Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.

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

@savagetwinky yeah, fairynuff mate, I just wanted to say I've enjoyed this argument, unlike some people on these forums you seem to have the knack of back and forth, I think we'll probably remain on opposite sides of this particular debate but it's nice that you take the time to change my mind instead of just being rude, hope we both get a result we're happy with

Right, I think where most people are coming from... they just aren't looking forward enough. The comparison of DkS and what it does with a hill vs WoW and how it streamlines a mountain... once you take the compelling parts of the game out... your going to realize your on a hill... and that's already happening. So what is good for the game now is really trying to make that hill feel like a mountain.

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

@reedski So in other words to add onto what savage said, the game discourages risk taking because of the current reward system. It discourages people from doing any more than one voyage because if you do and you lose loot, it's your fault for not going to an outpost sooner... it discourages PvP when you have loot, because why would you take that risk when you stand to lose so much.

Your completely ignoring player circumstance and setting up an extreme example that is not representative of 90% of the time spent in a game. The only thing that encourages players to turn in loot is other players operating to them too closely. IE no one is arbitrarily doing 1 island/voyage then turning in.

@SavageTwinky Again, I am not debating what the game currently is. I know it is trying to reward you for delivering loot successfully to alliances. And your main reward would STILL come from this!

Yea, like you said, the game is made in such a way that some nights you get no progress towards PL, but no, the game isn't designed around it at all. It's designed so that is the consequence, and that is the reality of what happens now, but you can't justify it by saying 'oh yea the rest of the game is designed around that',

Well I didn't just say the rest of the game is designed around that... which actually shows just how much you have to ignore to make your point work.

progress = cosmetics
alliance ranks = more targets per voyage
Athena = excessive targets per voyage
0 functional content locked behind content
Voyages do not persist and if you don't finish them you lose them.
Voyages give explicit and pretty easy ways to find loot.

PvP solely revolves around the value of loot
No direct rewards for PvP otherwise.

Athena quest, gives you 1 super valuable piece of loot at the end.
Skull fort, gives a pile of high value loot.

If there was ever a game that that was completely self-evident of what is the important thing to strive for, it's not directly rep... it's loot. Rep loss objectively isn't very impactful long term but is important enough for players that want to achieve PL to make it worth fighting over. If I can't lose the rep to other players, it just turns into a game of grinding while devalues what otherwise would be incredibly compelling moments involving winning/losing to other players.

This inherent design to make the loot worth fighting for to achieve PL is what players in here dislike. But that's what they sold us, and that's what the PvPers like. And we want the compelling, loss/gain ridden experiences they sold us on. Maybe I can't say what players should focus on. But there is a clear attempt to make the progression fairly superficial to allow them to build the design to focus on finding/stealing loot and making that impactful.

And your argument can be boiled down to... it makes players feel bad we shouldn't do that. Great I can practice reductionism too!

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

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

You realize some of the people that have said they would PvP more kind of acknowledged to being inconsistent.. or someone like touchdown has completely acknowledged any rep loss would make him avoid PVP because other players don't deserve his effort... plus the motivation to dive into the red sea is completely based on spite not the value of their time so any change to the value proposition wouldn't really tackle the motivation there...

Your idea is really... really only taking into consideration when the point of loss happens and not the rest of the game.

Yes, I do acknowledge that, however touchdown has more extreme views than me. More to the point, he has never said he would PvP LESS because of this suggestion which is what lotr claimed. Me and touchdown both believe in the same principle but he wants to take it a step further than I do - he wants NO rep to be associated with the loot. I on the other hand think that would be far too extreme, of course you need some rep associated with the loot, so that everyone has strong incentive to defend it still, that's my perspective anyhow.

Red sea isn't completely based on spite, no, but spite plays a factor I'm sure. However that spite has come from somewhere, that's the part people forget... in general the SoT community is a much friendlier one than many other gaming communities I've been a part of, there are so many great people here, so where the hell is that spite coming from? It's the fact that loot represents so much of our time and so people feel extremely bad about losing it. That's what I'd like to see changed, in a healthy way. You can't solve this by telling people 'oh yea rep? that old thing? you shouldn't care about that it's not important' because whether you like it or not Rare have introduced PL, rep, and the unlockables associated with it. So yes, it can feel really awful when you see 100% of your rep for your session or for your couple of voyages sailing away into the horizon.

