@tesiccl no, Rare couldnt even get matchmaking to work in arena and then said we didnt play it because we didnt want to wait 45 minutes for a game to start.
Theres a reason some of us who have been here since beta are fed up with them being incapable of handling simple tasks, especially when I watch a team of 3 handle it in an indie game
@tesiccl said in Rare refuses to learn lessons from other games:
because Rare will add to/change Hourglass over time to attract new people in. Patience.
Will they though? Have they changed the quest board to attract new people to use it? Have they changed the commodities to make them more attractive? Sometimes the Lost Voyage manifests end up floating with no ship/treasure. Shrines are pretty dead these days. Devil's Roar seems to be constantly ignored. Arena slowly died due to neglect. I still get notifications that I've unlocked some gold milestone title after turning in treasure repeatedly for over a year now.
There are lots of examples where they release something and then forget about it, so you have to understand that a lot of people aren't going to believe you when you tell them to have patience and that Rare will fix it.
@tesiccl said in Rare refuses to learn lessons from other games:
...when they can
Unfortunately, that is they key to everything we want to see improved in this game.
I am hopeful that with another round of Disney-related demand and development completed, that they can deliver a wealth of updates to the SWA part of the game once again.
@lordqulex @Tesiccl
Here's an example of a lesson that has been learnt in the past: Blizzard wanted to stop players from spending unhealthy amounts of time in World of Warcraft. So they made a system where you would have degrading experience gain at high hours of gameplay. This system was hated by most players. Then, Blizzard mirrored the system; you would accrue "rested xp" while you were logged off, and you can earn that extra xp by playing the game. This system was loved by most players. Numbers-wise, it's the same system, but how it was framed changed the response. I suggest you look this up, it's an interesting read!
The lesson: Rewards are better than punishments.
I would not apply this lesson by making losses earn more allegiance though.
Problem I see with HG is people want it as a mode. Separate from the whole adventure world with its own stats….
But it’s not a mode. It just a tool with some small perks added. If you don’t wanna spend time looking for a fight, HG will find someone in the “same boat” as you
Ranking system won’t be good for this. Smurf and alt accounts would be what you find more often
@kaoteek said in Rare refuses to learn lessons from other games:
Congratulations ! With this comment, you've just unlocked the Gold Seeker Title !
Ranking system won’t be good for this.
It's good for every other competitive game. What's more, it's already utilized in the matchmaking of faction battles, it just hasn't been made the focus.
Also, ranking players by numbers is already what company/guild ledgers do.
Smurf and alt accounts would be what you find more often
What would be the benefit to smurfing if 1) You want to progress your actual character, or 2) You get more allegiance for playing in high-rank games?
@salty-sea-jr said in Rare refuses to learn lessons from other games:
I notice none of the people telling you to "git gud" have posted a pic of theirs 🤣
Sent you my 391 servants on Xbox wanna see my other one? 😎
I got it, but it looked Photo Shopped... 😂
Casual extra reminder that combining a streak system and skill based matchmaking actively incentivizes players to intentionally lose large amount of matches in a row, so that they can then get their win streak fighting enemies notably worse than them, because when placed correctly they are basically guaranteed to win only 50% of matches, i.e. never have a streak longer than 1.
For those who think that we shouldn't complain about hourglass, that we should just focus on the journey. A ranked system would make faction battles about the journey, because your goal would be to get into higher-ranked games so that you can earn more allegiance. No longer would we be focused on rolling over easy-to-sink crews, we would actually be focused on improving. The streak system incentivizes elo tanking to give yourself easy matches and punishes you for being matched against a perfect opponent - one that you have a 50% chance of beating. Tying rewards to ranks is what every competitive game does - because it incentivizes the behavior that the developers want: Trying to improve your rank and fight those at your skill level.
TL;DR I want a ledger for Hourglass and wanting allegiance to be tied with who you beat rather than how many you beat in a row.
Arena never had ledgers with rewards, and it desperately needed it, because ledgers alone may have brought in enough activity to warrant support and development.
I don't see why Hourglass doesn't have its own ledger system. Folks want rewards on the way up to 1000, and if we had rewards based on match wins (or attempts or whatever), it would give players a reason to keep playing. And if it kept track (even in the background) of wins vs length of matches, it might even help weed out players using cheese methods or outright cheats.
