What is your MMO PvE experience like?

From another topic, I found myself wondering something.

I don't play a lot of MMOs, I have some I love, and others I swiftly ignore. But I keep coming across people for whom PvE seems to mean a relatively scripted encounter where you ONLY have to respond in unison at the right timing and maybe handle adds.

So I'm collecting data again. I may ask a lot of clarifying questions, so please bear with me, even if I come off as diminishing your experience, I only 'mean to' in the sense that I need a scale to work with.

I thought about it and realized that there's no good reason I'm aware of for an owPvP game to make scripted enemies. It doesn't teach you anything about the PvP aspect of the game, it doesn't carry over well to different groups, and it doesn't make the PvE itself more interesting (imo).

I therefore simply didn't expect to see that in Ashes at all (and so far from experiences with bosses in Ashes, I have not seen it, it works more like the games I am used to). I've never had any reason to expect this. If you do, what game caused it? Were most of the elite/top tier encounters like that? Is there anything about it that you explicitly like?

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

Azherae

Dygz wrote: »

For PvE, if I know it's always going to be Fippy Darkpaw and his cohorts, I'd probably tend to ignore it after a couple of times. Especially if the world is static, such that the town will not actually be destroyed.
If it's a different set of Pirates, it should be new enough for me to repeatedly go save the town.

In Ashes, the town could be destroyed. If I've bonded with characters in that town and they might be killed and replaced... I'd be invested in protecting the town. Same if I'm partial to the Node Type in that region or maybe even the dominant race in for that Node.
So, that's kind of interesting to think about.
Keeping a status quo, but not static.
And not so interested in Novelty/Dynamism that I would want to raze the town for a completely new one. Though, that might be a necessary evil at some point if I was trying to get that Node to be a specific racial Metro.
Ashes makes the tension between Novelty and Dynamism more complex, I think.

In the situation I'm referring to, if the Pirate Attack goes on for long enough, the current leaders of the Star System will possibly lose their control of it and the entire Ethos and Government style would change. If you wanted to maintain a status quo and liked the current leaders, you might help more often, I'll assume (response unnecessary if I'm not wrong and you prefer to leave it there). So the complexity is approximately equal I feel, hence the question.

Dygz wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

And a bonus question if you're willing, assume that NPC Security will show up if you get the PvE threat's attention and kite them, and that you aren't doing anything else right then (or you probably wouldn't have interacted with the prompt). Kite or disengage?

Hmmn. I think when I'm kiting, I'm constantly reassessing whether to continue to kite or disengage/run.
Sometimes it can be that I escape far enough to break the thether and then sneak back to try and pull one adversary at a time.
So, I think, if an add as powerful as NPC Security showed up, I would run and then try to sneak back and pull my target without aggroing Security. At least a couple times.
(This reminds me of No Man's Sky.)

On this side, note that the NPC Security is probably showing up to help YOU against the threat and will probably destroy or chase off the enemy as long as you can keep them occupied for long enough without being destroyed. I doubt your answer will meaningfully change here, if I consider it to be 'I would probably remain engaged and kite them around'. Thank you for data.

Ludullu

Noaani wrote: »

People like you do not even need to take on that top end raiding content in order to get the rewards from it - which is literally the point of PvP in Ashes - and indeed is the point of Ashes.

I agree with everything else, but am not completely sure about this point. In the context of "BiS won't come from instances" - yes, a pvp-centered player will be a part of that kind of raid and will reap rewards from it sooner or later. But with instanced content, I don't see why a guild would distribute loot from it to their pvp parties, when there's open world content that, in theory, should be providing gear of equal strength.

But if you meant it in the way of "you'll have the same tier of gear w/o even participating in the instanced content" - then yeah, I'd assume there'd be no such requirement, even though if I was leading a hardcore guild, you bet your ass I'd be telling everyone to clear those instances no matter how long it takes. I'm all about PvX players, if you're in my guild you better be able to do both cause I ain't about to bother with splitting my guild in two, just so I could use those parts for different kind of content.

