I disagree with so much in your post it's not really worth commenting on because were just going in circles. It's not even so much disagreeing, because your posts are usually laced with things I agree with too. We just come to very different conclusions on things that the underlying point we might actually agree on.
Your quote "A PvE training ground for raiders, and provides a base level of gear that would be needed for any other content."
This I agree with. In a competitive game like Ashes there needs to be somewhat easily accessible access to gear that gets players at least mildly competitive. To where they're not just getting dunked on. That doesn't have to come from instancing, there are other ways it could be implemented. But I think whatever instanced encounters Ashes uses are a good candidate for them to consider for where that gear might come from.
I disagree with so much in your post it's not really worth commenting on. It's not even so much disagreeing, because your posts are usually laced with things I agree with too. We just come to very different conclusions on things that the underlying point we might actually agree on.
Which parts is it you disagree with?
Or perhaps - which parts is it you agree with, and what differing conclusion do you come to from those parts that you agree with?
I've come across a lot of posters on these forums that have opinions that are basically "I want it because I think I want it", without any real thought put in to what it would mean for the game.
The content outline I gave for this game is specifically not what I would want to see as my first choice - it is what I see working well on Ashes after some careful consideration.
Now, you dont seem like you are saying you do or dont want a thing just because - but it does seem to me as if you are still working through the implications of what you want to see - which I am assuming is why you are reluctant to get in to any specifics.
Something else I did specifically say is that there are no doubt other ways to add in content to perform the function that both forma of instanced content I have talked about fill - a role I assume we agree needs to be filled.
While I have no doubt there are other ways to perform that role, I can not think of any that will do so effectively, that aren't either instanced, or some convoluted mechanic to emulate instancing in a way where people can point and say "but it's not instanced" (I would rather see instancing than this, for content that needs it).
Now, if you can think of a way to add in content that is available to people that want it, doesnt introduce an easy means of content blocking (its fine if it allows for content blocking with a lot of work), and isnt some form of convoluted instancing emulation just to be able to say it isnt instanced then hey, let's talk about it.
My main concern is that Ashes has content that fills each of the needs above properly. While I have given *my* preference for how this game should fulfill each type, as long as each specific purpose is filled, it's all good.
Now, you dont seem like you are saying you do or dont want a thing just because - but it does seem to me as if you are still working through the implications of what you want to see - which I am assuming is why you are reluctant to get in to any specifics.
I've already gotten into specifics with you in previous threads, and some in this thread. We went in circles then, we go in circles now lol. You are one of the most pro instancing, pve centric posters on this forum. I'm one of the most anti instancing, pvp/pvx centric posters on this forum. We're not going to agree on everything. Though I think we agree on some things with this topic, and I'm sure we agree on other unrelated topics.
I'm not going to go through a full list of everything I disagree with, tired of typing walls of text, which this already will likely be. But I disagree with your premise of instances for the purpose of acclimating or easing people into raiding. Completely unnecessary and should never be used as the reason an instance is added, imo. I'm on board with up to 20% for the purposes of narrative appeal, and no other reason. If as a side effect, that creates a series of instances where people can indeed get acclimated to fighting bosses, great.
I disagree with your premise of content blocking. That's one of the whole points of the game, to block content. Obviously we don't want it to where people just can't complete any content or progress, but that all depends on all kinds of factors we have no clue about yet. Content blocking, and the player politics that will result from it, are one of the main driving forces of the game. Instances should never be added for the purpose of circumventing that.
You view some of these things as omg people are going to be so blocked, they're going to quit, there's going to be one asshole guild that instantly kills everyone the moment they even approach a piece of content, and all the lambs are so inept and brain dead there's nothing to be done, they can't help themselves. Like Bill Paxton in Aliens, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45QJiADwGhE.
I view it more as that it will run across a spectrum. There will certainly be some people that at the first sign of adversity, they're fucking out. Gone, see ya, "I aint putting up with this shit going back to WOW." And that happens in every game in every genre, people quit because it's too hard or doesn't suit them in some kind of way.
But going along the spectrum, I don't think everyone's brain dead. I think some people will learn, adapt, organize, counter their enemies and find some success. And going further along the spectrum, some of these people who were initially on their heels will adapt and organize and use diplomacy to an extent that they become the alpha dogs of their area.
So I disagree with instances for anything other than the purpose of greater narrative appeal. If through that, some of your and other's concerns are alleviated, I think that's good. I agree with your enhanced instancing ideas in that they could and probably should be used anywhere where instancing is used, anything is better than basic, vanilla instancing.
And I agree with baseline competitive gear being relatively accessible to the masses so they're not just getting dunked on AS they struggle, while learning, adapting and organizing for success. That gear could potentially come from some of these instances.
Another wall of text. Sure to be followed by another wall of text from you. I don't mind debating but at a certain point you gotta see too that were just going in circles and it might be time to just stop lol.
NOAANI - THE BILL PAXTON OF ASHES OF CREATION LOL
I'll be Michael Biehn or Sigourney Weaver. Or even Newt, she was a badass.
I've already gotten into specifics with you in previous threads, and some in this thread. We went in circles then, we go in circles now lol.
Where the fuck do you get off saying shit like this?
Here's a basic guide to online discussion on a specific topic for you.
1, state your respective positions.
2, read the position of the person you are discussing with.
3, engage on a back-and-forth to straighten out any misconceptions either of you have on the opposing position.
4, begin fruitful discussion.
It isn't myfault you blatantly refuse to participate in step 3, despite my best efforts to do so. Dont go bringing that up in any context other than to prove how lazy you are being - because that is the truth of it. I have tried and tried to get to the core of several misconceptions you have, but I cant do that without you being involved as well.
Take two points from your above post, instancing and content blocking.
As you know, I spent a lot of time playing EQ2. Many of my posts are about specific things that game did,how they were good, and occasionally how they were bad. It is fair to say (and many others have said it), I would like to seeagamemadeas a direct sequel to that game.
The thing is, at launch, about 85% of EQ2's group content was non-instanced, as was about 60% of its raid content.
To say I want an instanced game, or to say I am one of the biggest proponents of instancing onthese forums - that just shows you have no clue what you are talking about, and are not actually even reading opinions that you are arguing against.
Basic math would tell you that I am asking for between 85 and 87.5% regroup content in Ashes to be open world,if you read what I have ACTUALLY SAID, rather tha your misconception about what I have said that you blatantly refuse to have corrected.
