Greetings, glorious adventurers! If you're joining in our Alpha One spot testing, please follow the steps here to see all the latest test info on our forums and Discord!

What is your MMO PvE experience like?

245

Comments

  • George_BlackGeorge_Black Member, Intrepid Pack
    edited June 2022
    Azherae 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.
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    edited June 2022
    Azherae wrote: »
    If you were to see such a prompt, knowing that it is being controlled by a Micro-Lore system similar to what Ashes is proposing, would you end up having an interest in it to the point of investigation of it, even if you have seen this status before? Do you find that you need visuals to prevent you from making assumptions? I.e. if given the same 'prompt' are you the type that 'engages 10 times in case you just didn't hit the 1d10 on the interesting thing', or do you tend to 'assume lack of dynamism' after about 3-4x of the same result until someone tells you.
    Based only on what you wrote...
    I would most likely avoid the threat - unless it's part of a specific PvE quest.
    I would explore and investigate info and pick through the debris - if it's clearly mob debris. That feels kinda like farming resources, rather than repeating story.
    If it's giving me RNG chapters of lore, such that I could have multiple copies of the same lore - it's more likely I would not investigate.


    Azherae wrote: »
    And for Dygz specifically, if you did 'interact with the prompt' and find that the thing turned out to be a threat, will you 'allow an aggressive hostile enemy to attack you if it will buy time for someone who will deal with that threat to arrive', or is this of no interest to you, resulting in immediate disengage (escape tools).
    Wow. That is an awesome question.

    If it were a PvP threat, it might depend on where I am at on my threshold for PvP encounters for that game session. Also depends on how I think that might negatively affect my game session goals.
    If the death penalties are not too harsh, it's quicker and easier to not fight back and die, then go back to fulfilling my game session goals. I think that's typically what I would do.
    Ocassionally, I might be curious enough to take the time to actively engage and see if I can defeat the threat.
    If the death penalties are harsh, I would attempt to run. But it's also likely I wouldn't be playing that game for very long.
    Kinda depends on my mood at that specific moment in time.

    In PvE, if it seems there's a decent chance I can defeat that adversary, I would fight back. If it seems clear I'm outmatched I would run. (I typically kite in any case).
    I would only call for allies to come if I knew they were farming that specific type of mob.
    I'm way more likely to answer a call for help than I am to call for backup.
    Instead of asking people to come do content with me, I'm more likely to say something like, "When you're up for doing that dungeon, let me know, and I'll join you."


    Azherae wrote: »
    tl;dr does Dynamism pull you back to old haunts or does the wish for Novelty push you out to new vistas, on AVERAGE, which wins out? (or if you can give a ratio, please do).
    Wild! Fascinating phrasing.
    I think it's Novelty that wins out?
    I'm an explorer first and foremost, so I'm always checking to see what's new.
    Which is why I don't do "endgame" stuff once my character reaches the end of the story.
    I basically have to have at least a new perspective with an alt to return to hold haunts.
    Or, some new experience needs to be available at the old haunts.
    I would return if the NPCs evolved over time, similar to what StoryBricks hoped to provide.
    I kinda feel like Dynamism is a subset of Novelty.
  • AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    Dygz wrote: »
    Wild! Fascinating phrasing.
    I think it's Novelty that wins out?
    I'm an explorer first and foremost, so I'm always checking to see what's new.
    Which is why I don't do "endgame" stuff once my character reaches the end of the story.
    I basically have to have at least a new perspective with an alt to return to hold haunts.
    Or, some new experience needs to be available at the old haunts.
    I would return if the NPCs evolved over time, similar to what StoryBricks hoped to provide.
    I kinda feel like Dynamism is a subset of Novelty.

    Thank you, though I only quoted one section, all data is noted.

    One final clarification if you don't mind, the example is shorter this time so no spoiler tag.

    Assume that you hear that the Star System where you have spent some time in the past while it was doing well, is now under a Pirate Attack. You have seen Pirate Attacks in THIS system before. You do not know if it can be different (assume that the Lore system is deep enough that you can't be sure it will be the same, but there's maybe an 80% chance it will be the same as the last time you were there during a Pirate Attack). Do you return to see if it's different if you were 'about to change location anyway', or do you look for something else to do because you've seen it before and the chances of pure Novelty are low?

