@gtothefo said in [Mega Thread] PvP and PvE Playstyle Discussion:
@cotu42 said in [Mega Thread] PvP and PvE Playstyle Discussion:
@gtothefo
Wait you actually know about the taxonomy of player types and multiple of the models... yet make assumptions that most people are like you? Why are you refusing to provide any foundation for your own arguments, you actually seem to know a thing or two? Regardless of which model you want to apply, as I also indicate that people shift around consistently unlike Bartle's model would allow (one of its core weaknesses). The standpoint I am making is that people will make a menu choice if offered that suits their motivational profile of that moment the most. If the modes compete directly with each other instead of complimenting them, people will use them specifically for different needs and no longer use the Adventure mode for them. The goal of the Sea of Thieves is to create a shared world environment, a true PvEvP world. A place where regardless of what are your intrinsic motivational factors are that you meet, clash and play together, where you interact with other styles and where people create the stories and content.
Because I don't believe that the issue is one of player taxonomy, I think that its one of long term player capture and endowed loss. Things like player taxonomy are useful for categorising the likely demographic of a game before launch, less so for tweaking the behaviour of that demographic once the game is established. All evidence of examinations of Bartle and similar programs show that, for example, explorers simply don't buy and engage with MMOs. There are many people who ask why players who didn't want a PvPvE experience bought a PvPvE game, and I think the issue there is not that those players are explorer types but that they cleave much more closely to a Social type and that the current balance of the game is leading to a lack of long term capture of those types of player.
As I said, the more interesting models to relate to Sea of Thieves are those that result from endowed rewards and Nash's equilibrium in relation to the Hawks Vs Doves problem. The population that join the game are largely already self selected out and away from the general population of standard taxonomies anyway. The issue is that over time a Hawks Vs Doves population in a fixed iterative system tends towards the Nash equilibrium of an all Hawk population, which will kill the game. A tig-for-tat response can be attempted in a system where probability of success is fixed at start and rounds are iterative but unfixed, but that's not the model that fits to Sea Of Thieves. As such, in order to keep the population stable there needs to be more to retain and long term capture Dove or Tig-for-tat playstyles of Social taxonomy players. A big driver for such players away from long term capture is then the endowed loss that is contained within the system, something that is a constant and well replicated player drive away from perfect rationality that we can see from situations such as the Monty Hall Problem. Sea Of Thieves creates a far greater sense of endowed loss for PvE leaning players than PvP leaning players, thereby driving the game more quickly towards the possibility of a destructive Nash equilibrium within the player population.
Its not that I'm unaware of the underlying game design and game theory models involved, its that I don't think your chosen models accurately or usefully model the issues that are being discussed.
Thank you, this was an interesting read and shows more where you are coming from. You view it more from the long term perspective with the two opposing strategies, of which one will eventually overwhelm the other (for those that don't know the Hawks vs Doves). While in my view the main demographic of the game are those that switch between these two strategies those have the tig-for-tat mentality and the lack of a PvE mode keeps it from going to far to one side. The world lends itself towards that shift of players between the strategies and the balance it creates, by not offering the PVE to have a world suited for themselves.
In terms of the balancing I do believe some work can be done, as I do agree with that there isn't much for the social type, as it relies too heavily upon them to create it themselves and lack of extrinsic motivational factors to stimulate it. Yet the greater sense of endowed loss is where I believe the game actually doesn't do a bad job, especially if you compare it to the PvEvP genre in general. Yes PVE will always have a greater sense of it, but the pure brutality of these losses are really minimal and largely in control of the crew out doing the PvE added in the horizontal nature and the session based premise it doesn't feel brutal to me. Yet I also come from a preference for the PvEvP genre, where most losses are way more devastating than anything this game can create and also believe that PVP players are more accustomed to losing in general. I am not sure how the Monty Hall problem comes into the equation here though.
In regards to the Nash equilibrium, is where I believe your skills as a negotiator and your positioning comes into play. It is also why I think that the social aspect relies too much upon the players execution and intrinsic motivation to do it. Currently to have someone swap strategy, you have to be very convincing that it is the best course of action for them. How to negotiate from a power position and usually being the one that approaches the other, convincing a party that is on the offensive strategy is far more difficult than one that has alternative goals as well. It isn't impossible, yet it is the most difficult skillset to learn because of the lack of motivational factors in the game to help you in that negotiation.