It is no coincidence that these percentages are similar, and this is a higher percent of open world content tha even Steven has suggested (he has said they may do more tha 20%, if the content needs it).
As to content blocking being a thing I Ashes, not shit Sherlock. About 90% of the content I talked about can be blocked - the entire McGuffin system is there as a means by which guilds can - with effort - not only block content from others at three specific points, but they can also physically take access to that content away.
Literally the only content in what I posted at the top of page two that isnt easy to block are the few instances that are right at the start of progression.
Basically, all the time you spent on talking about me liking instances, and content blocking (including everything about Alien) was wasted time on your behalf, due to you being too outright lazy to engage in a proper discussion.
What are you wanting me to be specific about? I don't know what you want from me. I've stated my positions, I've read your posts to me. We've talked about them. I agree with you on some things and disagree on others. I like some of your ideas, disagree with some of your philosophies.
To say I want an instanced game, or to say I am one of the biggest proponents of instancing onthese forums - that just shows you have no clue what you are talking about, and are not actually even reading opinions that you are arguing against.
If you are more in the camp of 20% instancing or less, then I agree with you on that. It doesn't mean I agree with your reasonings on why that amount of instancing exists or should exist. It doesn't mean I agree with all of your different philosophies you lace your posts with.
I hate grinding dungeons. With a passion.
Doing the exact same thing over and over for a bauble so i could move on to the next dungeon and do that same scripted encounter over, and over, and over... so I can do it in another one, and another one. WTH!? Who thought this crap up?
What a drag.
I guess that's why I've never maxed out lvl in wow until they made lvls basically meaningless. Once quests were done with and I had no more 'story' to discover, I was done. Hunt up a new novel and try not to get sucked into that addiction again.
If its there, I won't complain, I just wont participate.
I really don't care either way.
I'll be a Cleric supporting my guild buddies slaying goblins, stomping dragons, smiting undead with a glass of cab.
This is why end game content is best played with friends.
If you go bowling, it is better with friends than just joining some random team in some competition.
If you play golf, it's better if you play with friends than they and join in a round with people you dont know.
If you go to watch a ball game, it is better with friends than without.
Raiding is no different.
All of the above activities are fairly boring in and of themselves. Each of them is more repetitive than raiding, yet when you do any of them with friends, each of them can be a great way to spend time.
Any time someone says they dont like raiding due to anything specific to the act of raiding, it just makes me think the person in question isnt trying to raid with actual friends, they are trying to raid for the sake of raiding - and that is the wrong (as wrong as anything subjective can be) way to go about it.
This is why- to me - the best end game content is content that has the potential to put you and your friends in many different situations. That is what my somewhat long post about how I would like to see end game content be implemented is trying to achieve.
I have to disagree that bowling and golf are the same as raiding.
Bowling, playing golf, being in the audience... these are pretty laid back endeavors, raiding is seerius bizniz!
Raiding is not only boring, but its also stressful! What a crap sandwich.
WoW is pretty much my only 'raiding experience'. AC's raids were mainly zerg tank and spanks. DAoC.. can't really remember.
WoW isn't about raiding with friends, its about being on time to fill your roll for Raid Pts. Maybe being a helaer had something to do with it. Boredom coupled with: win/irrelevant - lose/your fault.
It appears you enjoy raiding, more power to you buddy. I'm not advocating against raids, I'm simply stating that they are a bane to me personally.
AoC may change my mind with its community focused mindset.
I have to disagree that bowling and golf are the same as raiding.
Bowling, playing golf, being in the audience... these are pretty laid back endeavors, raiding is seerius bizniz!
Raiding is not only boring, but its also stressful! What a crap sandwich.
WoW is pretty much my only 'raiding experience'. AC's raids were mainly zerg tank and spanks. DAoC.. can't really remember.
WoW isn't about raiding with friends, its about being on time to fill your roll for Raid Pts. Maybe being a helaer had something to do with it. Boredom coupled with: win/irrelevant - lose/your fault.
It appears you enjoy raiding, more power to you buddy. I'm not advocating against raids, I'm simply stating that they are a bane to me personally.
AoC may change my mind with its community focused mindset.
if you are stressed while raiding, blame the people you are raiding with.
This is much the same as some bowling teams wanting to win, and placing stress on to team mates when that person needs to perform well to secure that win.
Much as with raiding, if you do not want that level of pressure (I do not), join a team that doesn't place it on you.
When I'm raiding, the main purpose for everyone present is enjoyment. We all find enjoyment in success, but not to the level of needing to stress about it.
As such, we tend to have more success than guilds that focus on success over enjoyment - especially in terms of a longer term, as we tend to not have much in the way of guild member turnover (I have had a 26 month stretch without having to recruit a single player, due to not losing any players)/
If you are more in the camp of 20% instancing or less, then I agree with you on that. It doesn't mean I agree with your reasonings on why that amount of instancing exists or should exist. It doesn't mean I agree with all of your different philosophies you lace your posts with.
Edit: Nvm
Before you edited this post, you made a comment about how you wouldn't want to see instances being a means for players being able to get rich, or some such (you edited it out, I can't recall the exact wording).
You also said that you think that this is something I would want.
Why would you think that?
If I wanted instances to be a means for players to be able to squirrel themselves away to progress, I wouldn't be arguing for instances with literally a single boss encounter. You can't squirrel yourself away on content that only has one mob.
I also wouldn't have argued for these instances to be located inside of open dungeons. Them being in a dungeon means players have to traverse the dungeon to even get to them, which means even that instanced content is subject to everything that happens in a dungeon.
I suggested they be in those dungeons for exactly that reason. If I wanted players to be able to have an easy time of it, I wouldn't have suggested that, because I am smart enough to actually think about things rather than just posting "duur, open world is gud" which is basically the limit of your argument so far.
You have given no qualifiers as to why you think that, no examples of how you would like open world content to be designed, no suggestions for how to avoid the many, many pitfalls that open world content has, no suggestions for how to replace the function that instanced content has provided to MMO players for 17 or so years if we didn't have that instanced content.
You don't seem to even have a grasp on how big an open world dungeon needs to be in comparison to an instanced dungeon, with your assumption being what, 20 mobs?