@tesiccl a dit dans Rare refuses to learn lessons from other games :
A friend of mine with a dual degree in User Experience and User Interface Design who works as a UX Researcher in Silicon Valley helps me design board games. Some of the best advice I ever got from her was that when designing a game, you want to reward the players for playing as intended as opposed to punishing them for playing "wrong."
As much as your friend may be experienced helping you design board games. I’d rather take the experience of an entire game studio that’s been in the business for 35+ years. Heck, think as well, just because what you want isn’t in the game now, it doesn’t mean it won’t be. People are so needy and impatient these days. This is also why I say it’s not a rush to finish it, because Rare will add to/change Hourglass over time to attract new people in. Patience.
It's been 1 year 🤣
No. Rare doesn't always learn lessons, or takes an extremely long time to learn them.
As far as HG is concerned, I'm getting a bit fed up with reading the term "competitive" here and there, why? First of all, it's Rare's fault. They've deliberately changed the vision of their game, which is supposed to be an adventure game. So the competitive side is out. Then they created the arena, no doubt due to the fact that a lot of players were complaining because they weren't seeing many people on the seas, so Rare gave in. As a result, the arena was empty. Add to this the fact that the arena's main developer had left the studio, and the result was the downfall and death of the arena.
This led to even more grumbling from a minority of players, and Rare once again gave in by releasing the HG.
Result: an invasion of cheaters. Which inevitably leads to a flight of players...
The HG is excessively poorly designed. Whether in terms of rewards, progression levels, resources or matchmaking. Don't tell me to be patient, it's been 1 year now...
For 1 year we've been asking for more rewards between lvl 200 and 1000, but nothing.
For 1 year now, we've been asking for more rewards between lvl 1 and 100, but nothing.
In a game mode that requires an enormous amount of time (not to say impossible for the vast majority of players), not having a sense of satisfaction as you progress very (too) slowly will inevitably drive players away. It's pure logic.
As for the anti-cheat feature, Rare should have implemented one as soon as the game was released. But no, we've waited 5 years to do so... But that's all fine and good, since players themselves are asked to go through all sorts of procedures to report a player to the site. When we should have a reporting system directly implemented in-game.
Then there's the PvP system: after 5 years, it's still in a sorry state, and getting worse with each update... But here again, everything's fine, since we specify in the monthly patchnotes that we're working on it, but we can't see the results in-game...
It took Rare 5 years to understand that the majority of players simply want to enjoy the game without having to put up with insults, toxicity, harassment and so on from other players.
Rare implemented the captaincy and guilds too late, thus requiring "old" players to start all over again. To that end, it's really hard for them to feel a sense of accomplishment when you're doing the same things over and over again.
So yes, don't tell me to be patient, because it's already too late.
1 year is too long, 5 years is even longer. And it's hard for me to still be patient when the main problems we're facing today date back 5 years... I can't be confident.
HG is a failure for everything you have said, but I would add one more thing to the list.
It's a mode where you're usually up against people who are experienced or at least know how to defend themselves (80% of the time, I'm going to ignore the loose farmers). This is NOT appealing to those players who call themselves (wrongly) PvP enjoyers, these kind of players enjoy hiding griefing under the PvP banner, they enjoy ruining the experience for a splashtail who can't even lift the anchor of his ship or can't even calculate the height of the cannon.
Many of the "PvP" advocates I've read on this forum and especially on Twitter, are people who, when we faced each other in Arena, logged out of the game all the time in frustration because they were doing nothing but sinking over and over again. They are super mediocre people who think they are good players crushing rookies, but when it comes to competent people, they only know how to hurl insults and make fools of themselves, because they don't even know how to counter a double boarding being a brig.
That's why HG doesn't succeed, besides the other reasons you mentioned, because you're generally fighting on equal terms and griefers don't like that, they want to abuse and excuse themselves under the classic "It's a pirate game".
Even if they put x5 experience to the mode, it's still going to be played by the same people, because these abusers don't know how to or want to fight against competent people, they're trash.
