option to "save game"

@bloodybil said in option to "save game":

@betsill said in option to "save game":

@bloodybil said in option to "save game":

Really boggles the mind how people can bring up concepts like this without realising all the possible ways this can be abused, and still not see them even after having them all pointed to them.

Like how Rare didn't realize how people would abuse the current system? How they say that the didn't realize that people would use 2 guns at the same time?
Really boggles my mind that people don't understand that problems can be solved...

You prove my point bud, they ended up removing it because it could be abused.

The voyages still work the same way. You can still do exactly what the guy who became the first PL did.

Now, what you ask is to add a feature that would easily and obviously be abused. Why waste time implement it?

You can say that about pretty much any addition. It can be implemented in a way to avoid the obvious "abuse" cases. obviously. If something pops up later then you fix it as well. It's really not a big deal. especially in a game where the "abuse" has virtually no negative impact on other players.

I can't make a real distinction between the 2 other than a very shallow technicality. Ones on the table and ones not. That's the only distinction. I see no valid argument in regards to saying one is ok to carry over between sessions and the other isn't.

See it that way, once it's on the table, you've "unboxed" it. It's not yours anymore, it's the crew's voyage.

Unless that changed it so it was. Not a big deal

It's not only on the table, the chests are placed on the islands, the skeletons are spawned as well. Your voyage is now on the server. You've spawned elements on the server. If you don't get the loot you've spawned in the world, you lose it, pretty simple.

That's a really good point that I didn't think about! But still, what happens when you leave the server? It all disappears? Either way that aspect wouldn't change. When you start another session it would spawn everything like it does every other time you start a new voyage. You could say "well what if there is a voyage that's already on that island/area?" to which I might say- Is that a bad thing?

@d3adst1ck said in option to "save game":

Saving missions is going to be way too complicated to work out. I wouldn't pin my hopes on that ever becoming possible - the game is designed to be session based; whatever happens in that session stays with that session.

Exactly. What they should implement though, is a grace period to reconnect to your session if your game or internet crashes. Now THAT makes sense. Your ship,loot,voyage stays on the server a couple minutes, the time for you to come back. That's fine and I totally understand this solution for solo players.

I'm 100% with you on that. This is the thing that affects me most personally.

Trying to shoehorn a save system into the game is going to break more things than it fixes.

For sure, people don't realise the amount of work it takes to implement something like this, that is far, far from being simple. We can already see the amount of bugs simple tweaks and changes can add to the game, tinkering with player data is just asking for more instability, and more "beards" errors.

I don't think you know how much it does or doesn't take either. It theoretically should be easy, but if it's not then it's not. Rare is the only ones that will know. How difficult it is to design really shouldn't be brought into discussions about game additions and that's on me too. I can say it's easy, you can say it's hard, but at the end of the day neither of us know and it's a mute point.

@betsill to all of this is player interaction is one of the core design principles of the gameplay and creating the opportunity to opt out as you say diminishes the quality of tales created.

You are sometimes on the losing or winning end of those tales and swapping servers means you deny that interaction with the other players.

Saying that in a multiplayer game other players can be ignored in its design is just incorrect. They design the game in such a way, including server population, with the intent to have you come across a different crew every 15 to 30 mins. People opting out as you called it, will increase these times and dramatically change the dynamic of the game for everyone.

The reason why a change like this effects me is because they would impact my session and how I play. I love goofing around, stealing things in sneaky ways, fighting in PvP and teaming up with other crews.... guess what for that to happen it involves the design to promote the players to stay on the same server as me so I can meet them, stalk them, shoot myself over or hunt them.

Comparing people willing to provide someone with the loot they acquired and providing a way for people to use others to provide progress is like comparing apples with oranges. The intent behind it is very different.

I would hate being the one working on a voyage with someone and they save and leave without helping me finish it, leaving me high and dry and I am someone that sometimes gives away loot, have a friend join when I have a spot open and even have opened my solo crew for randoms to get a jackpot before I go sell. The difference is that it is my decision to help and have someone enjoy the fruits of my labor. Instead of having the feeling someone is milking my efforts for their personal gain.

Let me illustrate it with an easy example: Play monopoly with people. It is for sure possible you can let is as it stands mid game and resume later with a different set of people. However this means it is not the same amount of fun and not what people expect if they sign up for the first group. Especially cause they were not part of the choice to pause the game, one guy just got up, grabbed a copy of the board and left you playing with a guy less. You can play on, but the game is not anywhere as fun, easy as you have to think of a way to adapt to the fact one person left and maybe more people will leave cause they don't want to play with a guy down. The guy that left though is all happy, cause he gets to play the rest of a game with other people that are happy they can instantly get the rewards and profit from the work the first group did playing through the first half.

That is the side effects and perspectives of your first crew, so not even other players on a different crew and is why making it important to bind people to a session other than just gold.

If you play open crews you already notice this, people leave after selling, but if there is voyage progress like mid Athena run and more loot to get they might stick around and play more with me. Now give them the option to grab the progress and leave... and the group will disband more often leaving me high and dry alone on a ship hoping I have others that join and want to be part of my crew, willing to finish what I already invested my time and effort in. Though now they might even insist on continuing their voyage once they join or they want to do forts, pvp, troll, sit around getting drunk and play music. Who knows? They didn't invest in this voyage and therefore have no reason to care.

It punishes the people that are willing to spend more time and finish what they started. It has a reducing effect on a key motivator to stay on that server and provide people with selfish individual choices, over choices that keep people playing together.

It is no difference than in raid dungeons. A crew requires multiple people working together for a common goal. Our groups are just 1 to 4 people instead of 5 to 100. It doesn't require constant play and large organizations to achieve and is what makes this game more casual than most.

Not to mention Athenas without speed running take about 1.5 hours to 2 hours, the same as watching a movie, if you don't speed run them and play semi decent. It can be sped up by playing dedicated and with teamwork to less than an hour, especially when running the more lucrative devils roar versions.

The fact that some people take longer just means they need to practice their voyaging skills more, maybe run the type that you are struggling with. Just because people are less skilled or not focused on the task at hand shouldn't mean that the end game content should be able to have check stops.

It is the end game for a reason and requiring people to be better at the game at this point to reduce the time requirement to completion is not much to expect, it isn't like it is unachievable regardless of how you play it just costs more time if not played well. Keep in mind a legend has played the game for 100 to 200ish hours by the time they hit legend, expecting then to find clues, x Mark's the spot and killing skeletons effectively is not that odd they are basic pirating skills afterall.

If you cannot see that providing people with the ability to have check points when ever they want will have big consequences on how people play the game is beyond me. In that case I would suggest to you to research a bit more on game design and how save mechanics have impacted the industry and why it is important in your design to determine where and when you allow players to save.

@betsill said in option to "save game":

You can say that about pretty much any addition.

True, that's why Rare don't implement all kinds of features willy-nilly without making sure it can't be abused or used negatively against other players, your crew or others (double gunning would be more an overlooked gameplay flaw than a feature IMO).

For example, that's the reason we still can't kick people from a crew, you could troll people and boot them right before turning in loot and then invite someone else. This is the very same scenario, but instead of kicking someone, you ditch everyone and rob them of the last chapter of a voyage, especially Athena's

It's really not a big deal. especially in a game where the "abuse" has virtually no negative impact on other players.

So, you would not mind at all playing for an hour or two on an Athena's, then have the person who put down the voyage leave on the very last step to give an easy chest to his friends? That's not a tiny bit negative you think?

I totally agree with the No against saving sessions, both because it will make the gameplay for the rest of the players on the server different & less fun, it can be abused and that it will be a waste of time for developers.

If we don't have hours to play we usually do something else than an Athena and have fun, but how about doing half an Athena (one of each type, including animals) for a quarter of the Athena reputation (or somewhat different values). Would that work or would that be too easy for the gain ?

@lem0n-curry I don't know what we will have in store in terms of future mercenary voyages, if they will be a weekly thing with different goals and flavors, but if we access to a variety of them, it would sure be cool to have a PL one that could maybe be 1 map of each faction and maybe end with a smaller Athena's item? Maybe an Athena trinket of some kind that would still get rep towards that faction but less than a chest?

@cotu42 said in option to "save game":

@betsill to all of this is player interaction is one of the core design principles of the gameplay and creating the opportunity to opt out as you say diminishes the quality of tales created.