This is quite telling, as it means you don't actually know anything, you are just spouting wishes that you have, without actually thinking of consequences and are attacking suggestions that attempt to deal with those consequences - without actually taking the time to understand them. I mean, you thought a dungeon was 20 mobs was sufficient for an open world dungeon, you thought I wanted a lot of instanced content, you thought I didn't want content blocking, you thought I wanted players to have an easy time with instances - you CLEARLY do not understand the first thing about what I have been saying, yet you CLEARLY think you do, and you CLEARLY seem to have no interest in correcting YOUR misconceptions.
The ignorance and unwillingness to correct it that you have displayed in this thread should be a cause for embarrassment for you - hell, I am embarrassed for you. I mean, not understanding is fine, but then having someone point out you don't understand, ignore what they are saying and then carrying on with that ignorance - that is Dygz level shit there.
Edit to clarify; almost Dygz level shit - no need for hyperbole.
I edited it out because I knew you hadn't specifically endorsed that, I meant it more tongue in cheek, but didn't want to take the risk of setting you off again. Mission failed lol.
Most of the rest of your post is a bunch of angry nonsense, except the jab at Dygz, that was funny.
I edited it out because I knew you hadn't specifically endorsed that, I meant it more tongue in cheek, but didn't want to take the risk of setting you off again. Mission failed lol.
Most of the rest of your post is a bunch of angry nonsense, except the jab at Dygz, that was funny.
So, lets be clear here.
I am asking for around 12% instanced content, of that, a good amount I want to see fairly easily contested (not as easy as open world content, but still fairly easy).
I am not looking for any means for players to be able to get ahead via instancing - and indeed would fully support the same items dropping in the limited instanced content as from the open dungeon bosses (meaning a guild that limits them self to instanced content has 5 bosses every week, where as a guild that doesn't has 35+).
Literally all the things you say you want are things I had in my first post - yet you are still arguing against it.
Why?
0
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I critiqued your outline post. I agreed with a lot of it. I raised questions about the numbers used in your content type 1. Content type 2 was ffa battleground world bosses, I was neutral on that. Content types 3 and 4 were enhanced instancing, which I agree with when instancing is needed, and I threw in the caveat that those same ideas can be done open world, but better. Just to illustrate my opinion that the enhanced instancing ideas themselves are not a good argument or reason for instancing. But they are good for where instancing is going to be added anyway.
Most everything else we are arguing about is about other things you say, not your outline.
\
Most everything else we are arguing about is about other things you say, not your outline.
Most of what we are arguing about are things you are saying.
You tried, as an example, to get in to an argument about how not all MMO's need to do the same thing. While this is true, all MMO's need to provide content that do the same basic thing, such as introduce players to content types and ideas, and allow transition between differing content types that require different player numbers and/or player skill.
If we are talking about an MMO that has designs of being successful, these things are non-negotiable, and the outline I gave on page 2 is the bare minimum way to do that successfully with the least use of instanced content. Anything less than what was in that post, and the game in question will either have a failed top end, or just no top end PvE (as per Archeage).
Now, since Intrepid have said they want high asperation PvE raiding in Ashes, the outline I gave was teh bare minimum they need to do to achieve what it is they have said.
Either you read and understood that and got argumentative anyway, read it, didn't understand it and got argumentative(my assumption), or you didn't read it and just started arguing anyway.
Point is, you were arguing.
I didn't give a number for how many bosses I would see in the open dungeons. You saw the 5 instances and just assumed that meant more than 20% of the content would be instanced. You didn't attempt to clarify this, you just assumed it and argued as if it were true. Not only does that show you were just arguing for the sake of it, but it also shows a lack of understanding of the difference between open dungeons and instanced dungeons (a large instanced dungeon being 8 - 12 bosses, a large open dungeon being 50 - 80 bosses). Anyone with experience in games with open dungeons would have looked at that number of 5 instances per dungeon and immediately have known that this would see it sitting well below the 20% Intrepid have stated - yet you assumed otherwise and argued the point, without basis, experience or knowledge on the matter.
Again, this is conduct that sees me feeling embarrassed for you, I can only imagine how you feel.
My assertation that MMO's need to have content to provide specific basic functions, such as content that introduces players to new content, or the fact that you made an assumption as to how many bosses an open dungeon should have?
Brother I think we're just on completely different wavelengths. There is a disconnect between us that I don't care about bridging. And you are hostile lol. Not a big deal, I've been amused by it, but have no interest in going in circles with you more.
Brother I think we're just on completely different wavelengths. There is a disconnect between us that I don't care about bridging. And you are hostile lol. Not a big deal, I've been amused by it, but have no interest in going in circles with you more.
I've asked you maybe a half dozen times to specify what it is you disagree with, and every time you have refused and just carried on a generalist argument.
it's almost like you actually have no idea at all what it is you do or don't want, and are arguing for the sake of arguing.
I mean, lets not forget, you did say you disagreed with me because you don't want to see more than Intrepids 20% instancing, completely missing the point that I am asking for less than that. If this isn't arguing for the sake of arguing, what is it?
I did specify what I disagreed with. Reread the posts.
You may think you did, but you in fact did not.
If you disagree with this statement, take literally 10 seconds to quote yourself stating specifically which parts of my post on page 2 you disagree with, and also quote your actual reasoning (no point saying you disagree without a reason).
The reason I know you won't find it is because of the following, which are just some examples of your posting in this thread.
Or they could just do it like the devs have said they're going to do it, vast majority being open world encounters, full stop.
This was your opening sentence. You burst in to this thread with the assumption that we were asking for more instancing than Intrepid have said they want, when in fact we are asking for less. It took me stating this fact outright AT LEAST three times in a direct reply to you for you to finally figure this out.
I don't know how you're saying the game would have no pve content.
Then you made the claim that I said this, which in fact I did not. I said the game would not have top end PvE content, because you can not have top end without both mid and low end.
Yes I'm still arguing against that. Not wholesale, I think some of the ideas are good and could be implemented into the limited instancing Ashes will have, as we know it now.
But I'm definitely arguing against any more instancing than what we already know to be in the design.
Then you went and said this, after claiming to have read the post on page two.
So, we can take some of the ideas from that post - almost all of which were open world content - and apply it to the limited instancing in Ashes, can we?
Are you sure you are not embarrassed?
So what is it?
Do you disagree that the limited instanced content in Ashes should take the form of single boss instances so that people can't lock themselves out of the open world for long stretches?
Do you disagree that the open world encounters in the game should be as varied as possible?
Do you disagree that the group and raid dungeons should be large enough to cater to multiple groups at the same time, as per Intrepids stated intent?