@mrestiercol I must add that HG expirience is very dependent on region from where you play.
Im for example playing in central EU so from day one of HG I never stayed in longer que but cheating when it was at it highs was more rampart than let say on US servers (checked by vpn magic) then I encouter more loss farmes and longest quest on South America serves.
On mu jurney to 105 Athena I got lot of fun from fight or encounters and lot of some frustation from poor preforming servers. Being at somewhat 50/50 WL ration. So for me HG worked.
I would be far for generalsing folks who enjoy pvp.
YET:
Forum users shoot so much valid feedback for HG:
And only one that came into live was little more of lossing exp and loss exp for being saild off the bonds.
I love the game but Rare seems to lack dedicatet team to cater existing contet and it such a waste.
Singboards: Dead
@theblackbellamy said in Rare refuses to learn lessons from other games:
I don't see why Hourglass doesn't have its own ledger system. Folks want rewards on the way up to 1000, and if we had rewards based on match wins (or attempts or whatever), it would give players a reason to keep playing.
You're asking the developers to summon more cosmetics they do not have or are looking to make, just to add some kind of arbitrary 'ranking' system so "competitive" players can have a measuring contest with each other and have more reason to boast about themselves in the game than they already do.
And if it kept track (even in the background) of wins vs length of matches, it might even help weed out players using cheese methods or outright cheats.
Or it breeds an even worse environment where more issues within the community get exposed hardcore that result in unjust ban waves or further separation of the playerbase, ot cheaters/hackers can just ruin the ledger like they did with the current ones.
Competition in Sea of Thieves is an impossible pipedream, and personally: since I would like to have high quality crews that would actually play with me, I'd like it if competition continues to stay a pipedream.
I would like to join the conversation about Hourglass here and why (In my opinion) - It sucks apart from the reasons already mentioned here, like no ranked system, streaks, slow progression, ( I would also add uneven supplies in a competitive environment ).
So now imagine you are a group of friends (4) who are super excited about Sea of Thieves, but you are not that good at it (yet). So you decide to do some diving. Please remember, these are not top notch players, meaning they will MISS A LOT OF CANNONBALLS ^^.
So you load into the server, you are at the tavern, if the outpost was not looted prior to you spawning there, you will spend around 10 minutes gathering supplies (why ?) as otherwise it means you will loose 90% of your games, as those stock cannonballs will be gone in 10 minutes with 4 cannons firing them. Then you need to sail into open sea, if ships are nearby, it will take a bit longer. Then wait to get into matchmaking. 1 minute later(if you are lucky) the battle starts. You raise your sails, leave 1/2 operational, go to cannons start firing shots, start boarding and defending from boarders...And let's say you meet some really good players with teamwork, you sink...So now you have spent around 10-20 minutes doing 'something else' and perhaps 5 minutes 'fighting'. That's 25 minutes of someone's play session only to gain about 3milimeters of experience on a grind to 100/1000 and barely do any fighting at all.
So having to do 20 minutes of 'nothing' and actually 5 minutes of the chosen activity in this case would be equal (in an opposite sense) to spawning, going to gold hoarder, voting down a voyage and digging up a chest in front of him. Would be funny once for laughs, most would quit the game. Probably people would dig up chests in front of him, if they could get a curse tho...and then never do it again.
Imagine if you wanted to play 1 round of CSGO, you would have to complete a surfing map first. Or if you wanted to 1 round of Rocket league, you would have to drive your car across town to the game ( I dont play the game, but I hope I captured the nonsense).
This is why everyone is thinking about 100 and 1000 instead of seeing the Hourglass as 'fundamental' and rewards as complimentary. It's a massive chore to commit and with lack of variations, game modes, environment etc it gets boring quick for most. Imagine playing any shooter game, on the same map, with the same gun for no reason basically. It's not 1998, nobody would do it, even then game modes were more fun.
And even if you just spawn and decide to dive without supplies...Your battle will still last less or as long as it took you to get there. This is like watching un skippable adds...I think it sums it up.
