Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.

@skyewauker said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:

@lotrmith I think you grossly underestimate the value of progression. It is literally the whole game. Id give all of my gold from voyages to not lose my progress. I wouldn't bat an eye.

So its not risking losing $1.00. Its risking losing $1,000 in the current system.

People are focusing too much on PvE, PvP, or PvPvE. The mechanic of experience loss is what needs to be discussed. No matter what clever analogy or counter argument / discussion point you come up with, it will never change the fact that losing everything in a game where the grind is extremely steep in the first place NEVER feels good. It leads to people quitting the game.

Trust me, I'm one of them. There are others in this thread that have done the same. We are the vast minority here on the forums, yet you see multiple people here and in the old thread leaving the game around these kind of issues. Its not good, not good at all.

PvP Rewards : This shouldn't have anything to do with loss of progression. They need to make a PvP faction and implement rewards accordingly. Lets be honest here. If you are PvPing for progression, you might as well uninstall the game. You will never reach legend.

"X"beard : This is one of my biggest issues. I dc'ed 4 times in the span of about 6 hours played. Each time I would go do 2 quests, go to turn in, and crash. 2 of the 4 I disconnected without turning in anything. The 3rd time I got a quest done, went and turned in (highly inefficient) , went out and did another quest. Dced right when I was about to complete the last chapter. The 4th was during a fort.

6 hours of play time, nothing to show for it.

A change like this is NEEDED for the overall health of the game. Its beyond contestation.

No it's not. It is the game that was designed, advertised, and sold. You have buyer's remorse.

@lotrmith Huh. Buyer's remorse? You wot m8?

Way to counter argue lol. I JUST posted another thread with this EXACT same issue. How dense can you be?

Games, especially live services like SoT almost NEVER get it right at launch. I could post dozens of games for you. This happens to be one of these things that have been universally looked at as a flaw withing the game. It is losing them players. Period. You cannot debate this. You cannot twist this. Its a fact. There are several people in this very thread that have quit playing due to this. I just posted another thread where other people have issues with this.

Standing on your soap box screaming "its not broken!!" doesn't make it so cupcake.

@skyewauker

Yah we won't agree. You've just reduced 4 entirely different games producing entirely different experiences based on the thinnest thread as if those are the aspects that matter.

What does WoW 110 mean to most players? It means they are able to raid and experience the end game content. Not to mention the experience that traversing 1-110 creates of building on the experience and trickling in mechanics and different.
I dropped off after 80, the gameplay stopped enticing me, too routine... 110 pointless because didn't enjoy game.

Maybe this is less of a problem with a piece of entertainment and a problem with what you expect from it.

LoL, mastery pointless because didn't enjoy game.

I play BF one religiously, have never seen a rank.

Can I ask you a real question? Have you ever tried playing a video game for it's intrinsic entertainment value?

@savagetwinky You pretty much proved my point for me.

WoW 110 is the start of the end game right?

Rare has constantly said that Legend is the start of the end game. There is literally no difference at all between the two from a progression perspective.

You seem incapable of looking at the core mechanic that is progression.

@skyewauker said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:

@savagetwinky You pretty much proved my point for me.

WoW 110 is the start of the end game right?

Rare has constantly said that Legend is the start of the end game. There is literally no difference at all between the two from a progression perspective.

You seem incapable of looking at the core mechanic that is progression.

You do know what being Pirate Legend entails, yes? This game has no progression and it has no endgame.

@lotrmith It entails getting 50/50/50. It means maxing out experience for each of the 3 factions. It means PROGRESSING in all 3. Before I dropped off playing , I got to 44/41/50. Do you know another way of progressing and unlocking legend that the rest of the world doesn't?

Its not like I quit at 5/4/1 lol.

@skyewauker said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:

@lotrmith Id be willing to wager that Id skull drag you in almost every game we could play against each other. It has nothing to do with casuals. When you are a simpleton, I wouldn't expect that simpleton to understand simple concepts.

It has everything to do with casuals. This entire thread boils down to a Sea of Thieves vs Sea of Friends argument. Keep telling yourself otherwise if it makes you feel better.

@skyewauker said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:

@lotrmith It entails getting 50/50/50. It means maxing out experience for each of the 3 factions. It means PROGRESSING in all 3. Before I dropped off playing , I got to 44/41/50. Do you know another way of progressing and unlocking legend that the rest of the world doesn't?

Its not like I quit at 5/4/1 lol.

Not what getting to PL entails. What actually being a PL entails. Tell me how being a PL is "endgame" the way being max level in WoW is actual endgame.
Hint: Being a PL is literally meaningless in this game.