It's a shared world, so yes. Players being in your world is a core part of the game. Whether/how you interact with those players is still your choice. What do you even mean by "opt out"? you can't just quit out when you are being attacked and save your loot. You will lose everything except your progress same as now if you stay in the game. If someone wants to "diminish"(in your opinion) the quality of their session why does that matter to you? It shouldn't. Let people play the way they want.

You are sometimes on the losing or winning end of those tales and swapping servers means you deny that interaction with the other players.

You could also say the same thing about scuttling...

Saying that in a multiplayer game other players can be ignored in its design is just incorrect.

I never said that. I said that other players can't be considered a tool or necessary part of the experience for it to be considered "valid". They are not close to being dependable enough to say that interacting with them is mandatory. If someone doesn't or avoids ever interacting with them, that's a completely valid way to play game.

They design the game in such a way, including server population, with the intent to have you come across a different crew every 15 to 30 mins.

That's not at all the case for me. I've gone many sessions being lucky to run into a crew once every hour.

People opting out as you called it, will increase these times and dramatically change the dynamic of the game for everyone.

It could but I highly doubt it. Not much would be saved by leaving a session. If they see a crew they still have to make it to an outpost and drop off their loot before they could switch session. How would that be that different from what they do now which is drop loot then continue the voyage. By the time they drop their loot the people they want to avoid are already gonna be gone... If not then they could just wait 30mins. They will probably waste at least that much time in loading and sailing back.

The reason why a change like this effects me is because they would impact my session and how I play. I love goofing around, stealing things in sneaky ways, fighting in PvP and teaming up with other crews.... guess what for that to happen it involves the design to promote the players to stay on the same server as me so I can meet them, stalk them, shoot myself over or hunt them.

Not sure why you think this would be affected... if they would just up and quit when there is a save session then they would do the same now. They would only quit if they don't care about their loot, or don't have any loot and don't wanna deal with you. There no reason they would change this behavior just because their was a save system...

Comparing people willing to provide someone with the loot they acquired and providing a way for people to use others to provide progress is like comparing apples with oranges. The intent behind it is very different.

Huh? idk what you're talking about.

I would hate being the one working on a voyage with someone and they save and leave without helping me finish it, leaving me high and dry

This already happens and new players can join. Would a save system increase this? maybe a little, but since people can join open spots it's not a big deal. The guy who left would have to do with the same thing when he continues except he needs 3 people not 1. premade crews and solo players would by far benefit the most from a save system.

and I am someone that sometimes gives away loot, have a friend join when I have a spot open and even have opened my solo crew for randoms to get a jackpot before I go sell. The difference is that it is my decision to help and have someone enjoy the fruits of my labor. Instead of having the feeling someone is milking my efforts for their personal gain.

How are they milking your efforts? you're using them to progress the voyage just as much as they are using you..

Let me illustrate it with an easy example: Play monopoly with people.

oh dear.

It is for sure possible you can let is as it stands mid game and resume later with a different set of people. However this means it is not the same amount of fun and not what people expect if they sign up for the first group.

Then they start their own game instead of playing in this one... You know that this already happens in SOT right?! this is a really bad example...

Especially cause they were not part of the choice to pause the game, one guy just got up, grabbed a copy of the board and left you playing with a guy less.

Or you stop... like literally everyone does when playing monopoly and someone has to leave... this is such a bad example lol

You can play on, but the game is not anywhere as fun, easy as you have to think of a way to adapt to the fact one person left and maybe more people will leave cause they don't want to play with a guy down.

In the case of SOT another person will show up to fill his slot. Of course in monopoly there are strategies that people put into action so you have to adapt and/or figure out the strategy of the person you replaced. which of course you don't have to do in SoT because SoT ISN'T monopoly and this is a ridiculously bad example to prove a point.

The guy that left though is all happy, cause he gets to play the rest of a game with other people that are happy they can instantly get the rewards and profit from the work the first group did playing through the first half.

The guy is not happy because has to find 3 that want to play an already in progress monopoly game(Virtually no one will be up for) because they are in a bad spot with not being able to create their own strategies up to that point(especially if the person they replace is losing). That's again why NO ONE DOES THIS in monopoly. In SoT no one cares if they start mid voyage(it happens all the time) and since there is fundamentally no difference in game-play between the start and end of a voyage. Accept in athenas in that you get the chest, but NO ONE would be upset about that(in the very very very rare case they are upset they can leave and be replaced). This is a terrible example...

That is the side effects and perspectives of your first crew, so not even other players on a different crew and is why making it important to bind people to a session other than just gold.

All I saw was a ridiculously bad analogy. In monopoly if someone leaves you all stop and pick it back up later when everyone can make time(something you would also be able to do if there was a save option).... If monopoly worked like SoT every-time you had to stop, the entire game would reset! but SoT isn't monopoly and I wouldn't use it as an example...

If you play open crews you already notice this, people leave after selling, but if there is voyage progress like mid Athena run and more loot to get they might stick around and play more with me.

Not at all from my experience, but I won't doubt you if you say that's how it happens for you.

Now give them the option to grab the progress and leave... and the group will disband more often leaving me high and dry alone on a ship hoping I have others that join and want to be part of my crew, willing to finish what I already invested my time and effort in.

This is how it works now, but the system as I imagine it would only tied to the "captain" so if you are the captain then they can't continue your voyage in a different session if they leave.

Though now they might even insist on continuing their voyage once they join or they want to do forts, pvp, troll, sit around getting drunk and play music. Who knows? They didn't invest in this voyage and therefore have no reason to care.

They wouldn't be able to continue their own voyage if they joined your session. If they wanted to continue their own voyage they would start their own session. Randos joining and trolling is how it works now. Difference with a save system would be you could end the session and pick up with friends or try again for a willing crew.

It punishes the people that are willing to spend more time and finish what they started. It has a reducing effect on a key motivator to stay on that server and provide people with selfish individual choices, over choices that keep people playing together.

It wouldn't punish them any more than the current system if they want to stay. Difference would be that you have the option to try again if it doesn't work out instead of being forced to deal with bad actors or else lose all progress.

It is no difference than in raid dungeons. A crew requires multiple people working together for a common goal.

It can be done solo so that's 100% wrong. more people is better but not required.

Our groups are just 1 to 4 people instead of 5 to 100. It doesn't require constant play and large organizations to achieve and is what makes this game more casual than most.

It's casual in gameplay, but very hardcore in grind and time requirement. That's the contradiction of SoT current design.

Just because people are less skilled or not focused on the task at hand shouldn't mean that the end game content should be able to have check stops.

It means it should be considered. If it's good for the game then it should be implemented. As far as I can tell, it would be really good for the game, because it doesn't take away from the experience. It is entirely about dealing with an unnecessary pain area that this game has that stops people from playing/sticking around.

It is the end game for a reason and requiring people to be better at the game at this point to reduce the time requirement to completion is not much to expect, it isn't like it is unachievable regardless of how you play it just costs more time if not played well.

It's not just about athenas. It's about all voyages. It's about disconnects. Athenas costs more time regardless compared to reg voyages, and that's the problem. The game is significantly less about skill and so much more about how much time can spend in one sitting. Can you sit down and grind athenas quest for 1-2 hours+(or more somtimes)? yes? Good job you can make it to athenas 10 eventually. No? well sucks for you.

Keep in mind a legend has played the game for 100 to 200ish hours by the time they hit legend, expecting then to find clues, x Mark's the spot and killing skeletons effectively is not that odd they are basic pirating skills afterall.

Again, it's not just about athenas. If you want to sit down and finish a full athenas, good for you. If you can't but think saving is a crutch. Also, good for you. You can cancel your voyage and start over when you get back. If you want to do athenas but don't have the all the time uninterrupted. A save system would be a HUGE benefit. You still spend all the same time as the guy who does it all at once, you just did it in smaller chunks.

If you cannot see that providing people with the ability to have check points when ever they want will have big consequences on how people play the game is beyond me.

I want it to have "big consequences"... which is making the game better.

@hynieth if they do it like that they would need to make the athena chest give less money on those voyages and also less rep. maybe it could be athenas box or something. that way players who dont have much time can do it but it also wont completely ruin the athena quests we have now for everyone else

@bloodybil said in option to "save game":

@betsill said in option to "save game":

You can say that about pretty much any addition.

