the PVE is not challenging and don't tell me to go do a galleon solo, because that is more challenging.... because why would I do that, it makes no sense. Galleons are a chore to man alone, and I have sailed them alone.

The Nash equilibrium however also is about the efficiency and rewards of the strategies. The fact that people can choose one strategy and regardless of the others will not deviate from that strategy. Both PVE and PVP strategies are 100% viable, do not have to consider the other side and frankly the PVE strategy is the most efficient in-game rewarding one. Even Reapers the PVP faction, tend to do PVE to get to rank 5...

The only strategy that truly suffers is the social friendly one. From an objectively view there are actually 2 Nash equilibriums in place, where we are talking about 2 types of hawks: PVE and PVP and 1 type of Dove: Friendly social. A game isn't limited to one of them.

I think that oddness is more likely explained by their being frustrated Social players.

Where is this assumption coming from that it are the social ones that are mainly the ones frustrated? What are you basing it on, because I have been active on these forums and these conversations since day one and that is not the message I am getting at all.

Keep in mind, it is in my opinion the player type that actually has the most legit reason to complain and the strategy that I believe needs the most work. Yet the majority of the PVE requests is that of people that want to be left alone, not them seeking friendly encounters.

That's still a situation where the loser of a PvP combat is the one taking the emotional punishment though. Its still a case of a non-combat player having a more to lose than a combat player.

Ooh woow, in a PvEvP game if you lose in combat you suffer a loss and people don't like losing. How much that emotionally impacts the individual is pure and utterly subjective. I have suffered huge losses of upwards to 100k, yet I don't suffer some unaccounted emotional punishment for it. Don't sail with more than you are willing to lose, pirating 101.

If you cannot take a the hit of a loss, then don't play a PvEvP game, understand the concept of the type of game it is.

The other major evidence we have for what the back end of things is what Rare have done so far to update the game, namely, add on a training area in the form of Maiden Voyage and an area that, successful or not, players can burn off some PvP energy. Those look a lot like moves to correct a PvE leaning demographic drop off, which does suggest that such a drop off is what Rare are reacting to from their end. None of it is hard evidence, but I'm not sure what other pattern it would imply.

What Rare has done to improve the overall process of learning the game yes. To improve the learning experience is vital in long term games, because they are pitting veterans vs new players.

Balance is something that has to be worked on at all times, yet that doesn't mean that the game should offer a separate mode.

Again, I don't think that's the case, I think that people just want the system to model some of the features that similar systems in the real world require to be effective.

This is not real life... and frankly it is an Anarchy world where Pirates rule the seas! So... it is actually more realistic than you give it credit for. The strongest, most skilled, the most prepared are the ones that rule... #BeMorePirate

Take responsibility of your session, become the pirate you want to be and claim your spot in the world, be the better pirate.

I mention griefing because I accept that there will always be some players that will sink other players first just because they like to know that they're sinking a human more than a computer programme, what I want is for people who aren't of that disposition to welcome the presence of more players into the mix, at least for a time.

Sinking others is not griefing... don't misuse the word. This is where you lost sight of the fact that this is a PvEvP concept and a shared world experience.

Be a good sport. Sea of Thieves is a pirate game, and stealth, stealing and battles are all part of the fun. All pirates on the seas accept that, but be a good sportsman in both victory and loss.

I've been away from the ship plenty of times and been on an island to see people roll up on my stern and anchor without attacking. I know they could sink me if they wanted, and they know I know that, to me actions speak louder than words and that comes over as a far clearer indication that they're not looking for combat than anything they might say over loudhailer.

Actions speak louder than words and your actions show that you subdue yourself to the mercy and intentions of those you meet. You aren't even on your own ship while someone pulls up to you... By the sound of it there is a good reason why you are having trouble with friendly encounters... you don't take an active role in creating them.

Yet you are surprised that many just kill you and sink you? The prisoners dilemma is a showcase of why this is the case, which can only be altered with communication. Exchange information is vital...

