Azherae wrote: » 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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
mcstackerson wrote: » Azherae wrote: » 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. I disagree as i don't think that simple question would correctly jog their memory. I wanted to mention the other 80% so they could think about all the other people they have fought and if they really did talk to them. I agree there are many people would not want to admit to making an error but that doesn't mean they didn't realize it and will be more conscious of it in the future. If they really did make a mistake then them understanding that is my goal. Having them admit it means nothing to me. Yes, i asked the question because of my own observations and understanding of bias. If you are saying i'm not allowed to perceive bias, can you explain why?
George_Black wrote: » 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.
Azherae wrote: » 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.
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.
Azherae wrote: » And separately, is it generally that in your experience, open world mobs (that reward reasonable exp) do not pose a significant risk of death to a group in the games you play? Obviously this is an odd question because you can always choose to 'go as far as your group can safely go', but there does come a point where the game does not 'allow' for this, based on respawn timers. i.e. if the area is populated enough for you to get aggro/links and the enemies respawn every 3 minutes, you are probably expected to kill a single enemy in 90 seconds if your group is taking on one at a time. Anything more than this and you may be overrun. So assuming that enemies respawn every 4m, and your group therefore chooses 'the enemy they can defeat in 2:15' (these numbers are related to Ashes cooldowns in my mind, in a long explanation which I'll skip) based solely on prior experiences, would you expect that enemy to pose a meaningful threat of at least one party member falling if one player loses connection or is suddenly called afk?
Azherae wrote: » Obviously this is an odd question because you can always choose to 'go as far as your group can safely go', but there does come a point where the game does not 'allow' for this, based on respawn timers.
Dygz wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Obviously this is an odd question because you can always choose to 'go as far as your group can safely go', but there does come a point where the game does not 'allow' for this, based on respawn timers. With Ashes, I'm hoping it will be fairly common to only go as far as you can safely go, for the moment. Rather than the miasma of obligation to clear the entire dungeon in one game session lingering over every dungeon crawl. Hopefully, we can still aquire decent enough rewards even without killing the boss.
CROW3 wrote: » 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? If it’s novel, definitely. If it’s the 43rd time, it would depend on what I’m focusing on at that time. Could be a fruitful distraction, could just be a distraction. I’d also want to scout the location before engaging. If I saw the message it’s likely other players saw it too. 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. I’d rely on my experience to guide me. If the majority of those events prove to be fruitful, then I’d investigate. If most of those events tend to be repetitive (say like 90% of FF14’s events) then I’d leave it be. 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). I don’t see these as mutually exclusive. So to err on the bright side, I’ll say it’s a well-rounded ‘yes.’ Azherae wrote: » And separately, is it generally that in your experience, open world mobs (that reward reasonable exp) do not pose a significant risk of death to a group in the games you play? Obviously this is an odd question because you can always choose to 'go as far as your group can safely go', but there does come a point where the game does not 'allow' for this, based on respawn timers. i.e. if the area is populated enough for you to get aggro/links and the enemies respawn every 3 minutes, you are probably expected to kill a single enemy in 90 seconds if your group is taking on one at a time. Anything more than this and you may be overrun. So assuming that enemies respawn every 4m, and your group therefore chooses 'the enemy they can defeat in 2:15' (these numbers are related to Ashes cooldowns in my mind, in a long explanation which I'll skip) based solely on prior experiences, would you expect that enemy to pose a meaningful threat of at least one party member falling if one player loses connection or is suddenly called afk? I think it would be clear from the first few groups whether the kill :: respawn ratio is doable for that group. Neverwinter has very quick respawn timers, but the mobs aren’t that challenging. BDO, FF14, and WoW fall into that bucket as well. In WoW the above concern in open world was when there used to be non-instances areas filled with elites. I can’t think of a pve game that a group was defeated regularly in open world content. That said, I would really like to see this. 😉
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).
Noaani wrote: » In my experience of games with open world dungeons, this will very much be the case. You may go in to a dungeon with a specific goal in mind, but that goal doesnt always need to be killing the end boss - and indeed if the dungeon is designed well, different people may have different opinions of what the end boss even is.