Do you disagree that it would be a good idea to put the better rewards that are obtained in the limited instanced content available up for contention via PvP?
Do you disagree that players should be significantly slower at progressing if they limit themselves to instanced content only?
Well, which of the above do you disagree with? It has to be at least one of them, as the above is basically a list of the content I outlined. You can't really disagree with what I suggested without disagreeing with one or more of the points above.
When I said "Or they could just do it like the devs have said they're going to do it, vast majority being open world encounters, full stop." I was replying to your post right above it. I hadn't read your outline. I wasn't replying to it. I told you that. You let me know that the outline was pertinent so I read it and gave my opinion on it, which was mixed. But I thought there were some good ideas in there.
In that first post to you, I was replying to this, from you, "To me, the best way to "deal" with the situation that open world mobs are not going to be as inherently challenging is to simply accept this fact from a design perspective, design these mobs as PvP flash points, and then design other mobs (in cages and instances, as well as other mechanics) as the encounters that are difficult."
I disagree with pretty much the whole premise of that paragraph and your reasoning of why those instances in question have to be added in. I don't believe instanced content has to be added in AoC for the purpose of getting raid content up to a quality or exact/exact type of difficulty level that is seen in instanced raiding mmos. Apparently the devs feel the same way since the only reason they've given for instancing is for greater narrative appeal. We'll see if they actually stick to that, but that's what they've said point blank so far. And I agree with them.
I also disagreed with your next paragraph in that post when you said this, "As far as I am concerned, as long as this notion is kept in tact, it doesn't matter if that PvP subjugation happens while the encounter is being taken on, before it is being taken on (my cage idea), or after it is being taken on (instanced content with a need to return an item to a metropolis as per my first post)."
I believe that it does matter when and for how long the pvp risk is present in an encounter. I believe there can be instanced content that changes things, mixes things up as far as when and how long the contesting happens. That's exactly what an instance would do. I expect it it in Ashes in some limited extent. But you made the blanket statement that it didn't matter as long as it was subject to pvp redistribution at some point. You even led the sentence with, "While others may disagree with me." I disagreed.
So what I've been trying to explain to you is that it is some of your underlying philosophies I disagree with, and those are just two examples of your philosophies that prompted me to reply to you in the first place. I hadn't even read your outline at that point, I was replying to what was at the time your last post in the thread.
You're trying to punk me I guess? You look very desperate. Insulting, belittling, not in a trolly or funny way, but like you're really mad. I don't know if you're actually mad or if this is just normal behavior for you. But it's not me embarrassing myself. I was going to just let that just slide but you've said it now in your last 2 or 3 posts. It's you man. Get a grip.
Apparently the devs feel the same way since the only reason they've given for instancing is for greater narrative appeal.
They have said they will use instancing if it is required for reasons other than narrative, such as if they need to limit the number of people able to attack an encounter.
This is, I believe, the third time I have pointed this out in this thread. History would suggest that you start understanding things on the third try, so fingers crossed.
My point about PvP being a factor in PvE was in specific relation to the content that I outlined in the second page of this thread, and was in a specific discussion with someone that had read it. I was specifically saying that even if it is instanced PvE, in Ashes it still needs to be subject to PvP, and there is a good argument for that subjugation to actually be more than if the encounter were subject to direct PvP during the encounter proper - which is exactly what my suggestion does - it makes it MORE subject to PvP than if it were just an open world encounter.
At absolute best, you decided to barge in on a discussion between people that had context, ignored said context, and threw in your opinion on only the parts of it that you heard.
Well done!
But hey, you have finally given me a specific thing that you disagree with, lets explore that!.
You disagree with the notion that open world mobs in a PvP setting can not be made as hard to kill as top end instanced raid mobs.
Cool, so, first of all, lets get to the bottom of your perspective of why this is - as in, what experiences you have had in MMO's to inform you here. What top end raid mobs have you killed, and what games have you played with open world raid mobs. I am very curious to know this, because I have experience with top end raid mobs, open world raid mobs, and indeed with top end raid mobs in an open PvP setting (literally none of which were ever killed, I might add, even though the exact same mobs were killed when PvP was removed).
Ahh, more sideswipe insults, who would have thought. No one coulda seen it coming! I know you're mad about me exposing you with your own quote. You didn't even acknowledge it. Wasn't much you could say, it only got worse from there if I pulled more of them up.
Noaani: "To say I want an instanced game, or to say I am one of the biggest proponents of instancing onthese forums - that just shows you have no clue what you are talking about, and are not actually even reading opinions that you are arguing against."
Also Nooani a few months ago : "I am all for instanced PvE content, we all know this."
You just want to keep going. What's your hang up with me, why do you want to argue with me so bad if I'm so dumb that I have to hear things three times before I understand?
According to you just a few posts ago in this thread, I'm not even capable of fully understanding my own thoughts in my own head.
And here you are, just wanting to argue with me.
All I have left to say to you in this thread is that Steven just this last livestream endorsed the Ashes wiki as accurate and a good place to go for people wanting information about that game.
But bro come on, seriously starting to give crazy ex girlfriend vibes, like what is your deal. chill out
Actually I'll make this the last thing I'll say to you in this thread.
None of this stuff we're talking about here is that serious. It's a forum, its a game. Be nice to people. I see you being rude to people more than just a lil bit.. The way you write, you're always trying to make someone look or feel stupid, or taking swipes. Just chill man. It's not that serious.
Also Nooani a few months ago : "I am all for instanced PvE content, we all know this."
You spelt my name wrong, although you did get it right the first time.
And yes, I did say that, and I stand by it. I am all for instanced content. I am all for it being good content, I am all for Intrepid making the best use of instances that they can.
If instances are just a means to add in cut scenes while keeping players safe (ie, narration), then that is a massive waste of a mechanic.
If they take that mechanic, and make the content behind it serve a content based role (potentially in addition to a narrative one, if they wish), then that is far, far better. If they manage to do this, I am all for there being less than 20% of group and raid content instanced, because there would be no need for any more than that.
Being "for" instanced content does not mean wanting WoW style or sized instances, it means wanting the best instances Ashes is able to deliver, in the grater context of what Ashes is as a game (hence suggesting that the better rewards from instances be subject to PvP after the fact - that is what Ashes is about).
Being all for instanced content is not the same thing as being the biggest proponent of instanced content here - there are posters on these forums that would be happy to see the bulk of the game instanced (and there are indeed some that do not even realize that this is not going to be the case).