My idea is supposed to take into account quantity of loss more than anything. I want loss to be in the game, and I want the game to remain to its core ideas of theft on the open seas, the part you and I disagree on is you believe that the loot has to represent 100% of an individuals times to keep this concept of theft important. I don't, I believe it would still work fine so long as it is valuable enough, but that value doesn't have to equal 100%.

The spite comes from bitterness at the inability to prevent the loss at all.

If a crew thought they stood a reasonable chance at successfully defending themselves, they would defend themselves.

They run into the red sea because they figure they cannot win.

Why would a player with anything at stake who didn't think they could win decide to fight if their odds of winning haven't been changed, at all?

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

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

@angrycoconut16 said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:
And 'unlikely to win' shows just how much attention you have been paying to my arguments.. this is why having a discussion with you is so painful. We don't know how 'unlikely they are to win', my point which I have said so many times, is that the current system DISCOURAGES PvP, thus we don't know if those people fleeing would win or not! It's really silly to assume that just because they are fleeing they are weak at PvP. But why would they risk fighting? It's far less risky to just flee. Perhaps they would actually be really strong in a PvP fight! But we don't know because people almost always make the choice to run because of the risk of loss! I don't know why you have such a pessimistic view of people?

Listen, if people are going to complain about being sunk till the end of time, then I would agree with you and support you, that is ridiculous and PvP is a core part of the game, including winning or being sunk. That is not what this thread is about, so I don't understand why you're even bringing it up. I will repeat myself again. No one here is objecting to the idea of loss, no one here is objecting to being sunk, what we are objecting to, is the current loss when these things happen. Losing is a part of any game, but in this game you can end up losing quite a bit of potential progress and gold when it happens, and we would like to still receive something for the tasks we have successfully completed... now if you don't want it to change that's fine, but that is what we are fighting for. If we were complaining about being sunk, we would not be here.. we'd be with the 'PvE server' brigade.

People don't complain about running.

They complain about being caught and sunk.

Why do they run? It is a learned response. They tried not running, and they lost. Once, twice, some of the time, most of the time, it doesn't matter.

How do we know they are unlikely to win? Because the primary form of complaint is "I lost everything!" They don't lose everything without actually being caught and forced to fight, and subsequently lose, unless of course they choose to concede because they know they won't win and either scuttle or run the red sea.

They, and you, are precisely complaining about being sunk, because you fail to realize that if you make it safely to an outpost 2/3 of the time you're coming out ahead despite being sunk and losing "everything" 1/3 of the time.

If people don't like sinking, they run. That's irrelevant.
So yes, it's because people don't like their stuff being taken by other players. Now carry it on, continue that.. why don't they like it? Why do you think they don't like it to the extent that they may use the red sea in this way? Because it represents 100% of their time investment from a voyage(s).... That's what needs solving. If you think that this suggestion wouldn't solve it, then that's fine, but please do come up with something better rather than just raining on this suggestion. I am all ears.

Why they don't like sinking is because they don't like losing. The size of their haul is irrelevant. My suggestion is to use the systems already in place: turn in often, or fight better.

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

@entspeak That is completely unfounded. You are literally talking to multiple people on this thread who are telling you their reasons and their reactions if such a change would be implemented. Sure some people may still want to run and save their 66% and that's fine, but what we are saying is that for many players this would open up something which currently is never an option.... (relating to engaging in PvP)...

And as I just said - if it does give greater incentive for people to run into the red sea, tough, they wouldn't be able to if Rare removed that and the loot respawned somewhere like you are suggesting. I do agree with you I don't think that is what Rare would want the red sea used for... but at the same time you have to try and understand the reason people would want to do that in the first place.

It's not completely unfounded. There are people who hold the belief that, "If I can't have it, neither can you." There is zero reason to believe that these people will change that mentality when guaranteed a portion of the rewards. In fact, it makes more sense that they would feel better about using that exploit - they have less to lose. Again, it's human nature. Perception is everything. You give a bonus separate from the value for turn-in and it will be perceived as being separate from the value for turn-in. People will still have the view that they lose 100%, because they are losing 100% of what is on their ship. That is human nature. And, I'll take human nature over a few declarations to the contrary any day of the week.

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

@entspeak You'll take human nature? Ok I repeat, less loss = humans are prepared to take greater risks = more fighting to protect loot rather than instant fleeing. That is also human nature. If you have less at stake, you will be more inclined to take risks you otherwise wouldn't, and fighting to protect your loot holds greater risk than fleeing.

You clearly don't understand our view point. There are two sets of players

People that think rep = time and it's their time and regardless of the value proposition they'll do everything they can to deny another player the rep, including wasting time sailing into the red sea.

