@touchdown1504 People attempting to be the most efficient at making money and xp have no reason to do a riddle right now. Better to cancel the voyage for x maps with 4+ chests, as it seems the chance for a chest to be good value is the same for every dig, so you just need to get more at a time. If they change to giving more XP for tasks, there's more options for min maxing play, I could be going for money and then it would still probably be more efficient to get more lucrative maps, but if I can knock out a riddle in 20 min for a rep, I'll be happy I have less tasks, but my money will be more vulnerable as I'm out completing the voyage longer.
Give us our XP for finishing a voyage, not turning in the chest/soul/animal
@muertoamigo420 said in Give us our XP for finishing a voyage, not turning in the chest/soul/animal:
@enpixelate not xp. Reputation
Bud go back 700 posts lol
“Reputation” is the fancy word they put out to cover that it’s xp
@graiis said in Give us our XP for finishing a voyage, not turning in the chest/soul/animal:
Then why do I get a title and rep for sailing 1000 miles with an active riddle?
Those aren't quest rewards - they are achievement rewards. And, even if you choose to see them as the same thing, the amount of reputation you get is so insignificant compared to what you have to do to get them, they have zero impact on the tension the devs are talking about with quest rewards, and it would be more logical to view them as the exception rather than the rule.
@entspeak yup I have read that one too.
I don't see what you're claiming regarding the marketing anywhere in there.
Do you think it is...everything is great, touch nothing, leave it as it is?
Nope. Do I think they want to alter the core of the game, though? No. The last dev round table I watched (on 4/19), they talked about how they've seen players play the game. They said, many times, in that video, that they see the game as an experience that is not intended to end - the journey being more important than the destination. They are very interested in players moving through the game slowly. They did not expect the "race" to Pirate Legend or that people would be so focused on gaining Reputation as quickly as some are. They were cool with that form of gameplay - because it's an open world game, but are more interested in the journey vs the destination as their prime focus. From what I gathered, that means more content... more things to do. Does it mean moving away from "all the quest rewards are physical" and can be stolen? I don't think that's what they mean, because, to them, that is what drives the high highs and potential low lows they want in the game.
Fun is a perspective.
It is subjective, yes. I love the high highs and low lows in this game. But, then, I also play DayZ... and this is much less punishing than that. DayZ is another game that is more about the experience, the journey, than any resulting progression. It makes sense that they looked at it when they were developing this game.
You are not changing minds in case you haven't noticed!
I wouldn't be so quick to say that. I've been getting some upvotes for my responses from people who were, previously, disagreeing with me. I'm not changing you're mind. I may not be changing everybody's mind, but I am changing some minds.
This idea doesn't work. It, seemingly, relies on making sure another idea (and a bad one) is also implemented so that PvP players also progress simply for killing people and sinking ships. Splitting up the reputation given from loot in any way shape or form results in the loot losing reputation value as it changes hands... or not being given at all once it has.
But, more importantly, it just is contrary to the vision for the game. Moving away from that core idea that the quest rewards are invested in the loot and none of those rewards are yours until you get it to an outpost... that is a major release valve on the drama they are trying to create in the game. Does everyone like that drama or think it's fun? No. But, the game that everyone likes doesn't exist.
@i-am-lost-77 the difference is that reputation is something managed by a third party while experience is something you attain yourself. I have the experience of sailing many many hours so I'm pretty good at it. However, I've never returned any gold or loot so the traders don't know me there for I have no reputation
@muertoamigo420 I’m not going through the argument again. Rep functions in all ways as xp. calling it by another name doesn’t change its purpose which is to level you up as progress.
@i-am-lost-77 the difference is pretty clear. Experience as in other games increases your abilities and your potential for being better. Reputation is just the trust a merchant has in you to give you better voyages. Reputation NV let's shop keeps know you're reputable enough to purchase their where's. Sorry you've wasted so much time arguing something that is so undeniably flawed
@muertoamigo420 alright guess we are doing this. as the OP stated and many have agreed “reputation” would not make as much sense lore-wise. However since this is a game and “reputation” works exactly like xp this system is to make sure you never log out with no progress.