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

@cotu42 said in [Mega Thread] PvP and PvE Playstyle Discussion:> I don't understand where this idea of:

• Pointing your cannons up is 'friendly', instead of just a cannon.
• Anchoring your ship is 'friendly', instead of just plain bad strategy.
• Pointing your ship at an island isn't just an indication that they want quick access to loot with their harpoons?

Anything that makes a ship unable to react to an attack is an indication that the ship doesn't intend to fight, which is a pretty clear indication of being friendly. Its the same as showing your hand to be empty by saluting or waving as a friendly indication.

Ok so very interesting discussion going on, learning new things but just wanted to point this out incase new players read it , putting your cannons up in air you are correct, that is an indication of being friendly. However parking facing an island and anchoring your ship will just make you come off as a total bambi. Anchor should always be up and ship never pointed at an island.

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

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

@cotu42 said in [Mega Thread] PvP and PvE Playstyle Discussion:> I don't understand where this idea of:

• Pointing your cannons up is 'friendly', instead of just a cannon.
• Anchoring your ship is 'friendly', instead of just plain bad strategy.
• Pointing your ship at an island isn't just an indication that they want quick access to loot with their harpoons?

Anything that makes a ship unable to react to an attack is an indication that the ship doesn't intend to fight, which is a pretty clear indication of being friendly. Its the same as showing your hand to be empty by saluting or waving as a friendly indication.

Ok so very interesting discussion going on, learning new things but just wanted to point this out incase new players read it , putting your cannons up in air you are correct, that is an indication of being friendly. However parking facing an island and anchoring your ship will just make you come off as a total bambi. Anchor should always be up and ship never pointed at an island.

I disagree, putting your cannons up, down, left, right... it doesn't mean anything. It is a made up rule that the majority of people do not even take notice of.

Want to be friendly:

1. Do not man your cannon instantly, as that means you are getting prepared to fire.
2. Communicate with your opponent.
3. Avoid the broadside of the opponent.
4. Be moving.
5. Guard your ladders.

Be harder to take down and talk to them... That is the only true way of being friendly in this game.

(btw. the other tips are pirating 101 parking for the newer players)

@cotu42 Really? I thought this was pretty common knowledge. Nothing wrong with in game made up rules, all games have them. Myself and my crew do not do it personally because while we are friendly we do not go out of our way to advertise it while sailing but I see plenty with cannons up. Maybe its a regional thing, I dont know?

You know how I show im friendly if approaching a pirate face to face? I offer fruit. Its never failed me.

Just quickly going to post here to add my voice to the masses. I did not read any other post except for the first one.

I am against splitting PVE and PVP gameplay up. Sea of Thieves stands with interactivity. Be that a crew that sinks you, or a crew you sink, or a crew you work together with to fight another crew or to feel safe in numbers. Do not enable PVE servers. It'll be dull.

@combatxkitty the fruit offering, is actually more efficient all round. Mainly because it is a in person and a directed action, no guarantees yet it does sometimes work. You unarm yourself and offer them banana's... who can say no to a banana!

The cannons pointing up... is really not a thing, it is an archaic community rule and wasn't ever truly effective.

I have had open crew teammates claiming that it is what you should do if you want to be friendly, same goes for white flags. So, we sailed around like that and guess what, nobody really cares and they would get upset... but we had our cannons up! Why are they attacking us... it really doesn't work.

@cotu42 Well yeah I mean you cant expect people not to attack because the cannons are up, I mean its kinda like the baby on board sign. Like oh I was about to smash into the back of your car but now I wont because there is a baby on board! Its like well yeah if someone is out to sink others they arnt going to stop and be like "oh their cannons are up well I was going to attempt to murder them for their loot but now I cant!" Its more for like a way to indicate to another friendly player like "hey im cool no worries". It will by no means save you from being attacked. Also to be honest I dont trust anyone cannons up, cannons down if I have loot everyone is an enemy till I get to an outpost.

For me its not a detrimental thing to do so if people wanna try it I say give it a shot but yeah dont have a false sense of security and be ready to drop those babies if need be.

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

@cotu42 Well yeah I mean you cant expect people not to attack because the cannons are up, I mean its kinda like the baby on board sign. Like oh I was about to smash into the back of your car but now I wont because there is a baby on board!