If HG was some kind of game mode, where you press 'Play' and you get instantly into battle, then again just 'Play' and you are back at it. This slow progression and the very basic repetitive gameplay would be ok. Even the lack of rewards after level 200 would not be as bad. Now it is just tedious and pointless for majority.
skill based matchmaking should in theory give you close to 50% win and loss rate. This might work only if you play with the same crew. individuals of the same skill group would never perform as well as a crew of four together. Grouping up and playing together will make you a better crew than just the sum of its parts. On the other hand a skill based matchmaking is contradictory to win streaks.
IF there is SBMM and assuming it actually works, then statistically you'd lose every second match. Therefor you'd be better off downvoting after every single match.
My biggest problem is the time to get back into a new fight. Sinking is already annoying. It is a big hit to the crew's morale and an even bigger momentum breaker. Not only did you lose and have to watch your ship sink to the bottom of the ocean, you have to sit in the "merge away sinking cutscene screen" as well and then run over the whole outpost, purchase supplies, drive to another outpost until you have at least 250-300 cannonballs. Sure, you could also opt for ram-stratting and stealing the opponents supplies but as a galleon only player I stick to it: Resupplying for HG after a sink is annoying. Rare has implemented a lot of nice QoL changes to get people back into the fun faster: Sea Forts, Sovereign single point of selling and also increased the starting supplies. This might be perfect for the average adventure crew but especially larger ships could need more basics like cannonballs. Alternatively a voyage similar to the skull stash that would grant you a "PvP supply crate" to dig up at the outpost and could only be grabbed after voting for a faction. Could contain like 100 cannonballs and 30 wood. I know many might be upset about a pontential meta change but people also complain about the boarding meta. If supplies are limited, crews (especially gally) will be forced to go for ramstrat boarding attempts much sooner and more often due to supply lack.
@nex-stargaze
I was thinking for another simillar to emissary ledger for HG factions, couting gold earned not victories.
Then defence with treasure on board would be legit way to grind it.
@theblackbellamy said:
I don't see why Hourglass doesn't have its own ledger system. Folks want rewards on the way up to 1000, and if we had rewards based on match wins (or attempts or whatever), it would give players a reason to keep playing.
You're asking the developers to summon more cosmetics they do not have or are looking to make, just to add some kind of arbitrary 'ranking' system so "competitive" players can have a measuring contest with each other and have more reason to boast about themselves in the game than they already do.
Arbitrary? I said based on wins or activity. And comp? Nowhere in any of what I said (and you quoted) did I mention comp players.
Hourglass wouldn't be "comp" unless Rare standardized supplies, forced conditions with neutral (side) wind, and other controls.
A ledger system would help bring in more casual activity. Comp SoT wasn't sufficient enough to keep Arena alive. It needed more casual activity, and had nothing to offer to casuals - whether they were new or experienced.
I never played comp. I sweat a lot in Arena, and of course by being in the environment, I made friends with comp players. But I was always just a casual who loved the mode. And because I ran out of things to do, I grinded Arena coms on multiple accounts.
If there was a ledger system, I probably wouldn't have felt the need to. If we had new rewards every 3 months (or however long between new ledger rewards), I probably would've stayed on my main and made one alt for the memes.
And if it kept track (even in the background) of wins vs length of matches, it might even help weed out players using cheese methods or outright cheats.
Or it breeds an even worse environment where more issues within the community get exposed hardcore that result in unjust ban waves or further separation of the playerbase, ot cheaters/hackers can just ruin the ledger like they did with the current ones.
Have the other ledgers created an unhealthy environment? Sure, they give players a reason to boast, but is that so awful?
Some folks like seeing how much gold they've earned through turning in skulls, and comparing those stats to their friends and peers. So what? Why shouldn't I feel as excited about ships sunk or matches won?
And the cheaters that ruin the ledgers - are they still around? Is that still happening? I'm asking genuinely because I haven't paid attention to the ledgers in almost half a year.
Or, was Rare able to weed them out?
And I promise I don't want any unjust ban waves either. I read in another thread yesterday (now locked) that people were getting hundreds of wins through some exploit, which didn't require them to play against another crew at all. It'd be easier to catch this type of activity, if Rare kept track of wins vs match length.
If you're playing HG organically & every now and then, you run into a loss farmer who gives you an instant win, fine. Seems normal.