    This is (in my head, sorry if it doesn't match up) my distinction between JUST Dynamism and Novelty. The 'change to Pirate Attack' is Dynamic alone, it's rare enough that you'd go more than 3 months between them. But you've still seen it before. It's not 'Novel' unless you hit that 1d5 on it being DIFFERENT. You probably have a lot more factors to consider here, so I won't request that you try to cut it down, you can just say 'it depends' and I'll leave it at that.

    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?
    Sorry, my native language is Erlang.
    
  • AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    Azherae 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)
    Sorry, my native language is Erlang.
    
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    edited June 2022
    Noaani wrote: »
    valakas usually needed atleast 90-180 well geared, organized and skilled people to kill it
    This is still my biggest issue with all open world games to date.

    Imagine Valaka, exactly as it is, with the same stats, and with players having the same combat system to work with - but no PvP potential at all.

    Now imagine that they are limited to 40 players.

    All of a sudden, everyone has to literally be at the absolute peak. You can't just throw more people at the problem to solve it (your range literally doubled the number of people present).

    I mean, the encounter may well have been enjoyable, and may be a good encounter. The problem *I* have with it is in that just adding more people is a viable way to solve the encounter.

    You know why the range i provided was so big?
    Because people evolved in both gear, game knowledge, organization, skill and strategy against Valakas as time went by and he started getting less strong stat-wise in relation to players around Hellbound version with the release of a World boss even more difficult than he was.

    Having more people wouldn't necessarily trivialize the fight, the maximum number of people allowed inside Valakas Lair wasn't 40 but 200 people at a time, Even 200 would get wiped by Valakas due to his chaotic RNG nature a lot of times especially early on before people evolved in all aspects.

    People learned that it was better to pvp during his random respawn window in front of his semi-instanced entrance, to have the highest number of your people to enter his lair as soon as it allows entrance, sometimes it would open mid fight and people would take the conflic to inside Valakas Lair, and people of both side wwould end up with smaller numbers than the maximun 200 and had 30 min to finish their fight and reorganize to have a shot at valakas with their numbers that managed to get inside of it.
    I have no doubt at all that it was enjoyable content, and I have said before that it would be good to see something similar in Ashes.

    However, this post highlights even more issues I have with L2. Hellbound was what, 2009? 6 years after Valaka was released? (correct me if I am wrong) And this is when *A* new world boss that was harder was released.

    In that time frame, I would expect to see no less than 18 new, top level world bosses added to a game. Not 1. 3 per year is what I consider a minimum. EQ2 around that time (2006 - 2009) was adding 15 new world bosses a year - and that is just the world bosses (twice that many instanced bosses).

    This scope of content is what I expect from my subscription, and so does virtually everyone I have played MMORPG's with.

    Then you have the statement that even 200 people would get wiped. You kind of said this as if it should be a surprise or something. To me, the first 20 - 50 attempts on a top level boss (for each guild) should be assumed to be a wipe. And that is even assuming the maximum number of players, with the best gear and all those things.

    Saying a mob would sometimes wipe a raid the maximum size that is able to take it on is not selling that mob as difficult.

    Fun story, in Archeage, when my guild first took on the Kraken. We pulled it with the plan of seeing what kind of mechanics it had and such. We were quickly surprised at how fast it's HP was going down. I kept telling people to expect it to do something, and to be ready. When it was down to 10% I said that this must be just phase 1 or something. We got it down to 0, and nothing, just some loot and a big dead squid.

    Half the guild quit the game that day, as that was supposed to be *the* boss in the game at the time - and it was a joke. This was well before the story about the Red Dragon that I have told a few times on these forums happened (the Red Dragon was broken at this point in the game).

    ---

    What your expectations in regards to content are is very much going to be shaped by the early games you played. This doesn't just include the types of mobs, but also the quantity and variety of them.

    Players from L2 and it's family (including Archeage, BDO and a few others) may be happy with what essentially amounts to a trickle of new encounters. Players of EQ and it's family (including EQ2, WoW, Rift and a few others) will expect more content than that, with more variety, that is very tightly tuned to a specific number of players.
  • Noaani wrote: »

    EQ2 raiding wasn't about scripts, repetition or that kind of thing (generally - though there was some of that) - the kind of thing most people seem to associate with top end PvE content. It was about assessing what you have in front of you, and making it work. It was about adaptation, improvisation, changing the plan on the fly.