Then there are normal players that play the game normally and already don't exclusively focus on PvE, they learn how to PvP. Thus they take more risks due to confidence and experience, and not through devaluing what they can lose making the sense of reward through PvP either being a defender or aggressor better. And we know people are pvping a lot based on... a small percentage of players in here complaining.

The few players in-between that will benefit from this will undermine the experience of the majority. They are the ones that probably bought a game not geared for them.

there are literally people telling you that their mentality would change and explaining to you what the problem is from their perspective

And when we pointed out that it may be empty claims of what they'd be willing to do, and even one kind of understood its a bit of an empty claim after... saying rep loss equates to a waste of time and even suggesting he'd abandon loot for convenience... There is a fairly large probability they are trying to reason out, and say what would be good for them.. but theorizing about it is easier.. a lot easier than acting it out. It what people perceive as bad or frustrating may actually not be bad thing. Feeling deflated on occasion... is what PvP players like. It's why a game like dark souls works for people. Your not just playing the game and being handed rewards... you actually have to succeed to succeed.

But ultimately when put in a position of losing rep, they still see it as rep = time, losing rep = waste of time.

@angrycoconut16

People will always perceive a separate bonus as being separate. They will always view the bonus as being for the tasks of the voyage and the loot being valuable for itself. If people currently have the “If I can’t have it, neither can you” mentality and they see the loot rewards as separate from the voyage rewards, what possible reason would they have to abandon that mentality? People tend to take the path of least resistance.

Seeing the way people use the Red Sea now is seeing the “worst” in people. The inane responses in that thread are an indication of the attitude of some players in this game. I don’t see that attitude changing. But, ultimately, it’s not about seeing the worst in people; I am simply not naive enough to believe that this idea will magically make people who are willing to exploit the game suddenly decide not to exploit the game when they would be able to continue to do so and have a guaranteed reward to boot.

Appealing to the number of people in this thread who have stated that they will or might be willing to turn and fight means little. I’ve read more posts from more individuals who seem to have no compunction about exploiting the game to gain the satisfaction of knowing they’ve denied their enemy. This idea would simply give those people greater incentive to do that.

@angrycoconut16 Yeah, make it futile to use the Red Sea for that purpose. Simple. That will change the mentality because there will be no way to satisfy that desire.

This idea will have little to no effect on that, but is more likely to fuel the desire to give the middle finger to enemies by using the Red Sea... and, as has been pointed out repeatedly, there are other negative impacts as well. This is generally just a bad idea.

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

@hoppentosse You haven't failed to complete your riddle, you haven't failed to kill the skeleton captains, you haven't failed to navigate on the island to locate the chests. Sometimes these tasks are easier, but sometimes they are more time consuming particularly on the larger islands. Why shouldn't you be rewarded for this time too? Failing to transport the loot is only failing one aspect of the voyage, and the loss should reflect THAT failure. Why should someone who successfully steals your loot (and kudos to them) benefit from their work AND your work?

Well why should you?

You bought a map or riddle.
It's up to you to find and bring back the loot.
You bought a bounty.
It's up to you to find and bring back the loot.
You bought a delivery contract.
It's up to you to find and bring back the loot.

Voyages are just guaranteed ways of acquiring loot. They are not traditional quests and do not serve the same function as an RPG. Rep does not serve the same function as XP. You lose potential rep when other players steal your chests that the vendors give you for them.

The loot is the value in the game. You can find it on shores, recover it from shipwrecks, acquire it through purchasing voyages, or by stealing.

@angrycoconut16 Of course, it will positively affect some players’ mentality and attitude toward the game. If it wouldn’t have that effect, this thread wouldn’t exist. But, that’s not the point. The point is, the idea is fairly flawed and has a negative impact on gameplay. That is what we’re talking about.

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

Some people will do this, yes, but you are grouping everyone under one umbrella

But I didn't group everyone under one umbrella. Did you even read the post? I pointed out two major types of players then later talked about players in between ie spectrum.

Most of the people who PvP a lot don't carry loot. They take risks not due to confidence...

That's an outright lie. As someone that PvP's a lot... and with a lot of people (I generally do 1 round of voyaging with a group, then find a new group), the amount of loot we tend to carry into a battle is proportional to the amount of confidence we have... and this goes for EVERY group I've been in, to people just entering the game and wanting to make sure we sell that castaway's chest and to people that still have rare grog's chest aboard... although never whaling... it usually goes overboard or we try to stash it on a nearby island or we drop it off because it's a liability in PvP.