Once again this is a game meant for fun. You don’t have to reset people to zero after hours of work, that’s a bad model especially for a game that lacks any detailed tutorials on how to play. It’s very punishable for newer and more casual gamers and will hurt the game more than help it. This thread details a system that has no negative consequences on any type of player. Clinging to the die hard lore friendly reason for rep is foolish if this game wants to apply to a larger audience.
Some examples already in game: You get “rep” for just sailing around with an active voyage so there’s that. Voyage completion happens when you get last chest/skull.
Lore friendly explanations. GH hear of your reputation as a excellent navigator and explorer who can find chests quickly, OoS hear you are a great swordsman capable of defeating even the toughest of skull captains, etc. You can have a reputation for more than just being a delivery boy.
@i-am-lost-77 said in Give us our XP for finishing a voyage, not turning in the chest/soul/animal:
Once again this is a game meant for fun.
Says the guy who said not long ago that the issue wasn’t about “fun.”
You don’t have to reset people to zero after hours of work, that’s a bad model especially for a game that lacks any detailed tutorials on how to play.
A: You are not “reset to zero” - so, stop saying this; it is a patent falsehood. You are reset back to where you were the last time you stopped at a checkpoint (read: outpost) - just as occurs with many other games. You retain everything you’ve earned up to that point. B: The games the devs researched for this one - that had the type of “high highs”, paranoia, and tension the devs want to create in this game - also have no tutorials and reset you to zero when you die. The devs decided the latter resulted in “cripplingly low” lows. They wanted low lows, but not that low. Which is why they created a system whereby outposts act as save stations for your progress. That system prevents you from being “reset to zero.”
This thread details a system that has no negative consequences on any type of player.
Outlined exactly why this is false in my previous post.
Some examples already in game: You get “rep” for just sailing around with an active voyage so there’s that.
See my last post, above.
Voyage completion happens when you get last chest/skull.
Voyage Complete simply means you can now vote for another one - doesn’t mean you get the rewards - you haven’t gotten to the checkpoint yet.
The core of the game derives from the idea that all quest rewards are not truly yours until you get to an outpost and that they can be stolen.
@entspeak are you still on the “zero” thing? You lose all progress of the play session. Better? It doesn’t mean reset you pirate stats so stop acting like that’s what I mean.
Still don’t see any negatives. “Changing the core aspect” is completely your opinion. it wouldn’t change the tension of losing your treasure or take away rewards from PvP. Also the PvP factions should be implemented with it without this and neither is dependent on the other.
@i-am-lost-77 said in Give us our XP for finishing a voyage, not turning in the chest/soul/animal:
@entspeak are you still on the “zero” thing? You lose all progress of the play session. Better? It doesn’t mean reset you pirate stats so stop acting like that’s what I mean.
Still don’t see any negatives. “Changing the core aspect” is completely your opinion. it wouldn’t change the tension of losing your treasure or take away rewards from PvP. Also the PvP factions should be implemented with it without this and neither is dependent on the other.
Am I still on the zero thing?! I was responding to you, who keeps bringing it up as if "zero" means something other than "zero." Can you log out having never gone to an outpost? Yes. Is it possible to hit an outpost virtually every play session? Yes. The game has save stations for your progress - outposts. You want to save your progress... you go to one. That's how virtually every game that makes use of a save station or checkpoint works. They implemented it precisely to prevent you from being "reset to zero."
What do you mean, "not dependent?" Explain then, what happens when a player's chest is stolen... and then stolen from the thief, and then stolen again? How is the reputation distributed based solely on the ideas in this thread alone.
And, an idea that relies on the hope that another idea is also implemented is not a good idea. This suggestion does not stand on it's own.
If the core aspect of the game is that 'all quest rewards are physical and none of it is truly yours until you turn it in at an outpost... it can be stolen' - which makes sense of the name, "Sea of Thieves", and which is required to achieve the level of tension the devs have stated they aim to achieve with the game - how does moving away from that concept not change the core aspect of the game?