    That. That's also what I think ideal PvE raid encounters should be.

    I still remember I stopped playing the reborn FF14 during its first year becoz the raids at that time felt more like choreography than "PvE combat". It was like waves after waves of instant death (but telegraphed) aoes, followed by dps checks, then aoe avoidance dance again, then dps or hps check ... and at some point one of the 8 raid members died, and a wipe's called.
    The raid encounters were essentially challenges to players' memory & reflex, rather than knowledge & the ability to think & properly react :(
  • NiKrNiKr Member
    Noaani wrote: »
    However, this post highlights even more issues I have with L2. Hellbound was what, 2009? 6 years after Valaka was released? (correct me if I am wrong) And this is when *A* new world boss that was harder was released.

    In that time frame, I would expect to see no less than 18 new, top level world bosses added to a game. Not 1. 3 per year is what I consider a minimum. EQ2 around that time (2006 - 2009) was adding 15 new world bosses a year - and that is just the world bosses (twice that many instanced bosses).

    This scope of content is what I expect from my subscription, and so does virtually everyone I have played MMORPG's with.
    I won't speak for other L2 players on the forum, but for me the "one epic boss per update" (roughly every 6 months) was more than enough. Outside of that boss there'd be several open world bosses and farming locations, but nothing anywhere near the complexity or difficulty of an epic boss, which in turn were nowhere near top lvl pve from raiding games.

    When you have the time, you can check out this archive of the official L2 site. In the "news -> game updates" tab you can see all the things that devs wanted to advertise to their players. Mobs/bosses were only a small part of the overall picture, because that wasn't really the goal of the game.

    https://legacy-lineage2.com/news/chronicle1_01.html

    And when it comes to Ashes, I'd be fine with even less pve content if node-castle sieges/caravans/farming locations/artisan stuff took up enough of my time to entertain me. Now obviously any pver wouldn't be fine with that, so I'm sure that Intrepid will have a steady flow of new pve stuff. What form that pve will have though - now that's a whole different question.
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    edited June 2022
    Azherae wrote: »
    Assume that you hear that the Star System where you have spent some time in the past while it was doing well, is now under a Pirate Attack. You have seen Pirate Attacks in THIS system before. You do not know if it can be different (assume that the Lore system is deep enough that you can't be sure it will be the same, but there's maybe an 80% chance it will be the same as the last time you were there during a Pirate Attack). Do you return to see if it's different if you were 'about to change location anyway', or do you look for something else to do because you've seen it before and the chances of pure Novelty are low?
    This question is for PvE data, I think, but... I'm gonna talk about PvP first.
    I consider myself to be a PvP-sometimes player.
    My favorite form of PvP is "RPing" that I'm saving a town from enemy attack.
    Typically, towns have no chance of being destroyed - maybe I'm just trying to help prevent the NPCs from being killed so that players can still shop/craft/repair/acquire quests.
    But... I have around a 1 hour threshold for PvP combat. Like, I've had my fill of intense hardcore challenge adventure and I'm ready for the rest of my game session to be low-key casual challenge. If I'm forced to PvP after that hour is up, I'm going to rage-quit.

    Again, for PvP, it's probably new attackers. And the current inhabitants would probably be relative newbies, so that might feel like enough of a Novelty, though it's really just an opportunity to RP the hero and I think some of my RP would be different just because I'm interacting/improving with different players.

    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.


    Azherae wrote: »
    This is (in my head, sorry if it doesn't match up) my distinction between JUST Dynamism and Novelty. The 'change to Pirate Attack' is Dynamic alone, it's rare enough that you'd go more than 3 months between them. But you've still seen it before. It's not 'Novel' unless you hit that 1d5 on it being DIFFERENT. You probably have a lot more factors to consider here, so I won't request that you try to cut it down, you can just say 'it depends' and I'll leave it at that.
    I dunno. I think with a 1d5 chance with repeat encounters, the third time I repeated an encounter, I'd probably be done, as in, after 7 or 8 encounters, I would lose interest.
    I'd need to be on an alt to play through it again, I think.
    Or some friends would have to ask for help... once.


    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.)
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    NiKr wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    However, this post highlights even more issues I have with L2. Hellbound was what, 2009? 6 years after Valaka was released? (correct me if I am wrong) And this is when *A* new world boss that was harder was released.