True, that's why Rare don't implement all kinds of features willy-nilly without making sure it can't be abused or used negatively against other players, your crew or others (double gunning would be more an overlooked gameplay flaw than a feature IMO).

mmmm cough* brigs cough* crossplay cough* alliances cough* sword lunge cough* eating bananas with full HP cough* co-op "events" cough*

For example, that's the reason we still can't kick people from a crew, you could troll people and boot them right before turning in loot and then invite someone else. This is the very same scenario, but instead of kicking someone, you ditch everyone and rob them of the last chapter of a voyage, especially Athena's

It's really not a big deal. especially in a game where the "abuse" has virtually no negative impact on other players.

So, you would not mind at all playing for an hour or two on an Athena's, then have the person who put down the voyage leave on the very last step to give an easy chest to his friends? That's not a tiny bit negative you think?

A tiny bit. But that's possible now. There are ways to deal with that too. Such as when you leave athenas quest specifically(since that's really the only quest type anyone would care about "abuse")you don't pick up exactly where you left off, you pick up at the start of the chapter you were on unless it's the athenas chest chapter in which case you will start at the beginning of the chapter before it. they could still leave when the final chapter starts, but they would have to finish at least a whole wheel regardless. DC's would still be better off since they don't have to start all over again just because they lost connection. you could also have athenas quests over-right other athenas quests(with athena magic or some nonsense) which would keep people from stacking last chapter athenas.

@betsill said in option to "save game":

@bloodybil said in option to "save game":

@betsill said in option to "save game":

You can say that about pretty much any addition.

True, that's why Rare don't implement all kinds of features willy-nilly without making sure it can't be abused or used negatively against other players, your crew or others (double gunning would be more an overlooked gameplay flaw than a feature IMO).

mmmm cough* brigs cough* crossplay cough* alliances cough* sword lunge cough* eating bananas with full HP cough* co-op "events" cough*

You okay bud?

Brig is there to prevent troll crew members from kegging your ship, mess around with the ship, drop loot overboard and such. Can it be abused to troll regular players? Yeah, but unfortunately that's the best the devs came up with to make sure you can prevent trolls from causing damage, yet you can't prevent people in the brig from getting loot or rep. If you get wrongly put in there, the worst that happens is that people are getting loot for you while you wait in there. Not ideal, but that's a compromise, since kicking people would be worst.

Crossplay is how the game was designed, so not sure there what your point is. Again, many compromises are being made, mouse and keyboard, opt-out.

Alliances can be abused, I guess, if you let yourself be betrayed? If you get stabbed in the back, or people quit the alliance before turning loot in, that's on you for trusting other crews in the first place, that's a possible outcome out of the feature. Trolling your own crew is against the code, but killing or betraying others isn't.

Sword lunge? What about it? No, it wasn't intended at first but ended up being a cool feature so the devs decided to keep it. How exactly can it be abused? Not sure what your point is about here either.

Eating banana at full hp? You can deplete another crew's resources, never really used that strategy but have nothing against it either. If your crewmates are trolling and wasting your supplies, refer to your first point: brig.

Coop events? I don't like them either, but I suppose it was implemented in a way that would make so people don't always shoot each other on sight, at least for the time of those events. Must have been in response to PVP haters complaining that they always get attacked. Not sure what the point on this is either, I guess they can be abused since once you have done it you don't care and kill people that still want to do them.

For example, that's the reason we still can't kick people from a crew, you could troll people and boot them right before turning in loot and then invite someone else. This is the very same scenario, but instead of kicking someone, you ditch everyone and rob them of the last chapter of a voyage, especially Athena's

It's really not a big deal. especially in a game where the "abuse" has virtually no negative impact on other players.

So, you would not mind at all playing for an hour or two on an Athena's, then have the person who put down the voyage leave on the very last step to give an easy chest to his friends? That's not a tiny bit negative you think?

A tiny bit. But that's possible now.

No it's not. If people start an athena and the voyage dropper leaves, the rest of the crew can still complete it. In the saving feature scenario, they wouldn't, since the guy technically leaves with it. After all, if they could keep going on it, and the guy has his version, it would duplicate the voyage. They could rejoin on him and finish his version after they completed theirs.

There are ways to deal with that too. Such as when you leave athenas quest specifically(since that's really the only quest type anyone would care about "abuse")you don't pick up exactly where you left off, you pick up at the start of the chapter you were on unless it's the athenas chest chapter in which case you will start at the beginning of the chapter before it. they could still leave when the final chapter starts, but they would have to finish at least a whole wheel regardless.

Cool, so basically with your example, you keep an easy mission as a last mission of chapter 1 (pickup cargos for example) then you can still hoard up the last chapter. That way you don't have to start the wheel yeah? So you can still pretty much keep the last 2 missions out of 9 and duplicate it in best case, ore yank it off the rest of your crew in worst case. Two ways to abuse it.

DC's would still be better off since they don't have to start all over again just because they lost connection. you could also have athenas quests over-right other athenas quests(with athena magic or some nonsense) which would keep people from stacking last chapter athenas.

Yup, it's all magic and easy fixes in wonderland :) A few lines of code should do the trick.

@bloodybil said in option to "save game":

It's really not a big deal. especially in a game where the "abuse" has virtually no negative impact on other players.

So, you would not mind at all playing for an hour or two on an Athena's, then have the person who put down the voyage leave on the very last step to give an easy chest to his friends? That's not a tiny bit negative you think?

A tiny bit. But that's possible now.

No it's not. If people start an athena and the voyage dropper leaves, the rest of the crew can still complete it. In the saving feature scenario, they wouldn't, since the guy technically leaves with it. After all, if they could keep going on it, and the guy has his version, it would duplicate the voyage. They could rejoin on him and finish his version after they completed theirs.

This wouldn't be the case. This would be both too jarring and negatively affect crew members left behind, so it wouldn't be designed that way. The way I imagine it working is that it wouldn't be your voyage, but it would still stay on the ship to finish it. This way it wouldn't conflict with your own saved voyages if you have any. They could also give you a choice on whether you want to replace your current saved voyage(if you have one) when you take over the session(aka become captain). In the case of an athenas voyage we could make it where it does become yours automatically if you currently have an athenas Qed since it will over-right it to prevent athenas stacking. In the case of double Athenas stacking, it really wouldn't be that big a deal, but they both would be sent back to the beginning of the chapter and the game could detect the quest as already completed(aka a duplicate) and not reward them on turn ins.

There are ways to deal with that too. Such as when you leave athenas quest specifically(since that's really the only quest type anyone would care about "abuse")you don't pick up exactly where you left off, you pick up at the start of the chapter you were on unless it's the athenas chest chapter in which case you will start at the beginning of the chapter before it. they could still leave when the final chapter starts, but they would have to finish at least a whole wheel regardless.

Cool, so basically with your example, you keep an easy mission as a last mission of chapter 1 (pickup cargos for example) then you can still hoard up the last chapter. That way you don't have to start the wheel yeah?

Huh? if you don't beat the last mission in a chapter you will go back to the start of that chapter if you leave and continue later. At least that's how i'm imagining it.

So you can still pretty much keep the last 2 missions out of 9 and duplicate it in best case, ore yank it off the rest of your crew in worst case. Two ways to abuse it.

You start at the beginning of the chapter like I said, but even if you save it you still did all the work to that point and still have to finish it so I don't see the problem. The way you are describing this is not clear.

DC's would still be better off since they don't have to start all over again just because they lost connection. you could also have athenas quests over-right other athenas quests(with athena magic or some nonsense) which would keep people from stacking last chapter athenas.

Yup, it's all magic and easy fixes in wonderland :) A few lines of code should do the trick.

Completely misrepresented what I said in order to make that joke, but ok.

I think where some people are getting confused with this idea is if they imagine that simply anyone can just click into the menu and choose "save game" at any point in a voyage and disconnect.

That would certainly be a bad choice for implementation...especially for the ship's inventory.
Perhaps that could apply to just their character's inventory...but best to keep it simple.

As I stated very early on....it would be best to require certain criteria be met....

1. No active battles.
2. Must be anchored at an Outpost.
3. Perhaps an interaction with the shipwright to choose the option to "save ship status"
4. Maybe even a voting system to either continue or abandon voyages.
5. An active save state on either the client or the server [or both for reconciliation and error checking] that holds the ship status in memory in case of server crashes or client crashes.