I don't believe that the requests for PvE servers are heavily coming from the long time players, but mainly from players that came into the game with wrong expectations, as I do believe people do not grasp the PvEvP concept, as it is a less explored and more niche market in general - so many people come in without understanding it. Rare is trying to mainstream the concept. Even among MMO's there are few that are really PvEvP and those that are tend to be brutally punishing when you lose. The natural selection process is less strong than in other PvEvP games because of this, I believe and is why I am more inclined to look at the player types. The others that request it are those unwilling to master their own strategy or play around the PvP element of the game. To be honest the PvE side has way more control than people give it credit, if played properly.
You claim that the seas are not friendly enough and most interactions are that of a foe, while my argument is that it is mainly dependent on the one initiating the interaction. The fact is that most friendly crews do not go out of their way to reach out to others, they stick around with their crew and mind their own business. The ratio of these interactions by default will therefore be more in favor of that of the foe, as those people consistently go out of their way to initiate interactions. Also the response of the crew that one roles up on is of utmost importance. Are they standing there, prepared or are they an easy target because they are caught out of position or do they open fire straight away? There is an innate risk of making contact with another crew, there is the mystery of how they will respond to you and your plea of friendly interaction.
My point is more that the friendly interactions available lack sufficient interesting and emergent results to capture long term Social players. The current interactions are generally too binary and, in so far as the rewards that such players are actually seeking, too low reward.
I don't necessarily believe that the rewards being to low in terms of gold/reputation or that it is that binary if you are actively playing in a social manner. The issue lies more in my opinion that there is nearly no need for it from either end. Alliances are one of the most lucrative aspects you can do in the game, yet there is no reason other than the coin/reputation rewards to do it. The benefit or necessity to group together and work together towards a common goal is non-existent even for pirates that aren't very good.
You believe that the current rewards are built towards being aggressive, while the actual most lucrative thing you can do is to be friendly and create an alliance, then go your separate ways. The non-aggressive rewards are far higher over a longer period of time than any short term gain of the aggressive pirate, unless you find a ship that is stacking up on loot or those that are totally unprepared for it. Yet this is not where in my idea the issue comes from. The reward in this game is cosmetic, many pirates have more than enough of it just sitting there and earning more or less is with the inflation that Rare added non-sensical. Sure novelties like a race or the exchange of maps, might add a little bit but isn't far reaching enough. We have some of these aspects and yet rarely to never see them.
The issue though is not the direct loot reward of such exchanges but the spread of emergent and experiential rewards available in those interactions. I agree that the few additions I suggested aren't sufficiently varied and far reaching enough, but they would at least mean that each non-combat player encounter had a range of direct possible results. Alliancing and then going your separate ways can result in high yield loot rewards, but it doesn't result in a range of direct and emergent behaviours. The true reward in those instances shouldn't be the loot that results and the cosmetics that can be bought from them, but the new and direct interactions that result. Racing isn't the most thrilling thing in the world, but its something new that can result from an interaction. I agree that the exchange of maps is a minor option, but emergently it can result in a network of players organically exchanging information across a server. My trading a map with one player is a minor interaction, but when that map then gets traded three or four times across multiple players, when information about the nature of various encounters available on a particular server begin to build, those are the sort of emergent behaviours that create a deeper and more textured world.
Oh, I would love more of these little niche things. I don't believe that they shouldn't be added, yet I also don't believe they will have much impact upon the overall balance. These type of things make the world in general more interesting and I believe that is always a good thing in games.
If you ask me the 2 main issues with the division of friendly/foe division is that first of all the friendly people don't need other crews by a long shot. Even as a solo the game has become overall easier and easier to do from a PVE perspective, in a crew it is nearly laughable. There is very little to fear or is hard to defeat with a single crew or even a single pirate. Most of the content scales, so sloop, brig or galleon it doesn't really matter. Rare has gone with the approach that every crew has to be able to single handedly be able to do everything in the game, to avoid content of being extremely hard to complete and motivation people to find people to do it with. If legendary voyages would actually be a challenge, if epic bosses would be available to summon but super demanding and difficult to do with a single crew. Maybe we would have some motivation to actually team up with other crews, but then again people might just not do it at all because of the fact that it would require friendly interaction with strangers.
