Hourglass rework ideas

@belphegor1384 most of the 9999 people exploited thier way there and rare has had a past history of dropping absurdly outrageous requirements on things in the past

@ixxxoloff I'm 1700 in servants and almost 1500 in guardians... also your argument suggests the accusation you're naking about my knowledge of hourglass would describe your own situation better.... you just made some random uneducated statement without following up with counter arguments almost as if you're here to troll and not provide real feedback.

@theredhead5271 this is calculated based on the arena progression rate which was only 50 levels and match times...matches need to be fast because of the absurd level expectations of hg

@burnbacon third party is extremely toxic and people still server alliance abuse solo hourglass player this is a vital change.. also the circle has to shrink to prevent runners from running and you can use the shrink circle to out of bounds some one if needed this is 100% necessary to avoid 2 hour runner matches

seperate instances to stop third party

Ok, but you only get 30% of rewards. Same as Safer Seas. 'Less risk = less reward', after all.

shorter matches make the black sea circle close in and make matches 5 minutes long or so you either win the fight or explode

And what happens if the circle closes on an island? Ships are then shafted.

@guildar9194 30% is a horrible idea and your idea with that is it's ok to punish people for removing toxicity and exploit abuse from hourglass that's a big thumbs down on your idea right there

Just make hourglass dives pop up in locations not near islands so you don't have to worry about that. You should be naval fighting in hourglass anyways so islands aren't important.

@goutfoot-stiner said in Hourglass rework ideas:

@guildar9194 30% is a horrible idea and your idea with that is it's ok to punish people for removing toxicity and exploit abuse from hourglass that's a big thumbs down on your idea right there

Just make hourglass dives pop up in locations not near islands so you don't have to worry about that. You should be naval fighting in hourglass anyways so islands aren't important.

Why should PvP players get to have their cake & eat it, too?

If PvE players get shafted with a 30% cap on rewards for private servers (AKA Safer Seas), then PvP players should have the same thing for private PvP instances for Hourglass.
Why should PvP players get to remove the 3rd party risk and keep 100% of the rewards?

So, until the draconian 30% penalty is removed from Safer Seas; I will respond to every idea asking for instanced PvP with the same excuse used against Safer Seas players: "Less risk = less reward".
You want to remove third partying? You get the same 30% cap on rewards. For the same excuse.

@guildar9194 so you your comparing apples to oranges got it pvpve is a part of normal game..... hourglass is intended as a one on one ship duel and hourglass has many exploits around the defense system that can be dealt with by making seperate Instances

You are basically saying because you can't get a feature that the game wasn't intended to have that a fix to hourglass so it can be played as intended should be punished... you basically made yourself invalid in this whole discussion.

You admit your view has nothing to do with hourglass and is only guided by your own selfish interests in an unrelated game mode and because you're emotionally upset about safer sea you have to target hourglass posts

@goutfoot-stiner said in Hourglass rework ideas:

@guildar9194 so you your comparing apples to oranges got it pvpve is a part of normal game..... hourglass is intended as a one on one ship duel and hourglass has many exploits around the defense system that can be dealt with by making seperate Instances

You are basically saying because you can't get a feature that the game wasn't intended to have that a fix to hourglass so it can be played as intended should be punished... you basically made yourself invalid in this whole discussion.

You admit your view has nothing to do with hourglass and is only guided by your own selfish interests in an unrelated game mode and because you're emotionally upset about safer sea you have to target hourglass posts

hourglass is intended as a one on one ship duel

No, it's intended as a quick-find PvP encounter. This includes being third-partied, just like in normal gameplay.
Nowhere does it say it's meant to be 'one on one'.

If you want separate instances and safer PvP, then you get less rewards.
PvP players should not get what many of them claimed PvE players should never have. That's what's called 'hypocrisy'.

@guildar9194 the difference being you still have to be capable of fighting and winning.... safe pvw means you no longer have any obstacles stopping you at all in the game... in one on one fights you still have to beat the other crew.... your logic is completely incorrect on this altogether but your argument is based around safer seas so that's to be expected

@goutfoot-stiner said in Hourglass rework ideas:

@guildar9194 the difference being you still have to be capable of fighting and winning.... safe pvw means you no longer have any obstacles stopping you at all in the game... in one on one fights you still have to beat the other crew.... your logic is completely incorrect on this altogether but your argument is based around safer seas so that's to be expected

Let me describe it another way:

Safer Seas = A PvE instance, with no risk of being attacked. PvPers said 30% rewards cap was fair, and PvE players should be happy it's not worse.
PvP players used insults like 'Carebears' and 'kiddy pool' to demean PvE players.