@lotrmith said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:

@skyewauker said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:

@savagetwinky You pretty much proved my point for me.

WoW 110 is the start of the end game right?

Rare has constantly said that Legend is the start of the end game. There is literally no difference at all between the two from a progression perspective.

You seem incapable of looking at the core mechanic that is progression.

You do know what being Pirate Legend entails, yes? This game has no progression and it has no endgame.

Its really hard to tell if you are just trolling or not. I am going to lean towards trolling at this point.

Rare has repeatedly used the words end game and pirate legend together for over 2 months now. Pirate Legend, as of right now, is the end game. Athena's is the end game rep. How hard is this to understand?

@lotrmith said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:

@skyewauker said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:

@lotrmith Id be willing to wager that Id skull drag you in almost every game we could play against each other. It has nothing to do with casuals. When you are a simpleton, I wouldn't expect that simpleton to understand simple concepts.

It has everything to do with casuals. This entire thread boils down to a Sea of Thieves vs Sea of Friends argument. Keep telling yourself otherwise if it makes you feel better.

@skyewauker said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:

@lotrmith It entails getting 50/50/50. It means maxing out experience for each of the 3 factions. It means PROGRESSING in all 3. Before I dropped off playing , I got to 44/41/50. Do you know another way of progressing and unlocking legend that the rest of the world doesn't?

Its not like I quit at 5/4/1 lol.

Not what getting to PL entails. What actually being a PL entails. Tell me how being a PL is "endgame" the way being max level in WoW is actual endgame.
Hint: Being a PL is literally meaningless in this game.

PL being meaningless is due to them releasing the game unfinished. It is still their end game system as they have said it numerous times that it is.

@skyewauker said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:

@savagetwinky You pretty much proved my point for me.

WoW 110 is the start of the end game right?

Rare has constantly said that Legend is the start of the end game. There is literally no difference at all between the two from a progression perspective.

They've also said they don't want to split the player base up so the 'end game' is well... the beginning of t he game.

I guess you missed the point of 1 to 110 which is entirely different game. The 'end' game is just a bonus or... a way to keep peopled addicted to the sense accomplishment they don't get in real life playing way past any 'reason' to outside of finishing the content in the slowest way possible so they'll be around for the next content upgrade.

You seem incapable of looking at the core mechanic that is progression.

Because it's not a core mechanic in this game. Its a superficial mechanic in most cases... unlike WoW which is a well crafted mouse wheel and is a core mechanic. Just because 1 game has something as a core mechanic doesn't mean ALL games do. Like CS;GO... its not a core mechanic at all. 1-110 wow is a way to gate players to content and trickle down new mechanics/abilities... CS:GO is just a way to see where you stand with the rest of the community.

@angrycoconut16 said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:

@skyewauker I appreciate the support man, but please keep it calm :) I really REALLY don't want this thread closed like the first one... thanks :) We have to respect that some people disagree, even if we don't understand their reasoning. Plus lotr and savage seem to repeat themselves a lot so any discussion with them is fruitless. They disagree and that's the way it is, and that's fine.

That sounds rather hypocritical.

@angrycoconut16 said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:

@lotrmith I'm not being rude man, don't take offence to everything. I have said this to you as well, so you know exactly what I mean. You disagree, we agree, any discussion is pointless from both perspectives as none of us will change our minds. We just need to respect each others viewpoint. You can do that right? :) Thank you

I respect your premise that you feel the loss of all loot and therefore all the rep attached is overwhelming and hard felt by the more casual playerbase. Our opposing premise that this is not a problem at all much less one that warrants addressing at all because doing so would be counter to the core design of the game is at direct odds with your premise, and there is no middle ground.

I do not, however, respect the finer points of the justifications used for your suggestion and the lack of rebuttals to the many counterpoints that have been offered, nor do I respect the statement that they are just repetitions when in fact they have not been adequately countered and you yourself have done the most repeating of your original statements without adding anything to the discussion but flagrant self-aggrandizing bumps to a thread that should have never existed after the first one in this topic was locked, and when there are megathreads about PvP/PvE balance that this conversation would be much better suited to.

For example, you continue to suppose without any evidence that this suggestion would encourage more PvP despite the fact that one's time is already best spent doing voyages and your suggestion would actually cause that time to be even better spent voyaging over PvP, and you have not offered up a counter to that argument. Nor to the many others regarding PvP motivations and other such related points.

*edit: megathread auto corrected to meatheads 😑

@lotrmith said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:

@angrycoconut16 said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:
and there is no middle ground.

