FOTD improvement.

  • OakenKhan90088
    Castaway

    I was really not terribly impressed with the Fort of The Damned. The work they did on the fort itself is nice, and its not a terrible idea on it's face but its a total step backwards in terms of how forts work. Back to the old days of server hopping.

    There's basically no incentive to do the work to start a fort when you can just server hop to try to cash in on someone else's effort.

    Simple solution would be to lock the server when the FOTD is active. Soon as that skull goes up, no new ships. If you're on the server waiting for one when it happens, or do the work to make it happen, then you get your shot at it. No more lazy pirates being all johnny come lately for some easy loot.

    Edit: Its fascinating that a very common response, in defense of server hopping is that if you cant start a fort and hold it you dont deserve it... Which is really interesting when you factor in that most server hop defenders are probably hoppers and not really starting forts to hold them... from server hoppers... so...do they not deserve them?

  • Login To Reply
    129
    Posts
    62.9k
    Views
  • Jareto102
    Marauder

    As people have stated before, The issue with this kind of suggestion is that people or alliances could exploit this mechanic to get a whole server to themselves. Just start the fort and then wait all the other players out by killing them or boring them to death with there being no new crews appearing, and eventually you get a nice quiet server with no one to contest.

  • OakenKhan90088
    Castaway

    @heavyreaper102

    1. I don't care. I wouldn't be doing that and it doesn't matter to me at all how someone else gets loot or cosmetics because it doesn't affect me at all.

    2. Seems like a really extreme example, I'm not sure many players would really put the time in to make sure there's no other ships on the server first, I mean depending on the other players, that itself coudl take 5x as long as doing a fort if stubborn players wont leave... its just not a very sensible thing to worry about. Also the other bit, about they could just send anyone who comes packing... uh.. that's not uncontested, dude. thats someone on the server contesting the fort and getting sent away... a fort isn't uncontested if the team that started it sends the others packing... endless server hoppers joining the fight isnt the only way something can be contested.

    3. Teamwork are what alliances are for. Its not a bad thing if people make them lol. Remember, what other players have, and how they get them really doesnt affect you in the slightest bit.

    Nothing in your argument is worse than server hopping, which makes the actual work it takes to start a fort a chump's game and with no incentive at all to even do it.

    Its why you just dont see FOTD's appear on a typical sail.

  • OpenSourcerer55
    Ship Mate
    Insider

    @heavyreaper102 People or alliances are already doing server takeovers. In fact, the only reasonable way to do the FoTD now is to join a server takeover alliance.

  • Jareto102
    Marauder

    @oakenkhan90088 said in FOTD improvement.:

    1. I don't care. I wouldn't be doing that and it doesn't matter to me at all how someone else gets loot or cosmetics because it doesn't affect me at all.

    Well that's not a good attitude to have. One could almost say it's a self centered view, but that's not the point here, so I won't go on. It should matter if there's a theoretical exploit in your suggestion, because that affects the flow of the game itself, and I'm sure I'm correct in saying you want what's best for the game above all else?

    1. Seems like a really extreme example, I'm not sure many players would really put the time in to make sure there's no other ships on the server first, I mean depending on the other players, that itself coudl take 5x as long as doing a fort if stubborn players wont leave... its just not a very sensible thing to worry about. Also the other bit, about they could just send anyone who comes packing... uh.. that's not uncontested, dude. thats someone on the server contesting the fort and getting sent away... a fort isn't uncontested if the team that started it sends the others packing... endless server hoppers joining the fight isnt the only way something can be contested.

    Obviously you aren't getting what I was going for with my example, so let me explain a little more.
    Let's say two ships join an alliance, and they decide that they don't want to deal with any opposing crews that day. They get the ritual skull, collect the lanterns, and activate the Fort of the Damned. Well now, no new crews can enter the server, and because there is no time requirement for actually completing an active fort, they can simply leave one crew to guard the fort while the other either A. Grinds missions, or B. hunts down the remainder of the crews. And because all that will be left are the other ships that were already present, with patience they could wait out or repeatedly kill any opposing teams until, boom. An entire lonely server with just the two alliance ships, where they can leave the fort free from player threats and farm missions knowing that nobody is left to attack them. They could keep this up for as long as they like, and when they're finally ready to finish up, they can return and complete the FOTD, and get the final bit of loot from that free of risk.
    It would be bad game design and an exploit.

