PvE Players tell me why you follow Ashes of Creation

Doesn't matter if the first time you saw Ashes was in kickstarter, or just learned of the project 2 weeks ago.

As a PvE first player, what makes you look forward to PvE in AoC or what was the defining feature that you're looking forward to?

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

Noaani

NiKr wrote: »

In other words, pvp is the lazy way.

Yep.

From conception to going live, a good PvE fight can take a year or more. That isn't a year of full time work, but a year of refining ideas, implementing, testing and tuning, and potentially scrapping and coming up with different ideas.

I (and my guild) don't personally begrudge Intrepid for not having that kind of content in Ashes - we actually do get it. But I do begrudge people that try to tell my guild that professions, exploring or guild progression are suitable substitutes.

Ludullu

Noaani wrote: »

But I do begrudge people that try to tell my guild that professions, exploring or guild progression are suitable substitutes.

That mainly comes from your insistence on the highest standard applied to a very broad term. PvE umbrella is H U G E. Yet you distill it to an unreasonably small definition and insist that it can ONLY apply to that definition.

So, yet again, just semantic arguments about dumb shit. Nothing new under the sun.

Noaani

NiKr wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

But I do begrudge people that try to tell my guild that professions, exploring or guild progression are suitable substitutes.

That mainly comes from your insistence on the highest standard applied to a very broad term. PvE umbrella is H U G E. Yet you distill it to an unreasonably small definition and insist that it can ONLY apply to that definition.

So, yet again, just semantic arguments about dumb shit. Nothing new under the sun.

Guild progression is as applicable to PvE as it is to PvP.

If you were looking at a game that you were led to believe would have open world PvP, but then turned out to only have arena PvP and someone told you that it had guild progression and so that should be enough for you to play, how would you respond?

Dolyem

Noaani wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

You could argue that the ability to experience PvP while doing the PvE content can be a major turn off for some players. But to say Raids and Dungeons, professions, questing, node progression, guild progression, etc aren't PvE centric... you need a nap.

And arenas are PvP centric.

Yet if that is all an MMO offered PvP players, I wouldn't expect people that prefer PvP to play that game.

Not sure what your point is? There is also plenty of PvP centric content in ashes as well.

My point is, in a game with just an arena, a player looking primarily for PvP wouldn't be content. An arena is undeniably PvP - it just isn't the kind of PvP that a fully PvP centered MMO player is after.

An arena is essentially PvP for PvE players.

Ashes is the flipside of this. It has PvE for PvP players. It doesn't have PvE for PvE players - but it also isn't supposed to have that, that isn't the design of the game.

I'm not saying it has no PvE - but only in the way I wouldn't say a game with just an arena has no PvP.

Raids, Dungeons, professions, questing, node progression, guild progression, exploration, economy..... mhmm. Totally just built for PvPers dude. All of these are just so trivial and pointless in terms of PvE and not the core of any PvE MMORPGs design.

I *GENUINELY* don't get what you are saying here.

Are you saying that someone that sees a game with no actual content they are interested in, but with a potentially ok guild progression system would play that game? If a game with only arenas as PvP content had a good guild progression system, I wouldn't expect someone wanting real (read, open) PvP to play. The fact that guild progression exists may be a factor in deciding between two games that have suitable content, but that is literally it.

Are you actually suggesting that guild progression is a substitute for content that such a player is after? I honestly really don't get what it is you are saying.

The same as the above can be said for professions and the economy. None of these are PvE specifically, and someone looking specifically for PvE would potentially look at these things only if they are deciding between multiple games based on their content.

As for exploration, that could appeal to a player like Dygz. It is not the primary concern of many players at all (I would suggest a fraction of a percent, but have nothing to back that up), and it isn't even a secondary or tertiary to most. It's like a senary consideration to most players, I would think.

As to dungeons and raids, the path that Steven seems to be going is that they are all designed as flash points for conflict. Again, this is fine. In fact, it is basically what Intrepid needs to do. But it does mean that the encounters aren't what a PvE player is looking for.

Again, I am not saying this is a bad thing. You yourself say that Ashes isn't for everyone, I am just taking that one step further and pointing out one group of players that Ashes isn't for.

Are we just supposed to say the game isn't for everyone, but then not talk about who the game is not for?