If you have 155 wins in a session and total match playtime is ridiculously low, like under a min due to whatever exploit you've been using, that is something worth looking into. Imo.
Competition in Sea of Thieves is an impossible pipedream, and personally: since I would like to have high quality crews that would actually play with me, I'd like it if competition continues to stay a pipedream.
I would say that the streak system discourages playing with worse players than you, because the reward for high streaks vastly outweighs the reward for small streaks. I personally struggle with the idea of playing with newer players on hourglass, as it's almost certainly a waste of time. Therefore, I believe that the current system fosters gatekeeping more than a ranked system would.
The one exception to this is finding a diamond in the rough; I played with someone who had some experience in PvP but never played HG. That got me easy wins for a little while.
@theblackbellamy said in Rare refuses to learn lessons from other games:
TL;DR I want a ledger for Hourglass and wanting allegiance to be tied with who you beat rather than how many you beat in a row.
Arena never had ledgers with rewards, and it desperately needed it, because ledgers alone may have brought in enough activity to warrant support and development.
I don't see why Hourglass doesn't have its own ledger system. Folks want rewards on the way up to 1000, and if we had rewards based on match wins (or attempts or whatever), it would give players a reason to keep playing. And if it kept track (even in the background) of wins vs length of matches, it might even help weed out players using cheese methods or outright cheats.
As a player who has been level 75 in everything for years, and done all the voyages many, many times, the main reason I do any voyages anymore is to get my ledger up for the month.
There are plenty of people who didn't cultivate a love for hourglass like I did, and quit after they received their curse, or just quit because the road to 100 was too long. A ledger system could bring both groups back, especially since they wouldn't be going for a whole 100 levels, they would be going for, idk, ~10 wins in a month, a very attainable goal.
I think the road to 100 is a good one, but as Rare keeps claiming that grinds they add are about the journey, not the destination, they tend to forget to give players reasons to focus on the journey.
It's certainly helped me on my grind from 100-200 to be able to stop and say: "I want this skeleton cosmetic" and just go for that. Weirdly enough, the farther away the cosmetic I wanted was, the less I played. The titles, figureheads, and captaincy cosmetics were nice goals for me during 1-100, but I had all that I wanted by level 42. Not even halfway through.
@grumpyw01f said in Rare refuses to learn lessons from other games:
Therefore, I believe that the current system fosters gatekeeping more than a ranked system would.
They both encourage gatekeeping, which needs to stop in general. Just because one is bad doesn't mean the other isn't.
A competitive environment is unwelcoming due to skill gap, standards, and expectations of newcomers just to foster the ego of the "pros" who've learned too much about the game to ever really be defeated, or accepting of anyone new.
I could be proven wrong about that statement and then-some, but considering I wallow in this game's social media, it's 1 in 1000 of PvPers that would genuinely be helpful to newcomers.
Either way, no ledger, no streak system, both are bad and foster a competitive environment that causes gatekeeping and extremely high standards. We're still waiting for Rare to fix the game enough so the barrier to entry isn't an animation-cancelling exploit, I'd rather the competitive environment get a cleansing reset before we consider "ranking" players.
Personally, I like the risk-reward nature of Hourglass. I think it fits well with the general treasure gathering. You can stack loot for hours and hours with the risk of being sunk and having it all stolen, or you can do one or two things at a time and sell, then go back for some more. Plus, it adds to the adrenaline when you know you have your highest streak on the line. Something I've adapted from my general adventure play is to only go as high as I am comfortable with losing, which tends to be four streaks.
They both encourage gatekeeping, which needs to stop in general. Just because one is bad doesn't mean the other isn't.
I agree, and admitted to such in the line you quoted.
A competitive environment is unwelcoming due to skill gap, standards, and expectations of newcomers just to foster the ego of the "pros" who've learned too much about the game to ever really be defeated, or accepting of anyone new.
As you say, competitive environments are always going to have large barriers of entry to new players. They're always going to have gatekeeping and high standards. So, what we're examining here is: "Which is the lesser of two evils: streaking or ranking?" My goal thus far has been highlighting the cons of streaking and the pros of ranking. The general negatives of all competition don't really apply here.