    1. Teamwork are what alliances are for. Its not a bad thing if people make them lol. Remember, what other players have, and how they get them really doesnt affect you in the slightest bit.

    It does, sadly, because I'm a firm advocate for everyone having to progress the same way. I don't think we should hand crutches and bandaids to people who complain because, say, they can't keep a FOTD to save their life.

  • Jareto102
    Marauder

    @opensourcerer55 said in FOTD improvement.:

    @heavyreaper102 People or alliances are already doing server takeovers. In fact, the only reasonable way to do the FoTD now is to join a server takeover alliance.

    This suggestion would just make server takeovers ridiculously easy, and it would mean you don't need to organize six crews in order to do it. I think I speak for a fair amount of people when I say the last thing we want is to make things like server takeovers easier to accomplish.

  • OakenKhan90088
    Castaway

    @heavyreaper102

    Meh, your example of starting the fort and leaving is easily circumvented by putting a time limit on the fort completion, or a limit on how long it can be without ships/players at it...

    You're basically just saying that nothign should be done about server hopping so we're not going to agree.

    Also its not about not being able to keep a fort, its about making all the things you have to do to start it make any kind of sense at all.

    Lastly, you're incorrect. how someone else earns gold or cosmetics has literally no effect on you at all.

  • Jareto102
    Marauder

    @oakenkhan90088 said in FOTD improvement.:

    @heavyreaper102

    Meh, your example of starting the fort and leaving is easily circumvented by putting a time limit on the fort completion, or a limit on how long it can be without ships/players at it...

    You're basically just saying that nothign should be done about server hopping so we're not going to agree.

    But if you put a general time limit on the fort, what about the less skilled crews, or people who are having trouble clearing out the waves quickly? Then they have to go through all that work just to have the clock run out and everything reset. That puts newer crews, smaller crews of 1-2 players, and anyone with not a great deal of experience at a disadvantage.
    The whole point of all the events in the game is that they can be started and completed by everyone, no matter what the experience level, as long as they're willing to see it through. I started a regular fort last night with a brand new player, who hadn't touched the game in over a year, and we completed it and cashed in with little issue, albeit over 30 min of fighting it through. Can you imagine how that would have gone down if we had a time limit? I'm using a regular fort as an example, but apply that to the fort of the damned.

  • DISLEX fx
    Captain
    Insider

    I love when [mod edited] come in and try to take a game that lets us play however we want, in a sandbox, with "tools, not rules" and tries to take away game options; wanting things locked and more rules, and less options.

    Ridiculous.

  • RTSclowN
    Ship Mate
    Insider

    What if a skull comes up on a empty server does it just stay empty?

  • DISLEX fx
    Captain
    Insider

    @aglasgowthing said in FOTD improvement.:

    What if a skull comes up on a empty server does it just stay empty?

    A (FotD) skull can't just pop up on an empty server because:

    • There are no empty servers
    • Players have to start the FotD, which brings up the skull
  • CaliCorsairCat
    Legend
    Insider

    My suggested solution is in a similar spirit.

    Make it so that a ritual skull is needed on board your ship as well while in the "fog" of the fort. I would also try to find a way to discourage people from shooting out and swimming to the island, so maybe your ship is needed in the vicinity as well in order to actually reach the island (like shores of gold). Maybe hard for Rare to execute this portion because the fort location is so centralized, but that is how I would have done it.

    If you don't bring a ritual skull, you will take holes like sailing through the red sea, and so would function very similarly to the shroudbreaker.

    It would also make for some interesting PVP, in which the skull can be stolen off another players boat to start sinking them (maybe a bit OP with the current boarder meta).

    Players can either spend a minute to go get one the old fashion way, or can buy one from the outpost. At least it would put some skin in the game for those crews, and if the attacker were to sink, would enable the crew doing the fort to do it again if they wish.

