Sea Fortress can we make them more relevant??

They aren't irrelevant.

They are already relevant for nearly all play types.

Supplies for pvpers, stationary plays in some scenarios by or against them.

cooking area with good food for anyone

Great for casual and mid risk pvers

Great for high risk taking pvers that just need a grade bump

Getting overly specific in content kills content in a shared adventure experience, they currently serve nearly everyone in one way or another which maximizes activity.

@prescafatty said in Sea Fortress can we make them more relevant??:

@lt-robinson25 I 1000% agree, and these are really exciting ideas to give Forts more play.

It entirely misses the point of the design that went into a sea fort.

Short time requirement, mid to low risk, to serve casual players and those that are less experienced and want less intensity.

It's driving out activity to replace it with less activity because at no point in recent history of SoT has content been shown to be more active by over-complicating design, and moving it outside of appeal for casual and in-the-middle players.

@prescafatty said in Sea Fortress can we make them more relevant??:

@wolfmanbush Not sure I understand you.

First, I would consider myself a "casual player," though I've put a lot of hours into this game. I prefer short play sessions, don't care about cosmetics, hate grinding... I'm just here for the fun PvP. And OPs suggestions work for casual players like myself, they're just PvP focused.

Second, I don't think @lt-robinson25 is suggesting replacing Fort's current functionality. He's just saying augment it to give Forts more.

Forts can still be used for casual PvE, or to gather supplies. But if a Flag could be raised (as a separate event from current casual farming), that would provide an additional use for casual PvP players like myself.

People still fear reapers in many scenarios where there is no reason to fear them. When word gets out that forts are more dangerous for pvp the narratives will be exaggerated and less casual players will use them.

People still won't use emissaries because they don't fully understand how they function and think they are at more risk than they are.

@lt-robinson25 said in Sea Fortress can we make them more relevant??:

@wolfmanbush

I will say this @wolfmanbush this is in many ways a sandbox game. I place reapers inside stack loot in the vaults already it's always a player's choices to engage or not too. If you see a reaper chest inside a sea fortress you might want to stay clear it might be me looking for PVP mate.

There was a serious lack of low to mid risk content for people with around 20-30 minutes of time to play. That's ultimately what a sea fort was based around. The environment has a need and it was catered to with a type of content that there isn't an abundance of in a game like this.

Going by history of content your suggestion will not remain active enough to serve the organic experience and sea forts as they sit now very much serve those that they cater to as well as others and have shown to improve the organic experience with more activity and more loot production.

@prescafatty said in Sea Fortress can we make them more relevant??:

@wolfmanbush and none of that is changing. You'd still have casual PvE content, just also sometimes PvP content. If you wanted to make it super clear, the devs could shoot a rainbow down when Forts are open for PvE, and a big scary skull when it's PvP time.

I know devs are focused on new content that serves different player types, but it's been a minute since PvPers have gotten any love. We've stopped playing... I hope some day there's new stuff to return to!

This is a very flawed view of how organic activity operates imo.

Pvpers in this game are served by a healthy food chain where the middle is doing well so they produce more.

Pvpers have shown to be low contributors when it comes to participation outside of hopping around for targets.

This whole "we need more pvp content" thing is not based in a large amount of the activity we have witnessed for years. Pvpers largely want to sneak up and steal or ambush unsuspecting pirates and steal, that's what they activity has always shown.

Talk doesn't create activity, people need to walk the walk if that's truly how they want to play because activity largely does not support the narrative.

@grumpyw01f said in Sea Fortress can we make them more relevant??:

@wolfmanbush
And yet I've always got more enjoyment out of fighting over skeleton fort loot than sinking an emissary.

Sure, PvPers to try to sneak up and steal loot the majority of the time, but this is the chicken or the egg problem.

Do they sneak up because they don't want a fight? Or because the ability to run prevents them from forcing an engagement without sneaking?

Are PvPers low contributors? Or do they just hop for emissaries because no one fights them for world events any more?

In the end, the PvPers are going to do the thing that gets them PvP most often. If that's sneaking up on ships, that's because it works. If that is going to change, Rare has to do something. It's not the PvPer's fault.

The activity shows that they will do what gets them the most steals from pvers the most often. That includes combat but it's a far cry from looking for quality pvp.

Pvpers could fight hoppers like I do daily if they wanted to by participating in pve and the organic experience but that is largely not where the activity has been for years.