Sorry, total side point, but this is one misconception that real world makes me quite angry and I can't let it slide. Baby on board stickers were never intended for other motorists, they were invented to assist the fire brigade. The fire brigade spend more time attending car accidents than house fires these days, and if they see a car seat they won't stop going into the, potentially dangerous, car until they find a child. Similarly, if there is no other indicator and an unconscious adult it has happened that a small child can slip into a footwell unconscious and not be recovered. An inventor figured that if there was a simple suckered sign that could be attached to car windows it would therefore save the lives of both members of the fire brigade and children, all it would need is that everyone would respect the sign and understand its purpose. But apparently that was too much to ask. Sorry, mini rant over.

@cdr-alfonso I think that one of the major issues is that what Rare want to do, what they can do and what results in a worthwhile cost benefit ratio to do are probably three different things at this point. Half the discussion here hinges on whether activity or inactivity will be more detrimental to the long term health of the game world, and ultimately any choices on Rare's part will be based on their perception of that balance more than anything else. I still hold that the alterations that have been made so far suggest that they're aware of this current imbalance being a negative for the game and they're presently trying to figure out ways to correct it.

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

However parking facing an island and anchoring your ship will just make you come off as a total bambi.

What sort of person walks up and shoots bambi? I guess part of what's coming over here is that people think other people are dumb. If I see a ship parked in a manner that makes it totally helpless I think "there must be a good reason for that" rather than "that person must be really stupid".

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

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

However parking facing an island and anchoring your ship will just make you come off as a total bambi.

What sort of person walks up and shoots bambi? I guess part of what's coming over here is that people think other people are dumb. If I see a ship parked in a manner that makes it totally helpless I think "there must be a good reason for that" rather than "that person must be really stupid".

But she isn't saying they are dumb, she's saying they are obviously new players and a bit naïve. There is hardly any other reason for it unless maybe you are in a storm or in the Roar near an active volcano when you arguably shouldn't be leaving your ship alone anyway, it remains one of the most valuable lessons learnt early on in the game. Bambi would make a really good snack if you're peckish btw.

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

@gtothefo
PVE is by far not always at the bottom end, as it is not uncommon to be left alone for longer periods of time in which they can gather treasure and sell it.

But the long term success of a tactic is not what its position in a Nash matrix is based on. A full Dove population is always more long term successful than one with Hawks in, full Dove is by far the most successful individual tactic, but its a systemically unstable one. In any encounter Running Doves are still time worse off/loot neutral if successful or time worse off/loot worse off if unsuccessful, while Hawks have a time neutral/loot better off and time neutral/loot neutral equation at an encounter. The mistake in understanding a Nash equation is to think that what's best for the population is the same as what would be stable for the population, but its not. A Nash equilibrium population in the prisoner's dilemma spends far more time in prison than a non-equilibrium state population, but the system will still return to that equilibrium.

Tig for tag is by far the best tactic in this game, because there is a dynamic to the world you are in. Sometimes you are left alone and come across nobody, so if you do both you can capitalize on them. Sometimes you are meeting many other pirates and have the ability to steal their loot. They are by far the most agile type of players that can maximize their rewards on the seas.

Yes, and Tig-for-Tag exists in the theory because it was shown to be highly successful in a non-closed iterative Hawk vs Dove dilemma, but that can only persist if Tig-for-Tag players never flop to the Bully tactic (not meant as a pejorative, just the name of the tactic within the system) and if the population imbalances toward Hawk, at which point the Tig-for-Tag strategy becomes indistinguishable from Hawk for the purpose of the equilibrium. The question also arises whether the natural "Unloading" point within Sea of Thieves actually makes the Hawk Vs Dove equation here closed iterative, in which case Tig-for-Tag actually becomes a highly fragile strategy to the Sucker Puncher and then ultimately a return to a stable Hawk population. In the end, a Tig-for-Tag/Dove population is indistinguishable from a Dove population, except that the flexible Tig-for-Tag strategy will tend to then flop to Bully and restart the race towards stable Hawk, which is one of the reasons that Dove populations are unstable.

Yet this is not because of the rewards! It is because of the gameplay and the challenges they face.