I'm not sure why you are mentioning Stevens endorsement of the wiki. It is indeed a good place to get information about the game. However, it is not 100% accurate (for about 18 months it said the corruption system would be tested in alpha 1, and had a linked quote for that where Steven specifically said it will not be tested during alpha 1). It is also not complete - something even Lex would not deny.
Finally, I am chill. You think I am trying to take a swipe at you - but you only think that because I am trying to get your opinion on something when you know you have not got a good reason to have the opinion you happen to have.
You know perfectly well that you have no reason to assume any developer can make open world encounters that are on par with what can be made in instances, and yet the argument you want to make (but know perfectly well you can't), hinges on that being possible.
Basically, what you are considering me taking a swipe at you would simply be conversation to someone that had an actual developed and considered opinion on the matter at hand. All I am doing is asking for that opinion, and the reasoning behind it. That is not an unreasonable thing to do - however when you only have the opinion and no actual reasoning behind it, someone pushing for that reasoning absolutely will feel like them taking a swipe at you.
Your opinion in this thread seems to be nothing more than "Oh, Noaani is posting, I had better say I disagree with what ever was in their last post". That is how it came across, and as soon as I started digging deeper, as soon as it was revealed that you actually had no idea what it was I was saying, and as such no idea what it was you were disagreeing with, you started to feel like I was taking a swipe at you.
I don't think Okeydoke has a particularly nuanced or well-thought-out stance on the subject at hand here, and I think there a good chance that if things calmed down that it could be hashed out.
Though, for future reference, folks would broadly consider comments like
You spelt my name wrong, although you did get it right the first time.
This is, I believe, the third time I have pointed this out in this thread. History would suggest that you start understanding things on the third try, so fingers crossed.
At absolute best, you decided to barge in on a discussion between people that had context, ignored said context, and threw in your opinion on only the parts of it that you heard. Well done!
But hey, you have finally given me a specific thing that you disagree with, lets explore that!.
to be insulting. It doesn't particularly matter if you disagree, or don't think that they should find those things insulting, or didn't intend for those things to be insulting. They are.
If your goal is to insult folks, it may be worth doing some introspection and asking yourself "why?". Does harming them or making them feel bad help you in some way? What's the point?
If your goal is to insult folks, it may be worth doing some introspection and asking yourself "why?". Does harming them or making them feel bad help you in some way? What's the point?
My goal is to have discussions about aspects of this game (or MMO's in general, at times) that I care about.
If it becomes obvious that the person in the discussion is unwilling or incapable of that, yet they continue to post, my goal becomes simply entertainment.
As you said, the poster didn't have a particularly nuanced stance here. I spent a while trying to assist them in developing it, but they refused.
At that point, there is nothing left for me to do other than to have some fun.
I would agree with your comment on introspection if - and only if - I hadn't put in real effort to assist the poster in question develop their stance.
Basically, what you are considering me taking a swipe at you would simply be conversation to someone that had an actual developed and considered opinion on the matter at hand. All I am doing is asking for that opinion, and the reasoning behind it. That is not an unreasonable thing to do - however when you only have the opinion and no actual reasoning behind it, someone pushing for that reasoning absolutely will feel like them taking a swipe at you.
Your opinion in this thread seems to be nothing more than "Oh, Noaani is posting, I had better say I disagree with what ever was in their last post". That is how it came across, and as soon as I started digging deeper, as soon as it was revealed that you actually had no idea what it was I was saying, and as such no idea what it was you were disagreeing with, you started to feel like I was taking a swipe at you.
That isn't my fault.
I thought there was a chance that you were being earnest there.
That you didn't actually know that you were being insulting, or you really did blame Okeydoke for feeling insulted when you didn't intend to insult them or something. But nope, it seems like that's just another way to gaslight them for entertainment, right?
Comments
Your quote "A PvE training ground for raiders, and provides a base level of gear that would be needed for any other content."
This I agree with. In a competitive game like Ashes there needs to be somewhat easily accessible access to gear that gets players at least mildly competitive. To where they're not just getting dunked on. That doesn't have to come from instancing, there are other ways it could be implemented. But I think whatever instanced encounters Ashes uses are a good candidate for them to consider for where that gear might come from.
Or perhaps - which parts is it you agree with, and what differing conclusion do you come to from those parts that you agree with?
I've come across a lot of posters on these forums that have opinions that are basically "I want it because I think I want it", without any real thought put in to what it would mean for the game.
The content outline I gave for this game is specifically not what I would want to see as my first choice - it is what I see working well on Ashes after some careful consideration.
Now, you dont seem like you are saying you do or dont want a thing just because - but it does seem to me as if you are still working through the implications of what you want to see - which I am assuming is why you are reluctant to get in to any specifics.
Something else I did specifically say is that there are no doubt other ways to add in content to perform the function that both forma of instanced content I have talked about fill - a role I assume we agree needs to be filled.
While I have no doubt there are other ways to perform that role, I can not think of any that will do so effectively, that aren't either instanced, or some convoluted mechanic to emulate instancing in a way where people can point and say "but it's not instanced" (I would rather see instancing than this, for content that needs it).
Now, if you can think of a way to add in content that is available to people that want it, doesnt introduce an easy means of content blocking (its fine if it allows for content blocking with a lot of work), and isnt some form of convoluted instancing emulation just to be able to say it isnt instanced then hey, let's talk about it.
My main concern is that Ashes has content that fills each of the needs above properly. While I have given *my* preference for how this game should fulfill each type, as long as each specific purpose is filled, it's all good.
I've already gotten into specifics with you in previous threads, and some in this thread. We went in circles then, we go in circles now lol. You are one of the most pro instancing, pve centric posters on this forum. I'm one of the most anti instancing, pvp/pvx centric posters on this forum. We're not going to agree on everything. Though I think we agree on some things with this topic, and I'm sure we agree on other unrelated topics.
I'm not going to go through a full list of everything I disagree with, tired of typing walls of text, which this already will likely be. But I disagree with your premise of instances for the purpose of acclimating or easing people into raiding. Completely unnecessary and should never be used as the reason an instance is added, imo. I'm on board with up to 20% for the purposes of narrative appeal, and no other reason. If as a side effect, that creates a series of instances where people can indeed get acclimated to fighting bosses, great.