So what you are basing your statements on are entirely from them not being showcased yet? Because that's like me saying "Man, Rogues aren't really even Rogues in ashes, they haven't showcased any good content about them."

Everything you said can be a concern sure, but its all baseless without seeing them in full swing. All of the things I listed as PvE content are indeed a solid basis for any MMORPG, and to say none of it is up to par in ashes of creation when you still havent even seen all of the classes yet, let alone the node system or likely even half of the content in its basic form is just ignorant. No PvE content in ashes? I wish I could have tested it all as you have.

On top of that, just about every example you just gave is entirely subjective as far as a player wanting or enjoying the content. It doesnt change the fact that every single one of those things are PvE content. And each of those arguments can be solid feedback as concerns to the devs, but to sit there and act like all of those are true because you say so is discrediting the game before you have even played it with that content.

Your entire argument is "Well I havent seen anything focused on the PvE I want to see so there must be none." When all we are really entitled to see are the basic systems and mechanics before we actually get to test anything. Its still Alpha phase dude, simmer down. If you don't like what you see, then walk away. But don't go slandering a game where you nor anyone on the forums has actually really experienced the content yet. Until then, speculate, theorize, discuss, provide feedback. Be constructive instead of saying shit like "No PvE worthwhile" and wasting a comment space on the forums.

Noaani wrote: »

NiKr wrote: »

Btw, I agree that Ashes has yet to present top lvl pve. I won't say that there's no pve in the game, but there's definitely no peak quality pve yet.

This is fair.

I'll continue to say there is none though - simply because in my opinion Steven has had more than long enough to talk about it if it was something he was planning on having in Ashes.

And lastly, if you are expecting full blown run-throughs of content, divulging everything intrepid is working on, you have the wrong mindset when following development. All you need to know is the basics of the gameplay until you either get your hands on testing the content, or playing the full game. And Steven himself has even made it clear about how he doesnt want to overshare absolutely everything about the game, which makes sense in many ways.

TLDR: Chill out, and wait to actually test or play the content before you start telling everyone there is none.

Ludullu

Noaani wrote: »

If you were looking at a game that you were led to believe would have open world PvP, but then turned out to only have arena PvP and someone told you that it had guild progression and so that should be enough for you to play, how would you respond?

If the game promised to have owpvp and then just weren't showing it during its development, I'd wait for that development to end before deciding whether they lied or not.

We've talked about it before. I agree that Intrepid should show good pve or get one of the devs to talk about their current stage of development of pve in-depth. Or if they can't do that, they should get an AI dev to talk about the difficulties of designing a good pve AI.

Your analogy doesn't really work, because it still shows that you completely don't care about non-super-hardcore pve. We've seen bosses, we've seen mobs. But you don't consider them pve, because they're too easy, even though they are the most direct representation of what most people consider pve to be.

And this exact "air of superiority" is what gets others riled up. You disregard others' preferences and likes by saying that those are false at their core, so of course people would start arguing against you about that.

Noaani

NiKr wrote: »

And this exact "air of superiority" is what gets others riled up. You disregard others' preferences and likes by saying that those are false at their core, so of course people would start arguing against you about that.

I don't think I am disregarding them.

I've said many times (even before Intrepid showed off any encounters) that Ashes should have, will have and imo needs to have encounters exactly as the ones that have been shown, but that such encounters are not designed for the potential players that prefer PvE content over PvP (even those that are happy with some PvP).

That isn't disregarding their preferences at all, or at least I don't see it as such.

I've been very open about what a fairly large segment of the MMO playerbase is looking for in a new MMO for years now. I've even shown some ways that what these players want could be incorperated in to a game like Ashes without taking away from the PvP aspects of the game - and in my opinion even adding to them.

What I have been saying hasn't changed - but others have many times said that while we don't have that thing you are talking about, we have this other thing over here so why not just be happy with that?

Which of these is disregarding others preferences? The one that is stating what they want and suggesting ways it can be added to the with no detriment to others desires, or the one that is telling others they think what is in the game is close enough?

The following post is also partially in response to you, but I am going to be quoting Doylem.

Noaani

Dolyem wrote: »

So what you are basing your statements on are entirely from them not being showcased yet?

Basically, yeah.

If we get the things I have been asking for since about 2018, then awesome. Do you honestly think I won't be the first to jump up and down and say how great I think it is?

