Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.

@touchdown1504 said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:

@lotrmith That is interesting. Either I have never played a game that does that, or I simply didn't notice. What is the purpose behind the system, why does a developer do this? At first glance I like it, but I need to know more. It seems to me it is something casual players would enjoy because it keeps them from falling so far behind that playing becomes pointless...is that right?

It is precisely that: a boost for casuals to not feel so far behind.

@lotrmith said:

...You log out and don't play for a three days... every hour that you are offline, you get a bonus multiplier... for when you log back in... and kill monsters. You get [2X-worth] XP after killing only [1X] monsters instead of having to kill [2X]

So you're rewarded for not playing? Or rather, rewarded more for playing eventually? It'd definitely give the non-daily-user incentive to play occasionally, but it doesn't really inspire daily use or benefit the daily player. I've played games where I've been rewarded with XP boosts for subsequent/daily log-ins, but not for abstaining. Interesting concept though.

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

@lotrmith said:

...You log out and don't play for a three days... every hour that you are offline, you get a bonus multiplier... for when you log back in... and kill monsters. You get [2X-worth] XP after killing only [1X] monsters instead of having to kill [2X]

So you're rewarded for not playing? Or rather, rewarded more for playing eventually? It'd definitely give the non-daily-user incentive to play occasionally, but it doesn't really inspire daily use or benefit the daily player. I've played games where I've been rewarded with XP boosts for subsequent/daily log-ins, but not for abstaining. Interesting concept though.

It's not so much a reward but rather an incentive to come back because you have accumulated a chunk of a catch up mechanic.

(It is always faster to level up by playing frequently rather than waiting for a bonus)

@angrycoconut16 I don't know what the best option is since sometimes you do want revenge and being moved to another server will not allow this, but at the same time you can't be continuously harassed by a ship or a group of ships without no real ability to stop them.

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

@lotrmith I don't understand why this is being discussed here however. That system although intriguing would not address the problems this thread has presented?

Someone else brought it up and asked a bunch of questions.

Are you not reading all the posts in your own thread?

@touchdown1504 said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:

Why would rep being pushed to VC not bother me? I'm saying that the progression isn't that important but its important enough to put a value on loot I have. I find the loss of loot fun because when I succeed in PVP it feels more rewarding. As a fan of dark souls, loss is a key aspect of the reward systems. And since there is no reason to keep up with other players, loss is acceptable and as far as I'm concerned important part of the reward structure in PvP. I believe the developers are too... since their intent and design choices have been pretty well documented.

Offline... when you're not playing the game, accrue a benefit. WoW implemented this 13 years ago.. if your someone that doesn't play as much you can catch up to people that do by having additional benefits. I know the other popular method as of late has been charging for benefits but that is gross and disgusting and takes advantages of players that do not play as much.

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

@lotrmith I don't understand why this is being discussed here however. That system although intriguing would not address the problems this thread has presented?

Because it's an alternative to reducing the value of loot by finding ways that casuals that aren't playing alot more value to the loot they bringing in. If your playing a lot, chances are a few losses aren't bothering you and you have ample opportunities to be rewarded for time and you'll be significantly more proficient at defending your ship because of the experience playing.

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

@savagetwinky 'chances are a few losses aren't bothering you', well clearly they are bothering some people, that's what this entire thread is about. Speak for yourself but don't even attempt to speak on behalf of other people. Clearly many people agree that not everyone enjoys the 100% loss experience.
That suggestion would not help this either.

Well I'm not speaking only for myself. Not many people complain about this. And usually its accompanied by "i don't have much time to play". So chances are, again not everyone just many people, that play a lot have learned to play competently, make the best use of their time, and an occasional loss doesn't impact them as largely due to more time playing, they'll have plenty of chances to turn in loot.

Unless your trying to argue that the game is impossible to play and even players that play a lot are losing loot left and right... which is the only real caveat with my argument. If someone could not get loot back to an outpost regardless of time spent I think your idea here would have more merit... But again the game is adjusted and designed for loss already.

This will help people with less time because when they eventually turn in loot it's double. Which objectively helps curve the issue with when they experience loss by making rewards more rewarding for them.

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

@drewbob7 said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:

I get what you are saying but, we pay to be allowed to take the voyage so they didn't get what they asked for not paid for. There is a difference. Also, it's not gold we are talking about (pay), it's reputation. You can still build reputation with that person by being willing to take the risks. If I knew I was asking someone to take serious risks (facing death and loss of ship) for me, then I would respect them for being willing to take those risks.

That said, it's a game and a game I love. Many of us PvE players just want to even the field. I realize the PvP players don't see it as uneven but I've stated before we put 2x the effort into keeping that loot. Once in gathering it and sometimes that is not as easy as stepping foot on an island and carrying it to our ships. Then we must battle to keep it. All the PvP player has to do is battle.

We don't have to agree and Rare is obviously not under any obligation to change anything! We are just voicing our ideas in hopes that maybe Rare can see what we are saying and take a look at it.

