Reputation - loss, risk and negativity.

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

@reedski If you'd actually read even a fraction of the replies you'd know why some people think it's a bad idea.

And come on... three hour session for a level 40+ you know quite well the risk you take and have made conscious decisions to not turn even slightly aside to drop off at an outpost in that time frame. Be real.

In a 4 man galleon it's not really my decision, the new closed group thing helps because now I can just play with people sympathetic to my time based needs, but sometimes I'm just stuck with people doing what they want, I can have put one of my missions down, done most of the work for the thumbless idiots I've been stuck with, then had them ruin it for me. Even if you only got a tiny miniscule fraction of the rep for completion I could log off with a "oh well, better luck next time" attitude instead of feeling like my entire session was just a waste of time

@angrycoconut16 Nobody has been dismissive.. you obviously haven't listened to our perspective, or don't know what dismissive means.

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

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

@reedski If you'd actually read even a fraction of the replies you'd know why some people think it's a bad idea.

And come on... three hour session for a level 40+ you know quite well the risk you take and have made conscious decisions to not turn even slightly aside to drop off at an outpost in that time frame. Be real.

In a 4 man galleon it's not really my decision, the new closed group thing helps because now I can just play with people sympathetic to my time based needs, but sometimes I'm just stuck with people doing what they want, I can have put one of my missions down, done most of the work for the thumbless idiots I've been stuck with, then had them ruin it for me. Even if you only got a tiny miniscule fraction of the rep for completion I could log off with a "oh well, better luck next time" attitude instead of feeling like my entire session was just a waste of time

Yah depending on the crew you get it ends up being a massive waste. I random all the time because my normal crew has had rl things to take care off. I generally don't find that finding a completely clueless crew is that difficult. But I do rejoin until I find some sane people usually takes 2-3 tries max... plus often I get free fort loot.

Also learn to recognize a completely dysfunctional crew and bail immediately. Nothing is worse if no one knows what they are doing or will listen. Not even from a loot standpoint. It's just frustrating.

@savagetwinky I hadn’t thought of that. With this idea implemented, people who use the Red Sea out of spite now will be able to say, “If I can’t have it, you can’t either, but I already got a bonus and you get nada... too bad, so sad.”

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

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

I've read a few more of these now, I think I understand some of the miscommunication. Now I can only speak for myself, but reading back I think people will agree with me. I'm lvl 40+ in each of the 3, and I have more money than I need, earning money isn't an issue, but if I ever hope to reach legend I need rep. As it stands though the only way to earn rep other than cashing in is via commendations. Most of these also require handing in. If I have three hours before work and I choose to use it playing this game I would like very much to see some sort of result from that. If someone robs me, or I screw up, or the Kraken does me in that's 3 hours down the s*****r. Now with private groups it should be a little better cos you can just hand in more often, but I don't think I'm alone in thinking it might be nice to receive a small amount of rep just for finishing the voyage. It would definitely increase PvP for me since I don't need the money, order of the souls especially, once I've killed the captain for progress towards voyage and commendation and achievement I could just leave the skull quite happily and fight, currently however even a foul bounty skull is worth ramming full speed onto an outpost for. If I got rep just for finishing the voyage though I could fight and win or lose I could pick back up where I left off. If this attitude was shared pvp returns would go up for the victors as more people would enter fights with something on them. It's a win win, I really don't see why anyone thinks it's a bad idea.

Exactly. Unfortunately people are being dismissive primarily because they don't want to see change. Several people on this thread have openly ADMITTED that they would be more likely to PvP, yet people are still finding reasons to disagree, including 'it probably won't help', yet you, me and several others (who are the target of this thread) have said it would help..

And what do you say about those who have admitted they would be less likely to PvP, pointing to more solid reasons than mere wishful thinking?

What do you say about the general idea that those who suppose they would fight more often are actually just blissfully ignorant of the reality that they are likely to run now because they are unlikely to win, and will find themselves just as likely to run under your suggestion because they are just as unlikely to win, and after a brief stint of fruitless losses will go right back to complaining about being sunk?

