Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.

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

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

@graiis No. I mean that if it is problem enough for them to stop playing, that isn’t a problem with the game.

"And, if a person gets “even sightly annoyed at being robbed” in a game called Sea of Thieves, that isn’t something a reasonable change can fix."

This is what I'm addressing being reductive, not something about people quitting.

Yes, but I was responding to this: “Except now, if you get sunk, there is no incentive to continue playing if you get even sightly annoyed at being robbed.”

Context.

And just because something is good strategy does not make it good gameplay or design. Destiny 1 good boss strategy? Jump on a ledge with ice breaker and shoot in the head until dead. Players made the strategic decision to do that, instead of run around on the ground with the potential to die, because bosses had waaaay too much health. Did people say, "they're bosses, they're supposed to have a ton of health!" "If you don't want to shoot stuff for loot in a looter shooter you're playing wrong" ? No it was bad design and people pushed to fix it. We want to play the game, the design is just c**p in a lot of ways.

This is a game designed where you have the freedom to choose any number of ways to succeed, you’re not given instructions on how to succeed, and the aim is to strategize. Every game session requires a different strategy for me because every game session has different circumstances. The only similarity is that they all involve getting to the outpost - because that’s the mission.

And I’m not saying people can’t or shouldn’t sail with tons of loot - that’s a choice every player makes for themselves, but you have to be willing to accept the risk. I sometimes end up carrying more loot than I’m comfortable with, I sometimes engage players coming at me even if I have loot. I assess the risk. That is part of this game. It’s not a mindless, get A, take it to B game. Figuring out how to take it to B is an important aspect of the game.

No need to change chess into checkers.

@graiis Shifted goalpost. Are you still talking about the statement you claimed was reductive or what?

@graiis It’s not checkers and I just explained how it’s not. There are multiple strategies in chess for doing one very narrowly specific thing - trap a single piece (the king). The strategy you take depends on what’s happening on the board in front of you - and it can shift mid-game based on what someone else does. You choose what to risk and when. Same here, multiple strategies for doing one very narrowly specific thing - deliver the loot. The strategy depends on what’s around you and can shift mid-voyage based on what someone else does. You choose what to risk and when.

Also, if by random, you mean the type of chest you get, this idea won’t change that. If you don’t mean that, then I don’t understand what you mean by the rewards being random.

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

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

@graiis Shifted goalpost. Are you still talking about the statement you claimed was reductive or what?

Me- “Except now, if you get sunk, there is no incentive to continue playing if you get even sightly annoyed at being robbed.”

@entspeak "And, if a person gets “even sightly annoyed at being robbed” in a game called Sea of Thieves, that isn’t something a reasonable change can fix."

I didn't shift any goalposts. You did. I'm talking about incentive regardless of player type, which I indicated by saying 'even if you were only sightly annoyed by getting sunk', in order to distinguish that I wasn't just talking about ragers calling for pve servers, you switched it to being about 'people who get in any way annoyed are wrong and no change will fix it'.

I said what I said only in the context of what you did. My response should be read in that context.

Here: allow me to include the context to make it clearer. And, if a person gets “even sightly annoyed at being robbed” in a game called Sea of Thieves [and decides not to continue playing] , that isn’t something a reasonable change can fix.

The same incentive to continue exists. If you get sunk, and you have a few maps left, your voyage remains on the table. So, you still have an opportunity to get rep.

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

@entspeak The idea will change that because the reward won't be random anymore, you'll know what's waiting at the end. Whether that's some new reward like @lotrmith suggested or VC rep.

I still don’t know what “that” is.

@lotrmith said:

you have effectively shifted this relationship even further towards PvE being the more valuable way to spend your time

@entspeak said:

you disincentivize thievery because you can get more value by just doing the voyages

@savagetwinky said:

If you see a ship on the horizon, you have to ask yourself is it worth sailing all the way over their to get loot that won't be as valuable then if you continued on your voyage? He may not even have loot.

Well, if you frame the idea in a way that the voyage-XP points are greater than turn-in points, I'd have to agree with you guys. Again, this isn't what I was asking for. I'm talking about a rep-only-reward, nominal in comparison, that adds incentive to continue voyaging in a way that currently doesn't exist.