NiKr wrote: » Noaani wrote: » In my experience of games with open world dungeons, this will very much be the case. You may go in to a dungeon with a specific goal in mind, but that goal doesnt always need to be killing the end boss - and indeed if the dungeon is designed well, different people may have different opinions of what the end boss even is. Yyyyep, I've spent waaaaay more time in random rooms of L2's dungeons, than I ever did around the boss. Now there's the fact that L2 had hardcore grinding as the main means of spending time in game, so I dunno if Ashes will have the same design, but I at least hope that it'll be as Dygz said, we can go into a dungeon w/o the plan being just "let's go kill the boss".
Dygz wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Obviously this is an odd question because you can always choose to 'go as far as your group can safely go', but there does come a point where the game does not 'allow' for this, based on respawn timers. With Ashes, I'm hoping it will be fairly common to only go as far as you can safely go, for the moment. Rather than the miasma of obligation to clear the entire dungeon in one game session lingering over every dungeon crawl. Hopefully, we can still aquire decent enough rewards even without killing the boss. I'd like to see entire teams of Mages and entire teams of Rogues. An 8-person group with a mix of Mage/X and X/Mage. Or... An 8-person group with a mix of Cleric/X and X/Cleric. An 8-person group with a mix of Rogue/X and X/Rogue. That latter group might all be able to Stealth back out, and sneak past those respawns. We might also be able to acquire Stealth from the Thieves" Guild, even if we don't have a Rogue Archetype equipped.
Azherae wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Obviously this is an odd question because you can always choose to 'go as far as your group can safely go', but there does come a point where the game does not 'allow' for this, based on respawn timers. With Ashes, I'm hoping it will be fairly common to only go as far as you can safely go, for the moment. Rather than the miasma of obligation to clear the entire dungeon in one game session lingering over every dungeon crawl. Hopefully, we can still aquire decent enough rewards even without killing the boss. I'd like to see entire teams of Mages and entire teams of Rogues. An 8-person group with a mix of Mage/X and X/Mage. Or... An 8-person group with a mix of Cleric/X and X/Cleric. An 8-person group with a mix of Rogue/X and X/Rogue. That latter group might all be able to Stealth back out, and sneak past those respawns. We might also be able to acquire Stealth from the Thieves" Guild, even if we don't have a Rogue Archetype equipped. This interpretation is an unexpected but also totally valid one relative to what I was saying, so I'll ask about this too. Is that also not the norm? Are the enemies in a dungeon usually tuned to be 'if you can defeat these you are definitely also ready to take on the boss'? My experience is the opposite. People there 'to farm exp or sometimes items' absolutely do not want to go NEAR the boss or the Elites in the same area because they aren't strong enough for that. I'm used to a form of cooperation where people will literally go: "[TO Server Chat or to Friend with known strong guild]: Yo, $BOSS is up, there are three parties here, we'll keep the random enemies off you if you protect us from having to worry about it." I believe I've experienced in NeverWinter just the 'the Dungeon is a single adventure' but that's not really open world in the same way so I don't count that. Should I be counting it? And regardless of all that, would you PREFER that if you can clear the dungeon mobs you can probably take on the Boss?
Azherae wrote: » This would reduce points of friction considerably. My question therefore is... does this actually happen in L2 as well? You've implied that the mobs can at least take long to kill even if they aren't dangerous. Which I would expect to trigger the same thing, and people would clash only when they are 'in a room that they consider safe' and 'someone else tries to use the same room'. I wouldn't expect that a roaming group who intends to delve far INTO a dungeon has a good reason to off the group in front of them other than 'wanting to get to the boss first', but my only equivalent experiences in BDO are 'figuring out a rotation that doesn't overlap with anyone in the same area'. The concept is the same overall but the feeling of doing it is definitely not.
Azherae wrote: » This would reduce points of friction considerably. My question therefore is... does this actually happen in L2 as well? You've implied that the mobs can at least take long to kill even if they aren't dangerous. Which I would expect to trigger the same thing, and people would clash only when they are 'in a room that they consider safe' and 'someone else tries to use the same room'.