Noaani

JamesSunderland wrote: »

Archeage PvE in general for me was way more simple in Comparison to Lineage 2 PvE especially in their world bosses, Kraken and Red Dragon were a complete joke because of how easy they were, i was also disappointed by them, but Archeage's PvP and economy system was by far it biggest selling points and never its pve.

Indeed, these two aspects are why I stayed in Archeage for years, even if my guild left very early on.

I certainly do agree with you, our expectations are shaped by our early experiences, and that the PvE Encounters quantity and variery "needs" of the different families differs drastically.

Indeed it does, but the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive - and I think (and always thought) that this notion is what Steven clued in to when coming up with Ashes.

If you have a game with open world bosses, farm spots, and all the PvP mechanics that players from the L2 family of games have, but you also have the content volume and quality that the EQ family of games have, then you create the first ever MMO that actually has appeal to both.

Sure, there are fringes on both sides that simply will not like the game, that's fine. However, the bulk of players from both families will find a game they enjoy.

ESO kind of tried to tie these two together, but they dumbed down both the PvE and PvP aspects of the game, so that (at least at launch) no one really liked either.

Ashes is, from my perspective, attempting to not dumb either down. We all know the PvP side of it won't be, and Stevens few mentions in regards to raiding suggest that it may not be dumbed down either.

What this means is that this game needs raiding content that will appeal to raiders from the EQ family of games, just as it has a PvP system that appeals to the L2 family of games. Saying an L2 style raid game should appeal to EQ family gamers is kind of like saying an EQ style PvP game should appeal to L2 family gamers.

Edit; throw in to that an economy from the SWG/EVE family of games (games that have little in common other than economy), and you may have a game that remains a winner for an actual decade.

George_Black

Azherae wrote: »

George_Black wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

George_Black wrote: »

PvE experience:
Challenge
Fear of death
Fear of item loss (both whole items and other stuff)
Grind to simulate training and dedication.
Large map without mounts to simulate exploration.
Open world raids, a difficult goal to achieve in every area.
Chance to befriend other people, or rival them.
Relaxing time and bonding with guild members.

What it should not be?

DPS races
Repetitive, sterilized, instanced content without ANY stakes besides rng disappointment.
Meta.
Toxicity.

Do you prefer the 'challenge' and 'fear of death' aspects to be present in at-level (or at-group-level) combat most of the time? Have you generally found that the games you play actually provided this challenge from just the PvE alone (open world non-Raid enemies in particular)?

And secondly, if so, do you also prefer that there be a significant fear of death even during an Exp grind?

The sense of fear should be present at all times, if a player or a group of players aim to get good xp for a given amount of time and good mats/parts (drops). If a player accidentally attracts a couple more mobs that they can handle, some serious rotations should take place to avoid death, even using ultimate defences/attacks that have high CD, and they'd better not be on CD.
Mobs should have high speed and no leash.

The above situation was found only in L2. Purely the PvE side of it, without any random player attacks was challenging for anything beyond an optimum, top geared, full party (9 ppl).
If in that situation you were attacked by other players and you managed to defeat them, it would be a glorious gaming moment.

Taking into consideration the grind, the length of the journey to milestone levels like 40, 52, 61, 76, 80 and the top gear per tier, made the game so much more meaningful than any endgame that modern mmos have to offer.

And in L2 once you reached the endgame you were offered to start a new class on the same character, similalry to ff14 but a lot harder and meaningful. Then you had access to a hardcore questline which made you nobility with unique skills that people needed. Noblese players were sought after. Noblese players were famous in L2 servers. There is more to nobility but since it's PvP related Ill not say more.
L2 was a true never ending game without having boring endgame repetitions.

And that's my take on PvE. Long challenging journey, out in the open world, were PvP is just a side dish.

Thank you as well, a followup then. Were there games you tried and stopped playing mostly because of the lack of open world PvE challenge?

There's a lot of games that are bad for a lot of other reasons, so you can just ignore all those ones so that the list doesn't get stupidly long, I'm talking about games where you were at least ok with the rest of it but just 'couldn't stomach the lack of threat in PvE' and just stopped playing.