I disagree with your premise of content blocking. That's one of the whole points of the game, to block content. Obviously we don't want it to where people just can't complete any content or progress, but that all depends on all kinds of factors we have no clue about yet. Content blocking, and the player politics that will result from it, are one of the main driving forces of the game. Instances should never be added for the purpose of circumventing that.
You view some of these things as omg people are going to be so blocked, they're going to quit, there's going to be one asshole guild that instantly kills everyone the moment they even approach a piece of content, and all the lambs are so inept and brain dead there's nothing to be done, they can't help themselves. Like Bill Paxton in Aliens,
I view it more as that it will run across a spectrum. There will certainly be some people that at the first sign of adversity, they're fucking out. Gone, see ya, "I aint putting up with this shit going back to WOW." And that happens in every game in every genre, people quit because it's too hard or doesn't suit them in some kind of way.
But going along the spectrum, I don't think everyone's brain dead. I think some people will learn, adapt, organize, counter their enemies and find some success. And going further along the spectrum, some of these people who were initially on their heels will adapt and organize and use diplomacy to an extent that they become the alpha dogs of their area.
So I disagree with instances for anything other than the purpose of greater narrative appeal. If through that, some of your and other's concerns are alleviated, I think that's good. I agree with your enhanced instancing ideas in that they could and probably should be used anywhere where instancing is used, anything is better than basic, vanilla instancing.
And I agree with baseline competitive gear being relatively accessible to the masses so they're not just getting dunked on AS they struggle, while learning, adapting and organizing for success. That gear could potentially come from some of these instances.
Another wall of text. Sure to be followed by another wall of text from you. I don't mind debating but at a certain point you gotta see too that were just going in circles and it might be time to just stop lol.
NOAANI - THE BILL PAXTON OF ASHES OF CREATION LOL
I'll be Michael Biehn or Sigourney Weaver. Or even Newt, she was a badass.
Dygz can be Paul Reiser, the campfire guy.
George Black is definitely Bishop.
Where the fuck do you get off saying shit like this?
Here's a basic guide to online discussion on a specific topic for you.
1, state your respective positions.
2, read the position of the person you are discussing with.
3, engage on a back-and-forth to straighten out any misconceptions either of you have on the opposing position.
4, begin fruitful discussion.
It isn't myfault you blatantly refuse to participate in step 3, despite my best efforts to do so. Dont go bringing that up in any context other than to prove how lazy you are being - because that is the truth of it. I have tried and tried to get to the core of several misconceptions you have, but I cant do that without you being involved as well.
Take two points from your above post, instancing and content blocking.
As you know, I spent a lot of time playing EQ2. Many of my posts are about specific things that game did,how they were good, and occasionally how they were bad. It is fair to say (and many others have said it), I would like to seeagamemadeas a direct sequel to that game.
The thing is, at launch, about 85% of EQ2's group content was non-instanced, as was about 60% of its raid content.
To say I want an instanced game, or to say I am one of the biggest proponents of instancing onthese forums - that just shows you have no clue what you are talking about, and are not actually even reading opinions that you are arguing against.
Basic math would tell you that I am asking for between 85 and 87.5% regroup content in Ashes to be open world,if you read what I have ACTUALLY SAID, rather tha your misconception about what I have said that you blatantly refuse to have corrected.
It is no coincidence that these percentages are similar, and this is a higher percent of open world content tha even Steven has suggested (he has said they may do more tha 20%, if the content needs it).
As to content blocking being a thing I Ashes, not shit Sherlock. About 90% of the content I talked about can be blocked - the entire McGuffin system is there as a means by which guilds can - with effort - not only block content from others at three specific points, but they can also physically take access to that content away.
Literally the only content in what I posted at the top of page two that isnt easy to block are the few instances that are right at the start of progression.
Basically, all the time you spent on talking about me liking instances, and content blocking (including everything about Alien) was wasted time on your behalf, due to you being too outright lazy to engage in a proper discussion.
Edit: Nvm
I have to disagree that bowling and golf are the same as raiding.
Bowling, playing golf, being in the audience... these are pretty laid back endeavors, raiding is seerius bizniz!
Raiding is not only boring, but its also stressful! What a crap sandwich.
WoW is pretty much my only 'raiding experience'. AC's raids were mainly zerg tank and spanks. DAoC.. can't really remember.
WoW isn't about raiding with friends, its about being on time to fill your roll for Raid Pts. Maybe being a helaer had something to do with it. Boredom coupled with: win/irrelevant - lose/your fault.
It appears you enjoy raiding, more power to you buddy. I'm not advocating against raids, I'm simply stating that they are a bane to me personally.
AoC may change my mind with its community focused mindset.
if you are stressed while raiding, blame the people you are raiding with.
This is much the same as some bowling teams wanting to win, and placing stress on to team mates when that person needs to perform well to secure that win.
Much as with raiding, if you do not want that level of pressure (I do not), join a team that doesn't place it on you.
When I'm raiding, the main purpose for everyone present is enjoyment. We all find enjoyment in success, but not to the level of needing to stress about it.
As such, we tend to have more success than guilds that focus on success over enjoyment - especially in terms of a longer term, as we tend to not have much in the way of guild member turnover (I have had a 26 month stretch without having to recruit a single player, due to not losing any players)/
Before you edited this post, you made a comment about how you wouldn't want to see instances being a means for players being able to get rich, or some such (you edited it out, I can't recall the exact wording).
You also said that you think that this is something I would want.
Why would you think that?
If I wanted instances to be a means for players to be able to squirrel themselves away to progress, I wouldn't be arguing for instances with literally a single boss encounter. You can't squirrel yourself away on content that only has one mob.
I also wouldn't have argued for these instances to be located inside of open dungeons. Them being in a dungeon means players have to traverse the dungeon to even get to them, which means even that instanced content is subject to everything that happens in a dungeon.
I suggested they be in those dungeons for exactly that reason. If I wanted players to be able to have an easy time of it, I wouldn't have suggested that, because I am smart enough to actually think about things rather than just posting "duur, open world is gud" which is basically the limit of your argument so far.
You have given no qualifiers as to why you think that, no examples of how you would like open world content to be designed, no suggestions for how to avoid the many, many pitfalls that open world content has, no suggestions for how to replace the function that instanced content has provided to MMO players for 17 or so years if we didn't have that instanced content.
You don't seem to even have a grasp on how big an open world dungeon needs to be in comparison to an instanced dungeon, with your assumption being what, 20 mobs?