This is the middle ground. There are other players that want to risk more... a lot more.

@angrycoconut16

I think @lotrmith's point the idea your missing is the people that are already intensely focused on rep... will still be intensely focused on rep. These people will still opt to finish the VC before attacking as its now an efficiency proposition.

Most people partake in pvp otherwise. So who are you exactly helping? Most people are working their way through the rep grind since the rewards are adjusted for the occasional loss. And we'd prefer the PvP to be more weighty, not a meat grinder, so we don't want to encourage everyone to gank on sight.

Thanks to us constantly debating in here, 5k people have viewed this, and there only 58 upvotes. That is 1% that agree.

@savagetwinky If you are talking about the main post, I think it would make the game more friendly and forgiving for noobs. Now when I think about it, this could take more, then give from the game. The goldhoarder wants their tressure, the order of souls the skulls and the merchants the things delivered. Getting honered by the alliances without helping them seems kinda messed up from the NPC's Perspective.

@freeyasea

The idea relies and focuses on the how loss works in regards to player sadness. This only really puts a band aid for people that want to be explicitly rewarded for their time and consider playing the game a waste otherwise. There are many things that can be done to help increase rewards for casual / new players without reducing the loss that creates stakes in PvP.

We aren't arguing from a point of whether or not it makes sense in the game mechanics... it's how it effects player's motivation and increases value in PvE activities explicitly over PvP… and diminishes the value of... the physical representation of value in a game designed around thievery and stealing that value. It's the entire basis for the PvP activity.

Your moving to 2 different aspects with this change.

1. Allowing PvE can become people's main focus exclusively, content is really not built around that sort of focus...
2. People can engage in PvP more frivolously even when on a voyage.

@angrycoconut16 said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:

@savagetwinky More people have up voted the thread than commented their disapproval, by far. Plenty of people skim over threads they can't be bothered to comment on or aren't interested in.

Which a very small percentage of people that care that actually saw this. Which to me it means it's not an important issue. Again people that come to the forum are mainly going to be people that are frustrated... which is pretty common on releases.

This thread is only getting a lot of attention because several people are arguing against it. Which is why the last thread got a lot of attention.

@angrycoconut16 said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:

@freeyasea There would easily be ways round it..

Plus in a game where apparently you get commendations/rep when the GH faction some how can keep track of exactly how many nautical miles you have sailed, I really don't think adding this to the game would be that far-fetched an addition.

they don't factor in to motivations most games. which is why we ignore them in our arguments.

Plus as discussed reputation already lacks consistency. It's called 'reputation' yet you don't gain it for killing the kraken? You don't gain it for killing pirates who are stronger than you (or have a higher reputation themselves), and you can't LOSE reputation? It simply does not function as reputation but more as exp :) Reputation is just a fancy name for it.

How is that a discrepancy if no one cares about the kraken in the game world? There are 3 alliances that only care about loot. So delivering specific loot is all that creates reputation "technically".

And your going to give PvPers an idea of losing rep if you lose chests. Shhhh.

Also reputation doesn't need to be lost to be rep and creates external opportunities for the player character (buying cloths from a vendor). XP requires mechanics / skills / or some sort of progression behind it specific to the player character (wearing higher grade cloths you've found or bought). This is not XP.

@angrycoconut16 said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:

@lotrmith You don't understand, I am referring to opportunistic PvPvE not PvP by itself. You are still classing PvP as something which only pure PvP players do.

This just simply is not true. PvP is opportunistic as I have said many times before, you just choose to skim over or skip entirely the arguments against your idea.

What is the critical component here? What is it the thing that people really want to be rewarded for, and not lose? TIME

Players who are not actively engaged in PvP are spending their time doing voyages. Deciding to turn aside and do PvP thus takes away time from voyaging.

What is the only (small) carrot on the only (long) stick in this game? Reputation. What is by far and away the best way to gain reputation for your time? VOYAGING

How do the vast majority of players spend the vast majority of their time? VOYAGING

What are the factors that affect reputation gains for time spent doing PvP?

• No guarantee of loot. (Ships may not have any loot on board)
• No definite measure of time required. (Ships may flee)
• Chance of failure. (You may be sunk)
• Have to turn in any loot found.
  All of these factors are negative.

What are the factors that affect reputation gains for time spent doing PvE?