(I'm trying to establish some understanding of games I may not have played and their levels of PvE)

I stopped playing bdo ff14 and eso for the lack of threat. Their dungeons got easy fairly quickly and once the gear drops are obtained there is no reason to go back.
In ff14 and eso there is 0 open world challenge. All players are mostly parked in cities and join a group finder. That's not pve. That's not player vs environment. That's optional, co-op stages like an old PS game.

Ferryman

I would personally divide open world PvE design for two different categories, exploration and hotspots.

To make the open world interesting to explore it should contain content that player can find randomly, for example, hidden treasures, hidden dungeons, rare resource nodes, rare mobs/mini-bosses, random encounters/events and such. All these kind of things encourage players to explore the world.

The world should also contain static* (* taking consideration node changes) PvE hotspots such as rich reasource areas like mines or quarries. Additionally, open world dungeons and even raids should exist where players can go for farming. There can be also mob camps from where these dungeons can be found as well. Open world bosses should be a thing as well, obviously.

I have no doubt that most of this stuff is on the devs list already but I think that offering different kind of content for different kind of players and generally a good amount of variations will make the overall open world experience great. And those who are interested on owPvP, well designed open world PvE creates more possibilities for PvP encounters. Therefore, I think good PvE content caters all kind of playstyles.

Dygz

Azherae wrote: »

In the situation I'm referring to, if the Pirate Attack goes on for long enough, the current leaders of the Star System will possibly lose their control of it and the entire Ethos and Government style would change. If you wanted to maintain a status quo and liked the current leaders, you might help more often, I'll assume (response unnecessary if I'm not wrong and you prefer to leave it there). So the complexity is approximately equal I feel, hence the question.

If it's PvE, kinda like the Goblins for Ashes Events, I'm much more likely to attack to protect the current government - assuming I like the current government.
I'd be pretty demoralized/depressed if the Pirates are always Captain Fippy Darkpaw and His Mighty Minions.
I'd prefer to be able to use Diplomacy to convince the Pirates not to attack.

If the Pirates were players...
And, I thought they had the possibility of eventually heralding a castastrophic Event in the region. I might also be prompted to attack. And I might call in allies for back-up.
I'd try diplomacy first, of course.

Dygz wrote: »

On this side, note that the NPC Security is probably showing up to help YOU against the threat and will probably destroy or chase off the enemy as long as you can keep them occupied for long enough without being destroyed. I doubt your answer will meaningfully change here, if I consider it to be 'I would probably remain engaged and kite them around'. Thank you for data.

Hmmmn. That's the opposite of No Man's Sky, I think.
Seems like I would try to kite my attackers to NPC Security, if NPC Security will deal with them.
I don't think I've experienced NPC guards just appearing out of nowhere to help me in a Fantasy MMORPG. Closest thing for me is No Man's Sky, with NPC Security popping in after awhile and considering me to be a pirate. (We have to try to destroy the first couple of waves of NPC Security and finish the mission before the super-heavy-hitters pop in... hardcore players probably try to destroy the super-heavy-hitter waves as well).

Just staying around and trying to survive long enough for NPC Security to pop in to help me feels icky, storywise - like it's Deus Ex Machina.
Baiting the Pirates to follow me to NPC Security is a very rogue-like tactic, storywise.
So... the end result might be effectively the same, but I would have to massage the optics of that experience so that it seems like a better story, where the protagonist is active, rather than passive.

Azherae

Dygz wrote: »

Just staying around and trying to survive long enough for NPC Security to pop in feels icky, storywise - like it's Deus Ex Machina.
Baiting the Pirates to follow me to NPC Security is a very rogue-like tactic, storywise.
So... the end result might be effectively the same, but I would have to massage the optics of that experience so that it seems like a better story.

Now this one, I have interest in because it directly relates to my original reason for asking the question.