@entspeak said in Give us our XP for finishing a voyage, not turning in the chest/soul/animal:
Am I still on the zero thing?! I was responding to you, who keeps bringing it up as if "zero" means something other than "zero." Can you log out having never gone to an outpost? Yes. Is it possible to hit an outpost virtually every play session? Yes. The game has save stations for your progress - outposts. You want to save your progress... you go to one. That's how virtually every game that makes use of a save station or checkpoint works. They implemented it precisely to prevent you from being "reset to zero."
What do you mean, "not dependent?" Explain then, what happens when a player's chest is stolen... and then stolen from the thief, and then stolen again? How is the reputation distributed based solely on the ideas in this thread alone.
And, an idea that relies on the hope that another idea is also implemented is not a good idea. This suggestion does not stand on it's own.
If the core aspect of the game is that 'all quest rewards are physical and none of it is truly yours until you turn it in at an outpost... it can be stolen' - which makes sense of the name, "Sea of Thieves", and which is required to achieve the level of tension the devs have stated they aim to achieve with the game - how does moving away from that concept not change the core aspect of the game?
Yes you can log in, play for 2 hours and leave gaining nothing aka zero becasue 1 person stole you loot at the last 3 minutes. It’s not that hard to grasp.
The reputation for a stolen chest is zero if it gets stolen again. The reward you get for stealing would be gained on turn in since that’s the only thing you did. You didn’t kill skeletons or search and island all you did was steal someone else’s work. That’s like saying you should get credit for plagiarising someone’s work after someone plagiarizes you.
The PvP faction on its own and this idea on its own work. however they compliment each other very well adding more advantages to both.
The core aspect is hat it is a sandbox where anyone can do whatever they want.
@i-am-lost-77 said in Give us our XP for finishing a voyage, not turning in the chest/soul/animal:
Yes you can log in, play for 2 hours and leave gaining nothing aka zero becasue 1 person stole you loot at the last 3 minutes. It’s not that hard to grasp.
Gain zero and reset to zero are not the same thing.
The reputation for a stolen chest is zero if it gets stolen again. The reward you get for stealing would be gained on turn in since that’s the only thing you did. You didn’t kill skeletons or search and island all you did was steal someone else’s work.
It's called Sea of Thieves - not Sea of Folks Who Kill Skeletons and Search Islands. You're saying that the time and effort put into doing what's on the tin should get nothing if the thief's stuff gets stolen? So, it's okay for a PvP'er to have a session where they log off gaining zero simply because they are trying to progress in the game as designed, but just don't play the way you do? That isn't a change to the way PvP is designed to work in the game?
The core aspect is hat it is a sandbox where anyone can do whatever they want.
That is certainly an aspect... there are lots of open world games. I wouldn't agree that it is the core aspect of how this particular open world game is designed.
@muertoamigo420 But it doesn't function as reputation, as discussed in this thread already. If it was truly reputation, you would gain it for killing the kraken, you would gain it for taking down pirates who have a higher reputation than you on the seas, you would be able to LOSE it (if you do something the NPCs dislike and thus lose reputation)..., when you reached a certain level everyone on the ocean would know who you were (for instance everyone has heard the name blackbeard). Heck perhaps you would be able to get a negative reputation - for being INFAMOUS (prey on the weak style pirate) as opposed to a FAMOUS one who is just famous for doing awesome stuff.
It simply does not function like that, it functions as exp and that's all it is, XP. It is a system to quantify your 'progress' in the game with the purpose of unlocking new cosmetics. That is it.
@i-am-lost-77 said in Give us our XP for finishing a voyage, not turning in the chest/soul/animal:
@entspeak said in Give us our XP for finishing a voyage, not turning in the chest/soul/animal:
Am I still on the zero thing?! I was responding to you, who keeps bringing it up as if "zero" means something other than "zero." Can you log out having never gone to an outpost? Yes. Is it possible to hit an outpost virtually every play session? Yes. The game has save stations for your progress - outposts. You want to save your progress... you go to one. That's how virtually every game that makes use of a save station or checkpoint works. They implemented it precisely to prevent you from being "reset to zero."