...this doesn't necessarily disincentivize thievery. An incentive to do one thing doesn't necessarily mean everything else is undermined, especially when the incentive is proportionally smaller.

By having an incentive to do x then y which is less valuable now is a disincentive due to the poorer value proposition.

I've seen enough of these number-breakdowns at this point, but I'll attempt my own to illustrate what I've clearly failed to thus far. Just this once.

As of right now:
Turn-in rep is X
Voyage-completion rep is 0X

After the proposed change
Turn-in rep is X
Voyage-completion rep is 0.5X

So, the new total possible amount of rep-earned goes up from 1X to 1.5X. This sort of inflation of rep would decrease the value of rep overall. The new turn-in rep is, of course, less in comparison to the total rep, whereas previously it was the total rep. However if you're saying that it's less than voyage-rep, you're misunderstanding the proposal.

Now, you might have a player who exclusively PvPs and never gets to take advantage of the proposed incentive to voyage; but in this case, the player is only limiting itself. You might have a player who only PvPs and only steals skulls, and thus never levels up their Merchant rep. This player is also limiting themselves. The examples could go on, as slippery slopes do, so I'll spare us all. The point I'm trying to make is that PvP-only wouldn't necessarily be penalized; rather the player who would choose to only PvP would be limiting their experience.

I'm not supporting the idea of additional XP because I find a particular aspect of the game boring. I'm proposing this because I find a particular aspect of the game entertaining, and I'd like to see it enhanced in a way that follows traditional video-game concepts of rewarding XP for effort put in.

Or we go with what they promised us, a game designed around adventuring and PvP. This is not a traditional PvE structure so applying other ideas here because of tradition is a baseless argument.

Aha, well then feel free to agree to disagree on these grounds.

Honestly, I didn't know what was promised. My buddies coerced me into buying the thing, then waited till I was hooked before they bailed and went back to CoD lol. However, while playing, I did see a pop-up message that requested I check out the forums to offer feedback, and so here I am offering ideas that I think might improve the game. If you disagree out of taste, that's fine.

I also agree that any arguments made with appeal-to-tradition are fallacious, not just in this context, but in general. Please understand that I'm not asking for these changes merely out of tradition. I used that language because it just so happens that other games I've previously played have implemented the sort of experience/rep system suggested here. I'm supporting this idea because I think it would enhance the voyaging aspect of the game for all players. That's all.

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

@lotrmith said:

you have effectively shifted this relationship even further towards PvE being the more valuable way to spend your time

@entspeak said:

you disincentivize thievery because you can get more value by just doing the voyages

@savagetwinky said:

If you see a ship on the horizon, you have to ask yourself is it worth sailing all the way over their to get loot that won't be as valuable then if you continued on your voyage? He may not even have loot.

Well, if you frame the idea in a way that the voyage-XP points are greater than turn-in points, I'd have to agree with you guys. Again, this isn't what I was asking for. I'm talking about a rep-only-reward, nominal in comparison, that adds incentive to continue voyaging in a way that currently doesn't exist.

...this doesn't necessarily disincentivize thievery. An incentive to do one thing doesn't necessarily mean everything else is undermined, especially when the incentive is proportionally smaller.

By having an incentive to do x then y which is less valuable now is a disincentive due to the poorer value proposition.

I've seen enough of these number-breakdowns at this point, but I'll attempt my own to illustrate what I've clearly failed to thus far. Just this once.

As of right now:
Turn-in rep is X
Voyage-completion rep is 0X

After the proposed change
Turn-in rep is X
Voyage-completion rep is 0.5X

So, the new total possible amount of rep-earned goes up from 1X to 1.5X. This sort of inflation of rep would decrease the value of rep overall. The new turn-in rep is, of course, less in comparison to the total rep, whereas previously it was the total rep. However if you're saying that it's less than voyage-rep, you're misunderstanding the proposal.

But, the person getting the voyage rep is also is aiming to turn-in.