You have to be GOOD to survive that long. Or rich. And by good I do mean 'as a kiter and pacifist'. You'd need a related build (almost certain that you'd have one), this is not an option 'open to all types of player'. Sure, many can fight, and many can flee, but there is a subset of builds that will not survive long enough for the Security to show up.

I have nearly lost ships from 'forgetting I was in my Hostage Rescue ship instead of my Search And Rescue ship' and 'the enemy is randomly stronger than usual' or 'the enemy's build randomly counters mine more than usual' (the Pirates are different every time, from a pool of... about 23 different ones so far, with about 2^20 different possible build combinations, many of those obviously being similar to others)

Any opinion here? To me this is 'randomness and dynamism combined with challenge, creating an interesting experience', but I feel like it wouldn't work without the underlying knowledge that you are built for it. Are you more likely to draw enjoyment from randomly doing (or not doing) something your build is suited for, or is that entirely secondary to the story you are aiming to experience in that session?

Dygz

Hmmn. That kind of reminds me of soloing endgame dungeons in NWO, once you've got a decent gear score... you still have to be creative about pulling off the boss mechanics designed for groups - and that can sometimes take a while to find a successful solo strategy.
I can kind of envision that in a Fantasy MMORPG.
When I contemplate that for Sci-Fi, I imagine Han Solo weaving through asteroids - which seems daunting to me from a flight sim perspective.

In No Man's Sky, I've had to revert to a previous save several times because I forgot I was in my "cargo" ship instead of my exploration ship. haha

A pool of 23 different Pirates is probably enough variability that I'd be willing to return and investigate a whole bunch of times.

I stumbled upon Starfield last week.
I'm not particularly keen on the combat I've seen, but the exploration reminds me a lot of No Man's Sky... with many more RPG elements, like Diplomacy skills and character Backgrounds.
Very eager to test that out, but... I think I'm going to be very frustrated that it's not multiplayer.

NishUK

George_Black wrote: »

What it should be:
Chance to befriend other people, or rival them.
Relaxing...

What it should not be:
Toxicity.

If Riot Games is anything to go by, "toxicity" is a permanent problem without solution, unless the solution is to completely ban text chat and for there to be a system that identifies feeding and for their to be a vote/system conclusion immediately ending whatever contest is occuring.

I quoted you based off of how contradicting these points are, rivalling someone in a 100% polite fashion is not natural and it's certainly not relaxing to the mind to do so and I'm not at all saying that the relaxing way is barberic but it completely depends on the person.

My question is, how controlling of natural emotion and personality do you want to be to secure your own personal levels of "toxicity" (quotations as this word will always be a variable and never static).

Ludullu

NishUK wrote: »

I quoted you based off of how contradicting these points are, rivalling someone in a 100% polite fashion is not natural and it's certainly not relaxing to the mind to do so and I'm not at all saying that the relaxing way is barberic but it completely depends on the person.

In my experience maybe ~10-20% of people can be 100% polite in rivalries or wars. You can freely speak to them off of the battlefield, you can usually even befriend them and become guildies if their/your guild falls apart. I have several old friends that I got in this way. But outside of those 10-20 it's a barren toxic land of "I took yo mama to the movies yesterday and left here there alone in the middle of the movie!"-type stuff. The super toxics

NishUK

Oh come on dood, "super toxics", just leave the kids to learn or make them look stupid.

mcstackerson

NiKr wrote: »

NishUK wrote: »

I quoted you based off of how contradicting these points are, rivalling someone in a 100% polite fashion is not natural and it's certainly not relaxing to the mind to do so and I'm not at all saying that the relaxing way is barberic but it completely depends on the person.

In my experience maybe ~10-20% of people can be 100% polite in rivalries or wars. You can freely speak to them off of the battlefield, you can usually even befriend them and become guildies if their/your guild falls apart. I have several old friends that I got in this way. But outside of those 10-20 it's a barren toxic land of "I took yo mama to the movies yesterday and left here there alone in the middle of the movie!"-type stuff. The super toxics

This sounds like some heavy confirmation bias. I'm sure you had good conversations with 10-20% of the people you went against but doubt you conversed with everyone else, let alone got such a negative response from them.