Now, PvP players want a PvP instance with no risk of being third-partied. But they are saying they should not have the same cap as Safer Seas. Because they are super special awesome and deserve everything they want.

No. Either you accept that Hourglass is not '1v1', because it never claimed it was 1v1, or you get your PvP instances with no risk of being 3rd partied with the same 30% cap on rewards.
PvPers do not deserve literally the same thing they told PvE players they should never have. That's insane hypocrisy and entitlement.

@guildar9194 your argument involves a comparison to safer seas so I'm just gonna assume everything you said is invalid and not even read anymore because you've been wrong to many times in the discussion to humor you any furfher

@goutfoot-stiner said in Hourglass rework ideas:

@guildar9194 your argument involves a comparison to safer seas so I'm just gonna assume everything you said is invalid and not even read anymore because you've been wrong to many times in the discussion to humor you any furfher

You thinking I'm wrong does not make me wrong. And the comparison is apt:

• Safer Seas is an instance with less risk because PvP threats are removed. And PvPers said 30% was fair, or even generous for the, as they put it 'kiddy pool'.
• You want PvP with less risk by putting it in an instance with 3rd party threats removed. And then claim it's nothing alike because you want exactly what Safer Seas wanted & was denied.

Just because you don't want to admit that you want exactly what PvE players were insulted for wanting does not make me incorrect.
And you saying 'Nuh-uh!' does not magically make my comparison wrong.

So I ask again: Why should PvP players get the exact thing they claimed PvE players were entitled for asking for?
And even if you don't want to face reality; You are, literally, asking for the same thing Safer Seas players were insulted for wanting.

You want reduced threats of 3rd party attacks? You get reduced rewards. The PvP crowed does not deserve to be treated better than the PvE crowed.
And again; Hourglass was never meant to be 1 on 1 matches, so you are literally asking for a new mode with less risk, which is literally just PvP-themed Safer Seas.

@guildar9194

Why are you taking this so seriously? The guy is just trying to find solutions for a game mode that's already dead. It’s like shooting 50 bullets at a corpse, it’s not worth it.

Even if the ideas aren’t the best, the smartest thing to do would be to understand, correct, and explain your opinion. Nothing in an idea should be thrown away. Otherwise, with all its imperfections, Sea of Thieves would have already been pulled from the market. The best thing you can do is help people with their ideas instead of complaining about solutions that won’t even exist.

Keep an open mind, and enjoy the game !

@whawk0 said in Hourglass rework ideas:

@guildar9194
There is no point in reducing the reward.
There would be some truth in your words if another team appeared immediately after the start of each PVE task, then yes (you can practice PVE on the high seas for more than 3 hours and not see anyone (I had more than 6 hours without enemy ships)).
And in pvp, you are already playing against real players (who are hundreds of times stronger than any pve), and a second team (with a lot of people) comes to you, destroy a series.

You're still removing the risk of being third-partied.
PvP does not get a pass. Not after insulting PvE players when Safer Seas launched.

If PvP players want the reduced risk of combat, then they get less rewards.
It's literally the same thing they kept telling PvE players, between insults and snide comments like 'If you want full rewards; Play with the big boys on High Seas'.
Same thing: If PvP players want full rewards; They should play with the big boys who accept third-partying on the High Seas.

Why should PvP get treated better? Why should PvP get what they explicitly said PvE should never have (That being a private mode of their choice (Safer Seas for PvE or instanced PvP for PvP) with 100% rewards)? Besides thinly-hidden entitlement, I mean.

Literally everyone just says PvP should get instanced PvP with no drawbacks 'Because it's PvP'.
What makes PvP so special compared to PvE players wanting instanced PvE with no drawbacks? Hint: The answer is 'Nothing'. PvP players don't deserve it just because they're PvPing. They're not superior.

So, if it's good enough for Safer Seas/PvE enjoyers; It's damn well good enough for PvPers wanting to remove third-partying.
After all: Less risk = less reward. And it being PvE or PvP does not change that fact.