I don't deny that, the reasons for the system tending towards a Hawk population aren't really important, what's important is that it is bad for the game and needs outside input to be avoided. In the end, a full Hawk population is a stable state, but its a fatal one for the system, its essentially entropic. In order for it to be avoided and the system to remain interesting and alive it needs to be kept unstable, the only real question is how to maintain the instability of the overall system.

The only strategy that truly suffers is the social friendly one. From an objectively view there are actually 2 Nash equilibriums in place, where we are talking about 2 types of hawks: PVE and PVP and 1 type of Dove: Friendly social. A game isn't limited to one of them.

I think that "Socialize", or, "Attempt to Socialize" is here also an encounter strategy, but its one that is so poor when offered against a full Hawk as to be largely absent from the game. Part of the point here I think is that it needs to be significantly incentivized when successful because currently the costs when unsuccessful are so significant compared to the far easier and less costly Running Dove.

Where is this assumption coming from that it are the social ones that are mainly the ones frustrated? ... Yet the majority of the PVE requests is that of people that want to be left alone, not them seeking friendly encounters.

I say that based on the fact that game is clearly advertised as being an open world game full of encounters with other players. Which means either A) the complainants actually had no idea of what they were buying when they bought it or B) they had some idea, but thought that the balance of those encounters would be different. We see people complaining that they want to be left alone by the balance of players they encounter in the game. Its my supposition that if those encounters were more of a variety including social beneficial there would be far less resistance to them. Evidence suggests that pure explorers don't even buy MMOs, so I think its unlikely that the complainants are actually of an order that wants to just be left alone, rather that they want to be left alone by the type of people they've found. They've walked into a room that appears to be full of heavily armed thugs and screamed "leave me alone", I think that might not mean that they don't want the room to be full of chatty traders instead. I think that those people might prefer a server with social interactions over an empty one even while they would prefer an empty server over one full of combat interactions.

Ooh woow, in a PvEvP game if you lose in combat you suffer a loss and people don't like losing. How much that emotionally impacts the individual is pure and utterly subjective.

That's not really true though, the nature of endowed loss is heavily studied, replicated and proven scientifically, its really not utterly subjective. It results in a range of predictable and replicable behaviours. Its being internally phenomenological does not rule it out from being an objectively present phenomena. The point isn't that people don't like losing, the point is that endowed loss changes the nature of losing. Its been shown, measured and re-created time and again in studies that the loss of something given or earned is more painful than the loss of something recently taken. Failing to even out that proven event is what's resulting in some of the player behaviours and reactions that we're seeing. You've spoken in the past about mapping player experiences and player psychology, endowed loss is one of the biggest drivers of player behaviour in gaming, to dismiss it as a subjective phenomena goes against that.

Balance is something that has to be worked on at all times, yet that doesn't mean that the game should offer a separate mode.

The debate is surely to figure out what it means that the game should offer? I don't know if it means it should offer a separate mode or not yet, but I think its a possibility worth considering.

This is not real life... and frankly it is an Anarchy world where Pirates rule the seas! So... it is actually more realistic than you give it credit for. The strongest, most skilled, the most prepared are the ones that rule... #BeMorePirate

Even Pirates cared to communicate to know the intentions of those they encountered on the seas. One of the most famous things about Pirates is that they designed and flew their own sails as a method of communications built on reputation. Anarchy is one thing, but undermining the building blocks of communication itself is quite another.

Sinking others is not griefing... don't misuse the word. This is where you lost sight of the fact that this is a PvEvP concept and a shared world experience.

I wasn't misusing it, and sinking people is a part of griefing. Repeatedly here tweaks and alterations have been suggested and the response from some has been that it wouldn't stop true griefers griefing, all I'm saying is that a solution that still allows true griefers to engage in that behaviour would be fine so long as it led to players that aren't griefers from adopting pointlessly negative behaviours, that's all. You're missing my point. My point is that there are some negative behaviours that you really can't stop with reasonable tweaks, but there are some you can, I'm just saying that working on the ones that you can is a good idea.

Be a good sport. Sea of Thieves is a pirate game, and stealth, stealing and battles are all part of the fun. All pirates on the seas accept that, but be a good sportsman in both victory and loss.