• Guarantee of loot. (Your quests tell you exactly how much loot there is to be gained, at minimum, not counting additional loot you may find on the islands you visit)
• Reasonable measure of time required. (You know where the islands are and how far away, and the islands cannot flee)
• Negligible chance of failure. (Islands have a pitiful chance of sinking you)
• Have to turn in any loot found.
  All but the last factor (shared with PvP) are positive.

Why don't more players spend more of their time engaging in PvP? Because turning aside from PvE to do PvP comes at the opportunity cost of doing PvE. PvE has many advantages over PvP. You would give them even more. The vast majority of players already spend the vast majority of their time doing not PvP. Your suggestion would exacerbate this issue because it adds to the positive factors of reputation gains via PvE without adding any positive factors to the reputation gains via PvP.

I am saying that while on a voyage people will be more open to consider PvP if they get the opportunity due to the decreased loss. If you see a ship pull up at the same island as you, or if you see a ship heading to an outpost and you can intercept them, the option to attack suddenly seems more feasible if you know you won't lose 100% of the stuff on your ship if it goes badly.

If you sink, you will lose 100% of the stuff on your ship. This has been brought up before by @entspeak : Perception is everything. You yourself have stated that a primary irritant of a PvP loss is the idea that someone else is profiting off of your time by making off with your loot. Your suggestion does not change that. Nothing can change that outside of eliminating PvP altogether.

What I'm saying is, in my mind this is healthier from a game play perspective, and that more people will feel this way, not everyone, naturally, but more people, yes. It is human nature, if you have less to lose, you are more likely to take risks.

Think about it this way, on a game show if you are offered $100,000 and you can gamble for the opportunity to walk away with $0 if you mess up, or $200,000, think how many people would take that offer? Why not just walk away with the $100,000? Most of the time if people do gamble it's purely peer pressure from viewers and audiences who want entertainment.

Then the same gameshow, only this time you have already been paid $50,000 for correctly answering a series of questions earlier, and you are being offered an additional $100,000 but can gamble it, to get $0, or $200,000 extra (thus if you gamble you will walk away with either £50,000 or £250,000). That individual is going to be more willing to gamble (or in the case of SoT, choose the more aggressive and riskier option of engaging in PvP) because even if it goes badly, it hasn't been a complete waste of time. That is the effect I am saying this suggestion would have on the game.

Again, this is a fallacy for several reasons. Your suggestion does nothing to reduce the chance of failure of a player choosing to engage in PvP. IE: You cannot lose the £50,000. It is no longer part of the equation but game shows are hoping you will make that mistake. You can walk away with an extra £100,000 or gamble that to walk away with an extra £200,000. Your odds of winning that bet have not changed. If you were unwilling to take that risk before, meaning you have calculated that the risk is not worth it, that risk has not changed and is still not worth it.

As you have stated, the reason some people continue on in this scenario is because of the peer pressure of the audience and the host. This pressure does not exist in Sea of Thieves.

Nor is the analogy complete, because the game show guarantees you the extra reward. Sea of Thieves PvP has no such guarantee. A more apt analogy would be that you would gamble your £100,000 for an unknown amount of extra money, perhaps even ZERO.

((And just so we're not splitting hairs here, to be blunt:
There are winners and losers in PvP. There has to be. Some people win more than they lose. Some people win about as much as they lose. And some lose more than they win. Nothing can change that, certainly not this suggestion. Players who feel the sting of loss now and choose not to engage in PvP whenever possible will continue to feel the sting of loss and continue to choose not to engage in PvP because they are no more likely to win or lose under your suggestion because the only thing that factors into success or failure in PvP is skill. The odds remain unchanged.))

@i-am-lost-77

His perception is not though. The vast majority of players are playing the game the way its intended. Your perception on loss isn't coming from the game, the game throws chests at you.

Less loss = more risky players = more PvP and loot on ships to steal.

This is a flat out lie because people can just turn in and PvP w/e they want to now. People consistently choose to PvE now even when there is an option for 0 risk, or extremely little risk, pvp. These are the same people that will... sail into the red sea to deny opponents loot. And they'll be more likely to do that now because they get their rep and... make sure PvP that inconvenienced them does not.

The fact is this is will only help 1 group of people and that's people that PvE at every opportunity and want to be as efficient as possible... and stack voyages and horde loot so they can save time, because rep/hour is the most important thing to them. And when they get complacent and caught off guard they lose everything.

^ working as intended. Your not supposed to horde items or choose efficiency over securing loot at every possible opportunity. The other thing you should really think about... is... how are you going to finish VC's if you make all the hostile players causing the loss of loot to be more hostile. Good luck with a 2 hour voyage that already can inflate to 4+ hours because of side activities.