    In that time frame, I would expect to see no less than 18 new, top level world bosses added to a game. Not 1. 3 per year is what I consider a minimum. EQ2 around that time (2006 - 2009) was adding 15 new world bosses a year - and that is just the world bosses (twice that many instanced bosses).

    This scope of content is what I expect from my subscription, and so does virtually everyone I have played MMORPG's with.
    I won't speak for other L2 players on the forum, but for me the "one epic boss per update" (roughly every 6 months) was more than enough. Outside of that boss there'd be several open world bosses and farming locations, but nothing anywhere near the complexity or difficulty of an epic boss, which in turn were nowhere near top lvl pve from raiding games.

    When you have the time, you can check out this archive of the official L2 site. In the "news -> game updates" tab you can see all the things that devs wanted to advertise to their players. Mobs/bosses were only a small part of the overall picture, because that wasn't really the goal of the game.

    https://legacy-lineage2.com/news/chronicle1_01.html

    And when it comes to Ashes, I'd be fine with even less pve content if node-castle sieges/caravans/farming locations/artisan stuff took up enough of my time to entertain me. Now obviously any pver wouldn't be fine with that, so I'm sure that Intrepid will have a steady flow of new pve stuff. What form that pve will have though - now that's a whole different question.

    I've seen that specific site, but not yet had a chance to go in depth with it. It's one of the ones I bookmarked when I started looking in to L2 due to there being a number of posters here from it. Looking at how developers talk about an update is a great way to get an idea of what a game is actually about, I do agree.

    The problem with Ashes is that unlike L2 - which was advertised as a PvP game - Ashes is being advertised as a PvX game. Steven has already talked about raid content having tiers, specific mechanics and such, and has said that he expects up to 15 open world bosses to be able to spawn on any given server at any given time (node state dependent).

    He has talked about wanting raid content in Ashes to be the asperation, rather than PvP content. He has talked about the game having an actual raiding scene, with players in the game that are mostly there for the raids, just as there are PvP players that are mostly there for the PvP.

    People fighting outside of the same pseudo-instance for the chance to kill a raid mob isn't a raiding scene, it is a PvP scene. Again, that isn't to say that isn't a good thing, it just isn't going to allow for the existence of that raiding scene that Steven has talked about. It will add to the PvP scene, and that's great. Assuming there is other content that will enable a raiding scene, content like the above will even act as a bridge between that raiding scene and PvP scene (you had better believe raiders would attempt to take on that challenge - assuming they have a game to play).

    This is why content like this absolutely should be in Ashes. So should farming locations (a notion I personally detest, but to each their own). But so too should content that will allow a raiding scene to emerge. Even if that means those raiders are not able to be attacked while they are taking on an encounter, them being in the game still gives PvP players more high value PvP targets to take on than they would have otherwise.

    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.
  • edited June 2022
    Noaani wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    valakas usually needed atleast 90-180 well geared, organized and skilled people to kill it
    This is still my biggest issue with all open world games to date.

    Imagine Valaka, exactly as it is, with the same stats, and with players having the same combat system to work with - but no PvP potential at all.

    Now imagine that they are limited to 40 players.

    All of a sudden, everyone has to literally be at the absolute peak. You can't just throw more people at the problem to solve it (your range literally doubled the number of people present).

    I mean, the encounter may well have been enjoyable, and may be a good encounter. The problem *I* have with it is in that just adding more people is a viable way to solve the encounter.

    You know why the range i provided was so big?
    Because people evolved in both gear, game knowledge, organization, skill and strategy against Valakas as time went by and he started getting less strong stat-wise in relation to players around Hellbound version with the release of a World boss even more difficult than he was.

    Having more people wouldn't necessarily trivialize the fight, the maximum number of people allowed inside Valakas Lair wasn't 40 but 200 people at a time, Even 200 would get wiped by Valakas due to his chaotic RNG nature a lot of times especially early on before people evolved in all aspects.

    People learned that it was better to pvp during his random respawn window in front of his semi-instanced entrance, to have the highest number of your people to enter his lair as soon as it allows entrance, sometimes it would open mid fight and people would take the conflic to inside Valakas Lair, and people of both side wwould end up with smaller numbers than the maximun 200 and had 30 min to finish their fight and reorganize to have a shot at valakas with their numbers that managed to get inside of it.
    I have no doubt at all that it was enjoyable content, and I have said before that it would be good to see something similar in Ashes.