Many thoughtful issues have been raised in this and other threads so far that are legitimate troubleshooting ideas that could all be designed around and/or practically resolved by the above criteria.

However, to say that a game mechanic isn't worth an attempt because there "might be bugs" or "players could find some way to abuse it"; Well no game would ever be made if developers let these concerns stop them.

😄

@betsill said in option to "save game":

@cotu42 said in option to "save game":

@betsill to all of this is player interaction is one of the core design principles of the gameplay and creating the opportunity to opt out as you say diminishes the quality of tales created.

It's a shared world, so yes. Players being in your world is a core part of the game. Whether/how you interact with those players is still your choice. What do you even mean by "opt out"? you can't just quit out when you are being attacked and save your loot. You will lose everything except your progress same as now if you stay in the game. If someone wants to "diminish"(in your opinion) the quality of their session why does that matter to you? It shouldn't. Let people play the way they want.

You responded to me stating they can opt out of the best tales. It means you acknowledge the fact that they are denying the others in the story of the tale as well.

It diminishes everyone's quality not just their own. That is the problem. People play as they want within the game, but they are not playing if they quit and do so because well why would they care if they can keep their progress.

You are sometimes on the losing or winning end of those tales and swapping servers means you deny that interaction with the other players.

You could also say the same thing about scuttling...

Scuttle mechanics is admitting defeat in the battle, but they are still around, you can still meet them.

Saying that in a multiplayer game other players can be ignored in its design is just incorrect.

I never said that. I said that other players can't be considered a tool or necessary part of the experience for it to be considered "valid". They are not close to being dependable enough to say that interacting with them is mandatory. If someone doesn't or avoids ever interacting with them, that's a completely valid way to play game.

Yes players are an integral part of the game.... have you even read about what the game is about or heard the developers talk about the game.

They design the game in such a way, including server population, with the intent to have you come across a different crew every 15 to 30 mins.

That's not at all the case for me. I've gone many sessions being lucky to run into a crew once every hour.

It is on average and the balance is maybe not perfect and the fact you don't meet people is even more illustrating why it is important to not let people leave.

People opting out as you called it, will increase these times and dramatically change the dynamic of the game for everyone.

It could but I highly doubt it. Not much would be saved by leaving a session. If they see a crew they still have to make it to an outpost and drop off their loot before they could switch session. How would that be that different from what they do now which is drop loot then continue the voyage. By the time they drop their loot the people they want to avoid are already gonna be gone... If not then they could just wait 30mins. They will probably waste at least that much time in loading and sailing back.

Because those people might come to you, you might talk to them, etc. In any case avoiding, engage or communicate are your options you want to add: disappearing act to that list just no.

The reason why a change like this effects me is because they would impact my session and how I play. I love goofing around, stealing things in sneaky ways, fighting in PvP and teaming up with other crews.... guess what for that to happen it involves the design to promote the players to stay on the same server as me so I can meet them, stalk them, shoot myself over or hunt them.

Not sure why you think this would be affected... if they would just up and quit when there is a save session then they would do the same now. They would only quit if they don't care about their loot, or don't have any loot and don't wanna deal with you. There no reason they would change this behavior just because their was a save system...

Because they can leave without consequences of losing their voyage, there is nothing keeping attached to the server. Gold is already for many a non factor, selling is a thing and people leaving the server more often is a bad thing.

Comparing people willing to provide someone with the loot they acquired and providing a way for people to use others to provide progress is like comparing apples with oranges. The intent behind it is very different.

Huh? idk what you're talking about.

You brought up the first pirate legend and that it was the same thing as his fans giving him loot as you using randoms as a workforce. Which it is not.

I would hate being the one working on a voyage with someone and they save and leave without helping me finish it, leaving me high and dry

This already happens and new players can join. Would a save system increase this? maybe a little, but since people can join open spots it's not a big deal. The guy who left would have to do with the same thing when he continues except he needs 3 people not 1. premade crews and solo players would by far benefit the most from a save system.

I play solo, the only thing we need is a reconnect feature. Playing the hardest mode should not be the main reason for adding a system that by design exploits your crew for your own gain and yes people will exploit it to give their friends and family the best of their voyages.

and I am someone that sometimes gives away loot, have a friend join when I have a spot open and even have opened my solo crew for randoms to get a jackpot before I go sell. The difference is that it is my decision to help and have someone enjoy the fruits of my labor. Instead of having the feeling someone is milking my efforts for their personal gain.

How are they milking your efforts? you're using them to progress the voyage just as much as they are using you..

By making me do the 8 voyages to give their friends the Athenas I worked for. That is milking my work for others.

Let me illustrate it with an easy example: Play monopoly with people.

oh dear.

It is for sure possible you can let is as it stands mid game and resume later with a different set of people. However this means it is not the same amount of fun and not what people expect if they sign up for the first group.

Then they start their own game instead of playing in this one... You know that this already happens in SOT right?! this is a really bad example...

Especially cause they were not part of the choice to pause the game, one guy just got up, grabbed a copy of the board and left you playing with a guy less.

Or you stop... like literally everyone does when playing monopoly and someone has to leave... this is such a bad example lol

You can play on, but the game is not anywhere as fun, easy as you have to think of a way to adapt to the fact one person left and maybe more people will leave cause they don't want to play with a guy down.

In the case of SOT another person will show up to fill his slot. Of course in monopoly there are strategies that people put into action so you have to adapt and/or figure out the strategy of the person you replaced. which of course you don't have to do in SoT because SoT ISN'T monopoly and this is a ridiculously bad example to prove a point.

The guy that left though is all happy, cause he gets to play the rest of a game with other people that are happy they can instantly get the rewards and profit from the work the first group did playing through the first half.

The guy is not happy because has to find 3 that want to play an already in progress monopoly game(Virtually no one will be up for) because they are in a bad spot with not being able to create their own strategies up to that point(especially if the person they replace is losing). That's again why NO ONE DOES THIS in monopoly. In SoT no one cares if they start mid voyage(it happens all the time) and since there is fundamentally no difference in game-play between the start and end of a voyage. Accept in athenas in that you get the chest, but NO ONE would be upset about that(in the very very very rare case they are upset they can leave and be replaced). This is a terrible example...

That is the side effects and perspectives of your first crew, so not even other players on a different crew and is why making it important to bind people to a session other than just gold.

All I saw was a ridiculously bad analogy. In monopoly if someone leaves you all stop and pick it back up later when everyone can make time(something you would also be able to do if there was a save option).... If monopoly worked like SoT every-time you had to stop, the entire game would reset! but SoT isn't monopoly and I wouldn't use it as an example...

But it does illustrate exactly why people feel screwed the strategy is the choice within the game for what content you want to do. Not everyone is interested in continuing what you started and SoT does start fresh every time.

If you play open crews you already notice this, people leave after selling, but if there is voyage progress like mid Athena run and more loot to get they might stick around and play more with me.

Not at all from my experience, but I won't doubt you if you say that's how it happens for you.

Now give them the option to grab the progress and leave... and the group will disband more often leaving me high and dry alone on a ship hoping I have others that join and want to be part of my crew, willing to finish what I already invested my time and effort in.

This is how it works now, but the system as I imagine it would only tied to the "captain" so if you are the captain then they can't continue your voyage in a different session if they leave.

So you are going against all crew members are equal and I have to force people to let me be captain else they might take off and leave....

Though now they might even insist on continuing their voyage once they join or they want to do forts, pvp, troll, sit around getting drunk and play music. Who knows? They didn't invest in this voyage and therefore have no reason to care.

They wouldn't be able to continue their own voyage if they joined your session. If they wanted to continue their own voyage they would start their own session. Randos joining and trolling is how it works now. Difference with a save system would be you could end the session and pick up with friends or try again for a willing crew.

And what about the nice guy that is clumped in with the troll... man you are selfish and provide the exact reason we don't want this. The fact that you take off and continue with your friends while leaving me a man down. Open crews are filled with trolls, people not doing anything and finding a decent group is hard. You say no problem someone else will join, but they might not want to play along. What now, my captain left with the ability to save, do I ALSO get to save the quest now... making an infinite loop of voyages? That isn't exploitative at all..

It punishes the people that are willing to spend more time and finish what they started. It has a reducing effect on a key motivator to stay on that server and provide people with selfish individual choices, over choices that keep people playing together.