When looking at it based on how the item was achieved, it breaks down like this:

Voyage: voyage rep + turn-in rep.
Theft: turn-in rep only.

And when an attack occurs and loot is lost:

Voyage: voyage rep.
Theft: bupkis.

Theft is disincentivized. Why do it, if there is more value and less risk to be had (chest for chest) in getting loot by doing a voyage?

I used that language because it just so happens that other games I've previously played have implemented the sort of experience/rep system suggested here.

What works in one game doesn’t necessarily work in others. I, and others, have been trying to explain why it wouldn’t work here.

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

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

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

I still don’t know what “that” is.

You said something about, this proposed fix wouldn't change anything about loot being random. And it would.

No. It won’t. Unless they change the way loot is dropped, you will still have the same problem of being just as likely to get a Captain’s Chest as a Castaway on a dig.

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

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

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

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

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

I still don’t know what “that” is.

You said something about, this proposed fix wouldn't change anything about loot being random. And it would.

No. It won’t. Unless they change the way loot is dropped, you will still have the same problem of being just as likely to get a Captain’s Chest as a Castaway on a dig.

You'll know you're getting a chunk of rep or if they add new items, you'll know you get the Athena's Voyage chest or whatever.

But, what does that have to do with the RNG of chest drops? The RNG sucks so guarantee me some rep? Why isn’t the answer to fix the RNG of the chest drops?

Lol, @entspeak, if you quoted a bit further down, we could've avoided this:

I also said:

...you might have a player who exclusively PvPs and never gets to take advantage of the proposed incentive to voyage; but in this case, the player is only limiting itself. You might have a player who only PvPs and only steals skulls, and thus never levels up their Merchant rep. This player is also limiting themselves. The examples could go on, as slippery slopes do, so I'll spare us all. The point I'm trying to make is that PvP-only wouldn't necessarily be penalized; rather the player who would choose to only PvP would be limiting their experience.

Voyage: voyage rep + turn-in rep.
Theft: turn-in rep only.

Voyage: voyage rep + turn-in rep
Theft of all loot: turn-in rep of all loot
Theft of only skulls: turn-in rep for Order of Souls
Theft of only bananas: bananas, but no turn-in rep

Okay, and?

Would you say the person PvP-ing for bananas is, with the current system, penalized? Or just limiting themselves? With the proposed additional opportunities to earn XP via voyages, you are absolutely incentivized to continue to voyage. If a player does not take advantage of the incentive, it doesn't mean they're being penalized, it simply means they are not taking advantage of it.

@touchdown1504 said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:

It's not at all experience points. Its literal reputation. The only functionality it has is gating slightly different random voyages and unlocking cosmetics that you can purchase via the vendors. It plays no role in progression as a player.

Maybe not overwhelmingly so, but like I said, low impact. For me it is enough "to know" all I need to do is get to VC! At level 25 that is not the easiest task.

Why? First its still not difficult to complete tasks, they do take some time but they are not hard. Second, you don't even have to complete the voyage now to get the rewards. You can take small breaks and turn in, especially when you find additional loot from shiprecks or randomly on islands. But they are time consuming. Thats different than difficult.

I'm rank 40's and I've completed 35/20/20 voyages each. And most of that weren't even from voyages... mainly skull forts, along with shipwrecks, pvp. So much happens to voyages it would be teribble to actually have to complete voyages all the time. We mainly don't finish the 1 voyage we set out to do because the longer the voyage... the more likely 5 different things will intervene and a 45 min voyage turns into 6 hour epic...

And that just gave me another reason to literally hate your idea. Too much gets in the way of completing voyages, putting the rep soley on VC is aweful.

My buddy at 45...he won't even play his voyages without a full crew. It is time invested that matters to me. My time is limited, very much so. So, I have quit playing until the next update.

And here is the crux of the problem in how we see this game. I see the loot important enough to fight over. But there is nothing to PL that matters that I'm even remotely worried about getting there any time soon. PL is not a destination. It does not alter the game. It does not represent the player character's experience.

The games structure or mechanics do not support the importance you choose to put on rep. It is your choice. But its possible to treat a piece of entertainment wrong.