This is quite telling, as it means you don't actually know anything, you are just spouting wishes that you have, without actually thinking of consequences and are attacking suggestions that attempt to deal with those consequences - without actually taking the time to understand them. I mean, you thought a dungeon was 20 mobs was sufficient for an open world dungeon, you thought I wanted a lot of instanced content, you thought I didn't want content blocking, you thought I wanted players to have an easy time with instances - you CLEARLY do not understand the first thing about what I have been saying, yet you CLEARLY think you do, and you CLEARLY seem to have no interest in correcting YOUR misconceptions.
The ignorance and unwillingness to correct it that you have displayed in this thread should be a cause for embarrassment for you - hell, I am embarrassed for you. I mean, not understanding is fine, but then having someone point out you don't understand, ignore what they are saying and then carrying on with that ignorance - that is Dygz level shit there.
Edit to clarify; almost Dygz level shit - no need for hyperbole.
Most of the rest of your post is a bunch of angry nonsense, except the jab at Dygz, that was funny.
So, lets be clear here.
I am asking for around 12% instanced content, of that, a good amount I want to see fairly easily contested (not as easy as open world content, but still fairly easy).
I am not looking for any means for players to be able to get ahead via instancing - and indeed would fully support the same items dropping in the limited instanced content as from the open dungeon bosses (meaning a guild that limits them self to instanced content has 5 bosses every week, where as a guild that doesn't has 35+).
Literally all the things you say you want are things I had in my first post - yet you are still arguing against it.
Why?
Most everything else we are arguing about is about other things you say, not your outline.
lol dygz
You tried, as an example, to get in to an argument about how not all MMO's need to do the same thing. While this is true, all MMO's need to provide content that do the same basic thing, such as introduce players to content types and ideas, and allow transition between differing content types that require different player numbers and/or player skill.
If we are talking about an MMO that has designs of being successful, these things are non-negotiable, and the outline I gave on page 2 is the bare minimum way to do that successfully with the least use of instanced content. Anything less than what was in that post, and the game in question will either have a failed top end, or just no top end PvE (as per Archeage).
Now, since Intrepid have said they want high asperation PvE raiding in Ashes, the outline I gave was teh bare minimum they need to do to achieve what it is they have said.
Either you read and understood that and got argumentative anyway, read it, didn't understand it and got argumentative(my assumption), or you didn't read it and just started arguing anyway.
Point is, you were arguing.
I didn't give a number for how many bosses I would see in the open dungeons. You saw the 5 instances and just assumed that meant more than 20% of the content would be instanced. You didn't attempt to clarify this, you just assumed it and argued as if it were true. Not only does that show you were just arguing for the sake of it, but it also shows a lack of understanding of the difference between open dungeons and instanced dungeons (a large instanced dungeon being 8 - 12 bosses, a large open dungeon being 50 - 80 bosses). Anyone with experience in games with open dungeons would have looked at that number of 5 instances per dungeon and immediately have known that this would see it sitting well below the 20% Intrepid have stated - yet you assumed otherwise and argued the point, without basis, experience or knowledge on the matter.
Again, this is conduct that sees me feeling embarrassed for you, I can only imagine how you feel.
My assertation that MMO's need to have content to provide specific basic functions, such as content that introduces players to new content, or the fact that you made an assumption as to how many bosses an open dungeon should have?
I've asked you maybe a half dozen times to specify what it is you disagree with, and every time you have refused and just carried on a generalist argument.
it's almost like you actually have no idea at all what it is you do or don't want, and are arguing for the sake of arguing.
I mean, lets not forget, you did say you disagreed with me because you don't want to see more than Intrepids 20% instancing, completely missing the point that I am asking for less than that. If this isn't arguing for the sake of arguing, what is it?
You may think you did, but you in fact did not.
If you disagree with this statement, take literally 10 seconds to quote yourself stating specifically which parts of my post on page 2 you disagree with, and also quote your actual reasoning (no point saying you disagree without a reason).
The reason I know you won't find it is because of the following, which are just some examples of your posting in this thread. This was your opening sentence. You burst in to this thread with the assumption that we were asking for more instancing than Intrepid have said they want, when in fact we are asking for less. It took me stating this fact outright AT LEAST three times in a direct reply to you for you to finally figure this out. Then you made the claim that I said this, which in fact I did not. I said the game would not have top end PvE content, because you can not have top end without both mid and low end.
Then you went and said this, after claiming to have read the post on page two.
So, we can take some of the ideas from that post - almost all of which were open world content - and apply it to the limited instancing in Ashes, can we?
Are you sure you are not embarrassed?
So what is it?
Do you disagree that the limited instanced content in Ashes should take the form of single boss instances so that people can't lock themselves out of the open world for long stretches?
Do you disagree that the open world encounters in the game should be as varied as possible?
Do you disagree that the group and raid dungeons should be large enough to cater to multiple groups at the same time, as per Intrepids stated intent?
Do you disagree that it would be a good idea to put the better rewards that are obtained in the limited instanced content available up for contention via PvP?
Do you disagree that players should be significantly slower at progressing if they limit themselves to instanced content only?
Well, which of the above do you disagree with? It has to be at least one of them, as the above is basically a list of the content I outlined. You can't really disagree with what I suggested without disagreeing with one or more of the points above.
So which is it?
In that first post to you, I was replying to this, from you, "To me, the best way to "deal" with the situation that open world mobs are not going to be as inherently challenging is to simply accept this fact from a design perspective, design these mobs as PvP flash points, and then design other mobs (in cages and instances, as well as other mechanics) as the encounters that are difficult."
I disagree with pretty much the whole premise of that paragraph and your reasoning of why those instances in question have to be added in. I don't believe instanced content has to be added in AoC for the purpose of getting raid content up to a quality or exact/exact type of difficulty level that is seen in instanced raiding mmos. Apparently the devs feel the same way since the only reason they've given for instancing is for greater narrative appeal. We'll see if they actually stick to that, but that's what they've said point blank so far. And I agree with them.
I also disagreed with your next paragraph in that post when you said this, "As far as I am concerned, as long as this notion is kept in tact, it doesn't matter if that PvP subjugation happens while the encounter is being taken on, before it is being taken on (my cage idea), or after it is being taken on (instanced content with a need to return an item to a metropolis as per my first post)."