Yes, absolutely, this is the point, stealth, stealing and battles are part of the fun, but not getting to engage in battles and events due to players swatting you while you're still learning isn't part of the fun, and can probably be eased off with a little bit of tweaking the system.

Actions speak louder than words and your actions show that you subdue yourself to the mercy and intentions of those you meet. You aren't even on your own ship while someone pulls up to you... By the sound of it there is a good reason why you are having trouble with friendly encounters... you don't take an active role in creating them.

Yes, sometimes when I'm at the end of session, I've hollowed out my ship and I'm doing a Tall Tale checkpoint and I don't intend to return to the ship, I leave it in position to advertise that there's nothing on it that I care to defend and it would be a waste of cannon balls to sink it. I don't do that when I'm actively seeking friendly encounters, but I do do it sometimes.

My problem is less that I'm having trouble creating friendly encounters, more than there's rarely anything to do interestingly once they're created.

Yet you are surprised that many just kill you and sink you?

Yes, I really am. I'm honestly still surprised when someone boards a ship, searches it, destroys it and then sails away.

The prisoners dilemma is a showcase of why this is the case, which can only be altered with communication. Exchange information is vital...

The prisoner's dilemma shows that a Nash equilibrium disadvantageous to the population as a whole is inevitable no matter what level of communication is engaged in.

@wagstr or, as I say, that they really don't care if you destroy their ship, and so its probably a waste of time, effort and resources destroying it. If people are on average foolish, whether by virtue of newness or inherent inability, then when you see a totally vulnerable ship its worth taking the time and resources to sink it (and the non-zero risk of it being some form of cunning ambush I guess), if people are on average not foolish then the reason for ships being totally vulnerable is either because destroying them is a waste of time, or they're some sort of weird double bluff of an ambush. I just tend to assume people are on average not foolish, whatever the reason and so not sink them in that situation.

Unhung deer veal? No thank you. You need to be following that deer to its rabbit friend for some coney stew if you're actively peckish.

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

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

However parking facing an island and anchoring your ship will just make you come off as a total bambi.

What sort of person walks up and shoots bambi? I guess part of what's coming over here is that people think other people are dumb. If I see a ship parked in a manner that makes it totally helpless I think "there must be a good reason for that" rather than "that person must be really stupid".

No not dumb, a bambi is not dumb. A bambi is just an inexperienced player, a newbie. What kind of person comes up and shoots a bambi? The kind of person who see's an easy target, not everyone is like that but plenty are so why risk it? There is never a really good reason to leave your ship parked in a manner that makes you an easy target to an attack. Only time to anchor would be in a storm.

How long have you been playing for? Im just curious. For you to say that I feel like you are a newish player.

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

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

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

However parking facing an island and anchoring your ship will just make you come off as a total bambi.

What sort of person walks up and shoots bambi? I guess part of what's coming over here is that people think other people are dumb. If I see a ship parked in a manner that makes it totally helpless I think "there must be a good reason for that" rather than "that person must be really stupid".

But she isn't saying they are dumb, she's saying they are obviously new players and a bit naïve. There is hardly any other reason for it unless maybe you are in a storm or in the Roar near an active volcano when you arguably shouldn't be leaving your ship alone anyway, it remains one of the most valuable lessons learnt early on in the game. Bambi would make a really good snack if you're peckish btw.

Exactly Wag. I just did not want new players who come here seeing that and be like "oh what a good idea! Let me park facing an island and anchor ship to show how non threatning I am!"

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

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

@cotu42 Well yeah I mean you cant expect people not to attack because the cannons are up, I mean its kinda like the baby on board sign. Like oh I was about to smash into the back of your car but now I wont because there is a baby on board!

Sorry, total side point, but this is one misconception that real world makes me quite angry and I can't let it slide. Baby on board stickers were never intended for other motorists, they were invented to assist the fire brigade. The fire brigade spend more time attending car accidents than house fires these days, and if they see a car seat they won't stop going into the, potentially dangerous, car until they find a child. Similarly, if there is no other indicator and an unconscious adult it has happened that a small child can slip into a footwell unconscious and not be recovered. An inventor figured that if there was a simple suckered sign that could be attached to car windows it would therefore save the lives of both members of the fire brigade and children, all it would need is that everyone would respect the sign and understand its purpose. But apparently that was too much to ask. Sorry, mini rant over.