I think you, like many, are making the mistake of thinking that PvE and PvP modes of play are separate. Most people do both as PvP is opportunistic. I don't see why a game built around PvP, theft, and risk/loss/rewards of pirating should try to cater to a PvE only crowd and dilute the importance of PvP by lessening the value of the loot.

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

@savagetwinky You have already told me that I play the game wrong and should stop playing so nothing else you say to me will ever matter!

Ok, but I'm still going to argue against your points since forum = public, and everyone can read it. And it's completely possible to play a game wrong. If you don't want to take the time to understand what the game is going for then you could be trying to play against the point of the game. Like PvEr's wanting to opt out of PvP... in a pvp game.

@i-am-lost-77 said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:

Think for a moment. 2 players go out sailing for an hr.

I have thought about it.

The one on the hunt is doing a voyage if there is no one to attack.
The one that is doing the voyage is on the defensive.

In the end, they are both doing voyages until they see someone, make a decision to attack/engage/run away.

OR

This unicorn of a player that is just circling the waters looking for another player to fight. Spends an equal amount of time searching for the ship that has voyage booty. They have both just sunk an equal amount of time into the game for what is now, contested rewards. The player doing the voyages has the upper hand, not only do they have the loot initially but being on the defensive is easier in this game. The pirate player with equal time invested is limited to 66% of the value on the ship... if he succeeds.

There is no PvE vs PvP for the vast majority of players. It's voyaging and player interaction. The example you gave both players spent an hour playing for a single set of rewards. The voyager player is not entitled to the value of the loot yet. That's the major point of PvP in this game. All the value is contested until it's brought to an outpost.

@i-am-lost-77 said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:

The PvP player has just gotten 66% of the rep and 100% of the gold. How does this make the game PvE oriented?

You've literally just diminished rewards you get from PvP making PvE straight up better for the hour spent. There is now a limitation on loot in the game creating a disincentive from doing PvP since voyages are objectively more valuable and easier

@i-am-lost-77 said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:

Side note: I would like to know why you disagree with this system since you seem levelheaded and are actually coming up with a reasonable argument that can be discussed

What is it about this vague, clearly touchy 'argument' seems reasonable to you (or rather, more reasonable to you than other disagreeing arguments)?

Thanks for the invite to get in on this discussion after my input in the previous.
I'm still wholeheartedly disagreeing with the idea but do still get the point of what you are trying to achieve (edit:I'm not going to go into great detail of why because I can't be bothered with the backlash of the previous post, unless someone wants me to go there).

Nevermind, I see he posted some of his reasoning, and since it's much of the same as has been posted already I'm sure you no longer find it quite so reasonable.

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

This change would not reduce PvP rewards, it would increase PvE rewards, there is a huge difference. Getting any amount of rep on VC or chest dig is not equivalent to the PvP player getting x% less. I think we've all agreed that lowering PvP rewards would be bad.

Your arguing semantics. More is more. If the pvp isn't equal its a less

There is no difference if you are increasing one or decreasing one. From decision standpoint if you know you'll get 50% more to do the voyage... or 33% less for pvp... doesn't really matter which you consider "100%".

As for the rest XP bonus. I don't think that would help anything other than reducing the PL grind. The whole issue in my eyes is that the design of voyage length vs possible rewards is too spikey and disincentivizes long voyages and simple voyages. Doubling values would just exacerbate that.

That's the problem now with losing chests. You don't progress. If you play a lot its not that impactful since games aren't 24/7 pvp. So if you only play an hour 3 nights and 1 or 2 nights you end up losing most of the loot I can see that as being and issue. But since they weren't playing alot the loot they do turn compensates for the loss. This also effects players that pvp a lot (i've lost a lot of loot attacking someone with loot on my ship)

There are other things they can do to make high level voyages turn out better loot. But I can see why they might not want to since that will accelerate the entire communities rep... the more high level players the less low level loot. Even the system being proposed what do you do with lvl 50 quests with people just entering the game? Power level them? Normalize the loot?

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

@i-am-lost-77 said in Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.:

Side note: I would like to know why you disagree with this system since you seem levelheaded and are actually coming up with a reasonable argument that can be discussed

What is it about this vague, clearly touchy 'argument' seems reasonable to you (or rather, more reasonable to you than other disagreeing arguments)?

Thanks for the invite to get in on this discussion after my input in the previous.
I'm still wholeheartedly disagreeing with the idea but do still get the point of what you are trying to achieve (edit:I'm not going to go into great detail of why because I can't be bothered with the backlash of the previous post, unless someone wants me to go there).

Nevermind, I see he posted some of his reasoning, and since it's much of the same as has been posted already I'm sure you no longer find it quite so reasonable.

I didn't really so much as say someone is playing wrong but the game objectively sets up a much looser experience system to compensate for loss and for that pointed out priorities being so focused on the rep that losing a few chests you'll consider playing a waste of time is probably the wrong mentality to have for the game. If he considers the games only value in playing is rep I wouldn't want that type of player in the community since... he wants the rep easier, he doesn't want to engage in the full game and wants any difficult barriers to rep removed, he'll need more reasons for rep once those barriers are removed, and once there is no rep to grind it will be a waste of time to play anyway.