What do you mean, "not dependent?" Explain then, what happens when a player's chest is stolen... and then stolen from the thief, and then stolen again? How is the reputation distributed based solely on the ideas in this thread alone.
And, an idea that relies on the hope that another idea is also implemented is not a good idea. This suggestion does not stand on it's own.
If the core aspect of the game is that 'all quest rewards are physical and none of it is truly yours until you turn it in at an outpost... it can be stolen' - which makes sense of the name, "Sea of Thieves", and which is required to achieve the level of tension the devs have stated they aim to achieve with the game - how does moving away from that concept not change the core aspect of the game?
Yes you can log in, play for 2 hours and leave gaining nothing aka zero becasue 1 person stole you loot at the last 3 minutes. It’s not that hard to grasp.
The reputation for a stolen chest is zero if it gets stolen again. The reward you get for stealing would be gained on turn in since that’s the only thing you did. You didn’t kill skeletons or search and island all you did was steal someone else’s work. That’s like saying you should get credit for plagiarising someone’s work after someone plagiarizes you.
The PvP faction on its own and this idea on its own work. however they compliment each other very well adding more advantages to both.
The core aspect is hat it is a sandbox where anyone can do whatever they want.
The journey is the point of this game, not the destination. You can play for two hours and not 'arrive' anywhere but still have fun on that play session. That's true of every PvP and every sandbox game, of which this happens to be both. If you choose to focus on the destination (loot turn ins for gold and rep gains) and lose sight of the journey, that's on you.
What proof does an NPC faction have that any particular player is the person who actually killed the skeletons, or dug up the chests? It only makes sense for rewards to be given on turn in.
Now, on the other hand, if the reward consisted entirely of Rep, and you gained gold during questing when, say, killing skeletons (but still dropped a portion of gold to players who kill you and/or sink your ship), that'd be a different story.
I agree there should be a PvP faction, but as a pure addition to the game, not to make up for hampering the existing PvP dynamics, tensions, and reasons for engagements.
@lotrmith said in Give us our XP for finishing a voyage, not turning in the chest/soul/animal:
uted based solely on the ideas in this thread alone.The journey is the point of this game, not the destination. You can play for two hours and not 'arrive' anywhere but still have fun on that play session. That's true of every PvP and every sandbox game, of which this happens to be both. If you choose to focus on the destination (loot turn ins for gold and rep gains) and lose sight of the journey, that's on you.
To reiterate if someone is trying to level up their factions then their journey is now a waste of time becasue of the destination. This is not purely a PvP game and in fact in terms of rewards PvP is the worst way to level up. Which is why I claim that PvP in his game is mostly for fun not loot. Why does a system reward players who don’t want the rewards while simultaneous taking from those that do want the rewards? I’m not saying to remove PvP but the system doesn’t make sense.
To clarify I don’t support PvE servers I’m not incapable of defending my own ships. in fact this suggestion wouldnt really affect me at all. I just support it becasue this suggestion is a great way to entice players to keep playing even if they lose. as opposed to stripping them of everything they got and saying “git gud.” I don’t understand why it’s so difficult to comprehend that making it an all or nothing scenario is p*****g off a lot of people. This is the best way to have no negative effects to gameplay while also prevent that feeling of wasting time on a already heavily grindy game.
What proof does an NPC faction have that any particular player is the person who actually killed the skeletons, or dug up the chests? It only makes sense for rewards to be given on turn in.
The same ones that knows how many miles you sailed. “Reputation” is not reputation it is xp. @AngryCoconut16 has many posts explaining why. Also it’s a game. it doesn’t have to make sense. there are numerous unrealistic things already present. In other words: who cares?
@entspeak said in Give us our XP for finishing a voyage, not turning in the chest/soul/animal:
Gain zero and reset to zero are not the same thing.