"According to Safety 1st the idea behind the “Baby on board” sign was to “encourage drivers to use caution when approaching cars with younger passengers”.

"The sign is not for emergency services, but more of a notice to other drivers. Anyone using these signs must ensure they are not obstructing the driver's view," a spokesperson for NSW Police said.

Baby on board - where did it all start?

Baby on board signs, you see them everywhere nowadays but what many may not know is its true meaning and how the signs became a global phenomenon.

Wiki- "Baby on board" is the message of a small (usually 12 centimetres or 5 inches) sign intended to be placed in the back window of an automobile to caution other drivers that an infant is travelling in the automobile".

-Actually the baby on board sign idea came from a new father in Massachusetts who was being tail gated back in the 80's. He came up with the concept to warn other drivers there was a baby in the car so they should drive more cautious. That is the origin of the sign. So there ya go! There was no need to lecture me and you have no reason to be angry. Seriously not debating baby on board signs on here with you, not that there is anything to debate they were 100 percent created and intended for other motorist, so lets move on.

@gtothefo

PVE is not solely long term success, it is actually if played well consistently the winner. Long and short term, it actually is the best strategy. If you cannot accept that on times it isn't 100% time efficient, not everything goes exactly as planned and you have to adjust due to other players... don't play a multiplayer game. The best strategy in short and long term is PVE that avoids PVP conflict. Like you like calling the PVP crews the Hawks, while the PVE crews could also be considered the hawks in the equation. To be honest, in my sessions on the seas I have more difficulty finding combatants than peaceful crews... I would enjoy the fact that I would have to be less the initiator to get the variety of PvE and PvP or social interactions. The PVE fleeing parties seem to outnumber the other 2 strategies...

Tig for tag is the best, as you do your PvE, stand your ground, do not avoid conflict and learn to do both sides. What are you calling a bully tactic? Tig for Tag players are able to handle themselves in PVP. Sinking ships is not bullying people... this is a PvEvP game. Tig for Tag will switch from PVE to PVP when the situation calls for it and they have an opportunity to do so. The strategy is about setting out a PVE plan and engaging with PVP when it happens, to actually fight as both the attacker and defender. Some battles you fight for your treasure, some battles you fight for both yours and theirs. Sometimes you just fight, because your PVE plans are pointing to that island the other crew is on... loot or no loot, that island is key for doing your PVE. It uses the strongest aspects of the PVE strategy and combines it with the strongest aspects of the PVP strategies.

I think that "Socialize", or, "Attempt to Socialize" is here also an encounter strategy, but its one that is so poor when offered against a full Hawk as to be largely absent from the game. Part of the point here I think is that it needs to be significantly incentivized when successful because currently the costs when unsuccessful are so significant compared to the far easier and less costly Running Dove.

The majority of people are not full PVP. Yet to socialize and have success, you actually have to be actively engaged in it. You believe that just sitting on an island and letting them decide is trying to be social, while there is nothing social about what you are doing.

The point isn't that people don't like losing, the point is that endowed loss changes the nature of losing. Its been shown, measured and re-created time and again in studies that the loss of something given or earned is more painful than the loss of something recently taken.

This just shows you do not understand PvEvP games. A loss in a PVE game means you will lose things you acquired to other players. If you cannot handle these type of losses, than you cannot handle playing a PvEvP game. The whole idea is that you have an invested value in the items you collect and that losing it triggers an emotion, it is built on the premise that your losses will have meaning.

It is subjective if you can handle these type of losses or not. If you are not the type of player that can handle a loss of some treasure that is purely focused on the cosmetics in a video game... you shouldn't be playing PvEvP games. If you are losing more than you can handle, than you are not selling often enough and you have only yourself to blame! Do not sail around with more than you are willing to lose. You yourself are the only one that chooses how much of an emotional value is attached to your haul.