@angrycoconut16 That's a pipe dream. People want their loot. Why be satisfied with 33% when I can get 100%. And, if I am guaranteed to get 33% why would I allow someone else to get the other 66%? This idea will just give a greater incentive to deny chasers by running into the Red Sea - they will have less to lose by doing so.

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

@entspeak Or how about this snip

It wouldn't solve it at all because your missing that the evader is excepting total loss is acceptable outcome in the situation.

The point is player behavior doesn't support the claims that people will be willing to fight if they get some rep out of a VC. There are a sizable amount of people already willing to PVP which creates the problem of loss to begin with. I really don't think its a ubiquitous problem every time someone logs in to make a change like this reasonable. Basically so long as the majority of the value is still on the boat this is still a problem.

The alternate side is we don't want frivolous PVP which will potentially make it harder to complete voyages. Once you remove the importance of the loot from all players (especially if you can get rep explicitly from other peoples loot over your now devalued loot)… it will be always PVP... or trade chests.

Either way your not solving a problem. Your trying to protect people from failing bad occasionally.

As much as I want rep for voyage completion posts like this one are just the tail wagging the dog, we bought this game, we need to adapt to it not the other way around.

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

As much as I want rep for voyage completion posts like this one are just the tail wagging the dog, we bought this game, we need to adapt to it not the other way around.

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

@reedski Then the game will continue to make people leave, post angry or upset threads, and log out on occasions feeling completely dejected and deflated. Do you think that's really what Rare wants?

'We bought the game, and thus this is the way it is going to stay, so you have to get used to it' is not constructive thinking. We aren't discussing a board game with set rules, where you buy it from a shop and that's what you get. We are discussing an online game where the developers are ACTIVELY CURRENTLY shaping the game into what it will become in the future, and a large part of their changes come from player feedback - Rare have proven multiple times they listen to player feedback and the players who support this idea all agree that sometimes the game just isn't fun when all of your time invested in a game is literally sailing away from you... they can easily keep the core system of theft in the game whilst making the loss a little less painful for the people who spent the time voyaging and LITERALLY obtaining the items which PvPers are stealing. I don't care if a change isn't added in the format of a 50% bonus as I have suggested, but whatever happens, something needs to be done.

It will also continue to draw players into an engaging experience. It's not meant for everyone. See dark souls that is committed to causing players to lose hours of progress in a single player game, and is hugely popular.

While we all want the game to expand, unlike a board game... people would probably not want to play a second version of monopoly that introduces socialism so no one can lose until everyone loses. Basically, lets expand on what they sold us not undermine core features of the game.

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

@savagetwinky You can not compare this game to dark souls, not in the slightest. Lol.

Yes I can, and just did. And to continue that comparison. All gains in dark souls are permanent once you've spent the souls, or reached specific points. PVP players can come in and cause you to lose everything via invasions.

We understand what you asking for. We are pointing out it doesn't solve an actual problem, the people that are most upset measure their time exclusively by how much rep they gained. And all player feedback is valid. But there is obviously not a consensus on this one. There is no in-game pressure to need that rep to undermine the fun of PvP which is a distinct difference to DkS. But there are also carely crafted points to cash in souls, which SoT leaves up to player discretion.

@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.

The reason people want to do that in the first place is because

• they don't like people taking any amount of their stuff
• they don't like sinking

Your suggestion does nothing to alleviate either of those motivations.

@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 what do you say about those who have admitted they would be less likely to PvP, pointing to more solid reasons than mere wishful thinking?

What do you say about the general idea that those who suppose they would fight more often are actually just blissfully ignorant of the reality that they are likely to run now because they are unlikely to win, and will find themselves just as likely to run under your suggestion because they are just as unlikely to win, and after a brief stint of fruitless losses will go right back to complaining about being sunk?

I haven't seen anyone say 'yea this change would make me less likely to PvP', if I have forgotten or not acknowledged it by all means remind me.

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.

