Wierdly, and because of reasons, I've been thinking about this a lot lately. In actuality - I think we're polarizing around the wrong divide, as a playerbase.
Specifically - PVE or PVP is silly; PVEVP is the point. Without risk, turning in those rewards is not nearly as exhillarating (the PVP adds to PVE experiences) and without people who love digging up chests and fighting skeletons, dedicated PVPers would have no booty to loot. In other words, the content of each 'playstyle' really is dependent on the other style.
Thus, bluntly, PVErs who insist that PVP is spoiling their fun are missing the point just as much as the PVPer who says 'git gud' or who thinks raiding other people's forts and never doing anything that gives them something to lose is the pinnacle of how awesome they are.
IMO - If you engage in only one aspect of the game, you are not playing it as intended. PVP server hoppers looking for people to fight are just as to blame as PVErs who hop looking for peaceful sailing experiences. PVPVE is exactly the point. To the point -that PVPers saying "You shouldn't be allowed to run so that I have better fights" are just as problematic as the PVEr saying "I should never have to fight."
However, I think it fair to say that where the problem lies is in certain core gameplay loops that could use a bit of tweaking. PVPers, you want other people to start forts so you can steal them.. but you don't want to start your own to get the fights you want. PVErs would love to do the forts, but never start them because... what's the point? THey rarely get to keep the loot. And - while I'm exaggerating, I'm not exaggerating by much, here.
I would suggest that any 'fix' should be directed at two simple concepts:
- When you sink a PVEr, they shouldn't lose everything. Mechanically, the game already tracks whether you were the first person to touch loot or not; why not give half the value to the fellow who touched it first, as long as they're on the same server as when it's sold? This solves two problems: the PVE player doesn't leave the server emptyhanded after a bad experience, and the world-event-doer has incentive to at least get it done, as the loot has significant value.
- When world events are designed, they should not be designed in such a way that they favor the aggressor. Flameheart is actually a good example here - those ships are equally aggro to anything that gets close and the 'event surface' is across only one aspect of gameplay: ship combat. The FOTD is a terrible example: one crew has to be on the fort fighting the event, while everybody else has to fight only the half that's defending the FOTD-doers ship. Aggressors are set up to win, and defenders are at a tremendous disadvantage.
Seriously - one minor loot change, though, and you solve these issues. I want to be the one cracking the fort and opening the vault, because then I'm guaranteed at least half the value of the stuff in there. I want to take down the ashen lord because even if you've thrashed my ship in the ocean, I'm going to get something out of the experience.
It really is disheartening to spend a lovely evening doing something fun with friends to be denied your payout. It's merely annoying to lose a freshly spawned ship - but it's downright rage-inducing to get steamrolled by a better crew when you're just trying to get logged out for a night.
Want fresh blood? Really reduce the failure penalty. Give people the understanding that - hey, if you fight? You get it all, but if you fight and lose? You still get half.. and watch people not immedately head off into the red sea.
Reminder: There is absolutely no way to practice effectively in adventure mode. If you're a PVPer and you're up against a new player, or even someone who isn't who just hasn't had many encounters? You are not making their day more fun. They have zero incentive to fight you - you brought no treasure, you're better supplied, have better skills, and their experience is akin to a kitten getting mauled by a steamroller. OF COURSE they're not going to be happy with that! How is that fun?
"Git good" doesn't make up for the frustration of the loss - so lessen the frustration of the loss, and I suspect you'll lessen calls for the losses to be removed entirely.