Even Pirates cared to communicate to know the intentions of those they encountered on the seas. One of the most famous things about Pirates is that they designed and flew their own sails as a method of communications built on reputation. Anarchy is one thing, but undermining the building blocks of communication itself is quite another.

The building blocks are not undermined. This is not reality and therefore we have more ways to communicate... shooting a person in the face is a form of communication, launching a cannonball at someone's ship is a message being sent, setting their ship on fire is an indicating your intensions, etc. Unlike in real life, we are pirates that do not have to worry about death and non-verbal communication are forms of them.

This is an anarchy world, where you are the one that determines how you respond and how you uphold your own authority. The reputation that you build on the seas is of short duration, not sure how you would address that. It is based on the session you are playing in, we aren't bound to a specific section of the community by our overall server or grand world. We enter a world of only 6 crews, meaning 5 other crews than your own compared to the tens of thousands that exist and on top of that the crew you are a part of can be different every single session.

People have suggested bounty systems, yet how do you justify a bounty being made on a PvP galleon transferring over to your solo sloop adventures? Maybe your 4 man crew and your solo crew are simply very different type of crews which would warrant different type of reputations?

I wasn't misusing it, and sinking people is a part of griefing. Repeatedly here tweaks and alterations have been suggested and the response from some has been that it wouldn't stop true griefers griefing, all I'm saying is that a solution that still allows true griefers to engage in that behaviour would be fine so long as it led to players that aren't griefers from adopting pointlessly negative behaviours, that's all. You're missing my point. My point is that there are some negative behaviours that you really can't stop with reasonable tweaks, but there are some you can, I'm just saying that working on the ones that you can is a good idea.

Between other crews the following actions are simply not griefing or bullying:

• Sinking a ship.
• Killing a pirate, even repeatedly.
• Betraying them in an alliance.
• Blowing them up.
• Stealing the treasure.
• Tucking on their ship.
• Claiming an island of their own.

The act of griefing is mainly done within someone's own crew, as those are the people that are supposed to be having your back. There are very rare cases of other crews griefing. Frankly normal crews do not really encounter other crews griefing, they might get frustrated with them or wish they would simply stop coming at them, would leave the island they want to be on, etc. yet that is the game and when you have to either adapt or enforce your own rule. Another crew is not responsible for your enjoyment and fun. If you are stuck in a cycle of defeat versus a better crew, scuttle the ship or swap servers and try again.

You sound very inexperienced in being the attacker or in a more PVP focused crew. You are misusing the terms of bully and griefer in the genre of PvEvP and confusing it with simple PvP tactics and strategy. You are placing intent in these actions, while the intentions of the majority is simply their own fun and not the destruction of that of others, while that might be the effect.

Yes, absolutely, this is the point, stealth, stealing and battles are part of the fun, but not getting to engage in battles and events due to players swatting you while you're still learning isn't part of the fun, and can probably be eased off with a little bit of tweaking the system.

Beating people that are less skilled than you is part of the game, just like facing those that outclass you. There is no MMR system in place, veterans and new players meet each other and engage in battles and one party might slaughter the other with ease. It is part of the learning curve! Also trust me the one side outclassing the other side isn't limited to brand new players either. The amount of times I have dominated "Pirate Legends" in a fight that was extremely one sided is remarkable and I have met some crews that no matter how good my crew would have played, they were at a different level (which I personally enjoy, but we stood no chance of victory).

This game does not offer you protections outside of the maiden voyage. Engaging and meeting people that are better than you is part of the game, welcome to the shared world experience of PvEvP games. If you enter a game like this you will meet people that are simply just at a different level, embrace it and learn to do better. You will also sometimes be on the other end, it is just the nature of the game. True new players actually have the benefit, that veterans if they notice will actually show some mercy in comparison to those that aren't, do keep in mind a crew is judged as a whole not as an individual.

My problem is less that I'm having trouble creating friendly encounters, more than there's rarely anything to do interestingly once they're created.

And that is my entire point about difficulty, if you had content that was truly challenging and that 95% of the population wouldn't be able to do with a single crew... guess what, once you strike an alliance and make some friends.... you have something you could suggest to try and do together? We already agreed upon that joint forces should have more to do.