To me, this game sets up a 'bonfire' I need to reach, much like dark souls, by voyaging. The loss of rep, as well as gold, add to that sense of fulfillment when you finally reach a bonfire. That sense of fulfulfilment and the excitement is a reason to play, and there is never wasted time because if it gets a little bit boring, I'll have aquired all my loot

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

The point im getting at is the game is designed right now with no incentive to do anything.

The point of the game is to bring loot to an outpost. The incentive is rep/gold.

Beyond the internal incentive, it's fun.

Each chest is a d4 roll. Equal chance at c**p or captain. If you want to advance, there's one way to do it efficiently. Get big maps to average your return on investment, turn them in immediately.

This is boring design, and players should be rewarded for playing in different ways.

The reward is player satisfaction. If you want particpation rewards for every stupid action go play WoW or CoD.

blah blah blah no reason to play blah blah blah
grind is pretty ridiculous regardless.

The grind barely matters. What the game is set up and designed to do is push players to cross the seas, find loot, and have fun while doing it.

If you only here because of PL you'll get to PL and complain there's no point and nothing to do. If you don't enjoy the core voyage loop and you consider it a waste of time if you don't get any rep... I suggest you really think about whether or not you actually enjoy playing this game...

There is no end game. There is no place to go unless you like doing a voyage and fighting over loot.

@theblackbellamy Red herring. Bananas don't earn rep and, so, are irrelevant to this particular conversation. The game is designed around theft. They have said there is no fast travel, and there will never be safe zones or PvE only areas because they want the loot (be it chest, skull, animal, etc...) to be at risk of theft. The notion of "none of those rewards are yours until you get them to an outpost" is based on this concept of theft. It is called Sea of Thieves for a reason. Whether a person chooses to steal occasionally or exclusively is also irrelevant. Why do it at all if there is more value and less risk if you choose to progress solely by doing a voyage? That's a legitimate question, not a slippery slope.

If theft is disincentivized, it is no longer Sea of Thieves.

@touchdown1504 If you move the reputation timing to VC, and you turn in loot prior to that point, what happens?

Also, as you've described it, stealing loot will only get reputation if it is stolen prior to VC. So, now, in addition to the possibility of ships having no loot, stealing chests runs the possibility of not getting you any reputation if the person defending has reached VC. How is a thief to know?

@entspeak said:

@theblackbellamy Red herring. Bananas don't earn rep and so, are irrelevant to this particular conversation.

Come on, man. Of course bananas don't earn rep, and I didn't bring them up to argue against that. I brought them up to illustrate the over-arching idea that incentivizing voyaging doesn't translate to penalizing everything else. What I was meant was that a player can limit themselves by limiting their exposure to various aspects of the game, without it having to do with incentives/disincentives at all. A player who wouldn't take advantage of the proposed reward incentives would fall into this category.

Why do it at all if there is more value and less risk if you choose to progress soley by doing a voyage? That's a legitimate question, not a slippery slope.

For the last time from me: I'm not supporting more value for voyaging than turn-in. The value would be more than "none", as it stands now, but still less than you'd be able to earn from sinking a ship and turning in loot for a greater value.

@touchdown1504

I'd just like to set the record straight here regarding experience and reputation.

In Sea of Thieves there is no experience. Experience involves leveling up your character to become stronger, either through base stats or the ability to wear stronger equipment or use new abilities, or any combination of these and other things.

Reputation typically refers to your standing with in-game factions, in this case the Gold Hoarders, the Order of Souls, etc. Gaining reputation typically involves access to higher levels of quests (true in Sea of Thieves), better equipment (cosmetics in the case of Sea of Thieves), etc.

Reputation as you're referring to it either doesn't exist or might actually be referred to as something like Karma or Morality.

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

@entspeak said:
For the last time from me: I'm not supporting more value for voyaging than turn-in. The value would be more than "none", as it stands now, but still less than you'd be able to earn from sinking a ship and turning it in for a greater value.

I don't understand what this means. It seems to me like you're only using "voyage" and "turn-in" as if those who voyage don't also turn in. Also, you're using penalty and disincentive interchangeably. While a penalty is a disincentive, not all disincentives are penalties.

