High Seas vs Safer Seas

@europa4033 beat me to it 😡

I'm just tired of the arguments, and this would potentially fix that issue. Its not unheard of. Its not impossible. It wouldn't hurt the game.

Having this game mode would not effect balancing. It wouldn't effect progression.

It would however allow more people to just enjoy the game, without being forced to interact with PVP players who are often unpleasant, while still not taking away from those unpleasant players game.

It IS an issue. Many PVP players are generally unpleasant to be around, and even more so I wouldn't want my children hearing some of the things some of them say. Locking content behind having to deal with toxic players isn't a good way to deal with things, but at the same time giving joint unrestricted progression also does not work. unrestricted progression would only work if it was completely separate from the PVP mode.

Literally hundreds, if not thousands of people want this.

@furryfreedomx3 said in High Seas vs Safer Seas:

It IS an issue. Many PVP players are generally unpleasant to be around, and even more so I wouldn't want my children hearing some of the things some of them say. Locking content behind having to deal with toxic players isn't a good way to deal with things, but at the same time giving joint unrestricted progression also does not work. unrestricted progression would only work if it was completely separate from the PVP mode.

Literally hundreds, if not thousands of people want this.

The worst things said to me in this game are from people who became absolutely outraged that I might attack them at an event with a big cloud in the sky in the pirate game. Entitled people who bought a PvPvE game but think the chest of fortune should be all theirs since they got there first.

Spare me yet another “pvpers are toxic” post. Go read any comment section under a YouTube video, or comments within any viral Facebook post… no pvp required.

Just to reiterate; for anyone thinking this will destroy the game, another game that did exactly with with amazing results was Escape From Tarkov.

The base game is PvPvE, and they added a PvE gamemode that made the game far more accessible to players, while also increasing their playerbase, introducing new players to the game who wanted that experience. Its a positive change, that worked, even if it was a paid for experience. Players loved it. Completely separate unrestricted progression, on locally hosted servers or servers hosted by the game provider being optional. "Players" were replaced by harder AI that looked like players. Tasks requiring you to attack other players stayed, and instead you had to attack the "player ai".

In addition to what's already been said above, I doubt it would be a good investment for Rare. I have about 2700 hours in this game and what keeps me going is absolutely not the pve; don't get me wrong, I enjoy the pve enough, but without the threat of players/shenanigans it would get old really fast. How long do you think people will stay entertained with left clicking skeletons to death with zero threat of danger or a challenge? SoT has the easiest pve out of any game I've played, and I quickly realized as a new player that the reason for this is because players are the threat. The pve and loot is something to fight over, and Rare clearly designed this game with player conflict/interaction in mind. Big clouds over events, emissaries showing on the map, various other items showing on the map; it's obvious that we're meant to fight over things, and you don't even lose anything when you sink. You and some others might be the exception, but I seriously doubt too many people would put 1000 hours into what is essentially a sailing simulator with easy pve.

A personal reason I would dislike this happening is because it would take development time away from things I'd like. For example, Safer Seas was the main event of a season and I haven't stepped foot there once and probably never will. If they go through all of the trouble to create your vision, that will be more time put towards something I'll never touch.

Lastly, there still would probably only be one ship per server. Not only would making ships unsinkable from other player cannon balls be development effort, but how would you possibly prevent other players from sinking ships through other means? Kegs, for example. You'd have players dedicating their time to griefing others and nobody could even do anything about it since they cannot be shot or cannoned. I've seen this in many pvp restricted games.

@capt-greldik The point wouldn't be a server with other players, rather a singleplayer experience possibly with friends, on a private server where other "players" are actually AI's who can attack the player. AI controlled sloops, brigs and galleons who fly emissary flags, or can even be reapers who may attack you. No other real players apart from you and your friends.

Similar to Escape From Tarkov, every time the live server gets an update, it would be for both the single-player and multiplayer modes. same development for both sides, separate progression. The only investment Rare would need to make is on changing things to allow players to host local servers on their own systems, where they can invite friends (Many games already do this), and implementing new AI ships, that could even just be reskinned skeleton ships that have the ability to fly flags.

Once thats done, anything that is done in the multiplayer server update wise can also go to the singleplayer server at the same time, and both can be updated together, and both get the same content. The only difference is that the singleplayer servers would be limited on some PvP related events, due to the nature of AI. Things like "sinking player ships" could be done, by the player sinking the previously mentioned AI ships that fly flags, while on the multiplayer server you have to sink actual player ships.

With new pirate games coming out, such as the Black Flag remaster, and Windrose, both of them offer something that Sea of Thieves doesn't, which is the ability to play the game unrestricted, how the player wants to play it. Not forced into PvP if they don't want to be but still being able to access all the content. Sea of Thieves, as much as people want to say is a PvPvE game, the addition of a Safer Seas mode goes against that. Regardless of if it is there to get people comfortable with the game or not, its existence shows that it CAN be a PvE experience, and some players prefer that.

There are players who actively refuse to play the game due to the forced PvP nature of it. They tried the PvP, didn't enjoy it, and desire more from the Safer Seas because it is generally more enjoyable to them. ((if it isn't meant to be a PvE experience and Sea of Thieves is a PvP game exclusively, then safer seas should be removed because it offers the player something completely different to the PvP side of the game, and many players enjoy the safer seas.))

My point is, the game needs to look at expanding on Safer Seas, in a way that allows them to sync content between both the multiplayer and singleplayer servers; and this would help with that. It wouldn't split development long term, and if anything it would likely help the game.

I'm not a huge Sea of Thieves player, as quite honestly I dislike PvP experiences, even in EFT, I play the PvE game mode; and the Safer Seas option, even as limited as it is, is where I play the game and I do enjoy the experience, but in its current state its lacking. New AI ((or reused old AI)) and private unrestricted servers that share no progression would complete the game for me, and would open the game up to many new players and many old players looking to get back into it, without the stress of being forced into PvP.

@furryfreedomx3 To reitterate, progression would be COMPLETELY SEPERATE to High Seas, meaning ANYTHING you unlock or buy or progress in Safer Seas would be locked to Safer Seas.

Dear lord.. The pattern of someone calmly and respectfully posting their opinion on a solution to make this game feel more welcoming to players who don't love PVP, and then getting absolutely PILED ON by a bunch of insiders and founders regurgitating the same low hanging arguments they have made since before Safer Seas was even released, is just silly at this point.

Someone here basically said that if the achievments/cosmetics are not obtained under the stress of potential PVP then they are not valuable/real and that is so telling.

I actually do enjoy the PVP aspect of the game now after torturing myself (hourglass now giving resource crates does make the path a lot more enjoyable for new players to quickly get into pvp), but if you pretend like this game is PVP first and not second you have to either be lying or blind.

Why should you PVP? For the PVE loot of others, nothing is more pirate than that.

Oh my bad, I can already hear you foaming so let me do better. Why did pirates, pirate? Please enlighten me how it was all about repeatedly shooting themselves out of cannons to just kill people for 0 reward other than the victim's suffering and for the power fantasies they can't live in real life.

[mod edit] talking about it "it's a pirate game, don't cry about it" but then start crying when someone talks about changing the rules of a game about piracy. It's like you don't hear yourselves.

I don't agree with your idea @FurryFreedomX3 . Not that it is awful, just not quite there imo. But you did not deserve the clownery that I'm reading further down.