The prisoner's dilemma shows that a Nash equilibrium disadvantageous to the population as a whole is inevitable no matter what level of communication is engaged in.

Actually that is not true. The premise of the prisoner's dilemma and why it applies, is because the two parties are in isolation and cannot communicate. If they could they could simply agree to not snitch and get 1 year each, instead of ending up with the 5 years in prison and they would have noticed that the better outcome would be to cooperate together. The ability to communicate changes the premise and creates a new dynamic that can counter the standard outcome.

The Nash equilibrium is focused on people picking a strategy and having no incentive to adjust it. Communication is what can cause an incentive and showcase why it would actually be smart to adjust and change ones strategy.

You seem to have a steady understanding on the principles of game design, which is making this back and forth quite interesting. I am just starting to truly wonder how much understanding you have on the genre itself: PvEvP. Have you played games like Eve Online, DayZ, Rust for instance, the inspirations of the game?

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

@cotu42 Thank you for the tips. This was really helpful :)

You are welcome, the community tends to be willing to help out new players with knowledge and understanding. We don't just shout Get Good and expect it to happen magically. There are many oldies that will share their knowledge and tales of old to benefit the new sailors out on the seas, so don't hesitate to ask for help or trying to find a crew to help you find your sea legs.

Good luck and happy sailing.

Every player PVPs and PVMs. I don't know there are sailors who act like there are pirates who don't. Anyone who "only PVP's" has done PVM earlier in their account's history, or on another account, and everyone who "only PVM's" has to fight back PVP attackers eventually. Arena isn't possible to complete without PVP.

See my below post about difference between PVE/PVM

I feel people forget the term PVM

Also so people are aware.

PVM = Players Versus Monsters (skeletons, megalodons, npc ships)
PVP = Players Versus Players (Player controlled characters)
PVE = Players Versus Everyone (Players and Monsters)

If you're playing a "PVE" game then you're against players at all times, by definition.

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

No, I suggest that there should be a flag that I can fly actually telling people the sort of interaction I'm actually looking for before either of us come within cannon range of each other.

This is impossible because it can always be abused. Chuck up the friendly flag, let em get close, and broadside them before they can react. Pretty sure this is what happened with the alliance flag, you know? Say you want to alliance and then sink them.

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

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

No, I suggest that there should be a flag that I can fly actually telling people the sort of interaction I'm actually looking for before either of us come within cannon range of each other.

This is impossible because it can always be abused. Chuck up the friendly flag, let em get close, and broadside them before they can react. Pretty sure this is what happened with the alliance flag, you know? Say you want to alliance and then sink them.

I honestly didn't think this simple fact needed pointing out to anybody really, but you're right it apparently does..

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

I'll throw in my two doubloons as much as I know its going to get hate.

I've put in a lot of time in Sea of Thieves, I love the game and the stories and experience. But more often than not for me the experience is soured upon by strictly PvP players who just want to see you sink or repeatedly kill you becauae its fun to them. To each their own we all enjoy the game in different ways.

I see the arguments from such players being that they feel a PvE only option would spoil this for them as no one would want to play on PvPvE servers, but if PvP and the risk of being on these servers is the rewarding experience it is claimed to be then this shouldnt be something they need to worry about, especially if progression was made to be faster on these servers.

I've sunk ships, I've killed players, but to me thats just a bit empty. Its going on long voyages to hunt for treasure via riddles, searching for skeleton captains, fishing for those rare sea creatures and experiencing a mini adventure in a tall tale that keeps me coming back for more.

So why not expand with a PvE experience? Make progression half or even a quarter as fast and it would bring SO MANY players to the game that in time would evolve to play on the PvPvE servers anyway.

You've only really been playing for a month (not counting the fallow month between maiden voyage and first increase in a trading company), somebody sure showed you how to grind matey didn't they, all that unlocked in such a short time? I'm impressed!

It looks like you have very luckily managed to find some really incredibly easy servers to farm so just wondering exactly what your problem is because all the aggro that you have been getting doesn't seem to have affected your journey to PL in superquick time at all.. Or am I missing something here?