We're still waiting for Rare to fix the game enough so the barrier to entry isn't an animation-cancelling exploit, I'd rather the competitive environment get a cleansing reset before we consider "ranking" players.
In my opinion, the competitive environment just got a reset. Quick switching double guns are gone, cutlass vs. cutlass is consistent again, and players are spreading out into more weapon loadouts. I know that what you're describing is more like a brand new game, but really, the competitive environment isn't going to get a shift as massive as what just happened.
In the end, it seems to me that you view ranking systems as pretentious bragging fests. From my perspective, though, I see them as personal signifiers of improvement. If I go up in rank, that's affirmation that I'm improving.
I don't see ranking systems as bragging fests, because it's so hard to brag about that besides specific 1-on-1 conversation. For even my most favorite competitive games to watch, I couldn't tell you the names of more than the top 10-20 players. So why would I care who is ranked top 10,000 in Sea of Thieves? Why would anyone? That's why I don't really see this downside to the ranked system: it's only a big deal to the person the number is tied to. And that's a good thing, it drives engagement and gives an easier way to assign rewards for results.
Let me just reiterate that ranked systems are implemented in every competitive mode of every game (I can think of). There's a reason for that, and the upsides far outweigh the downsides and the upsides of the current streak system.
A competitive environment is unwelcoming due to skill gap, standards, and expectations of newcomers just to foster the ego of the "pros" who've learned too much about the game to ever really be defeated, or accepting of anyone new.
I could be proven wrong about that statement and then-some, but considering I wallow in this game's social media, it's 1 in 1000 of PvPers that would genuinely be helpful to newcomers.
Pros? I mean are we talking comp as in players who compete in leagues? Or just run-of-the-mill "sweaty" players? Or is your issue with a competitive environment in general? Because, I mean, that's all HG is dude. PvP. You're competing with other players.
Whatever deep-rooted biases you have against comp players, or sweaty players, or competition in general - I'm not interested in discussing.
A 3-tier ledger system with refreshing rewards would undoubtedly bring in more casual activity. For reasons Grumpy and I already mentioned. Just like the other ledgers do.
With a small and dwindling pool of players, matchmaking will continue to be lopsided. The more activity the mode gets from casual players, the better the experience will be for other causal players. They'd have fewer matches against these mean, gatekeeping "pros".
Healthier competition. A good thing.
@grumpyw01f said in Rare refuses to learn lessons from other games:
For those who think that we shouldn't complain about hourglass, that we should just focus on the journey. A ranked system would make faction battles about the journey, because your goal would be to get into higher-ranked games so that you can earn more allegiance.
The journey in Hourglass is getting destroyed and wasting gold on supplies endlessly until you just magically get "better" at the game. It's mentally draining on most of the crews that participate and garner a loss streak from playing Hourglass, this kind of journey, for a relatively laxed SWAG, is garbage.
No longer would we be focused on rolling over easy-to-sink crews, we would actually be focused on improving.
A common issue I notice in PvP games is that improvement is not as exact as solving an equation with an accompanying formula. There are too many variables to consider improving on that you can't consistently or accurately improve on. You cannot improve your cannons (solo) because you have to also focus on steering, repairing, and defending should you catch a lot of pressure.
If your idea of "improving" is just running into the same unbreakable wall that is the lifeline of this activity: Pro/Competitive players, a ranking system would not improve that issue, or encourage improvement other than an arbitrary number that will mean nothing if your quality of matches are going to be lopsided anyways and boost you up/sink you further.
The streak system incentivizes elo tanking to give yourself easy matches and punishes you for being matched against a perfect opponent - one that you have a 50% chance of beating. Tying rewards to ranks is what every competitive game does - because it incentivizes the behavior that the developers want: Trying to improve your rank and fight those at your skill level.
Personally, I feel like Rare isn't really encouraging us to "improve" ourselves. Other than not sinking to a skeleton galleon, most of everything else outside of PvP has such an extensive lack of substance or difficulty, so even the most brain-burnt-out Bob out there can feel "rewarded" through the loot they acquire.
