Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!
For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.
You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.
Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!
For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.
You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.
Comments
And literally the biggest "drama" related to L2 is that one of the players from one guild killed (though by acciden) a player from another guild, who was also a HUGE troll on the forums (yet another representation of meta-conflict).
And I've personally seen fights over in-game conflict on the local servers.
But to me meta-conflict is not meaningful, because it's just dumb stuff people do because they can't win in the game. To me that stuff just means that they are weak and had to resort to the shittiest form of "conflict resolution".
And ultimately the same applies to PKing as a resolution as well, because to me that's the last possible solution that you'd only resort to if you were desperate.
So I'd be curious about other in-game examples, rather than meta-ones. Gathering at a boss faster and farming the boss better applies to L2 as well. Obviously the pve itself isn't at the same lvl, but the action itself is the same. If anything, quite often you need to not only gather your own guild, but navigate your social circles and spies as well, because you might need support against the guild that's competing with you (though I'd assume EQ2 had smth similar too).
Obviously open world bosses would be similar between the two games as well, because you'd just need to come to the boss and do the skill/mechanic/action that disrupts the farm in the most effective way.
Are there any examples for impactful conflict during instanced farming (not meta-stuff obivously)?
But unless you get the other player permanently banned on the server, nothing else would be a proper resolution to the conflict either, right? Or am I missing something?
Yeah that's my thing. The meaningful conflict. I suppose using only in-game mechanics or systems. Except yeah, everything you can do in PVE only game but now you can kill the other players too and take their shit or knowing they can. To me it's like PVE is playing Poker with no money as opposed to with (not minimal either)
This is certainly true for PvPers and not at all true for PvEers.
Not really. Plenty of people come back when new content is added - especially with expansions.
Especially when the expansions have excellent new content.
Plenty of PvEers continue to play as they repeat Raids and Dungeons to increase gear score.
"MeaningLESS PvP will keep PvPers who love PvP combat playing. We agree.
But, putting an end to Endgame by having Meaningful Conflict (Sieges, Caravans, Node Wars and Guild Wars) significantly change the world will truly keep people playing, rather than people leaving while they wait for new content to be added.
If the devs can successfully implement the game design.
He talks about farming bosses personally and the server ganging up to stop them.
What?
The developers create conflict and then allow it to be solved via PvP. That is just what PvP games are. It isn't actual conflict, it is manufactured.
Conflict in PvE games is player made, it is between the players themselves, personal, built up over years within the game/server community.
This last point is why PvP games can never come close to PvE games in regards to conflict - the only PvP MMO with a stable enough population (in terms of individual players within a given server, not in regards to total player count) is EVE. Not surprisingly, that also happens to be the only game with the same depth of conflict, and that is why PvP itself happens rarely between these people with this deep conflict - yet when that conflict kicks off, it makes waves.
Yeah, see, I'm not taking about that.
As I said, I am talking about limited access to content. The person that kills the boss first is the person that kills the boss - and in many cases that is literally the only spawn of that mob on that server ever.
Who kills a mob first is meaningless - that isn't a basis for conflict. As I said, you have clearly not played games with any such content - but that is fine, as long as you understand that.
You have just described the entirety of L2 conflicts. Drama, betrayal, in- and out- of the game conflict, farm competition, etc etc - all across years of playing the game.
One of the biggest drama events on russian official servers was a party of the second-in-command of the strongest guild leaving said guild and making an opposition that could then stand up to the strong guild. The conflict came up from cooperation and then involved pvp in it, because pvp was just a part of the game.
PVP isn't as good for conflict because only eve has stable numbers?
I have never played a game with good PVE but you still haven't given anyone a good example besides meaningless conflict with server crashes.
Just seems like we entered the mental gymnastics team.
I'm hoping the Meaningful Conflict in the Ashes design will change that.
You mean like combat? Or more all inclusive?
That is indeed one potential avenue to a resolution. As is getting them to quit the game. I don't see that to be the case.
In Ashes, for example, you are only going to solve the issues that Intrepid allow you to solve via PvP. If you and I had a guild, and then had a disagreement over how to run said guild, for example, PvP isn't going to solve that.