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

@savagetwinky And again, trying to tell people that they shouldn't care about rep. That is not your place man, not your place at all. And no you can't compare it to another game, dark souls is LITERALLY advertised as what it is, anyone who can be bothered to do a bit of research into dark souls would see what sort of game it is! On the other hand SoT is advertised and shown as a much more laid back, casual experience, not hard core like DS. Different games, different games.

Regardless the game allows people to not care about rep and designed the PvP with loss because of that, and didn't build up the PvE to something fulfilling on its own. So there is structure built around reputation loss.

I also wouldn't be disingenuous about the advertising.. because it's never been exclusively casual material. Generally it points out other players are a danger... or you can be.

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

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.

Or the other person that kind of acknowledged that his argument was a bit inconsistent and turned around and said maybe we need to adapt to what the game is offering.

Red sea isn't completely based on spite, no, but spite plays a factor I'm sure.

It's completely based on spite. When your decisions are:
A) Try to fight
B) Try to salvage by making a few passes or crash and sell
C) dump everything out of bounds so they can't have my value.

There is no other way to interpret that that. It's solely motivated based on spite and ignores any sort of value that can be retained.

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%.

Again ignoring everything else about the game, thus, you are one of the people that consider time = rep and that's the only way to measure the enjoyment of this game. It's completely ignoring what it's trying to create for players.

If the rep is a measure of how much loot you've turned in... and that's the primary goal of the game... And the game has been designed completely around that idea... and the ability to steal it to create tension... and functional rep = voyages that turn out more loot. Everyone is supposed to be collecting loot, the voyages just point you in direction of loot, but you can take that loot from other players.

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

@savagetwinky Wow I thought we were actually having a constructive discussion that time, how foolish of me. I never EVER stated that it's the only way to enjoy the game, don't put words in my mouth. This is pointless lets stop our conversation here.

But that's the only way your argument works. That's kind of what you don't see. The game isn't trying to reward you for killing skeletons. It's trying to reward you for delivering loot to alliances successfully.

The other half of your argument has nothing to do with this. Players want to strive for PL. Go right ahead. But the game is adjusted that some nights might not be successful, and that should be ok because the rest of the game is designed around it.

@savagetwinky the big difference between SoT and Souls is the speed at which you can recover from losing everything. In Dark Souls PvE you just go back to where you died, in PvP you don't lose everything so same applies, but even what you do lose can be farmed back quickly. In SoT if you lose a bunch you have to do all that again, and thanks to the Gods of RNG there's no guarantee you'll even get that amount again. I think people just want something to show for all that time investment, not necessarily a lot, just a little to make it slightly less painful.

@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 what do you say about those who have admitted they would be less likely to PvP, pointing to more solid reasons than mere wishful thinking?

What do you say about the general idea that those who suppose they would fight more often are actually just blissfully ignorant of the reality that they are likely to run now because they are unlikely to win, and will find themselves just as likely to run under your suggestion because they are just as unlikely to win, and after a brief stint of fruitless losses will go right back to complaining about being sunk?

I haven't seen anyone say 'yea this change would make me less likely to PvP', if I have forgotten or not acknowledged it by all means remind me.

raises hand along with every other player who weighs the value of reputation gains via PvP against the value of reputation gains via voyaging

@reedski

Well that's where the player discretion comes into play. The game isn't crafted at good stopping points... and it leaves it up to the player. Voyaging for 4 hours straight would be like never lighting any barn fires then dying at the bottom of blight town. While you haven't lost everything yet... you have to do the 4 hours over again any way with it all on the line.

So how much you lose in in SoT is completely up to how often you choose to secure it. So your free to hit a bonfire whenever but you lose that second chance because your not forced to get to a particular point with that stuff. You also don't have to do the same exact content again, it lets you recover it away from where you just died.

I'm not saying they are identical but they play of the same sort of, lets break the player so his successes matter significantly more. I said it earlier in this thread. Dark Souls turns climbing a hill into a massive feat while Word Of Warcraft puts you on a gondolier to the top. The parts of dark souls that make the gameplay compelling are similar to what makes the PvP compelling in SoT.

@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