Give us our XP for finishing a voyage, not turning in the chest/soul/animal

@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:

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?

Yeah... because being “reset to zero” is the “cripplingly low” low the devs chose not to go for. “Gaining zero” in a couple of hours based on choices you make in the game isn’t what they were referring to when they said “cripplingly low” lows. You guys keep mentioning this and saying you get “reset to zero” to make the “cripplingly low” argument. But, because you aren’t “ reset to zero, that argument is false.

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.”

Does Halo make reference to a type of person who engages in a particular behavior? No.

Yes becasue PvP is not a viable way of getting loot already.

Then what, exactly, is happening to all this loot you guys are losing if PvP players aren’t taking it all? You make it sound like it’s enough that the game design needs to change.

I imagine the viability of progressing for PvP depends on how you go about it - all that choices and strategy stuff. If you go after a ship leaving an island or clearly heading to an outpost, chances are they have loot. Just spotting them on the open sea would be 50/50, and attacking someone leaving an outpost would purely be for fun.

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.

“We've made decisions where all quest rewards are physical, and all of that stuff is never truly yours until you get back to the outpost.”

Just let me know how many times you want me to put that in front of your face.

@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:

The loot is getting stolen and it will continue to get stolen. Some people may lose it 1/100 voyages some may lose it 1/10 voyages. But why make newer/casual players suffer for no reason? Why can’t we all just get a little reward just for playing the game?

They don’t suffer for no reason. There are choices to be made, strategies to adopt. They can be chosen and adopted... or not. As a casual player, the only suffering that occurs to me for “no reason” happens when there is a bug, a server issue, the inability to deal with someone logging onto a crew who can’t be kicked - that is suffering for no reason. These are all things to be addressed. Every other bad thing that happens that results in my losing loot is directly related to a choice I made or a strategy that failed. But, that’s what the game is about! To give you another written statement from the devs:

“There's a reason there's no fast travel, there's a reason you have to sail everywhere. It's because a ship isn't just going to come out of nowhere unless you've let it come out of nowhere. You've not paid attention, an enemy ship has literally just snuck up behind you because you've left your lights on at night. That's the kind of thing we'd love players to strategize over.”

Choice and strategy... ways to minimize those lows. So, yes, rewards for playing the game... well, this is the game. While it can be played as a silly, goofing around, fun, casual pirate adventure, that isn’t how the game is designed when it comes to progression, so, naturally, you’re not going to make much in progression if those are the choices you make. But, to each their own, I guess... fun is perspective.

I found the source where you got this from. This is how they said they designed their game true I’ll agree with you on that. But now to put it in context: the discussion was about how it would be bad for players to lose a bunch of stuff and how it would impact the players low lows and all that.

No, no, no... oversimplifying is not putting it in context; it is a fallacy and is taking it out of context. They were very specific about what they were trying to avoid when it came to the lows - which is why I keep harping on you and others when you mention “reset to zero” and “cripplingly low” lows with regard to how SoT’s reward system currently works. The type of lows they were concerned about were the type of lows that occur in DayZ and Rust... truly being “reset to zero” and losing “absolutely everything.” If you are losing all your loot for an hour long play session 1 out of 10 times, you are gaining 90% more than someone who loses “absolutely everything.” Lose all that loot 1 out of 100 times and that is 99% more of a gain than a “reset to zero.” That’s not bad at all. So, what’s the complaint again? Gaining 90 to 99% more than someone who is actually “reset to zero” is not enough for you?

This thread is here to address what the interviewer was worrying about and that we think Rares view is wrong. And unlike PvE servers, they never said this was set in stone they just said this is just how they designed it therefore it is open for debate and discussion.

If you read that article, that simple notion about quest rewards is at the heart of the tone, the atmosphere, they want for the game - that’s what drives the tension in the game.

“To have that ‘high high’ you've got to have the ‘low low.’”

That’s why I say it’s a core aspect of the game. That’s why I challenge your claim that this game is designed to be a fun, casual, pirate adventure. You’ve pretty much admitted now that it’s not and that you think Rare was wrong for not making it a fun, casual, pirate adventure. And, why does that bother me? Because it’s not the game I want. I play the games they researched for the design of this one - I like those types of games and also enjoy that this game is nowhere near as punishing, but still retains that tension for me. That was a brilliant move on Rare’s part. You want to make it a game that I have little interest in... not the game I paid for. I paid for the game with the vision they describe in that article.

Could the game be improved? Yes. But this suggestion is not an improvement, it is a watering down.

@angrycoconut16 said in Give us our XP for finishing a voyage, not turning in the chest/soul/animal:

@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...

I mean, we're talking about the ruleset of the server. Default is hostile, regardless of player intention. There is no Neutral. All players on different crews can attack all players on opposing crews at all times. There are no 'neutral' zones or servers where guards or something will attack or arrest 'neutral' players for aggression. There are no 'friendly' zones or servers where players cannot attack opposing crews. All opposing crew members are able to attack eachother on any server, in any area, at any time.

Your ability to move the goal post or engage in any other such fallacious argument is matched only by your delusional optimism that you have more support than you actually do.

@sledgezapper64 said in Give us our XP for finishing a voyage, not turning in the chest/soul/animal:

@i-am-lost-77
We were originally a 4 man crew.
One had just left shortly before
By the time I teleported back to the ship after being marooned, there was already a new guy there standing next to him.

What you are referring to is something the devs have specifically stated they want to address by adding the ability for private crews.