It wouldn't punish them any more than the current system if they want to stay. Difference would be that you have the option to try again if it doesn't work out instead of being forced to deal with bad actors or else lose all progress.

So let's give the crew a bad actor to replace you and you head off to your friends giving them my progress.

It is no difference than in raid dungeons. A crew requires multiple people working together for a common goal.

It can be done solo so that's 100% wrong. more people is better but not required.

Which makes the entry level lower not anything else. The other people in your crew are pirates in your raid instance, you just have the choice to choose going hard mode solo. I did the same in 5 man dungeons in WoW does that make it valid to say well let me save the progress?

Our groups are just 1 to 4 people instead of 5 to 100. It doesn't require constant play and large organizations to achieve and is what makes this game more casual than most.

It's casual in gameplay, but very hardcore in grind and time requirement. That's the contradiction of SoT current design.

Time requirement hard core? Wat are you talking about 1 to 2 hours for the end game is not hardcore. Some games require multiple hours a day.... a movie is hardcore time commitment?

Just because people are less skilled or not focused on the task at hand shouldn't mean that the end game content should be able to have check stops.

It means it should be considered. If it's good for the game then it should be implemented. As far as I can tell, it would be really good for the game, because it doesn't take away from the experience. It is entirely about dealing with an unnecessary pain area that this game has that stops people from playing/sticking around.

It is the end game for a reason and requiring people to be better at the game at this point to reduce the time requirement to completion is not much to expect, it isn't like it is unachievable regardless of how you play it just costs more time if not played well.

It's not just about athenas. It's about all voyages. It's about disconnects. Athenas costs more time regardless compared to reg voyages, and that's the problem. The game is significantly less about skill and so much more about how much time can spend in one sitting. Can you sit down and grind athenas quest for 1-2 hours+(or more somtimes)? yes? Good job you can make it to athenas 10 eventually. No? well sucks for you.

Keep in mind a legend has played the game for 100 to 200ish hours by the time they hit legend, expecting then to find clues, x Mark's the spot and killing skeletons effectively is not that odd they are basic pirating skills afterall.

Again, it's not just about athenas. If you want to sit down and finish a full athenas, good for you. If you can't but think saving is a crutch. Also, good for you. You can cancel your voyage and start over when you get back. If you want to do athenas but don't have the all the time uninterrupted. A save system would be a HUGE benefit. You still spend all the same time as the guy who does it all at once, you just did it in smaller chunks.

If you cannot see that providing people with the ability to have check points when ever they want will have big consequences on how people play the game is beyond me.

I want it to have "big consequences"... which is making the game better.

No it makes it worse.... it removes an insensitive to stick to the current game and removes the consequences of just moving on to the next. Just like skull hopping was fun, but bad for the game.

@Fat-Arren @Hynieth I think a restructuring of Athena's would be the best compromise, or perhaps a choice of Athena length. It's proven to be possible, the Mercenary Rum Runner voyages were in essence a cut down version of an Athena's.
I'll admit that my first knee-jerk reaction was akin to @Xultanis-Dragon. It's a time management issue and I've had to bail on my own and other's Athena's due to LIFE and it's never irked me greatly. I solo sloop a lot, perhaps I'm not as skilled and I for sure don't speed run them (I do the cargo portion). An Athena, solo, for me is about 2 to 2.5 hours. I can understand how a DR Athena could be quicker on the OoS portions, but can't say that I've attempted it. Too much risk of the environment ruining it all.
That being said, if LIFE limits your play time why should you have to put yourself out to do Athena's and how would you ever gain Athena rep, at even a moderate rate, with only achievements and commendations? So I would have to say no to a save feature, simply because of some abuse issues and it's just the nature of the beast with this game. A shorter version of an Athena mission is a workable middle ground. It would allow you to make progress at a rate conducive to your available playtime and also be available for larger crews who might be in the same situation or just want a quick one to do.

@cotu42 said in option to "save game":

@betsill said in option to "save game":

@cotu42 said in option to "save game":

@betsill to all of this is player interaction is one of the core design principles of the gameplay and creating the opportunity to opt out as you say diminishes the quality of tales created.

It's a shared world, so yes. Players being in your world is a core part of the game. Whether/how you interact with those players is still your choice. What do you even mean by "opt out"? you can't just quit out when you are being attacked and save your loot. You will lose everything except your progress same as now if you stay in the game. If someone wants to "diminish"(in your opinion) the quality of their session why does that matter to you? It shouldn't. Let people play the way they want.

You responded to me stating they can opt out of the best tales. It means you acknowledge the fact that they are denying the others in the story of the tale as well.

Because that's obvious... If you sail away, then you are not letting someone fight you... If you scuttle you are not letting them continue to kill you... also, please stop using Rares PR "stories/tales" gobbledygook. It makes it hard to understand what your actually talking about.

It diminishes everyone's quality not just their own. That is the problem.

Free choice can be inconvenient sometimes.

People play as they want within the game, but they are not playing if they quit and the do...

The do quit now. A big part of why I don't play right now, is because my internet is too spotty and i'm fed up with losing all my progress. I'm not gonna do another athenas just so I can get 1-2 hours in and lose everything because of a disconnect. If people can take these voyages in smaller chunks rather than the completely unreasonable time it takes now IMO people would play more. Far more people would like to eat a cake one slice at a time rather that eat the entire thing at once. Some people want it all at once, but giving the option is undeniably a good thing(not to mention you could ask the health question with both as well).

why would they care if they can keep their progress.

Because they would lose their loot...? you know... the only thing that they get from progress and the only reason they would care about progress...

You are sometimes on the losing or winning end of those tales and swapping servers means you deny that interaction with the other players.

You could also say the same thing about scuttling...

Scuttle mechanics is admitting defeat in the battle, but they are still around, you can still meet them.

scuttling was added to stop griefing... not to admit defeat. are you kidding?
Unless they leave, but yeah if they want to keep their voyage they will have to stay in the server. Even if they have a full alliance chasing after them and griefing them. So nice that those people wont be deprive of their "story" of chasing down a helpless player and completely dominating them every-time they spawn. Wait... why do we have scuttling?

Saying that in a multiplayer game other players can be ignored in its design is just incorrect.

I never said that. I said that other players can't be considered a tool or necessary part of the experience for it to be considered "valid". They are not close to being dependable enough to say that interacting with them is mandatory. If someone doesn't or avoids ever interacting with them, that's a completely valid way to play game.

Yes players are an integral part of the game.... have you even read about what the game is about or heard the developers talk about the game.

That's not true. It's a part of the game, but it's not integral. You can play an entire session without seeing another player. That session is still valid. trying to say that interaction with other players is mandatory for the game to be considered "complete" is just pretentious.

They design the game in such a way, including server population, with the intent to have you come across a different crew every 15 to 30 mins.

That's not at all the case for me. I've gone many sessions being lucky to run into a crew once every hour.

It is on average and the balance is maybe not perfect and the fact you don't meet people is even more illustrating why it is important to not let people leave.

They are still in the game... they just went to another session. This is so tiring. The amount of people who would see a ship, go drop off their loot, switch servers, and continue would be virtually ZERO. If these people exist, they would be spending 90% of their time doing nothing because they would switch every time they saw a ship. These people would have quit the game long ago and never come back if they were that afraid of other ships.

People opting out as you called it, will increase these times and dramatically change the dynamic of the game for everyone.

It could but I highly doubt it. Not much would be saved by leaving a session. If they see a crew they still have to make it to an outpost and drop off their loot before they could switch session. How would that be that different from what they do now which is drop loot then continue the voyage. By the time they drop their loot the people they want to avoid are already gonna be gone... If not then they could just wait 30mins. They will probably waste at least that much time in loading and sailing back.

Because those people might come to you, you might talk to them, etc. In any case avoiding, engage or communicate are your options you want to add: disappearing act to that list just no.

Stop acting like it isn't an option already. If they don't wanna interact they will sail in the opposite direction. If the REALLY don't wanna interact they will just quit. who cares? You are portraying this like their are only 2 options. sail up to interact or quit out... The "nightmare" you are describing that you think everyone will do would be incredibly inefficient. If they are willing to waste that much time then they are probably doing something similar now.