It will solve issues along the lines of two guilds both wanting the same castle - but only because Intrepid designed the game that way.
And as a conflict, PvP has no way to solve it.
That is my point. I'm not talking abotu PvE games vs PvP games specifically - just the fact that PvP in an MMORPG isn't actually ablke to resolve real conflict, only manufactured conflict. Further, my point is that since PvE games don't have to manufacture this conflict in order to justify their game having PvP, the conflict that does exist in those games is real. That isn't to say it can't also exist in PvP games - just that it is the only conflict in PvE games and PvP can't resolve it at all in games that have it.
I think you missed the point.
Conflict in PvE games is not created by developers.
Conflict that can be solved via PvP is created by developers - that isn't real conflict.
Because I'm pretty sure that quite a few people have stopped playing pvp games exactly because people drove them to that point through forced pvp. Iirc you've literally used that argument to say that pvp games always lose players.
So, if anything, I'd say that pvp games manage to "resolve conflict" waaaaaay more often than pve games. Especially pve games with instanced content, because there's literally no way to prevent people from clearing that content (well, again, w/o meta means).
And if that whole assumption is wrong, then I'm still completely missing the point of your argument. I still don't see how pve games can resolve conflict in any way, outside of meta means that is.
Perhaps, but again, PvP is the lowest form of conflict resolution. The reason this is better in games without PvP is because that lowest form isn't available to either party, forcing more creative methods.
There wasn't a point. I just reviewed the points you made. You keep making statements of how things are instead of giving examples to supplement. I gave plenty.
My guess is the majority of MMO players are a mix of both styles.
Anyway this thread's getting crazy. Everyday I log in I expect this threaded to slowly fade away.
Or whatever it is in BDO that allowed me to play without ever thinking about or encountering PvP.
Labels typically exist for a reason.
oh? the dungeon with a boss at the end that you clear with your party isn't created by the developers. damn!
You got this backwards.
PvE is 100% created by the devs. For pvp, the only part the devs have in it is creating the rules players use to play against each other.
Please tell me an example of conflict in pve?
Only if you agree that AoC is a PvP mmorpg.
I gave some examples.
The problem is, because your baseline is so far off (honestly, reading about it?) you are kot likely to understand what is being talked about.
I could spend a whole lot of time explaining it to you, but since you don't actually seem interested in understanding something you've not experienced but rather insist that your experiences are the only ones possible, I really don't want to waste my time.
That is why the only description at all I gave was in reply to NiKr. He is interested in understanding other experiences, even if they aren't ones he particularly wants for himself.
This is literally just mental gymnastics.
You was in vacation?
PvE is indeed 100% created by developers, but that isn't what I'm saying.
I am saying conflict in PvE games is entirely player made, not content.
I keep mentioning that because of how absolutely crazy it is that someone would ever think that is what is being talked about. It is so far off base that I can't even imagine a means in which someone could make the assumption.
Dygz came up with a better answer then you.
I also gave an example of how story or "reading" can cause conflict. I will repeat it. When Sylvanus burned the World Tree, it creates conflict because of how the story developed. All it involved was reading
I also don't think you understand the word conflict. The only example you gave was fighting for a boss kill, doing in game and out of game tactics to slow them down to win. Again, I am not sure you want to qualify that as conflict. If the team cheats and gets the kill, well now you have conflict. Not meaningful but it's there . Competition is the word you are looking for.
So again, anytime you want to provide an example of what good PVE conflict is feel free to write it down. You can keep strawmanning and attempting to degrade me as your strategy but if you can't provide an example I won't reply to this matter again, at least towards you
The crazy part is Dygz's example seemed pretty docile but he really enjoyed it? So you aren't required to have some epic moment, just a personal experience. Other people are reading this too go ahead and enlighten us.
Yeah I agree with this. I can agree that tensions and drama runs equally as high in pve as it does in pvp, the only difference is that in pvp you have an outlet in order to take care of these things.
In pve, the lack of systems often create annoying situations that always rise up without a resolution. for instance, grinding exp at a mob area and people pulling the mobs right in front of you. It's not like you can stop them, it's a public area.