And I'm telling you this as a PvPer. Since your not and avoid it you don't understand this perspective and outright ignore it.

Why would anyone in their right mind think that PvP under any circumstance is the better option than fleeing when carrying loot?

Because the people that are willing to PvP just look at the value proposition of what they can save or what they will refuse to give up..

So it's always.. swing past an outpost or two drop off the expensive loot, and to save another 45+ mins just kill the other players. Problem solved. They do not look at their time as 100% rep. They start out without loot yes... but they are willing to waste time on PvP because its fun. As soon as your willing to waste time for fun then your willing to start losing rep for fun. That's why riskless and rewardless PvP is important, its an gateway drug to chaos. If your doing something primarily for fun... and not rewards.. its a mentality shift to allow you to play for fun and not always need rewards. If you can't make that shift, this is not the proper game for you. You need a game with PvP on the side not built into the core structure.

And then that makes rewards feel rewarding. Because it's not just a gold star. It's a reward.

No. See this is where you are being completely unreasonable.

I'm not speaking for everyone. 1% of people have upvoted this. This is a massively viewed thread. This is not important for the vast majority of people.

The only reason this is getting any traction is because multiple people are continually defending the counter point. Some people come in and say yay, other say nay. So statistically speaking this is not an important issue nor is there a consensus about why its an issue or whether not it is an issue.

And of the people that do agree, a lot of people come with the stipulation time = rep, rep loss = waste of time.

This is a possibility too, but I think it's naive to think that this change would have no positive effect at all on player mentality and attitude to the game.

It's far more naïve to think it will since the people in this very thread agreeing with you generally also state, rep loss = waste of time.

They don't say some, they measure the entirety of their time based on how much rep they receive. So the mentality / motivation of why they are here s pretty clear and what they say is most likely contradictory to what they'd act out.

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

@lotrmith Your arguments are the most illogical things I've ever read. At least I have some level of respect for savage and ent because they are making cohesive arguments to voice their disagreement. Yours on the other hand... so many assumptions. You assume that people have tried and failed at PvP,

Everything is a learned response. There's not a single person in this game, yourself included, that has not sunk another crew or been sunk by one, thereby finding out that sinking via PvP is possible and either learning directly that loot can be lost/gained, or in the case that no loot was involved, connect the dots that it could have been lost/gained if it were present.

Of course people have tried and failed at PvP. As I said, once, twice, some of the time, most of the time, it doesn't matter. Everyone has learned you can lose, and made a choice about how they feel about the risk and continue to make that choice every day they play.

I can tell you for a fact that does not describe me, I have tried PvP before but only when I don't have loot on board.

So you have never lost loot to another crew but would speak on behalf of all those who have. Right.

And you've run from every fight when you had loot on board but have never been caught, ever.

Or, you're just generous and scuttle your ship every time you get caught because despite claiming to have a winning record you have never defended your ship in PvP when loot was involved, because reasons. Only when there is no loot.

I did pretty decent too, won more fights than I lost at least, but when I have loot on board I am not even going to risk it, so it isn't a 'learned response' no xD

How else except by sinking withor without loot (or sinking an enemy crew and taking their loot) did you learn that you could sink and lose loot, and come to the conclusion that you're better off running?

How else have you determined the risk if you don't know your odds?

And I completely understand that, what I'm saying is that whether you come out on top or not the current reward system is still not satisfying to many people. That 1/3 of the time is a horrible experience for many people.

Yet you would give a bonus so that the physical loot represents 2/3 of the rep, and claim that players would be more likely to initiate PvP, risking twice as much as you claim is a horrible experience. That doesn't hold water.

Unless, of course, you're willing to admit that as @entspeak has told you, it's all about perception.

Only in your case, you're implying that players are stupid and will risk and lose more in the long run because they perceive they aren't losing as much because you gave them a bonus.

And another assumption 'they don't like losing', seriously...? You can say that as many times as you like for the majority of us that simply isn't true, as you have been told over and over. Loss isn't the problem, quantity of loss is. That isn't hard to get your head around buddy, it really isn't.

Loss is loss is loss. I agree, it's all about quantity. In this case, it's all about any time that quantity is non-zero. Your suggestion doesn't change a non-zero to a zero.
Even by your own claim, you've never PvP'd with any amount of loot in play. Not even one foul skull.
Because nobody is going to profit off of your time and work.