I do fundamentally agree, but I think that the nature of players is that however difficult you make it, people will find ways to deal with difficulty. Skill and tenacity is pretty much infinitely scalable, whereas encounters that flat out need a stranger to trigger can create that sort of interaction with a zero scale in difficulty. Pretty much whatever inherent difficulty increase is offered in the PvE areas, someone will learn to beat it solo. Ironically, the game offers solo scalable difficulty far more easily than team scalable difficulty, as a solo player emergent difficulty is fairly easily found by just manning a larger ship solo while with a crew it tops out pretty fast. Catching a Battlegill while soloing a Galleon is a task of pretty insane difficulty.
Well my argument isn't that it won't be possible at all. I am one of these insanely stubborn players that will go at it for hours solo to eventually beat it. Yet if it is sufficiently difficult that grouping up actually makes sense and social interactions are desirable to engage with the gameplay and defeat the boss in a more timely manner. Where sure the highest skilled or stubborn people might still do it solo, but more people would be open to doing it together. Currently everything is so easy that it is far more a liability than not.
Sure, using a galleon as a solo is more difficult... yet that is more self-inflicted than anything else. I really haven't enjoyed the scalability in difficulty, as someone that enjoyed the tenacity and skill required to do those things in the past as a solo. I think overall the approach of everyone should be able to do it by themselves hurts the game more than it helps. It actually makes the more aggressive strategy stronger overall in my opinion.
The second issue is that there is a severe lack in the willingness of people to talk in the game. Xbox parties aren't even able to hear you talk to them if you try. The amount of silent, mute crews you meet on the seas is astonishing. Silent pirates cannot be trusted and no friendly interaction can take place.
I agree with this also. Most PC players I know actually use things like skype to communicate and shut off the in game coms totally to avoid other players hearing them when they don't want them to. Again, I think that a little bit of training in the use of things like the loudhailer in an extended Maiden Voyage would be a big help here and clearer boundaries for players interacting with NPCs. I think that a more solid range of hailing options and a clearer set of communication flags for people and a bit of training in using them would help here. As with real ships it should be possible to spot someone with a telescope and see that they intend to communicate by signal flags rather than sort of having it sprung on players when the communication is intiated. I also think that long periods without interaction result in players forgetting how to even use those modes and weirdly result in people panicking when someone actually attempts to talk to them.
Yeah anything to help communication between crews would be great. A correction I would like to make in regards to PC players, yes they use discord and such to communicate and not hot mic it up, but they always still hear and are able to use the game coms at the same time. I played a bit with Xbox parties with some of the Xbox players I know and it is insane how much less friendly interactions we would have had if I wasn't on PC and couldn't have been able to hear and use the in-game coms. Like me having to tell my crew to not attack, because they seem cool and are reaching out to use over voice coms. It helped me develop my negotiation skills on the seas quite a bit, as I was the only one that could negotiate in the crew.
The developers need to create a motivation within the game to team up with others, currently if you want to be non-aggressive... the best course of action is to just simply mind your own business and ignore everyone else. There is no motivation or urgency to create player bonds outside of some of the events, even those that have everyone rush to the same islands creates more friendly encounters by sheer I don't want to fight, but want to do the event.
Again, I think this is something that most players would love to see. One of the things that is a shame about the events is that they also offer an easy gathering point for more FPS leaning players, when the most recent event launched for the first day the Lagoon seemed to be turned into a mini FPS arena. Something that I think would be interesting would be an event where the more players who engage with it the more valuable the rewards became. At the moment if five players interact with an event that drops five pieces of treasure my reward is significantly lower than if I solo it, which makes sense to a degree for a static scale with difficulty. Conversely, if there were a treasure where it were multiplied in value by how many different players turned in the same treasure as you within a set time of your turning it in, or if turned in at various different Outposts in the same window, it would really push players to more organically seek allegiances. I'd personally love to see five different players from five different sloops come together for a challenge, figure out who was taking which chest to which Outpost and then check watches to decide on a time to turn in and then scattering in five different directions to achieve a five Outpost simultaneous turn in.
Yes, I do believe many would like to see more reasons to cooperate especially in terms of gameplay within the PvEvP world and that it would benefit the community overall.