Rare! Stop ignoring us!

@zaannox said in Rare! Stop ignoring us!:

@savagetwinky Prove me otherwise?
What do I have to work towards? I have all the commendations.
What do I have to achieve? I have all the items.

Your argument is a state of mind. The game doesn't end, it objectively has no ending. Your complaining about 2 arbitrary counters that stop counting and declaring that as an "end". Or that somehow between now and 8 months ago the way I play some how changed because a counter is no longer counting? Its ridiculous.

There is nothing for me to do but sink other ships and you can only do that so many times before it gets boring.

That's the nature of all games. You enjoy playing it up until you don't. Rewards only have meaning in the context of whether or not your enjoying or willing to invest time. But rewards are ultimately a way to try to extend that just a little more trying to get you to play longer than you normally would have.

Rep doesn't equate to the beginning/end states of the game. Your absurdly wrong. Any "end" is in your head. Any perceived way of playing is your own doing. I've done nothing but sink ships since I started...

Can only agree, an something I have pointed out so many times, Adding all this way to make it faster to get to Pl, ins't really helping anyone.
Lower all commendation= shorter game

Making something really exclusive for Pl, like new ship type with special voyage. can only be better for everyone's experience, both those who haven't reach it, can see some special ship doing something else than normal voyage.

@greencamillion1 The grind to PL is rediculously long, but that's mainly because it's empty. Plenty of other games require equal or longer times to reach max lvl, but the difference with other games is that the journey there is packed full of content. When you're always doing something new or have a new tool to use that changes the experience it becomes so much richer. With SoT it's essentially just filling up a guage with stuff you pick up off the ground. Any changes that happen are so small that you wouldn't notice them in any other game. The only reason you notice them in SoT is because the game has nothing else to distract you from the pathetically lazy progression system. Almost every part of the journey to PL is flawed.

1. lazy fetch quests that have little to no variety between factions.
2. only 3 factions and none of them are a pirate faction, OR a "thief" faction of any kind.
3. You have to max all of them to 50 to get PL, which means you have no real choice of how you reach PL, since it's just "fill all the gauges". You can't be a PL skeleton slayer, PL Sea monster hunter, PL FedEx, etc. You have to finish all the factions.
4. being a PL just means that you get "new quests", which are just the same quests, but all of them at once(with more annoying skeletons).
5. There is nothing rewarded at any point that alters how you play the game in a meaningful way or lets you personalize how you experience the game.

@betsill Im PL meself.
did it in 4-5 weeks, so don't know what you are trying to point out for me?

Still enjoy the game, Love playing Solo an goof around an commandeer brig-galleon crew.

but still there have never really been something exclusive for PL, even a ship that only PL can sail will make it better for all PL an sailors.

@greencamillion1 I'm just saying that its a really long grind, but it both feels that way because it's so empty with no meaningful progression, and it kind of needs to be long to provide the illusion of progress. There are some very small things that change as you lvl, but like you said "lower commendations= shorter game." even though it's really just perception. You do the exact same activities whether you are lvl 1 or PLA10 only real difference is that their isn't a number going up anymore.

@betsill said in Rare! Stop ignoring us!:

@greencamillion1 I'm just saying that its a really long grind, but it both feels that way because it's so empty with no meaningful progression, and it kind of needs to be long to provide the illusion of progress. There are some very small things that change as you lvl, but like you said "lower commendations= shorter game." even though it's really just perception. You do the exact same activities whether you are lvl 1 or PLA10 only real difference is that their isn't a number going up anymore.

There is no illusion of progress because there is no progress. You have access to every mechanic day 1. Its not necessary and IMO for a sandbox game designed for emrgent play this is the perfect "progression" system. It is less to do with progression as an personal goal and more of a way to show your status withing the community that you invested time into the game.

@savagetwinky

There is an* illusion of progress because there is no progress.