They want the steals from farmers, they might not care about gold, and it's shown they largely aren't focused on serious competition, steals from farming pvers.

"I just want the fight" is not something that has ever really shown to be accurate for the majority of pvp in this game based on how they play not how they talk.

and yes hopping on a server to take out the most valuable target right before they turn in or right after they finish an event over and over daily is low contribution to the environment. That doesn't make it wrong as they don't have obligations, it is what it is. It's not accurate to try to act like it's something else.

Their hunting struggles currently are from over killing repeatedly and being enabled to do it through features that sacrifice organic risk/reward balance. Unsustainable trophy hunting.

@grumpyw01f said in Sea Fortress can we make them more relevant??:

@wolfmanbush
Are you going to ignore that I said sneaking is a required strategy and PvPers would contribute if there was more world event engagement? Change the game, you change the PvPers.

Your post was more of you speaking your point than arguing against mine.

Why do you feel world event engagement so low?

There are more players and yet high risk activity continues to decline. Why?

Running has increased significantly. why?

A lot of hunters in this game simply do not understand their prey.

There are enough players and content to have a very healthy high risk/high reward food chain but that does not exist. It has not been maintained and all of the weight has been put on the farmer.

If pvpers truly wanted quality fights they could stack fotd a couple of times and fight skilled hoppers all day long.

"pvp content" doesn't often get added to this game because the activity shows it doesn't stay active in the environment we have.

@prescafatty said in Sea Fortress can we make them more relevant??:

@wolfmanbush where are you monitoring this "activity?"

You talk about the health of the ecosystem and high contributors v. low contributors. This seems like there's an implied set of values for what this game should be. My crew never picks up loot anymore—we're just interested in smashing ships. Surely there must be some way for people like my crew to find likeminded folks and get it on?

Consistently active for the organic experience, the organic experience feeds all other play types.

It would be real difficult for someone to make an argument on behalf of the organic experience being balanced at the high/risk/high reward level.

That is where sea forts benefit the environment. By picking up the production slack for a lack of maintenance that has viewed "QoL" as loading fresh spawns with power they should not see unless they invest in the server.

Content like sea forts are needed now more than ever as they are designed to get loot floating around.

There is a reason they are going in a sea fort direction instead of a "pvp content" direction. There is a reason that the new athena voyage operates how it does rather than some big pvp event. It's catering to the activity wishes of a base of pve/pvpers that have been long been sending a message with their activity about what kind of content they will do over and over and what they won't.

Sea Forts are already relevant, they fit a nice niche in the game. Quick, easy activity for a decent hit of loot and a good place to load up on basic supplies. Fine as they are IMO.

@theblackbellamy IMO there really should just be a straight up naval battle FFA mode. I'm more of a PvEr who will engage in PvP when it presents itself.... but I would absolutely dip into a proper PvP FFA playlist.

@theblackbellamy said in Sea Fortress can we make them more relevant??:

You mentioned Sea Forts were the solution to those with 20-30 min of play time. Now that Arena is gone, what else is there for PvPers with short amounts of time to play, other than hop for reapers? I usually have about 1-1.5 hours to play on weekdays. And on those days, I'm not gonna stack FotDs with my fingers crossed while hoping for PvP lol.

Hopping pvp by itself is plenty sustainable, even with people having hoppers, sharing servers, all that stuff that people do to keep the action going.

If chain shots were tied to activity and much more rare (no different than wraithballs which were implemented in a balanced way for power)

If flooding the dock with supplies wasn't a thing

If they worked out re-spawn locations after a sink to where it wasn't farmers needing to sink hoppers multiple times when the skill gap is typically pretty wide

That's why I've never been against server hopping as an option or a style and have always been against these features and algorithms that enable the style too much.

In a food chain the server hopping pvper is a sustainable predator but imo all of the features that lean towards quick action and against risk/reward balance are what made the style invasive and the activity unsustainable.

As a style there is nothing wrong with it. No obligations to play organically and people should be able to do it. It's a valid hunting style and they largely target opt-in risk so it's not an issue as a style it's just been enabled because of the push for content/action calling it "qol" while sacrificing food chain balance and risk/reward balance.

The new respawn timer is a mixed bag depending on crew size.

Also I've always considered smaller hopping crews to be very positive for the pvp environment. 1 person or duo pvp hopping crews offer challenge without the over kill, although the respawn timer does now interfere with this depending on the scenario. Solo hopping pvp is very positive and healthy as a style for skilled pvpers imo.