    Edit: I don't think preventing boats from joining the server with an active fort is the best idea, due to the risk of server alliance farming. Rather I would like to see boats have to invest more to attack the fort. The fact the attacking ship has limited supplies isn't really all that relevant because sinking boats has more to do with boarding proficiency than supplies (while surviving at the fort does have to do with having plenty of supplies), and attacking boats can respawn with fresh supplies. It also doesn't factor in the fact that multiple ships can be attacking over the course of the fort, or just trolling by detonating stronghold barrels / hiding at the fort etc.

    All part of the game, but the question is whether it should be to the extent it currently is, or is there a more fun (for everyone), more sensible way. I'd personally like to see the fort activated more often in servers, so requiring ships to bring a ritual skull with them to engage in the fight is a great way to ensure the fort can be activated again fairly quickly.

  • CaliCorsairCat
    Legend
    Insider

    @dislex-fx It's called making improvements so that other kids in the sandbox can also do what they want. When the two wants are at odds, that's when the developers must decide what rules should govern the fight to crown a winner, or in this case, must decide whether a fight should occur at all.

    One rule the devs put in place is that once you cash in treasure, that gold is locked to your player and cannot be stolen. Good rule in a sandbox game no?

    OakenKhan is saying he thinks the frequency of players attempting to steal the fort is too high. I disagree and like the PVP, but think the issue is that the attackers have no skin in the game, which I think he would agree would help alleviate the problem.

  • MaliceVanRow
    Captain

    all the "improvement" suggestions most likely by the ones who get jacked on a fort. My opinion, this is a dumb suggestion. Have a great day.

  • CaliCorsairCat
    Legend
    Insider

    @enticed-malice Open minded people who care about the game make suggestions. Close minded people call other ideas dumb. Though I will say, his idea isn't well thought through for the reasons mentioned (server farming, etc), but I agree with the spirit of the suggestion.

  • OakenKhan90088
    Castaway

    @heavyreaper102

    So wait, your stance is that if server hopping means that endless enemies takes a fort from you then its your fault for not holding it, but if you cant get it done in time (not that we even specified a time, it could be pretty generous if the aim of it is to assuage your fears of people taking over the server) then what about those poor crews??

    What happened to git gud?

    Thanks for replying but I think we've talked all we need to about this, as it really feels like you'll argue anything to keep server hopping a thing for this.

  • MaliceVanRow
    Captain

    @calicorsaircat whatever makes you feel better!

  • CaliCorsairCat
    Legend
    Insider

    @enticed-malice standing up for the original poster against people with such malice, har har.

  • MaliceVanRow
    Captain

    @calicorsaircat i see what you did there! Good pirate!

  • CallMeBackdrafT
    Vanguard
    Insider
    Founder

    @oakenkhan90088 i really dont get with all the people that are having problem with server hoppers...
    They come into the server very heavily undersupplied... so they are easily dispatched.

    Most likely you are not being attacked by server hoppers but more likely by people that see the skull and go to that location.

    Never had an issue with server hoppers, never will.

  • Droper666
    Master
    Insider

    Nothing to lose for stealer.

  • RTSclowN
    Ship Mate
    Insider

    @dislex-fx you know I don’t mean empty as in no players I mean one ship or whoever started it,
    locking servers would be terrible people enjoying server hoping and some people don’t this is game where you play how you like too

  • DISLEX fx
    Captain
    Insider

    @calicorsaircat said in FOTD improvement.:

    @dislex-fx It's called making improvements...

    In your opinion.

    ...the attackers have no skin in the game...

    More opinion.

    Having opinions is fine and all, but overall, my opinion is that it's insane and silly to call for yourself to be governed more and more and more and more and more and more.

  • Jareto102
    Marauder

    @oakenkhan90088 said in FOTD improvement.:

    Thanks for replying but I think we've talked all we need to about this, as it really feels like you'll argue anything to keep server hopping a thing for this.

    That's perfectly fine; If you've run out of points for your argument, we can gladly wrap things up. Shame you had to start strawmanning single sentences in an effort to keep the attention off of the true points, but to each their own!

    You and I may be done, however I think I'll exercise my right to hang out here and debate with others for a while. Happy sailing!

  • OakenKhan90088
    Castaway

    @calicorsaircat Thanks, but thats not entirely accurate. I dont care if people steal the fort, what I care about is server hopping being the primary way its done. Server hopping is bad for the game.