FTFY

Its not necessary and IMO for a sandbox game

SoT isn't a sandbox game.

designed for emrgent play

There is very little emergent gameplay that was designed for this game. Rare just uses BS PR terms like that to avoid admitting they didn't do their job and develop the game properly before release. "you're supposed to make your own adventures.. in your imagination." sounds a lot better than "We charged you all $60 for a game that has early access lvls of content".

@betsill said in Rare! Stop ignoring us!:

@savagetwinky

There is an* illusion of progress because there is no progress.

FTFY

Its not necessary and IMO for a sandbox game

SoT isn't a sandbox game.

Yes it is, just lacks sandbox content. But it's completely a sandbox. If it was designed with a tighter gameplay loop the game would be great. I think that was the biggest gripe apart from "content" is not being able to find and fight people often enough.

You can look at it like it doesnt' have content, or the content it was designed to produce doesn't present itself enough. One is saying the game is unfinished, the other is saying there is a bit of poor design.

designed for emrgent play

There is very little emergent gameplay that was designed for this game. Rare just uses BS PR terms like to avoid admitting that they didn't do their job and develop the game properly before release. "you're supposed to make your own adventures.. in your imagination." sounds a lot better than "We charged you all $60 for a game that has early access lvls of content".

This is by far better than most early access sandboxes. Content is not a measure of value.

@savagetwinky A sandbox game is a game that lets players alter the game world. Minecraft is a sandbox. SoT is not.
It doesn't have content. It's a mostly empty map that you can sail around and pick up stuff off the ground. They are just now starting to add NPCs into the world itself, but they are still ridiculously underdeveloped with little to no VO and most of the VOs that exists are bad. It took me like 2 weeks playing this game before i even realized that the NPCs were different people at each outpost and i'm the type of person that read the text in MMOs and other games.

This is by far better than most early access sandboxes.

I wouldn't know, but i know that none of them charged $60 for their unfinished game.

Content is not a measure of value.

Not sure what you're trying to say here, but SoT is objectively lacking in content for it's price.

@betsill said in Rare! Stop ignoring us!:

@savagetwinky A sandbox game is a game that lets players alter the game world. Minecraft is a sandbox. SoT is not.
It doesn't have content. It's a mostly empty map that you can sail around and pick up stuff off the ground. They are just now starting to add NPCs into the world itself, but they are still ridiculously underdeveloped with little to no VO and most of the VOs that exists are bad. It took me like 2 weeks playing this game before i even realized that the NPCs were different people at each outpost and i'm the type of person that read the text in MMOs and other games.

No its not. Sandbox are types of open gamplay design that often have world altering mechanics. They don't define it. For instance Zelda BotW is a sandbox, mgs5 is also a sandbox. GTA is a sandbox.

This is by far better than most early access sandboxes.

I wouldn't know, but i know that none of the charged $60 for their unfinished game.

Content is not a measure of value.

Not sure what you're trying to say here, but SoT is objectively lacking in content for it's price.

No its not, price = value. Content =/= value. It can add value. It can even remove value if its bad content... like athenas. There is no "objective", it's a subjective measure.

@savagetwinky

Idk why since this really isn't complicated and the name itself aptly describes the difference IMO. Fortunately just recently there was a good video describing the difference between Sandbox and open world games, so here you go.

Sandbox vs. Open-World Games: What's The Difference?

No its not, price = value. Content =/= value. It can add value. It can even remove value if its bad content... like athenas. There is no "objective", it's a subjective measure.

Yes it is, but now I see why you're confused. When I say content, i'm not referring to value as in what you like and don't like. I'm referring to assets in the game. Things like VOs, Maps, character models, music, animations, etc. You might like Hate chocolate cake, but it still has more objective value than half a vanilla cake(assuming all the ingredients are roughly the same). Prices aren't determined that way. There is an objective value for the cost of developing a map, or hiring a voice actor and SoT has less of that game development than any game i've ever seen that charged $60.

@betsill said in Rare! Stop ignoring us!:

@savagetwinky

Idk why since this really isn't complicated and the name itself aptly describes the difference IMO. Fortunately just recently there was a good video describing the difference between Sandbox and open world games, so here you go.

