Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Alpha Two Phase II testing is currently taking place 5+ days each week. More information about testing schedule can be found here
If you have Alpha Two, you can download the game launcher here, and we encourage you to join us on our Official Discord Server for the most up to date testing news.
Alpha Two Phase II testing is currently taking place 5+ days each week. More information about testing schedule can be found here
If you have Alpha Two, you can download the game launcher here, and we encourage you to join us on our Official Discord Server for the most up to date testing news.
Comments
I didn't say it was a perfect concept, I said it was the best we can do with the information we have.
If you have a better definition of what makes an activity in an MMO hard other than how often you succeed or fail at it, I'd love to hear it.
We can all give our subjective opinions, sure, but that's about the only other option.
Once you figure out the fight and win, the likelihood of winning goes beyond 50%. At the point is PvP harder?
With top end content, this isn't the case.
Even after figuring out the content, you will still usually need 3 or 4 pulls in order to get a successful pull.
In mid-range content this would be the case, but there also aren't nearly as many attempts to get that first kill. Over time, I would rate the win rate of mid-range raid content as being higher than 50%, but not top end raid content.
Aren't we all sinners?
And if you're playing against a pro player you might not win a single match.
What's your point?
You're cherrypicking and manipulating the statistics
Your 50% win rate argument is not great.
You know as well as I do that once a raid group has content on farm it is a 90-100% win rate for the raid.
This does not happen in PvP. So long as the teams are of relative skill and gear level. The win rate stays near 50% in PvP.
You argument is limited by the function of time. If you had these two scenarios play out for an eternity the PvEers win rate could get up near 100%, and the PvPers win rate should stay near 50%.
You could add a near infinite amount of raid bosses to the raids repertoire and it would still be true (The only limit is human memory). The raid would prog the content to near 100% success. That never happens in PvP.
Surly for have a better argument than this for why PvE is harder?
This is my personal feedback, shared to help the game thrive in its niche.
This is why I specifically defined the parameters of both the encounter (top end raid), and the fact that we are talking about the same 40 people whether on a raid or in 20v20 PvP.
I'm not cherry picking things here, I specifically defined these parameters before hand - stating that it is not a perfect scenario because we don't have all the information we need.
You're only arguing because it is me, at this point.
Your point here is absolutely correct for mid-rage raid content, but top end raid content will still wipe a raid several times for each successful pull.
There will be a point that the top-end raid will have a 90-100% win rate eventually. I don't care if it takes the raid 10000 pulls to prog that 90-100% success rate. They could get there.
If two similar PvP groups were doomed to fight each other in the same number of times. The win rate should still be close to 50%.
I would like to give in and say: "man vs machine is harder than man vs man". The potential for that statement to be true is there, but that is not the case when man is designing the machine so that man can defeat it.
When man fights man, he is constantly redesigning himself to defeat man. As long as raid bosses are static. I can't agree with you.
Maybe Intrepid can put AlphaGo in charge of some monster tokens and I can agree with you. Then PvE would be lit AF.
This is my personal feedback, shared to help the game thrive in its niche.
No, I'm arguing against you because like Vhaeyne and Biccus, I see clearly how your reasoning doesn't fit.
You made the statistics fit the answer that you wanted, and likewise, I responded by making the statistics fit the opposite answer. You're literally cherry picking scenarios.
You say top end Raid encounter vs average raider, I say Pro-level team vs average player. Your statistics don't have any bearing on the argument, they're literally just numbers that can be swayed in either direction.
The thread isn't about who wins more, it's about which requires more skill. And don't you dare respond with "Well lower win ratio means more skill" because myself, Jamation, and many others have already dissected that in the previous page. This is par for the course of Noanni using bad faith debate tactics. I don't have it out for you, if you pay attention I respond to everyone who makes bad faith arguments. You just happen to do it constantly. Regardless, I'm not trying to make this a pissing contest.
We'll even assume half of the number here, so 5000 pulls.
With a pull a week, that is near 10 years on the one encounter.
If a piece of content is relevant for even a single year, something is wrong with the game.
Again, these are all things I did point out in my first post here.
I agree that those parameters are not ideal, and have even asked people to provide better ones (again, do you have a better definition of "hard" than chance of success?). So far, no one has taken me up on that.
Yet, An eternity of PvE leads to perfection while a eternity of PvP leads to that same near 50% win rate.
Which is why I think you should come up with a better reason for why you think PvE is harder. The math only points to a PvE encounter being initially harder. That is too time sensitive for me to believe PvE requires more skill.
This is my personal feedback, shared to help the game thrive in its niche.
Yet another thread where you just ignore my response and reiterate what I've already explained. Sorry I gave you the benefit of the doubt.