  • DISLEX fx
    Captain
    Insider

    Server Hopper for Life!

  • CaliCorsairCat
    Legend
    Insider

    @dislex-fx Everyone has opinions, but how well founded are they is what counts. Either the game is a democracy and everyone's voice counts, or you are saying it's Rare's decision alone, in which case you are all about being governed by their rules. Pick a side, it's obviously a combination of what the players want and what Rare wants, but you always seem more often on the side of whatever Rare has already done I am fine with, which I would just call lazy.

  • CaliCorsairCat
    Legend
    Insider

    @heavyreaper102 HeavyReaper is right in this case. He never advocated for server hopping, only against the repercussions of the OP's suggestion that it would cause alliance wide server farming.

  • DISLEX fx
    Captain
    Insider

    @calicorsaircat said in FOTD improvement.:

    @dislex-fx Everyone has opinions, but how well founded are they is what counts. Either the game is a democracy and everyone's voice counts, or you are saying it's Rare's decision alone, in which case you are all about being governed by their rules. Pick a side. You always seem more often on the side of whatever Rare has already done I am fine with, which I would just call lazy.

    From what I can tell, Rare made the game how they wanted it, without the help of us. During Alpha, they tweaked more, to help make the game more and more into their vision, with 'our' help this time. Players have loved the game from alpha. Well, before updates Sea of Thieves was played the way Rare dreamed of it being played. Basically, you do what you want. They provided the playground and we provide the stories and adventures and fun. Beta was the same. Launch was the same. Once updates started coming out, a small amount of players whined about the game being too hard. Unfortunatly Rare nerfed things.

    ...and again.
    ...and again.
    ...and again.
    ...and again.
    ...and again.
    ...and again.
    ...and again.

    ...AND the loud minority still cry about everything being too hard and unfair. Thus, the cycle continues.

    Bring on the challenge. The silent majority of players figure things out and find ways to make things work. We win. We lose. When we lose, we don't come to the forum and talk about how dumb the game is. When we lose, like I mentioned, we find ways to win.

  • Jareto102
    Marauder

    @calicorsaircat said in FOTD improvement.:

    @heavyreaper102 HeavyReaper is right in this case. He never advocated for server hopping, only against the repercussions of the OP's suggestion that it would cause alliance wide server farming.

    I appreciate the support! I only want what's best and fair for the game, and the flaws of what was being suggested had to be said. I understand how annoying server hopping can be, but I'd rather deal with that than let server takeovers become easy as cake to accomplish.

  • OakenKhan90088
    Castaway

    @enticed-malice said in FOTD improvement.:

    all the "improvement" suggestions most likely by the ones who get jacked on a fort. My opinion, this is a dumb suggestion. Have a great day.

    Excuse me, I have lost regular forts, had a draw (nobody got loot wasted time) at an FOTD. and I've taken plenty of forts from other players. I know how easy it is to put this down to being about losing forts.... its not.

    Its about making there actually be a reason to go thru what you need to do to start one. There's no point to doing so currently, which makes it all kinda silly. It also means that if you're not a lazy pirate content to serverhop until he finds a fort some other chumps have already started, youre not very likely to ever see one come up that you don't start yourself...

    The current fotd mechanic is bad because it encourages lazy serverhopping trash and discourages actually doing the work to start the fort.

  • OakenKhan90088
    Castaway

    @callmebackdraft

    lol, I mean you can see Plunder Outpost from the fort...

  • Nabberwar
    Lord
    Insider

    Once you find an actual sure-fire way to deteremine who is and isn't hopping, than lets breach this subject. Their is no way to truly know who is or isn't hopping, unless they say otherwise. You cannot know at all points in time every ship on the server. Their is no determinant factor that distinguishes a native player vs a hopper.

    It is a giant beacon in the sky, it will attract attention of everyone on the server, new ship or not.

  • OakenKhan90088
    Castaway

    @nabberwar

    A sure fire way is to make sure there aren't new ships while the fort is active :)

  • OakenKhan90088
    Castaway

    @dislex-fx

    How do you not get that this isn't about winning or losing at all?

Login To Reply
129
Posts
62.9k
Views
1 out of 129