@angrycoconut16 We have been through this and your ignoring the game to claim it as xp. Which has been proven to be baseless. Which is the biggest argument you have for rewarding players for their activities… as a character progression you should be awarded for doing anything since your player is gaining experience.

Your one major point against it being rep is... it cannot be lost. But as chests can be stolen and the value of rep there with it.. rep is lost. It's not a character progression. It's a reputation progress. Pirate legend is a reputation status. Cosmetics are faction bonuses. Voyage ranks are faction progression.

@angrycoconut16

And no one is arguing they are mutually exclusive... I'm pretty sure you hear what you want to hear now.

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

@savagetwinky

You didn't make several points. You used character progression as an an example as to why its character progression.

Either way we are arguing over semantics.

Rep = permanent current of loot turn in.

That rep is not lost. You can't say that 'the rep and gold associated with chests it not yours until you hand in at an outpost, it is purely a physical object representing rep/gold which anyone can steal' and then say you lost your rep when you lose your loot. That rep was never yours in the first place, so clearly YOUR reputation has not decreased. On the other hand, if you lost rep when you failed a contract, because the NPC has a lower opinion of you now, then I'd agree with you.

Yes I can, if you can say rep is gained by acquiring chest, I can say rep is lost on losing a chest.

Thus by your own definition confirmed as rep.

If we aren't using your definition Then I can point to the functional nature of the chests. They serve as a representation of value you are acquiring or stealing or losing. Doesn't matter what the value is. The value is the chest. The outposts is where you take ownership of the value.

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

@savagetwinky This is what I mean. We are reaching a standstill. By all means debate with others but it is pointless carrying this discussion on between us. I am hearing what you are saying, I am reading everything you type, but I don't agree. And it appears you feel the same way about my posts. It was nice talking to you but lets just call this the end of this conversation for now. It is non-constructive and neither of us is going to be able to persuade the other or shift our stance.

You clearly aren't because you come up with your own arguments that we aren't making

we are being dismissive?
we are treating these as mutually exclusive?
we can make it make sense?

You ignore half the argument and just keep saying, well we can simply change the value proposition and we are saying we don't want it, it creates incentives to choose PvE over PvP as an attacker, it allows people that to more easily run into the red sea with their rewards, it devalues loot/theft so PvP can be more frivolous which is why some people may fight (and also leave loot behind).

And your ignoring... people who are willing to lose rep through PvP, will start out PvPing as the aggressor where they cannot lose anything, and eventually as they get more competent risk more as a defendor thus getting better. The better they are the more they are willing to risk. These are people that don't exclusively see time = rep, thus there is an opening for risk evaluation now.

It's a small bandaid for making people feel less bad when they watch their ship sink with their rep aboard. They'll still feel bad. And devaluing loot in the PvP scene pushes it slightly to the side and turns it into more of a meat grinder. That isn't a simple change to a game based around PvP at it's core. And it's a bad idea when you see that a very very small percentage of players even care about it, and it may not even fix the problem for them.

We aren't arguing whether or not the mechanic makes sense to world building, we aren't arguing its not a possibility... we are arguing it's not a good idea for this specific game based on the rest of the game (the game parts which you ignore).

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

I want rep to be gained by acquiring chests/skulls or on completing voyage, because I see it as exp, yes. You were trying to make the point rep is lost when you lose a chest. It simply isn't.

Then why are you here arguing about what your losing... what players are losing. Your entire argument is inconsistent at this point. Your not even arguing in the context of the rest of the game or what turns this into a compelling and engaging experience. Sometimes... loss and feeling bad is part of the process (see darksouls).

The only thing you have is it makes some players feel less bad. And you have to ignore everything else as a consequence of the shift in value, specifically everything bad.

The game, forget about players, THE GAME doesn't put any intrinsic value on progression or being PL. The value of loot and what the game represents for progression serves it's purpose well to create the compelling experience.

Without anything else in place of loot + paranoia.. its a fetch quest simulator.

I am not ignoring anything mate, please stop being so provocative.

Yes... you are.

@cpt-prosthesy

I dislike that because it completely deconstructs what makes this game fun. There is no explicit reason to kill other players other then the potential of finding something to earn rep/money that is shared with voyages.

One of the things that draws players into this game is that its not like these explicit modes of play (like every other game on the market), you have your PvE then your PvP and they both have to be done equally. The fact that there is no value in a task means it leaves a LOT of freedom up to the player on how they acquire that value... What this game need is about 999 more ways to acquire value, while giving players the ability to steal it, so you can completely exercise that freedom.