Great glad we cleared that up moving on. You gain zero for several hours of playtime. happy?
It's called Sea of Thieves - not Sea of Folks Who Kill Skeletons and Search Islands.
Halo is not called “run around and shoot up aliens.” What’s your point? are you only allowed to be a thief bc that’s the name of the title? guess no ones gonna get treasure then considering you need to go kill skeletons and search islands to get it. It would just be Sea of no Treasure with lots of Thieves.
You're saying that the time and effort put into doing what's on the tin should get nothing if the thief's stuff gets stolen? So, it's okay for a PvP'er to have a session where they log off gaining zero simply because they are trying to progress in the game as designed, but just don't play the way you do? That isn't a change to the way PvP is designed to work in the game?
Yes becasue PvP is not a viable way of getting loot already. Anyone currently playing only PvP will end up with less loot for the same amount of time as a PvE player. PvP in his game is for fun first loot second. This is not an argument as the new system changes nothing to that end.
Giving someone else something that doesn’t matter to you is nice, not giving it to them becasue you don’t get something in return is selfish. Which is pretty much what anyone arguing against this idea has shown.
I am still waiting on 1 clearly defined negative of this system. Not just your opinion on how it “changes the core of the game.” Unless you got a written statement from rare saying they never intended anyone to ever get xp other than turning in loot then you cannot speculate that and use it as an argument. Just give me one way in how this will negatively impact any players experience?
@i-am-lost-77 There is likely a negative to any tweaks that are done in the game. In the long run it boils down to personal opinions... Here is what I am seeing from those that detract from the majority of the ideas in the thread...
It will take away from the core of the game. Ok, someone please define the core of the game then. What is it...exactly! Then, explain how being awarded reputation early in any fashion (on the VC screen, or for accomplishing tasks) takes away from the "core". Because every time you say "core" of the game I have no clue what you are talking about.
It will make the game easier Well, that is speculation. What is to say the rewards wouldn't be toned down, or the amount needed to grind toward promotions is not significantly increased? BUT, for sake of argument, lets say it did made "the game" easier, how so? And why is that an issue? I don't get why people are bothered by the game being "easier".
I don't want to write a book. So, I will stop there. I am truly baffled why people in a video game (that isn't even a competitve e-sports style shoot em' up) are so bent out of shape about receiving rewards. Crazy !
EDIT (Just wanted to mention this one more time) Fun is a perspective. "I (as well as literally hundreds in this thread alone, other threads, Reddit, etc.) feel it is not fun to not get rewarded for the things we do, nor do we find it fun to log out on occasion with a fat zero. So...Regardless if you like this or not, regardless of you feel about it, or what you believe...it is a fact that people do not like the way the rewards are done"...and to add to that... That same video someone mentioned earlier, specifically said "keep the feedback going" well here it is. What I suspect, is this thread has gained a great amount of popularity, and the detractors are upset taht their "ideas" have not. So, come in here and try to shoot this down...by posting, and keeping it at the top?" Ok.
@i-am-lost-77 said in Give us our XP for finishing a voyage, not turning in the chest/soul/animal:
@lotrmith said in Give us our XP for finishing a voyage, not turning in the chest/soul/animal:
uted based solely on the ideas in this thread alone.The journey is the point of this game, not the destination. You can play for two hours and not 'arrive' anywhere but still have fun on that play session. That's true of every PvP and every sandbox game, of which this happens to be both. If you choose to focus on the destination (loot turn ins for gold and rep gains) and lose sight of the journey, that's on you.
Also it’s a game. In other words: who cares?
Words to live by...
But apparently you care, and too much so.
@touchdown1504 I just want to make the point to those who are trying to shoot this down that they have no argument. This thread has shown numerous examples of the improvements this system can have and even some speculative ones for both PvP and PvE. The few people who post some actual criticism of the idea have actually changed my view and that’s good.