The reason why a change like this effects me is because they would impact my session and how I play. I love goofing around, stealing things in sneaky ways, fighting in PvP and teaming up with other crews.... guess what for that to happen it involves the design to promote the players to stay on the same server as me so I can meet them, stalk them, shoot myself over or hunt them.

Not sure why you think this would be affected... if they would just up and quit when there is a save session then they would do the same now. They would only quit if they don't care about their loot, or don't have any loot and don't wanna deal with you. There no reason they would change this behavior just because their was a save system...

Because they can leave without consequences of losing their voyage, there is nothing keeping attached to the server. Gold is already for many a non factor, selling is a thing and people leaving the server more often is a bad thing.

ok... idk what to even say. I thought you were just ignoring me everytime i said "LOOT!", but you're just being ridiculous. If you your gonna say that people won't care about their loot(the thing that EVERYTHING in the game is dependent on(well except dabloons)) then this whole conversation was pointless.

I want it to have "big consequences"... which is making the game better.

No it makes it worse.... it removes an insensitive to stick to the current game and removes the consequences of just moving on to the next. Just like skull hopping was fun, but bad for the game.

There is no incentive according to you because no one cares about loot.

@betsill

My view might be based on the fact that I am a pirate legend Athena 10 and play with a large variety of pirates to notice people are busy in a session more often with: commendations or bildge rat adventures over anything else. Which are bound to the following and yes one is loot, but also on events and voyage based progression. These three aspects are what keeps people in the current session.

They are the choices in content we have to do during a session, our tale:
The events are random or in the form of cloud events or bildge rat additions and the final one and main one is voyages. Which provide multiple maps / chapters and provide us numbers in mileage and completion tasks to achieve. All these provide us with loot and commendations.

I don't think we should carry these aspects between sessions, as it is the core of the session and therefore would diminishes the quality of the session if transferable. I want the best game it can be that suits this game.

In the end there a lot of games out there and if sea of thieves is already a big time investment for you. While in reality a choice in the activities vary from 20 to 30 mins to a maximum of 2 or let us say 3 hours per session. Which is equivalent to a long movie.

Sea of Thieves might be casual friendly in design and places no requirements in time investment to play along it is still meant as a gamer game.

It is still made for people that choose to play a game over a movie, people that truely love games and call it their hobby. So, yes it does require a time investment of about a movie to experience a full tale, be it a voyage, skull fort or fleet. You can always cash out mid way and for all the voyages other than Athenas, it doesn't matter. The next voyage is just as good and reroll if you don't like it, you just don't get the completed count in the commendations. The end game is the only one that really has something on the line for cutting it short and well that is because it is endgame.

Now I am not against them adding shorter time investment voyages, that provide a new and different way to earn Athena reputation at a payment equivalent to the difficulty to do it. I don't mind people getting to the same reputation levels as me, quicker or in a different manner. If it adds new game play for me to experience, even without real rewards other than a title due to my current standing, I am all for it.

If that is what you are after there are game play additions, that are a far better solution though it might take a bit more time to introduce. We shouldn't want quick fixes for the short term anyway, as I am hoping this game keeps providing us with the best design solution and development practices even if that means I have to wait a bit longer for things to be even better.

If it is just to get the completed counter or because you care so much about that voyage with 8 x spots 6 captains and 20 golden animals that you rolled. Sorry, but I don't get why you would care so much about a specific map and you didn't commit to completing it so... well you don't deserve the counter going up.

The other option is because you want to give it to friends, which I don't believe is your intent, but that is just exploitative behavior which we should not want in a game, as people will do it. Maybe not you, but enough others to be a concern and impact the entire population.

I do agree with you that the inability to reconnect is a big issue in our quality of life. I believe it should drop your ships anchor the moment the crew is empty and sit there for 15 minutes to provide a period that a member can reconnect. You might sink, spawn in with a kraken holding your ship, but well that is better than the current system. Usually as a solo you play fairly safe anyway and in any game it is devastating being disconnected during combat. However the "it is over" system we have now is for solo players the most devastating way to lose a session and is super demotivating. I do solo and have experienced that and I do believe it should be addressed.

I don't think that saving your voyage is the way to address that issue though, as it really hurts the game overall and provides less return, as you still lose all the loot guaranteed with a save only voyage, if you sink you still have the voyage as well.

We should want people to log into a session and play for as long as they want and can. Not incentivise a strategy to server hop. It was bad for the game, though fun, when it happened with skull forts and it would be bad if it was done by providing a way of saving voyages.

Save is good.

@cotu42 The disconect problem is the one that affects me the most personally, and it's honestly ridiculous that a game like SoT doesn't have protections against it but that's what happens when you release an unfinished game. I don't care about athenas, getting to PL, or progression in general in this game because progression in SoT is essentially just a worthless number going up. I'm arguing on principal and for the people that do care(which I admittedly did when I started playing). I've run into countless people who give up on doing voyages because it just takes to long and you lose the ability to finish if you complete it. You probably play with way more hardcore SoT players, because there is no better way to get your crew to leave then by slapping down an anthenas quest. Very few people are up for that kind of time investment, and the individual quests are just less fun versions of normal quests(since the skeletons just get more health). If they could carry on with the athenas later then they would be much more inclined to stay and help out, since their time wouldn't be completely wasted like it is now(in relation to getting the athena chest). We should want people to log into a session and play for as long as they WANT. Right now this game encourages very unhealthy behaviors of pushing off irl problems, responsibilities, interactions, etc with sunken cost. A big problem with some people on this forums is that even though I don't doubt that you and others want whats best for the game, you seem to think that other people need to be playing the game in a way that you approve of. Let people play how they want. A save system is very unlikely to make grinding athenas any faster other than providing people who currently can't at all with the ability to slowly work their way through it. Even if players get there slightly faster, who cares? you shouldn't! If a very very small amount of players are able to exploit a system like they do with the current system it's not a big deal. If it is a big deal then Rare can address it, but so far they haven't. You are way over-blowing the potential risks, ignoring solution's to those problems, and doing so at the cost of other peoples accessibility to the game because you are worried about things that don't affect you outside of your own head.

@betsill I am going to ignore the fact you believe my views are make believe. I don't think it is very respectful to state it is just in my head, while I have have been willing to listen to your views. So, back to the game discussion.

Apparently two hours of your time means you have to sacrifice real life. Then maybe doing end game in this game is not for you.

Normal voyages take at level 50 between 20 mins and an hour based on the chapter count and amount of maps. Which is a reasonable time to ask from someone as a hobby. It is equivalent to going to any sport training in the comfort of your own home.

Being able to complete it is your award for spending the time. It really isn't a lot to expect from people. If you do multiple in a row, get distracted and add a fort to the mix, some pvp, etc. And therefor play longer. Congratulations you are enjoying the game, but do realize that it is a choice to play and engage in other activities. It isn't Rares responsibility to restrict you in how you play or provide fail safes for your choice on how to play. We both believe this is true.

On the other hand they should not add a system that is exploitable. If you can overcome the voyages are a crew commitment without the ability to exploit. Which even done at a small scale isn't something we should design into the game. Exploits happen, but don't design something with a clear exploit to profit while not playing the game, duplicating voyages in this case to minimize effort or having others play for you or makes you break the balance they are aiming for.

The only option I think would be remotely acceptable is a unanimous vote system to grant it to a specific pirate and remove it from the table and place it in their voyage journal. Making it a crew decision to grant it to someone, it is a choice of the crew to convert the joint mission to someone's personal one. Giving choice in games is a good thing, it are the impact they have though that determines the viability of giving that choice to a player.

As it still provides a strategy around server hopping for closed crews/so and is something I still don't want as a possible choice. As I believe a session should be more important and not something you can exchange with a reset on the current session, literally identical voyage.

Though that is just my personal opinion based on how I view the game design and the impacts of it on the ways the game could be played. I am all for letting people flee, engage, talk, fight in any way they want to. I just don't want to encourage them to give up and leave for the next game session. A new round in which I am not a participant. I might not be on your crew, but I would love to have you in the same game world for as long as you can play and I do not care how you play or want to engage on the seas. Ok, maybe minus the really toxic ones, but yeah it is something that is sadly part of multiplayers.