@AngryCoconut16
That point about every other game on the market is why I'm still in this thread. Adding value to a task is what obliterates the only thing that makes this game special.

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

@savagetwinky I made several points against it being rep not just one. Yes loss was one of these reasons. Also, you don't gain it when you defeat a pirate who has a far higher reputation than you, which makes no sense. You also don't earn it when you defeat the kraken... I know someones argument was 'well it isn't directly related to the factions' but come on, word would get around if you defeated the legendary kraken and why on earth would you not gain rep with ALL factions? Being able to defeat such a beast while transporting their goods would show you can handle yourself on the seas and they have less reason to fear their goods not being brought back, of course you would gain rep even if you weren't contracted to kill it. They would be more willing to trust you with more valuable quests and your rep would increase.

That rep is not lost. You can't say that 'the rep and gold associated with chests it not yours until you hand in at an outpost, it is purely a physical object representing rep/gold which anyone can steal' and then say you lost your rep when you lose your loot. That rep was never yours in the first place, so clearly YOUR reputation has not decreased. On the other hand, if you lost rep when you failed a contract, because the NPC has a lower opinion of you now, then I'd agree with you.

Pirate legend is a character progression, how is it not? It is literally your character achieving a new title and unlocking new cosmetics and a new voyage type, how is that not character progression? Call it what you like but in reality it does unlock real things for your character. Cosmetics are literally unlocked, you literally need a faction rank of 45 or whatever it is, to achieve some of the rarer cosmetic items, you need 50/50/50 to access the PL hideout and voyages. It is more than just a reputation status. If it was only the title, then I'd be inclined to agree with you, yes it is purely reputation status, but you unlock far more than the title, I don't care whether it's cosmetic or not, you are unlocking new features based on progression and time on the game - it is far closer to exp than rep in my mind.

The "Reputation" you think you're talking about would more accurately be called "Karma"or "Morality", or even in the sense of gaining/losing for killing other players with higher/lower values... "Rank".

It also doesn't matter. How you classify the reward is irrelevant.

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

Another issue is that sometimes, people login thinking they have time for a voyage, and something comes up, or it takes longer than expected, and there’s not enough time to make the return trip. On several occasions, I’ve had to quit with a few chests/skulls on board because something came up, and the 40 minutes that I was able to spend are now meaningless. Not even a hostile pirate gets the loot by stealing it, it just disappears. Many players don’t necessarily have hour-plus-long chunks of time to play every day, but we still deserve some reward (reputation) for sailing to an island and completing the map/voyage.

This could be solved by redesigning the voyages to some extent, purchasable for short/long. Because.. what if you can't complete the voyage. Your last post you mentioned moving it to all on VC... currently if the voyage is super long you can bail at any point turn in and exit. The later / longer quests you significantly better off turning in your loot for the 2/3's value and not trying to get the 1/3 value as proposed with 50% bonus.

And that pretty much doesn't change, your always better off abandoning the voyage and turning in what you have.

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

@savagetwinky That is your OPINION. Just like it is your opinion that it obliterates what makes the game unique. OPINION. This thread in no way wants to remove the core aspect of having rep/gold which can be stolen, it wants to retain the thievery in the game. The only thing it is debating is reward distribution. If you don't want to lose 100% tension on the seas, then fine, but you can't say it obliterates the thing which makes the game unique, it DOESN'T. And you are getting mixed up in your own personal feelings and speaking as if those feelings are objective.

We'll... it's not an opinion that it's one if not the only thing that makes this game truly unique, there are at least 3 other ship combat games + 1 more coming out... mmo's with PvE ship content and pvp ship combat... What's unique is the unconventional structure and de-emphasis of progression through game mechanics.

What is an opinion is how much I and others value it, and we were sold that idea as a core ethos to the game. I'm willing to entertain ideas on how to move the game forward but this one... is explicitly detrimental or removes the core experience to help a very small subset of players feel less bad. This is the major and nearly only reason I object to suggestions, they are all slightly different variations of changing that ethos. That and progression. But I'm more open to progression if done correctly without effecting balance too much.

For instance, your post is completely ignorant about the core that we are trying to protect.

reward distribution.

There is no distribution, it's all on the loot. You proposing a reward distribution altering the core mechanics and core motivational structure built into the game. The fact that you position it as a change to the distribution shows you've completely ignored our argument and that part of the game. That type of change will change the type of PvE content that will work best with this game moving forward, and how much thievery plays into it.