I believe that it does matter when and for how long the pvp risk is present in an encounter. I believe there can be instanced content that changes things, mixes things up as far as when and how long the contesting happens. That's exactly what an instance would do. I expect it it in Ashes in some limited extent. But you made the blanket statement that it didn't matter as long as it was subject to pvp redistribution at some point. You even led the sentence with, "While others may disagree with me." I disagreed.
So what I've been trying to explain to you is that it is some of your underlying philosophies I disagree with, and those are just two examples of your philosophies that prompted me to reply to you in the first place. I hadn't even read your outline at that point, I was replying to what was at the time your last post in the thread.
You're trying to punk me I guess? You look very desperate. Insulting, belittling, not in a trolly or funny way, but like you're really mad. I don't know if you're actually mad or if this is just normal behavior for you. But it's not me embarrassing myself. I was going to just let that just slide but you've said it now in your last 2 or 3 posts. It's you man. Get a grip.
This is, I believe, the third time I have pointed this out in this thread. History would suggest that you start understanding things on the third try, so fingers crossed.
My point about PvP being a factor in PvE was in specific relation to the content that I outlined in the second page of this thread, and was in a specific discussion with someone that had read it. I was specifically saying that even if it is instanced PvE, in Ashes it still needs to be subject to PvP, and there is a good argument for that subjugation to actually be more than if the encounter were subject to direct PvP during the encounter proper - which is exactly what my suggestion does - it makes it MORE subject to PvP than if it were just an open world encounter.
At absolute best, you decided to barge in on a discussion between people that had context, ignored said context, and threw in your opinion on only the parts of it that you heard.
Well done!
But hey, you have finally given me a specific thing that you disagree with, lets explore that!.
You disagree with the notion that open world mobs in a PvP setting can not be made as hard to kill as top end instanced raid mobs.
Cool, so, first of all, lets get to the bottom of your perspective of why this is - as in, what experiences you have had in MMO's to inform you here. What top end raid mobs have you killed, and what games have you played with open world raid mobs. I am very curious to know this, because I have experience with top end raid mobs, open world raid mobs, and indeed with top end raid mobs in an open PvP setting (literally none of which were ever killed, I might add, even though the exact same mobs were killed when PvP was removed).
Noaani: "To say I want an instanced game, or to say I am one of the biggest proponents of instancing onthese forums - that just shows you have no clue what you are talking about, and are not actually even reading opinions that you are arguing against."
Also Nooani a few months ago : "I am all for instanced PvE content, we all know this."
You just want to keep going. What's your hang up with me, why do you want to argue with me so bad if I'm so dumb that I have to hear things three times before I understand?
According to you just a few posts ago in this thread, I'm not even capable of fully understanding my own thoughts in my own head.
And here you are, just wanting to argue with me.
All I have left to say to you in this thread is that Steven just this last livestream endorsed the Ashes wiki as accurate and a good place to go for people wanting information about that game.
But bro come on, seriously starting to give crazy ex girlfriend vibes, like what is your deal. chill out
None of this stuff we're talking about here is that serious. It's a forum, its a game. Be nice to people. I see you being rude to people more than just a lil bit.. The way you write, you're always trying to make someone look or feel stupid, or taking swipes. Just chill man. It's not that serious.
And yes, I did say that, and I stand by it. I am all for instanced content. I am all for it being good content, I am all for Intrepid making the best use of instances that they can.
If instances are just a means to add in cut scenes while keeping players safe (ie, narration), then that is a massive waste of a mechanic.
If they take that mechanic, and make the content behind it serve a content based role (potentially in addition to a narrative one, if they wish), then that is far, far better. If they manage to do this, I am all for there being less than 20% of group and raid content instanced, because there would be no need for any more than that.
Being "for" instanced content does not mean wanting WoW style or sized instances, it means wanting the best instances Ashes is able to deliver, in the grater context of what Ashes is as a game (hence suggesting that the better rewards from instances be subject to PvP after the fact - that is what Ashes is about).
Being all for instanced content is not the same thing as being the biggest proponent of instanced content here - there are posters on these forums that would be happy to see the bulk of the game instanced (and there are indeed some that do not even realize that this is not going to be the case).
I'm not sure why you are mentioning Stevens endorsement of the wiki. It is indeed a good place to get information about the game. However, it is not 100% accurate (for about 18 months it said the corruption system would be tested in alpha 1, and had a linked quote for that where Steven specifically said it will not be tested during alpha 1). It is also not complete - something even Lex would not deny.
Finally, I am chill. You think I am trying to take a swipe at you - but you only think that because I am trying to get your opinion on something when you know you have not got a good reason to have the opinion you happen to have.
You know perfectly well that you have no reason to assume any developer can make open world encounters that are on par with what can be made in instances, and yet the argument you want to make (but know perfectly well you can't), hinges on that being possible.
Basically, what you are considering me taking a swipe at you would simply be conversation to someone that had an actual developed and considered opinion on the matter at hand. All I am doing is asking for that opinion, and the reasoning behind it. That is not an unreasonable thing to do - however when you only have the opinion and no actual reasoning behind it, someone pushing for that reasoning absolutely will feel like them taking a swipe at you.
Your opinion in this thread seems to be nothing more than "Oh, Noaani is posting, I had better say I disagree with what ever was in their last post". That is how it came across, and as soon as I started digging deeper, as soon as it was revealed that you actually had no idea what it was I was saying, and as such no idea what it was you were disagreeing with, you started to feel like I was taking a swipe at you.
That isn't my fault.
Though, for future reference, folks would broadly consider comments like
to be insulting. It doesn't particularly matter if you disagree, or don't think that they should find those things insulting, or didn't intend for those things to be insulting. They are.
If your goal is to insult folks, it may be worth doing some introspection and asking yourself "why?". Does harming them or making them feel bad help you in some way? What's the point?
My goal is to have discussions about aspects of this game (or MMO's in general, at times) that I care about.
If it becomes obvious that the person in the discussion is unwilling or incapable of that, yet they continue to post, my goal becomes simply entertainment.
As you said, the poster didn't have a particularly nuanced stance here. I spent a while trying to assist them in developing it, but they refused.
At that point, there is nothing left for me to do other than to have some fun.
I would agree with your comment on introspection if - and only if - I hadn't put in real effort to assist the poster in question develop their stance.
I thought there was a chance that you were being earnest there.
That you didn't actually know that you were being insulting, or you really did blame Okeydoke for feeling insulted when you didn't intend to insult them or something. But nope, it seems like that's just another way to gaslight them for entertainment, right?