@cotu42 When i said "in your head" I meant that you are letting other peoples behavior affect you and that's the main problem you have. A save system WOULDN'T give players any added power affect other players negatively. In fact it would take the power away form griefers the same way scuttling does. You're willing to sacrifice the accessibility and QoL of countless people because SOMEONE might abuse it(with at WORST, very little negative impact). And this is shown in this satement:

On the other hand they should not add a system that is exploitable.

Virtually everything in this game is exploitable(alliances, brigs, crossplay, sword bugs, bad water physics, etc.). You should try to limit and prevent the exploits that you can, but you will almost always have a small amount of people that exploit the system. You don't make alcohol illegal because some people will abuse it. You let people make the choice, and add stipulations to prevent really bad cases like underage drinking(though it's arguable that it does more harm than good as well). If someone does something horrendous deal with that, but you don't treat everyone like they are just future criminals.

The only option I think would be remotely acceptable is a unanimous vote system to grant it to a specific pirate and remove it from the table and place it in their voyage journal. Making it a crew decision to grant it to someone, it is a choice of the crew to convert the joint mission to someone's personal one. Giving choice in games is a good thing, it are the impact they have though that determines the viability of giving that choice to a player.

I would honestly be fine with this. It would be far better than what we have currently, but I think you need to give up this idea that the community needs to "control" peoples experience in some way. One of the best use cases for a save system would be closed crews where someone needs to leave early and this would allow that. This is what I'm saying though! There are SOLUTIONS! Nothing is ever going to be perfect and pretending like it needs to be before it's worthy of this game is plain wrong.

I am all for letting people flee, engage, talk, fight in any way they want to.

No you're not, because the very next sentence is:

I just don't want to encourage them to give up and leave for the next game session. A new round in which I am not a participant.

You want rare to control peoples experience way to much. In a game that is supposed to be all about "freedom" this is a contradiction. If people don't want to play with you then you just need to deal with that.

Ahoy there,
I must disagree with you on the basis that the problem of voyages isn't just the time frame to accomplish it but the whole concept of it. Legendary voyages are just a re hash of all other voyages with harder skellies and more islands to explore, all which drastically increase the amount of time it takes to accomplish such quest. The end result is a boring, repetitive, and long, over simplified voyage. Instead of a save, the PL voyages need to have something unique or epic, with constant and engaging action to keep you distracted. I propose the idea that ALL voyages should be remade to have mini games: small challenges that help advance the story line of said voyage through the use of journals or wall paintings all within the proximity of said island. Such minigames would be like bulls eye shooting at targets in a set time to reveal further riddles or open hidden doors/ gates, Platform race jumping while drunk, Underworld obstacle traversal sailing.
and for PL: a race to find the treasure room of a piece of the city of Atlantis that has risen from the depth of the ocean. Filled with multiple mini games on the inside while the surface of the city is lined with enemy AI and cannons lining the perimeter. In other words, the surface of the city would have all players fight enemies in the same format as a skelly fort which would then allow you into the bowels of the city where a bunch of platforming, mini arenas, traps, bulls eye targets, lantern colored labyrinth, etc are chained together ultimately leading directly to the treasure room or sometimes first leading to the throne room, where players encounter a boss battle

@red0demon0 said in option to "save game":

Ahoy there,
I must disagree with you on the basis that the problem of voyages isn't just the time frame to accomplish it but the whole concept of it. Legendary voyages are just a re hash of all other voyages with harder skellies and more islands to explore, all which drastically increase the amount of time it takes to accomplish such quest.

You raise a good point, the big part of the challenge of PL voyage itself is it's length. It is indeed a collection of already existing types of smaller voyages, but what makes it "harder" is the fact you need to do the whole thing in one sitting to get the last extra goodie. If you can't finish, you already benefited from the part you did complete.

Saving and continuing it later is the equivalent of stopping an iron man marathon, everyone notes down what their current position in the race and location on the track are, then continue the race from that point the next day after a good night of rest. Not so much of a challenge if you stretch it over multiple sessions.

@betsill said in option to "save game":

I think you need to give up this idea that the community needs to "control" peoples experience in some way

It's a multiplayer open world game, everyone contributes to everyone's experience in some way. It's not about control, it's about emergence. An emergent behavior appears when a number of simple entities (in this case, players) operate in an environment, forming more complex behaviors as a collective.

This is not a single player game, you need to give up this idea that your actions have no repercussions on anybody, and that you should be exempt of dealing with other's actions.

You want rare to control peoples experience way to much. In a game that is supposed to be all about "freedom" this is a contradiction.

Well Rare kinda has to control the experience at some point, otherwise if it was up to some players, they would prevent pvp at all cost and make every single pve encounter easier. A game about freedom still has boundaries, like free speach still doesn't mean you can be toxic to others.

If people don't want to play with you then you just need to deal with that.

In the same way, if people want to keep playing despite your need to leave, one could say you also need to deal with that. Plan better, or play quicker.

@bloodybil
I agree with part of what you said and disagree with part, but i'm burnt out on this discussion. I've made my points(someone points multple times) and ya'll that disagree have said yours.

free speach still doesn't mean you can be toxic to others.

It does actually.

@betsill said in option to "save game":

@cotu42 When i said "in your head" I meant that you are letting other peoples behavior affect you and that's the main problem you have. A save system WOULDN'T give players any added power affect other players negatively. In fact it would take the power away form griefers the same way scuttling does. You're willing to sacrifice the accessibility and QoL of countless people because SOMEONE might abuse it(with at WORST, very little negative impact). And this is shown in this satement:

I play a multiplayer game because other peoples actions influence the game experience. Also, yes you have to consider in design the ways people will abuse it, cause that is something people do... use it in the most efficient way to gain as much as possible from it.

On the other hand they should not add a system that is exploitable.

Virtually everything in this game is exploitable(alliances, brigs, crossplay, sword bugs, bad water physics, etc.). You should try to limit and prevent the exploits that you can, but you will almost always have a small amount of people that exploit the system. You don't make alcohol illegal because some people will abuse it. You let people make the choice, and add stipulations to prevent really bad cases like underage drinking(though it's arguable that it does more harm than good as well). If someone does something horrendous deal with that, but you don't treat everyone like they are just future criminals.

Everything is exploited? What the hell are you talking about?

Alliances, well we could consider taking over servers exploiting it and to be honest I do think it is a flaw in the system. Other than that it works as intended.

Sword bug? You mean the lunge? That isn't an exploit it is a feature. Not sure what is being exploited there. The fact a key feature is used often? That isn't an exploit.

Brigs, yes have a bit of a issue if being locked up without a reason. Though is that exploit or just player interaction? You can just sit in the brig and gain the spoils.

Crossplay, exploited???? How? It is a tool to allow people to play together... how is it exploited?

Bad water physics... are you kidding me? The sea is by far the most impressive set of water in a game I have seen to date. What is exploited here?

Do you understand that exploiting in games is not defined as extensive use right, but using the mechanics to gain unintended outcomes, speed up processes and things of that nature right?

The only option I think would be remotely acceptable is a unanimous vote system to grant it to a specific pirate and remove it from the table and place it in their voyage journal. Making it a crew decision to grant it to someone, it is a choice of the crew to convert the joint mission to someone's personal one. Giving choice in games is a good thing, it are the impact they have though that determines the viability of giving that choice to a player.

I would honestly be fine with this. It would be far better than what we have currently, but I think you need to give up this idea that the community needs to "control" peoples experience in some way. One of the best use cases for a save system would be closed crews where someone needs to leave early and this would allow that. This is what I'm saying though! There are SOLUTIONS! Nothing is ever going to be perfect and pretending like it needs to be before it's worthy of this game is plain wrong.

I do think that in a cooperative game that the rest of the group, your crew, should have a say in the matter. This is not a solo game, it is a social one even of you don't consider other crews. Voyages is a crews goal, not an individual one and so yes they should be involved with the ability to choose.

Also, there solutions and nothing is ever perfect. I just dont think the issue you describe really needs a fix in this manner. I believe adding different voyages and manners to provide people with shorter, maybe more difficult, ways to achieve the goals set out is a far better solution. I even suggested an implementation and you still think that is too much about the crew and should be more about the individual... all I can say, it is selfish to not consider the crew in a cooperative game.

You are acting like I am not listening or willing to look at this. But I am the one that suggested here something that would be acceptable for me, even if I don't think it needs to be addressed.

I am all for letting people flee, engage, talk, fight in any way they want to.