Sandbox vs. Open-World Games: What's The Difference?

That youtube video is incorrect. GTA was traditionally considered a sandbox, with linear quest design. Manipulating the game world is not the principle design of a sandbox game. Hell I don't even think he's entirely saying that but if he is its wrong.

GTA, MGS5, SoT, Zelda BotW are all types of sandbox's. They aren't world building sandbox's.

Halo dev's explicitly were building a linear game built on a combat sandbox.

ex-Bungie next to 343 Industries

I don't think the time is working so rougly around 3:20 mins in he starts talking about the combat sandbox. The concept of a sandbox has existed for quite a while.

Just because some idiot you tuber is hijacking a term doesn't mean he's right. Sandboxs come in a few different forms from combat sandboxs, to world building sandboxes or immersive sims. Sandboxes aren't necessarily open world. A sandbox is a gameplay design, an openworld is a map design.

Yes it is, but now I see why you're confused. When I say content, i'm not referring to value as in what you like and don't like. I'm referring to assets in the game. Things like VOs, Maps, character models, music, animations, etc. You might like Hate chocolate cake, but it still has more objective value than half a vanilla cake(assuming all the ingredients are roughly the same). Prices aren't determined that way. There is an objective value for the cost of developing a map, or hiring a voice actor and SoT has less of that game development than any game i've ever seen that charged $60.

There is no confusion. Value is explicitly subjective. Money is a representation of value. $60 is a value and if your willing to spend it on a product and get satisfaction then the game was worth the value. Games are not just assets but ideas and engineering and community... You can have high value games if they focus on other aspects even if not content. For instance WoW I do not think is worth the value... it doesn't matter how much assets they throw in the game I do not like the gameplay, I do not like the content.

@zaannox said in Rare! Stop ignoring us!:

@savagetwinky Rewards is the reason to play a game. The only reason people play games is for higher and higher rewards.

Wrong. This is completely wrong. Some people want rewards and some games cater that need. Rewards cam enhance games you already like. But I've played games for 1000s of hours, like bf1, with the same kit and stopped getting rewards. Rewards aren't a requirement.

Your a skinner box gamer... a game like this won't work for you since its designed to have the rewards have no baring on game-play for the most part. Its a progression that fits players like me more that don't need it but still appreciate getting a new visual flare every now and then.

@zaannox said in Rare! Stop ignoring us!:

@personalc0ffee I have ALL the cosmetics my guy. Even the ones that I DON'T like.

Do you enjoy playing the game? If the answer is yes you have a reason to play. If the answer is no you don't need the rewards.

@zaannox said in Rare! Stop ignoring us!:

@savagetwinky You misunderstood me.
Secondly, comparing bf1 to SoT is like comparing an apple to a steak. Doesn't make sense. They are completely different games with completely different goals. Games like bf1 have the competitive aspect and endless levels to keep you playing. The competitive aspect is enough for most people.

Wrong! You can compare these games.

So you are wrong to make a bad comparison and to take an exert out my my statement to make it seem like you are right. Rewards don't necessarily have to be the game literally saying, "Good job here new stuff". A reward can be anything from a new gun, to a title, to a simple achievement.

Again... there is nothing to suggest the progression is a high focus but a lite framework to build up cosmetic items... getting treasure is in the context of the gameplay is completely similar to taking an objective in bf1. That's all your doing in SoT is capturing objectives either with help of other players, alone, or against other players. They are simple objectives nothing more. Just like bf1 you get points and it eventually unlocks cosmetics for dedicated players to customize their character.

The only real distinction between the games is the core loop, bf1 is a direct head 2 head... SoT is designed to have emergent situations potentially involving other players that may ore may not be hostile. The objectives are only important to fuel going from point A to point B and seeing what happens on the way, and protecting your loot along the way. There is very little difference in the importance placed on objectives and its far more about the game play surrounding those objectives.