Originally I though taking 80% xp from the loot was the way to go but since then I’m leaning more to it being extra xp based on islands visited and your current faction level (giving an incentive to buy those promotions) and leaving current loot values alone.
What I fail to see is how this system will negatively impact the game and just want the people who want to shoot this down to give an actual reason to why it could be bad other than “I don’t like change” or “this is not how the games is meant to be played”
@lotrmith
“The journey is the point of this game, not the destination.“So rewards for the journey? Oh so you agree with my point!
Lol. I can take quotes out of context as well but it wont help your argument.
And Yes I do care about making the game a better experience for all. that’s why I am on here
@i-am-lost-77 said in Give us our XP for finishing a voyage, not turning in the chest/soul/animal:
What I fail to see is how this system will negatively impact the game and just want the people who want to shoot this down to give an actual reason to why it could be bad other than “I don’t like change” or “this is not how the games is meant to be played”
In short, any shift towards making questing more rewarding and thieving less rewarding causes a shift away crew on crew interaction. Even if the current hard values of rep and gold for loot are maintained, the comparative value is diminished for thieving the loot... in that time you could have quested for it yourself and also gotten the bonus.
Any implementation that detracts from the likelihood of crew on crew interaction is directly counter to the core of the game. Servers are populated and even merged specifically to try to maintain a calculated regularity of crew on crew interaction. You're meant to encounter an opposing crew approximately once every 30 minutes, and opposing crews are hard coded to be hostile to eachother. There are no two ways about it.
@i-am-lost-77 said in Give us our XP for finishing a voyage, not turning in the chest/soul/animal:
@lotrmith
“The journey is the point of this game, not the destination.“So rewards for the journey? Oh so you agree with my point!
Lol. I can take quotes out of context as well but it wont help your argument.
And Yes I do care about making the game a better experience for all. that’s why I am on here
The journey is its own reward.
Your argument approach is extremely flawed.
@lotrmith said in Give us our XP for finishing a voyage, not turning in the chest/soul/animal:
In short, any shift towards making questing more rewarding and thieving less rewarding causes a shift away crew on crew interaction. Even if the current hard values of rep and gold for loot are maintained, the comparative value is diminished for thieving the loot... in that time you could have quested for it yourself and also gotten the bonus.
Thank you for an actual point of criticism. I have addressed these conserns before however.
-
PvP is already comparatively disadvantaged as evading, sailing into the Red Sea, killing and empty ship, and even if caught just the length of time of the chase makes PvP pretty useless in terms of reward/time. So that has brought me to the conclusion that in general PvP is not done for the rewards and most PvP players would not care. (They still technically get the same amount of loot)
-
this system could have a positive effect towards helping this as with less risk of loss (since they already got some xp) more crews could be more likely to do an extra quest before going back to an outpost right away. Thus increasing the chances of a higher loot gains from PvP. (Speculative I know, but not unrealistic)
Any implementation that detracts from the likelihood of crew on crew interaction is directly counter to the core of the game. Servers are populated and even merged specifically to try to maintain a calculated regularity of crew on crew interaction. You're meant to encounter an opposing crew approximately once every 30 minutes, and opposing crews are hard coded to be hostile to eachother. There are no two ways about it.
This is idea does not decrease the likelihood of interaction and not all interactions are meant to end in a fight. Players are not coded to be hostile and assuming this is incorrect. Players should be cautious but not automatically hostile. My favorite interactions in this game are the ones that end with a friend not a fight.
-
@i-am-lost-77 "Players are not coded to be hostile and assuming this is incorrect"
No, everyone that isn't in your crew is automatically assigned as hostile by the game, you can harm them and they can harm you. Using social skills and diplomacy is part of the role play, but doesn't take away the fact that the default is hostile.
@urihamrayne said in Give us our XP for finishing a voyage, not turning in the chest/soul/animal:
@i-am-lost-77 "Players are not coded to be hostile and assuming this is incorrect"
No, everyone that isn't in your crew is automatically assigned as hostile by the game, you can harm them and they can harm you. Using social skills and diplomacy is part of the role play, but doesn't take away the fact that the default is hostile.