No you're not, because the very next sentence is:

I just don't want to encourage them to give up and leave for the next game session. A new round in which I am not a participant.

Wait so the fact I still want to be in the same game as them, makes me want to dictate how they play? Leaving is QUITing the game, it isn't playing it is removing yourself from the game. It isn't a choice of how to play, it is the choice to not play. This is a game, providing choices how to play is what we should provide, not the promotion of choices to stop.

The fact they go and play with others still means I am no longer playing with them. The last sentence you quoted is the most important one.

You realize that if they leave the server I am not playing with them anymore. I want to be playing with everyone, not encouraging people to leave the same game instance.

You want rare to control peoples experience way to much. In a game that is supposed to be all about "freedom" this is a contradiction. If people don't want to play with you then you just need to deal with that.

If they meet me, hate me and want to leave that is fine, but should they then get the stuff that I worked for? No. They decide they want to walk out, let them walk out. Why do they need a goodiebag?

There is a difference between freedom of how to play and just freedom. I want Rare to limit, encourage and create a great game. I don't want a do whatever I want without it being part of Rares designs and the interactions between them. Cause I dont want pirates to fly, become giants, fast travel, get the ability to summon treasure, etc. So, naturally I want Rare to own the product they make and provide me tools that give me options within the world according to their vision.

If you want to play a game focused purely on your vision, make one. This is Rares game and we play it and so naturally they should control the narrative of options.

Are you in favor of cheating? Cause that is how those people want to play? I for one think it is good that they get banned for that freedom of choice.

Giving people everything they want is not a good thing, some people want to ruin other people's game, be a God in the world, not have to work for things and get everything for free. None of that is really good behavior to endorse.

You claim to care about how people want to play the game. However the fact that I want to promote people to stick to the same crew, as that allows me to play the way I want seems to much to grasp. The fact that in a multiplayer I care more about the multi part is apparently a: in my head problem. Maybe this issue is in your head.

My advice, stop caring so much about those maps you decided not to do. You choose to not do them, you got the rewards for everything you did do. It is a fair system, stop acting entitled that because of those 200 gold coins you must keep it. It isn't a lot of gold and you can get new ones every morning at 6 am, they will all provide you with progress and loot. What's the big deal?

Session based games, need to be reset at the start of the session. Everyone start on equal footing, it is the core of the game. Don't carry over aspects of gameplay from one to the other.

I don't know what else to add to this conversation, based on the reactions a lot of people share my 'in my head' idea of the game and I am literally starting to repeat myself, as you are unwilling to budge from your own ideas and be open for that of others.

I tried suggesting new game play to be added and even a save system, but as long as it isn't purely individual choice in a multiplayer cooperative game it isn't good enough for you.

@betsill said in option to "save game":

@bloodybil
I agree with part of what you said and disagree with part, but i'm burnt out on this discussion. I've made my points(someone points multple times) and ya'll that disagree have said yours.

free speach still doesn't mean you can be toxic to others.

It does actually.

Actually no it doesn't just because you are able to, doesn't make it acceptable to destroy other people based on their race, sex and being a human being.

Toxic behavior is really not acceptable and is why we can report them and they get punished. It isn't allowed, it is not ok and not condoned.

Just like being able to cheat is possible, but still not allowed.

@lil-fokker said in option to "save game":

I think where some people are getting confused with this idea is if they imagine that simply anyone can just click into the menu and choose "save game" at any point in a voyage and disconnect.

That would certainly be a bad choice for implementation...especially for the ship's inventory.
Perhaps that could apply to just their character's inventory...but best to keep it simple.

As I stated very early on....it would be best to require certain criteria be met....

1. No active battles.
2. Must be anchored at an Outpost.
3. Perhaps an interaction with the shipwright to choose the option to "save ship status"
4. Maybe even a voting system to either continue or abandon voyages.
5. An active save state on either the client or the server [or both for reconciliation and error checking] that holds the ship status in memory in case of server crashes or client crashes.

Many thoughtful issues have been raised in this and other threads so far that are legitimate troubleshooting ideas that could all be designed around and/or practically resolved by the above criteria.

However, to say that a game mechanic isn't worth an attempt because there "might be bugs" or "players could find some way to abuse it"; Well no game would ever be made if developers let these concerns stop them.

😄

Ways players could... well no but if it is staring you straight in the face and is super obvious it should be addressed before you roll it out.

The issue is not how to do it, I don't think it should be done at all. It is about carrying over the current gameplay state of a crew to the next session.

It is a session based game where each crew start off with the same things.
A fresh boat, a fresh voyage (which you can buy and choose), fresh supplies and equal strength and ability for each pirate.

If it is done, it should be a crew choice and not an individual one and must prevent duplication of voyages.

Voyages are suppose to be the longer term goals in the game session, a motivator to keep playing now. Diminishing this by saving is in my view a reduction of quality of the game.

@cotu42 said in option to "save game":

@betsill said in option to "save game":

@bloodybil
I agree with part of what you said and disagree with part, but i'm burnt out on this discussion. I've made my points(someone points multple times) and ya'll that disagree have said yours.

free speach still doesn't mean you can be toxic to others.

It does actually.

Actually no it doesn't just because you are able to, doesn't make it acceptable to destroy other people based on their race, sex and being a human being.

Toxic behavior is really not acceptable and is why we can report them and they get punished. It isn't allowed, it is not ok and not condoned.

SoT doesn't have freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is the freedom to be toxic. Rare can ban whoever they want for whatever they want because they control the speech on these forums and to some extent in the game. IRL though, where there is real freedom of speech I can call you or anyone else whatever I want and their isn't a single thing you can do about it. This isn't the topic of the OP though, so best not to get into it.

@betsill actuall you call me what ever you want in reality and I can sue you for defamation, get you kicked out an establishment or fired, see a bunch of people beat you up or a bunch of other negative aspects. In any case your reputation will be affected.

So, no freedom of speech is even in the non digital space not a say whatever you want free card. There are consequences for your actions and sometimes even legal ones, defamation or threats as examples are open for legal rebuttal especially if it is recorded. People will respond and they can even become physical or it causes damage to your profession life. That is why usually people are way more toxic online than face to face, because there is anonymity to hide behind and the bad excuse of it is a game. You are talking to people and some basic respect is called for.

If you are talking about behind closed doors, then yes sure but then you are no longer I the public space and not bothering people. Do what ever you want in your house amongst your friends.

I don't get why you would defend racists and harrassment based on peoples sexual orientation, gender, skin color etc.

@cotu42 lol go ahead and try suing someone for offending you. I wasn't even defending freespeech there, let alone "racists", but would I defend freespeech? absolutely. People have the right to be "unsavory" I'm happy to say. This is unrelated to the post though. I just had to say something about your "I could sue you or get people to beat you up" BS.

@betsill you might want to look up what defamation means or what would constitute a threat and the legal actions people take. People get restraining orders based on what people say. Harrassment law suits and all that are a reality.

Also, if you don't believe people get beaten up over things they say... you had a nice sheltered life.

Also you think companies will want to be associated with that type of behavior?

Free speech is the ability to express yourself, it is not that you can state anything without consequences and how you bring your message is of importance.

The fact that you claim being toxic is fine, which btw is sexist, homophobic, racist, etc. You are defending exactly that.

Edit: btw how is this not real life? I am a real human being and so are you... so yeah being banned is also a real life consequence for being toxic.

@cotu42 said in option to "save game":

@betsill
Edit: btw how is this not real life?

I mean it's a privately owned forum so Rare has control vs being in public. Seriously i'm done now. This isn't the topic of this post.

@betsill still a public space...

@betsill said in option to "save game":

@bloodybil
I agree with part of what you said and disagree with part, but i'm burnt out on this discussion. I've made my points(someone points multple times) and ya'll that disagree have said yours.

free speach still doesn't mean you can be toxic to others.

It does actually.

Perhaps it does, but toxic speech goes against the community pirate code regulations and is not seen in a positive light either. Furthermore, free speech is more of a flawed ideal, usually it comes with consequences. Failure to follow rules here in the community will lead to consequences of varying levels, for example. We can all be mature about topics and talk about things in a civilized manner. Ultimately, we don't need to agree with each other or accept others point of views but we do need to understand varying points of views that may not necessarily coincide with our own ideas. Respect for each other is also respect for our selves, so let's all do our best to get along, we all want the same either way, the improvement of this game.