@touchdown1504 said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:

@savagetwinky Well, the real crux, is you constantly post how you see the game. I (and others) see it different. PL is something I would like to achieve. Reputation is important. On one hand you keep saying it is not, on the other you say it is. It is the only thing (barring promotion purchase) that gets a player to PL, which many players see as a destination, myself included.

I'm saying PL is not important but winning or losing rep/gold in the context of a session is important.

You can see it different but factually the game isn't structured that way. So trying to change 1 dynamic to make it easier for you to get rep for a point that ultimately won't matter for you because the game just is more voyaging later. If you think its a waste of time to voyage now, do you really think its going to be that worthwhile when there is literally nothing to be gained. It's objectively not experience.

I agree, the "tasks" are not difficult in and of themselves. There are moments , like a horde of plant skeletons with flintlocks and laser aim, but for the most part not hard. They are however time consuming. It is that time that needs to be rewarded, in experience points...which is reputation.
Moving the timing of the reputation award literally affects OoS and GH only. It is also a very small impact on PvP. It is a positive change. One that can easily be implemented. There are other ways to do it too. But the bottom line is, the current system sucks. It needs to change, or have additions to (such as XP (REP) awarded for tasks). I have the utmost confidence it will change, and likely sooner than we think.

The problem is your idea is terrible and doesn't lend it self to the game at all. The loot rewards rep and right now you do not have to complete a voyage to get that rep.

Just a point of clarification you said reward all the rep at the end of the VC and the chests for all parties only have rep?

A) This is terrible for PvP players since all loot has no rep
B) This means after a messy voyage you might be in a position to spend antoher 45 mins to finish it to get the rep. It does not persist across sessions so now your stuck and just can't cash in what you have.

@entspeak said:

I said:

I'm not supporting more value for voyaging than turn-in. The value would be more than "none", as it stands now, but still less than you'd be able to earn from sinking a ship and turning it in for a greater value.

I don't understand what this means.

At this point, I can't help you.

It seems to me like you're only using voyage and turn in as if those who voyage don't also turn in.

Sorry if you read it that way.

@theblackbellamy

Okay, to take you literally, then... I am not talking about more value for the voyage bonus than for turn-in. So, what's your point?

@graiis And, as I said, occasionally stealing or exclusively stealing... it's irrelevant. Regardless of how often you do it, this idea still disincentivizes theft - a fundamental aspect of the game.

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

@savagetwinky The idea isn't to put anything solely on VC. You get some rep if you finish it. With long as hell voyages you may not finish, then the rep you would get for finishing is a drop in the bucket for the session. But for shorter voyages, you go out and flip the coin, oop tails I lose, you get in some cases, literally nothing because your voyage costs 150, and seafarer's can be less than that. Heads, great, got lucky. So unless I have a bunch of time to sink, why even bother? That's a bad system. Give a baseline reward, then many types of voyages, play season lengths, and playstyles are rewarded.

This is a red herring because no one does 1 voyage if its that short and most people collect world loot / quest bottles along the way.

Which idea are we talking about

voyage rep on completion gold only on chests (no rep for pvp)
voyage rep on completion + gold/rep on chests (full for pvp)
voyage rep on completion / partial rep on chests (full for pvp)

No matter which way you hack it, PvE becomes more reliable and PvP is now either slightly to significantly disincentivized based on a value proposition. All because you've decided it's a waste of time playing the game if you haven't received a participation award.

@savagetwinky I think you mean... or he means... "Just a point of clarification you said reward all the rep at the end of the VC and the chests for all parties only have gold?" Once VC is crossed, yes, that's what he means. You can get the rep if you steal it before VC is reached.

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

@savagetwinky I think you mean... or he means... "Just a point of clarification you said reward all the rep at the end of the VC and the chests for all parties only have gold?" Once VC is crossed, yes, that's what he means. You can get the rep if you steal it before VC is reached.

there are too many slightly different ideas trying to position a bonus on PvE while slightly punishing PvP rewards.