@I-Am-Lost-77 don’t shift the goal post again. Do you stand by your claim that the game is designed to be a fun, casual, pirate adventure? If so, point to anything about how the devs describe the rewards system in that article that points to the game being designed to be a “fun, casual, pirate adventure.” How did you put it? Oh, yeah... give me a written statement from the devs talking about how this game is designed to be a fun, casual, pirate adventure or you don’t have a point to stand by.

@TouchDown1504

It is a casual fun pirate game, it is supposed to be fun, silly, whimsical. People should log out laughing about it, telling stories the next day about how funny it was....who said different?

The fallacies are strong with this one. DayZ can be fun, silly, whimsical, and often people are laughing while playing - and I’ve logged off laughing... there are YouTube videos dedicated to telling the funny tales. Yet one could hardly claim that DayZ was designed to be “casual fun.” You can’t play that game for an hour and get very far at all. And, spending hours traveling the map to gear up only to be headshot and “reset to zero” well... you would absolutely hate it... and yet, there is still some fun to be had, silliness, whimsy, laughs, tales... hanging out with friends, meeting new people. But, you die and you start over at the very beginning, almost starving on the coast... with nothing at all to show for your hours/weeks/months of work. What you are describing here is possible in any online multiplayer game... and so, can’t be considered a defining characteristic of a “casual fun” game.

The point is, you guys want it to be a casual, fun pirate adventure - and, that’s fine... it’s good to want things; but, don’t claim it’s supposed to be or designed to be a casual, fun pirate adventure. It isn’t.

@muertoamigo420 said in Give us our XP for finishing a voyage, not turning in the chest/soul/animal:

@lotrmith @entspeak
You guys... Keep up the good fight. Most have fled from these forums to avoid all of this debate but we fail to realize how important our presence is here. Most people are being negative in the forums cause everyone else is out enjoying NH the game lol

I’m enjoying the game, too and, as a bonus, I just may hit 30 in GH tonight.

@i-am-lost-77

Okay. So, you can do whatever you want. As I mentioned above, you can do that in DayZ, too - doesn’t mean it’s a casual, fun game... means it’s an open world game. For example, yes, yes, yes... you can “sail for the sheer joy” or “set a course for the horizon and just explore.” You can definitely do that... but those choices will not gain you reputation. As I said, above, you can do these types of things in any open world game. I could “just explore” in Life is Feudal and that is the grindiest, least casual, fun game in existence. And, if I make that choice, I’m never going to progress.

I’m fact, I think the devs want people to do these casual fun things and not worry all the time about earning reputation... the experience over the destination.

I could spend the entire game shooting myself out of cannons at rocks... silly, whimsical... and worth zero reputation. So, no, that doesn’t support the claim that the game is a “casual, fun pirate adventure” - though, you are certainly free to do casual, fun things in it. No, what you’ve posted basically supports the notion that this is an open world game.

@i-am-lost-77 said in Give us our XP for finishing a voyage, not turning in the chest/soul/animal:

SoT is designed as a casual adventure game, designed to make your own adventure playing how you want.

I want to kill your toon, sink your ship, and take your loot for its full value.

I sure am glad the game is designed, as intended, to allow that.

@i-am-lost-77 said in Give us our XP for finishing a voyage, not turning in the chest/soul/animal:

@lotrmith yes and you are free to do so. Never was against PvP. Be boring without people like you to sink :)

Thanks for the laugh.

@i-am-lost-77 said in Give us our XP for finishing a voyage, not turning in the chest/soul/animal:

@entspeak I gave you 2 quotes right from the main page describing what the game is designed to do.

How is dayZ marketed:
“DayZ is a gritty, authentic, open-world survival horror hybrid-MMO game, in which you follow a single goal: to survive in the harsh post-apocalyptic landscape as long as they can. There are no superficial tips, waypoints, built in tutorials or help given to players. Every decision matters, there are no save games, no extra lives, every mistake can be lethal. If you fail, you lose everything and you need to play again from the beginning with nothing but your wits, and your two hands. Fight the hostile environment, where every other player can be friend or foe and nothing can be taken for granted. This is DayZ, this is your story.”

I rest my case.

SoT is designed as a casual adventure game, designed to make your own adventure playing how you want. DayZ designed as a survival horror game that’s supposed to be punishing it’s all right there. I know what SoT was marketed as it’s written all over their website. It’s not a survival PvP pirate game, it’s a pirate adventure game with PvP. Go to the SoT homepage if you want to know what game you bought.

You’ve rested nothing. So, suddenly, you’re all about the marketing when you think it helps your argument. You were quite dismissive of marketing earlier. Of course, what I posted were quotes from the devs that actually covered design decisions and not the marketing lingo (but you mistakenly characterized them as such)... but, now, it is the marketing lingo that gives the most accurate picture of game design... not the discussions about how the game was actually designed?

The discussions about actual design choices mean nothing, how the game actually works now (which matches those design decisions) mean nothing... the marketing lingo is suddenly the clearest way to determine how the game is “clearly designed?”

Two words: puh and lease. Your argument is a sham, jumps back and forth, relies on fallacious reasoning, and you are contradicting yourself.

@muertoamigo420 And got to 30 in GH and crashed and burned trying to solo a skull fort... lol. I knew there was a reason I hadn’t tried that before. All around a good evening.

But, yes... if folks want to make a suggestion like this, they need to be able to defend their reasoning for it. So far, it’s been pretty much based on fallacies and personal attacks.