Ludullu

mcstackerson wrote: »

This sounds like some heavy confirmation bias. I'm sure you had good conversations with 10-20% of the people you went against but doubt you conversed with everyone else, let alone got such a negative response from them.

Back when I played and pvped the whole game was about chat and socializing, so I did in fact talk to a lot of people. And considering that I'd spend weeks/months fighting the same ones, I'd get to know them somewhat well. And in my experience 10-20% were the completely levelheaded people who understood that it was just a game and we just had a war, so there was no reason to shittalk/flame your opponent. The other 80% were just on the range of "oh fuck off you noob" to the type of quotes I wrote in the previous post.

I won against them? "Oh you cheated/overfarmed with 0 skill/got lucky"

I lost against them? "GET FUCKED, BITCH! THAT'S WHAT YOU GET!"

And this could even repeat across multiple fights within one day. And considering that peak of my pvp career was around early 10s, I'd assume that most of those people weren't just kids that just discovered the game. It was already huge by that point, all the servers I've played were already on the older updates so they were populated by people that played the game years ago, and early tens was right about the time where all the younger gens of gamers started to shift from the mmo genre towards other games. So I can't even dismiss all that toxicity as just "them being a dumb kid".

Now again, I always say that all the things I mention is "purely my experience". Maybe I got (un)lucky, maybe it was the game, maybe it was the people of CIS countries and their mentality. I'm not trying to say that literally 80% of the entire mmo population are super toxic mfers. If anything, I'll be more than happy if that's not the case, because it'd mean that Ashes will live a long and successful life and I'll have a new mmo to live in.

Azherae

NiKr wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

This sounds like some heavy confirmation bias. I'm sure you had good conversations with 10-20% of the people you went against but doubt you conversed with everyone else, let alone got such a negative response from them.

Back when I played and pvped the whole game was about chat and socializing, so I did in fact talk to a lot of people. And considering that I'd spend weeks/months fighting the same ones, I'd get to know them somewhat well. And in my experience 10-20% were the completely levelheaded people who understood that it was just a game and we just had a war, so there was no reason to shittalk/flame your opponent. The other 80% were just on the range of "oh fuck off you noob" to the type of quotes I wrote in the previous post.

I won against them? "Oh you cheated/overfarmed with 0 skill/got lucky"

I lost against them? "GET FUCKED, BITCH! THAT'S WHAT YOU GET!"

And this could even repeat across multiple fights within one day. And considering that peak of my pvp career was around early 10s, I'd assume that most of those people weren't just kids that just discovered the game. It was already huge by that point, all the servers I've played were already on the older updates so they were populated by people that played the game years ago, and early tens was right about the time where all the younger gens of gamers started to shift from the mmo genre towards other games. So I can't even dismiss all that toxicity as just "them being a dumb kid".

Now again, I always say that all the things I mention is "purely my experience". Maybe I got (un)lucky, maybe it was the game, maybe it was the people of CIS countries and their mentality. I'm not trying to say that literally 80% of the entire mmo population are super toxic mfers. If anything, I'll be more than happy if that's not the case, because it'd mean that Ashes will live a long and successful life and I'll have a new mmo to live in.

I hear from my EU team member that they tend to be more toxic over there in general. My indirect experience at tournaments and in matches in my circles backs this up.

No one will ever know for sure or experience the same things, but I'm really just here to add the anecdote.

Though, I don't think 10% is accurate, that's a bit too high, don't you think? Were you playing on a particularly nice server in general?

Ludullu

Azherae wrote: »

Though, I don't think 10% is accurate, that's a bit too high, don't you think? Were you playing on a particularly nice server in general?

If 10-20 seems high to you, then I'd throw that up to me playing on older updates of the game, so at least a good chunk of players were on the older side so they were a bit more reasonable than your average edgy/jackass kid.

Azherae

NiKr wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Though, I don't think 10% is accurate, that's a bit too high, don't you think? Were you playing on a particularly nice server in general?