If someone has no intention of hurting you they are not hostile. So unless everyone spawns into the game wanting to attack someone I am afraid they are not in fact hostile. A skeleton or a snake is hostile, a player can be hostile, but by default no player is automatically hostile. You don’t need to communicate at all with another ship for it not to attack you why? Bc it’s not hostile.
Thanks for keeping the thread alive!
@i-am-lost-77 you are sneakily moving the goalpost here, you are wrong about declaring that players of different crews are not assinged as hostile to one another by the game, this is what I corrected you for, not player intent as it is clear that not all players play agressively.
@lotrmith PvP already has an issue - lack of incentive. This suggestion would not change that, or if it would, only slightly, but it's a major issue with or without this change. There is no real reason to PvP, it's pointless, the only thing you can potentially gain is loot from somebody, but why would you do that when focusing on your voyage and evading PvP altogether is a far more efficient way of gaining loot? The problem you state is true, and it does exist, but it's a problem CURRENTLY which this suggestion would have minimal or no influence on depending on how it would be implemented.
Opposing crews are not necessarily hard coded to be hostile I've met a few friendly people. I think crews are hard coded to be cautious around each other, but not always hostile, there's a difference. But anyway, this suggestion would not impact crew-crew interaction any more than the current in game situation. I honestly believe Rare need to add some sort of inventive to PvP because although I find naval combat fun, I just see nothing in it for me at the moment...
@urihamrayne hostile, by definition, is an adjective used to describe someone being unfriendly to another. Now how can someone be unfriendly if you do not know their intension? Just because you can kill something and it can kill you does not make it hostile. It is in fact, by definition, an intention. Thus no player is hostile until they have an intension to attack you.
Thank you for detracting on a meaningless point that doesn’t contribute to the point of this thread and also keeping the thread alive!
@i-am-lost-77 said in Give us our XP for finishing a voyage, not turning in the chest/soul/animal:
- this system could have a positive effect towards helping this as with less risk of loss (since they already got some xp) more crews could be more likely to do an extra quest before going back to an outpost right away. Thus increasing the chances of a higher loot gains from PvP. (Speculative I know, but not unrealistic)
I have also considered this too! I think it may well happen to some degree. Probably not massively but I'm sure some crews would get the additional chest prior to handing in... But like you say, speculative.
"Players are not coded to be hostile and assuming this is incorrect"
Is this talking about player intent? Was I talking about player intent? No. Stop moving the goalpost, just admit you messed up my man, not a high horse your riding, more like a puddle of mud your swimming, that I have to keep reminding you about.
@urihamrayne said in Give us our XP for finishing a voyage, not turning in the chest/soul/animal:
"Players are not coded to be hostile and assuming this is incorrect"
Is this talking about player intent? Was I talking about player intent? No. Stop moving the goalpost, just admit you messed up my man, not a high horse your riding, more like a puddle of mud your swimming, that I have to keep reminding you about.
Yes it is because hostile is based off player intent. You cannot code a player to be hostile. You can code a player to appear as an enemy however hostility is the intent of the player. Even an enemy player doesn’t have to be hostile if they choose not to be.
This game however does not label players as enemies either. it labels them as neutral and allows them to do whatever they wish. There are insentives to kill but there is also insentives to work together so therefore players are coded as neutral and hostile or friendly depends on their intent. Please keep the thread going! more upvotes everyday!
@i-am-lost-77 this isn't an rts that you set your diplomacy state, its a game called sea of thieves that has an ephasis on piracy, you are spinning the narrative to soften the blow of the fact you messed up implying that the game doesn't treat players as enemies that can be harmed, looted and beaten, being friendly is mostly the exeption, as the game gives you more tools for damage and conflict than tools for cooperation. You can share your loot, you can form alliances to take on bigger threats, but it will always be a game about your crew vs the world. That is why the game sets players as hostile, not neutral, wether you like it or not. This conversation ends here, own up to it.
929 von 1457