@grumpyw01f said in Rare refuses to learn lessons from other games:
As you say, competitive environments are always going to have large barriers of entry to new players. They're always going to have gatekeeping and high standards. So, what we're examining here is: "Which is the lesser of two evils: streaking or ranking?" My goal thus far has been highlighting the cons of streaking and the pros of ranking. The general negatives of all competition don't really apply here.
If you're trying to get a lot of people behind the idea, you're going to have to devalue the idea of it being competitive, because that's turning off people from wanting an idea like that. I don't care how 2000 players out of a possible 40,000 that log on per week that want a way to feel like they're improving through a number grading system, this will discourage players from wanting to engage with content, especially if they feel like they're being actively punished for failures both of and not of their doing.
In my opinion, the competitive environment just got a reset.
Until a real patch comes in and tells me otherwise (especially because social media is endlessly whining and in agony due to the awful server performance), these claims are very much not applicable currently.
Quick switching double guns are gone
Newer versions of the exploit has been found, but it's heavily questionable if they produce a similar time to kill.
cutlass vs. cutlass is consistent again
I want to agree, I genuinely want to, but the complaints from other people I watch, view on social media are making me believe otherwise, probably due to the server performance issues.
Players are spreading out into more weapon loadouts.
Sort of? I mean outside of some of the same hypersweats discovering and showcasing sword exploits that might help in some sword fights, server performance is in such an awful state that the only thing that looks like it might work, could be the cannons, and they're suffering issues as well.
In the end, it seems to me that you view ranking systems as pretentious bragging fests.
I do not belong to a crew, so how do you think a painfully average player is going to find high quality crews that won't leave after sinking if their crewing requirement is to be around the top 25% of all participating players in Hourglass?
I'll never get a good quality crew with dumb standards like that, when all these crews want is someone that won't fail them.
Let me just reiterate that ranked systems are implemented in every competitive mode of every game (I can think of). There's a reason for that, and the upsides far outweigh the downsides and the upsides of the current streak system.
The upsides ungraciously ignores the downsides that look at the bottom of the barrel, which is sadly, too much of this game's player base. Sea of Thieves does not want to be compatible with other games like this because it removes its uniqueness, as frustrating as it seems.
Encouraging players to push their limits while the game's servers are already at their limit was just never going to happen, and personally, I like it that way. It's not that I want to foster worse players, it's that I want the game to be what it's supposed to be: Casual!
@nex-stargaze
You're so pessimistic about this that I genuinely don't know how to continue the discussion.
You're coming at the entirety of competitive play and hourglass at the most negative angle possible, and I don't think there's really a way forward.
like,
You cannot improve your cannons (solo) because you have to also focus on steering, repairing, and defending should you catch a lot of pressure.
Really? This has got to be the most negative way to view the game.
Encouraging players to push their limits while the game's servers are already at their limit was just never going to happen,
You think combat's broken, you think PvE is too boring, you think that the servers aren't good enough, you frown on competitive play, so what exactly do you like about Sea of Thieves?
Your posts read like your using this thread to vent your frustrations about the whole game. I don't see a productive discussion with you after this post.
@nex-stargaze said in Rare refuses to learn lessons from other games:
Personally, I feel like Rare isn't really encouraging us to "improve" ourselves. Other than not sinking to a skeleton galleon, most of everything else outside of PvP has such an extensive lack of substance or difficulty, so even the most brain-burnt-out Bob out there can feel "rewarded" through the loot they acquire.
Dunno how you can say what you've said about the competitive community while pushing disparaging opinions about a huge portion of the player base outside of competitive play.
Personally I feel like you have beef with a portion of some of the content creation involving pvp and are taking it out on a lot of other people via negative/accusatory narratives about their styles, interests, and preferences.
Competitive players are like anyone else. Some are looking for trouble but most respond to chill with chill. There are many around the community that put helpful info out there and are supportive to people within the community.
I've rarely had an issue with competitive players on the servers or in the social areas. Twitter type stuff is what it is but at an individual level they are mostly chill.
SoT in general has a lot of cool people outside of the public bickering stuff and the social media hot takes.