If 10-20 seems high to you, then I'd throw that up to me playing on older updates of the game, so at least a good chunk of players were on the older side so they were a bit more reasonable than your average edgy/jackass kid.

Anyways, since I'm in a predictive mood today and have NishUK's data 'front loaded'...

To both @NishUK and @mcstackerson

Yes there is confirmation bias, but when speaking of personal experience of toxicity, confirmation bias is part of the experience outright.

Consider (NishUK brought this up as a counterpoint to George for no clear reason other than contrarianism) that there is no benefit whatsoever for the people involved in this conversation to 'claim more toxicity than exists'. George has asked for no change based on it. NiKr has offered no 'fix this so I don't have to deal with it', and I am likely to have equally toxic responses after a while (I like to think I'm more eloquent about it).

So basically going 'no, I think your experiences aren't the norm, mine are', serves no purpose here. This is a roundabout way of asking to not derail this thread with it. If it's required for NiKr, George and I to just ignore this, I will request that NiKr do so, and expect George will just tell you the equivalent of 'fuck off' anyway.

If going 'yes I'm sure you're right in everything you said and my experience is an outlier' is the way to end this tangent, you can have that too.

@NiKr, you have my request.

George_Black

NishUK wrote: »

George_Black wrote: »

What it should be:
Chance to befriend other people, or rival them.
Relaxing...

What it should not be:
Toxicity.

If Riot Games is anything to go by, "toxicity" is a permanent problem without solution, unless the solution is to completely ban text chat and for there to be a system that identifies feeding and for their to be a vote/system conclusion immediately ending whatever contest is occuring.

I quoted you based off of how contradicting these points are, rivalling someone in a 100% polite fashion is not natural and it's certainly not relaxing to the mind to do so and I'm not at all saying that the relaxing way is barberic but it completely depends on the person.

My question is, how controlling of natural emotion and personality do you want to be to secure your own personal levels of "toxicity" (quotations as this word will always be a variable and never static).

Did you just compare 5v5 moba games, lobby based games (instanced matches,) to open world mmorpgs? You cut off parts of my post, in which I was talking about instanced raiding found on eso, wow etc etc in which you will rage against your own team, similalry to dota lol and shooting games, where your team is strangers (just like instanced raiding on group finder), not people you start playing with on a regular basis in an open world pvp mmo.

You just proved my point.

mcstackerson

Azherae wrote: »

NiKr wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Though, I don't think 10% is accurate, that's a bit too high, don't you think? Were you playing on a particularly nice server in general?

If 10-20 seems high to you, then I'd throw that up to me playing on older updates of the game, so at least a good chunk of players were on the older side so they were a bit more reasonable than your average edgy/jackass kid.

Anyways, since I'm in a predictive mood today and have NishUK's data 'front loaded'...

To both @NishUK and @mcstackerson

Yes there is confirmation bias, but when speaking of personal experience of toxicity, confirmation bias is part of the experience outright.

Consider (NishUK brought this up as a counterpoint to George for no clear reason other than contrarianism) that there is no benefit whatsoever for the people involved in this conversation to 'claim more toxicity than exists'. George has asked for no change based on it. NiKr has offered no 'fix this so I don't have to deal with it', and I am likely to have equally toxic responses after a while (I like to think I'm more eloquent about it).

So basically going 'no, I think your experiences aren't the norm, mine are', serves no purpose here. This is a roundabout way of asking to not derail this thread with it. If it's required for NiKr, George and I to just ignore this, I will request that NiKr do so, and expect George will just tell you the equivalent of 'fuck off' anyway.

If going 'yes I'm sure you're right in everything you said and my experience is an outlier' is the way to end this tangent, you can have that too.

@NiKr, you have my request.

I pointed out an issue i had with there statement, said sounded like bias, and questioned if they really opened communication with everyone they fought. They said they did and i didn't say anything else. Never said what my experiences were or that they supercede theirs.

I agree that perceptions are important, often times more important than reality(as it is their reality) but i don't think that means we should never challenge them. Helping people fight past their natural bias so they can see something that is closer to reality is how we help change those perceptions after all.