The only games exempt from this are sandbox games, like Minecraft, and RPG games, like D&D. And SoT is neither a sandbox nor an RPG. It has RPG elements, but it's not a full RPG.

W/e point your making here, is incoherent nonsense. Your trying to make a distinction that 1 type of game is allowed to have progression lite but SoT is not because you don't like it. Its complete horsecrap. The value in voyages is just how SoT builds it's compelling gameplay moments. If you enjoy the game, there is intrinsic value to voyages.

SoT has no RPG mechanics... at all. Its a sandbox. Any RP elements come from player interaction within the sandbox. RPGs are explicitly reward driven progression. There is character progression in the form of strength,skills,equipment... Its not just a number that ticks up the more you play... there are real and sometimes game altering investments in skills, abilities and equipment. Rewarding the player by making their character stronger and a multitude of ways..

@personalc0ffee sagte in Rare! Stop ignoring us!:

I like how people think that 8 months is more than enough time to drop basically w/e you are doing,, you know forget those others content; this is about the legends..that 8 months is enough time to brainstorm, talk about, get the funding for, plan, render the 3d models, skin the models, rig the models, animate the models, and finally get the models into a test build with the internal testing teams.

This is why decent developers actually produce enough content BEFORE the game is released. The game was announced in 2015. That's 3+ years. And now look at the teaser. There aren't that many differences in style to the "finished" game. So here's my question: Is the current build of the game all they managed to create in three years?

This is why people are upset. It should not be a surprise for a game developer that the players actually expect some form of content besides repetitive fetch-questions. Every other game manages to present enough content for the player base, why doesn't SoT?

@personalc0ffee sagte in Rare! Stop ignoring us!:

@l4chsfps Hey guess what?

DEVELOPMENT TAKES TIME.

3 years? That's small time development. Most games are 5-8 years or longer and that is BEFORE the consumer even touches it.

You're also greatly forgetting they have it all prototyped up in Unity and then moved engines. Do you know the amount of work that takes? Unreal engine is not like unity engine. There's a whole new ruleset, limitations, etc to work around.

Go watch the NYCC panel, whole video or at least actually listen to it. Listen to how they speak, the words, they use, their ideas about the game, and more importantly behind their core design decisions and you're going to realize they know what they are doing.

SoT is a GAME AS A SERVICE. You will be drip fed content over time, that's the model. That content you're being drip fed is already done or being created right now and is just waiting for the perfect time to put it in and where it fits in the roadmap.

Software development is as much a waiting game as it is a creating one. You can't just shove things in there because individuals want it and they want it now.

The game was in a state that looks like the finished project in 2015. It's been three years since then. And of course creating games takes time, but, guess what! EVERY OTHER DEVELOPER MANAGES TO DO THAT (I thought I could just copy your passive-agressive tone by writing something in caps. Works fine.)

If SoT is "GAME AS A SERVICE" then I think it's the perfect example for how awful a system it is. It's literally alienating players that may come back every three months to check out the new "content" (which may after all still be nothing but a weird behaving skeleton ship that's not worth the hassle) and they will leave the game again.
Numerous people are disappointed in the way that content is chopped up and, as a result, start to abandon the game. No one in my entire friends list has played SoT in a while. And there's a reason for that.

Man... The casuals are out for blood in this one.

@personalc0ffee

3 years? That's small time development. Most games are 5-8 years or longer and that is BEFORE the consumer even touches it.

It takes however long it takes, but if you release it the damn thing it should be finished. Don't know where you got 5-8 years from for most games. Witcher 3 took 3.5 years, Dark souls 3 took 3 years, mass effect was 4, and Halo 2 was around 3 years... I'm not nitpicking with these games either just randomly looked at games I like and couldn't find any that took more time that Rare has had for SoT AND they were all released in a finished state. Stop defending things that can't be defended. People like you are why game companies are able to keep pushing out unfinished games.
"A delayed game is eventually good, but a rushed game is forever bad,"