PvP is only as hard as your opponent is, and also on how dedicated and talented your team is.
If it turned out that my experiences in PvE were that we were successful with more than 50% of pulls on top end content, the math would reflect that.
The math points to PvE being harder (hard defined as ratio of success) for the duration of that PvE encounter. Since all games have content that is "current" in terms of top end raid challenge, it would be wrong to focus on one encounter here for such a long duration (it would take 4 years of no wipes to break even with my understated numbers above).
I am sure you would agree that at this point, it is unreasonable.
I set out parameters and provided a result.
Your response was "but if you change the parameters, you get a different result".
Do you want a cookie?
Raids are designed to be a challenge through being punishing. PvP is designed to be fair. You can’t actually try and argue that one is harder by using statistics. Probability of success is just not a good measure of difficulty.
The fact that raids can wipe on a single mistake doesn’t necessarily make it harder or require more skill, it just makes it more punishing.
You can't reason with Noanni, I've tried so many times.
That is my point though. You "could" break even. Then you "could" get up to 99%. The improvement is only limited by the time.
This never could happen in PvP. The two groups would just keep improving at the same rate keeping the W/L ratio near 50%.
This is my personal feedback, shared to help the game thrive in its niche.
If you have a better measure, I'm more than happy to hear it.
I've asked this a number of times in this thread - and no one has come up with a reply.
I am perfectly able to be reasoned with, you just need to use logic to do so.
Your last attempt at reasoning with me was literally saying "if you change the parameters, you change the result".
While the numbers I provided are not totally accurate, I did try to keep things within the bounds of reason. Within the bounds of reason (which includes the fact that an encounter is only relevant for 9 months at the most - among the other parameters I outlined), this makes success chance on top end raids less than PvP.
Now, if we change one of those parameters (be that moving to mid-range content, assuming a relevant life of more than 9 months, assuming an unbalanced PvP situation, etc) then sure, the results change.
The question is, are the changes to the parameters reasonable, or are we now asking people to fight the same encounter once a week for over 200 years just to get the results we want?
You’re not understanding the point being made. Nobody is saying your measurement is “not ideal”, the point is your measurement is 100% not applicable to the comparison so stop using it.
We don't need to have people fight the same fight for 200 years unless we want absolute proof. The act of proving the theory is something that I would admit is ridiculous. The theory itself is so sound that even you did not dispute it. You instead went straight into completing the theory for me by giving me the number of years it would take to reach a 99% win rate. The theory is partially yours now, you helped to complete it.
The Noaani Vhaenye theory of content difficulty over time... We will get an award for this I am sure.
This is my personal feedback, shared to help the game thrive in its niche.
Imagine this scenario. You are given two tasks. Both can be succeeded or failed, and you have to do both tasks 200 times.
With one task, you fail the first 128 times, and then succeed a third of the time for the remaining 72 attempts.
With the other, you succeed 50% of the time, start to finish.
You are then asked which one was harder. If you say the second one was harder, you will be looked at in an odd way, as you succeeded at it significantly more.
The reason we can say this is a fair comparison is because we are talking about the same people doing two different tasks. It would not be right to compare different people doing different tasks - but we are not.
Your numbers are assuming it's a comparison of 1 raid boss pull against 1 round of PvP.
I see what you're saying using this assumption.
My assumption would be 1 raid night compared to a many round PvP fight.
In this case success for the raid night is 1 successful kill where success for PvP is more rounds won instead of a single win. The success conditions for a raid night or night of PvP are different.
This would mean the chance of success in PvP is still 50% but the chance of success in a raid night is now higher.
If we purely look at single boss pull vs PvP win for each individual instance as the only success then you could argue your numbers.
Task one is designed to make you fail until you learn the task.
Task two is designed to be a tough fight every time.
Task one you learn the task after 60 attempts, you clear up mistakes in the next 60. Giving you 80 easy attempts at a very high success rate.
Task two remains a tough fight almost every time but remains a 50-50. Success rate.
If asked at the end I’d wager they would say task two actually, simply because it was consistently difficult all the way through.
If we want to take a single night of raiding vs a single night of PvP, if that night of raiding is at the start of attempting a new top end encounter, the success is zero. If we look at that same encounter a few months later, the success chance will be somewhere between 25% and 100%.
The variation in this is why I opted to look over the span of time the encounter would expect to be relevant. Since the expectation with PvP is always 50/50, it doesn't really matter how long a time span we take.
You could change this parameter and change the result, for sure.
You could take your average of 25% and span that over a 16 pull night.
0.75^16 gives 1% chance to not get a kill that night.
That wouldn't reflect any individual raid night though and is not representative of raiding but it is using your numbers.