As a person looking for data, i'd assume knowing both what they perceived and what really happened would be valuable.

Azherae

mcstackerson wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

NiKr wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Though, I don't think 10% is accurate, that's a bit too high, don't you think? Were you playing on a particularly nice server in general?

If 10-20 seems high to you, then I'd throw that up to me playing on older updates of the game, so at least a good chunk of players were on the older side so they were a bit more reasonable than your average edgy/jackass kid.

Anyways, since I'm in a predictive mood today and have NishUK's data 'front loaded'...

To both @NishUK and @mcstackerson

Yes there is confirmation bias, but when speaking of personal experience of toxicity, confirmation bias is part of the experience outright.

Consider (NishUK brought this up as a counterpoint to George for no clear reason other than contrarianism) that there is no benefit whatsoever for the people involved in this conversation to 'claim more toxicity than exists'. George has asked for no change based on it. NiKr has offered no 'fix this so I don't have to deal with it', and I am likely to have equally toxic responses after a while (I like to think I'm more eloquent about it).

So basically going 'no, I think your experiences aren't the norm, mine are', serves no purpose here. This is a roundabout way of asking to not derail this thread with it. If it's required for NiKr, George and I to just ignore this, I will request that NiKr do so, and expect George will just tell you the equivalent of 'fuck off' anyway.

If going 'yes I'm sure you're right in everything you said and my experience is an outlier' is the way to end this tangent, you can have that too.

@NiKr, you have my request.

I pointed out an issue i had with there statement, said sounded like bias, and questioned if they really opened communication with everyone they fought. They said they did and i didn't say anything else. Never said what my experiences were or that they supercede theirs.

I agree that perceptions are important, often times more important than reality(as it is their reality) but i don't think that means we should never challenge them. Helping people fight past their natural bias so they can see something that is closer to reality is how we help change those perceptions after all.

As a person looking for data, i'd assume knowing both what they perceived and what really happened would be valuable.

It absolutely would be, but your method of attempting to clarify it would not serve that purpose.

To briefly examine why:

"This sounds like bias, are you sure?"

There are a few people in the world for whom this is a useful 'check on their perceptions', who will do that self examination ONLY when prompted by someone else. These people are not EDIT: often prolific posters on forums.

You have no basis for it other than your own experience as a contrast, right? There is no objective data suggested or presented that would justify even your perception that it is bias.

Your basis for challenging someone else's natural bias in this case is either 'your own bias' or 'your perception that other people who say these things don't account for their bias before saying them'.

This is why your approach is not useful for data collection. So if you are trying to help me with data collection by challenging others' biases, please bring statistics to the table to show them that they may be an outlier. In that case, it would still be a derail.

Nevertheless I thank you for the sentiment.

George_Black

I have stories of respectful rivalry mcstackerson, that have become legendary in L2 servers.
Of a guild part of an enemy alliance that quit, and when they returned 1 year later they joined our alliance instead of their old friends, which was like the biggest plot twist in a drama for everyone playing there.

I personally with my friends ended up in a guild that was once an enemy. We even went on a trip to meet our former enemy and now leader. 15 years later, having stopped playing L2 or communicate with anyone that wasnt an inrl friend, I was even informed of the mans death out of the blue.

Whole guilds that were fighting with each other formed a unified alliance once they chanced upon each other on a fresh new server.

These things dont happen in dota, lol, shooting games, instanced pvp/pve raid mmorpgs like wow eso, in which 90% of the people just use group finder and end up playing with strangers, strangers that they can be toxic to for the duration of the match/raid.

Dont quote my "toxicity" word (whoever started this) out of a whole post that clearly you did not understand, exlude my writting on instanced gaming in todays mmos, create a narrative in which I contradict myself all because you brought mobas to a discussion about mmos.

"IF rIOt hAs tAUghT uS aNythIng..." rly kid? You get taught by riot?
Shouldnt you be taught reading comprehension before you even start playing games made by some studios.

Child Item