    However, this post highlights even more issues I have with L2. Hellbound was what, 2009? 6 years after Valaka was released? (correct me if I am wrong) And this is when *A* new world boss that was harder was released.

    In that time frame, I would expect to see no less than 18 new, top level world bosses added to a game. Not 1. 3 per year is what I consider a minimum. EQ2 around that time (2006 - 2009) was adding 15 new world bosses a year - and that is just the world bosses (twice that many instanced bosses).

    This scope of content is what I expect from my subscription, and so does virtually everyone I have played MMORPG's with.

    Then you have the statement that even 200 people would get wiped. You kind of said this as if it should be a surprise or something. To me, the first 20 - 50 attempts on a top level boss (for each guild) should be assumed to be a wipe. And that is even assuming the maximum number of players, with the best gear and all those things.

    Saying a mob would sometimes wipe a raid the maximum size that is able to take it on is not selling that mob as difficult.

    Fun story, in Archeage, when my guild first took on the Kraken. We pulled it with the plan of seeing what kind of mechanics it had and such. We were quickly surprised at how fast it's HP was going down. I kept telling people to expect it to do something, and to be ready. When it was down to 10% I said that this must be just phase 1 or something. We got it down to 0, and nothing, just some loot and a big dead squid.

    Half the guild quit the game that day, as that was supposed to be *the* boss in the game at the time - and it was a joke. This was well before the story about the Red Dragon that I have told a few times on these forums happened (the Red Dragon was broken at this point in the game).

    ---

    What your expectations in regards to content are is very much going to be shaped by the early games you played. This doesn't just include the types of mobs, but also the quantity and variety of them.

    Players from L2 and it's family (including Archeage, BDO and a few others) may be happy with what essentially amounts to a trickle of new encounters. Players of EQ and it's family (including EQ2, WoW, Rift and a few others) will expect more content than that, with more variety, that is very tightly tuned to a specific number of players.

    Valakas was released in C4 version (February 2006), Beleth was released in Hellbound version(23 April 2008) basically about 2 years apart, right after C4, in C5(September 2006) Scarlet Van Halisha world boss was released, it was mechanically the hardest world boss at this point, It only wasn't harder than Valakas because he had a way more tamed AI and reasonably predictable patterns and would mostly respect tankers threat level.

    18 new Valakas level PvE encounters would certainly be pretty insane for Lineage 2 standards and certainly something L2 players wouldn't expect, certainly a demonstration of how NCsoft neglected Lineage 2 in favor of Lineage 1 in terms of amount of content released, and how the pvp part of Lineage 2 was the biggest focus of the players.

    The number of people allowed to fight him wasn't at all his selling point and main aspect or source of difficulty, His Overpowered Skillset and most importantly his Insane RNG AI was.

    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.

    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.
    6wtxguK.jpg
    Aren't we all sinners?
  • AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    edited June 2022
    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.
    Sorry, my native language is Erlang.
    
  • NiKrNiKr Member
    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.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    edited June 2022
    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_BlackGeorge_Black Member, Intrepid Pack
    Azherae wrote: »
    Azherae 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.
  • FerrymanFerryman Member
    edited June 2022
    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.
    Do you need a ride to the Underworld?
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    edited June 2022
    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.
  • AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    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?
    Sorry, my native language is Erlang.
    
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    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.
  • NishUKNishUK Member
    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).
  • NiKrNiKr Member
    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 >:)
  • NishUKNishUK Member
    Oh come on dood, "super toxics", just leave the kids to learn or make them look stupid.
  • mcstackersonmcstackerson Member, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    edited June 2022
    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.
  • NiKrNiKr Member
    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.
  • AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    NiKr 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?
    Sorry, my native language is Erlang.
    
  • NiKrNiKr Member
    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.
  • AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    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.
    Sorry, my native language is Erlang.
    
  • George_BlackGeorge_Black Member, Intrepid Pack
    edited June 2022
    NishUK 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.
  • mcstackersonmcstackerson Member, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    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.
  • AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    edited June 2022
    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.
    Sorry, my native language is Erlang.
    
  • George_BlackGeorge_Black Member, Intrepid Pack
    edited June 2022
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.