@wolfmanbush a dit dans Rare refuses to learn lessons from other games :
@nex-stargaze said in Rare refuses to learn lessons from other games:
Personally, I feel like Rare isn't really encouraging us to "improve" ourselves. Other than not sinking to a skeleton galleon, most of everything else outside of PvP has such an extensive lack of substance or difficulty, so even the most brain-burnt-out Bob out there can feel "rewarded" through the loot they acquire.
Dunno how you can say what you've said about the competitive community while pushing disparaging opinions about a huge portion of the player base outside of competitive play.
Personally I feel like you have beef with a portion of some of the content creation involving pvp and are taking it out on a lot of other people via negative/accusatory narratives about their styles, interests, and preferences.
Competitive players are like anyone else. Some are looking for trouble but most respond to chill with chill. There are many around the community that put helpful info out there and are supportive to people within the community.
I've rarely had an issue with competitive players on the servers or in the social areas. Twitter type stuff is what it is but at an individual level they are mostly chill.
SoT in general has a lot of cool people outside of the public bickering stuff and the social media hot takes.
It's the game's competitive community that has spawned all the negative things we see about the game.
@zeyrniyx said in Rare refuses to learn lessons from other games:
@wolfmanbush a dit dans Rare refuses to learn lessons from other games :
@nex-stargaze said in Rare refuses to learn lessons from other games:
Personally, I feel like Rare isn't really encouraging us to "improve" ourselves. Other than not sinking to a skeleton galleon, most of everything else outside of PvP has such an extensive lack of substance or difficulty, so even the most brain-burnt-out Bob out there can feel "rewarded" through the loot they acquire.
Dunno how you can say what you've said about the competitive community while pushing disparaging opinions about a huge portion of the player base outside of competitive play.
Personally I feel like you have beef with a portion of some of the content creation involving pvp and are taking it out on a lot of other people via negative/accusatory narratives about their styles, interests, and preferences.
Competitive players are like anyone else. Some are looking for trouble but most respond to chill with chill. There are many around the community that put helpful info out there and are supportive to people within the community.
I've rarely had an issue with competitive players on the servers or in the social areas. Twitter type stuff is what it is but at an individual level they are mostly chill.
SoT in general has a lot of cool people outside of the public bickering stuff and the social media hot takes.
It's the game's competitive community that has spawned all the negative things we see about the game.
I would say it's content creation and social media
Not any one content creator and not one specific group on social media.
The effects of turning so many random encounters into witch hunts and the constant focus on people being content rather than people leads to a harsh decline in decency within social areas, which overall negatively effects relationships/encounters at a local level. The internet/online gaming is also used as a reason to justify a lack of respect for privacy.
It amplifies social team sport and normalizes harsh treatment and unfair criticism in public through group effort, rather than just some negative gossip in private.
Competitive gameplay has very little to do with it imo.
And by extension, this same part of the community has (I'm sure) encouraged the developers to rethink their plans for pve servers. They who have always said that NEVER, BIG NEVER would there be pve servers, are now saying that in December they will be available.
Who do you think are the only people who have rebelled against these servers?
At some point, you have to question yourself.
The same people who cry death to the game at every change are partly responsible for these changes...
@zeyrniyx said in Rare refuses to learn lessons from other games:
And by extension, this same part of the community has (I'm sure) encouraged the developers to rethink their plans for pve servers. They who have always said that NEVER, BIG NEVER would there be pve servers, are now saying that in December they will be available.
Who do you think are the only people who have rebelled against these servers?
At some point, you have to question yourself.
The same people who cry death to the game at every change are partly responsible for these changes...
The history of competitive player feedback is largely that they have wanted more support for more competitive play. Not actively campaigning against pvers.
@wolfmanbush a dit dans Rare refuses to learn lessons from other games :
@zeyrniyx said in Rare refuses to learn lessons from other games:
And by extension, this same part of the community has (I'm sure) encouraged the developers to rethink their plans for pve servers. They who have always said that NEVER, BIG NEVER would there be pve servers, are now saying that in December they will be available.
Who do you think are the only people who have rebelled against these servers?
At some point, you have to question yourself.
The same people who cry death to the game at every change are partly responsible for these changes...The history of competitive player feedback is largely that they have wanted more support for more competitive play. Not actively campaigning against pvers.
That's what I'm saying, this part of the community is just trying to change the nature of the game....