I can't comment on aspects of the game that have not been shown to us. I am happy to make small inferences to fill in missing gaps, but the inference required to take me from what we know of the game today to a game that contains the content I, my guild, and many other MMO players like us are after is kind of several massive leaps at this point.

It could still happen though - that is why I am still here.

However, that doesn't mean I should (or will) just stop posting about what is preventing many of us from being even remotely interested in the game.

We can only really discuss the game as it has been presented to us.

Ludullu

Noaani wrote: »

I don't think I am disregarding them.

That isn't disregarding their preferences at all, or at least I don't see it as such.

But that's how it comes off when you say "the game has no pve". That phrasing implies that everything that's not "top quality and difficulty bosses/mobs" is not pve. So to a pve player, who likes all those other things, this sounds like "you're not a pver because you like those things instead of hardcore bosses".

And in this age of tribalism and "this particular thing defines my entire existence", your statements pretty much deny those people's existence, because if they are not pvpers and not pvers - who even are they (they're also doubly not pvxers either

Noaani

NiKr wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

I don't think I am disregarding them.

That isn't disregarding their preferences at all, or at least I don't see it as such.

But that's how it comes off when you say "the game has no pve".

The only time I have said this is in the context of a discussion (usually with you) where we are talking specifically about top end PvE, the kind of PvE I and my guild are after.

The thing is, in those posts, you understand that the comment is in context. It is others that don't, start complaining and then if I bother replying to them at all it is to point out the above context.

I'm not really all that interested in having to double the lengh of every post just in an attempt to prevent people taking literally every word I type out of context - especially if I am posting from my phone.

iccer

I really wondered what those 60+ new messages were really about. Surely it was a discussion from a brand new perspective, something we haven't really realized until now...

1sab3la wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

1sab3la wrote: »

You have the overwhelming need to defend and validate yourself to yourself while doing the same to someone you don't know. Also I never stated you were a narcissist.

So, these two sentences together are amusing.

You claim I do a thing in the first, and then you do the same thing in the second.

I'm quite sure that isn't how you see these comments - you likely have a perfectly reasonable justification for it.

Here you are trying to get the last word in. We both knew you would. I just wanted to see if you would move on if I said I would. Again proving a point. Thanks top PvE guy

Lol still defending also. I'm glad I don't know you irl

...oh.

Nah, I'm sorry, but you're purposefully baiting a response, then you're acting all smug when you actually do get one.

If you make claims about someone, if you (in)directly attack them or their character, or even if you just make an argument about something, expect people to reply back and argue about it (especially if that claim/argument is false).

It's honestly mostly all of yours (not the quoted comment, but everyone) fault and a bit of Noaani's as well (though you could blame them for actually trying to engage and reply to every single thing). When you reply to them, you miss the point and argue about the most irrelevant thing in their entire argument, rather than the core point, or even worse, completely misrepresent the argument they're trying to make. Then the conversation devolves into semantics and arguments about totally (ir)relevant things, because naturally, Noaani will argue about every point you make, no matter how irrelevant it might be to the core discussion. I've seen it happen over and over again. So if you don't want to see it happen, don't start making irrelevant comments and arguments, and Noaani won't have to reply to them.
Now it's not even just the semantics, but straight up arguing about the other person's character.

NiKr wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

If you were looking at a game that you were led to believe would have open world PvP, but then turned out to only have arena PvP and someone told you that it had guild progression and so that should be enough for you to play, how would you respond?

We've seen bosses, we've seen mobs. But you don't consider them pve, because they're too easy, even though they are the most direct representation of what most people consider pve to be.

I haven't really read through hundreds of Noaani's comments, so I don't know what their stance on this is, but I'm gonna argue from my perspective.

You could argue that the things you've listed aren't strictly PvE content in the context of this game, because those things are going to see a lot of PvP activity. Dungeons, World Bosses, etc. are PvE content normally, but in Ashes, the first thing you'll have to do to access that content, is PvP against others who also want to participate in that PvE content. You have to fight off the competition.
Now obviously this might not always happen, but the risk is still there all of the time.

Personally, I'm fine with that, but we're not talking about myself here, we are talking about PvE players, who expect to do PvE content (and I assume the argument is about the "endgame").

PvE players might be looking for a PvE only experience, without having to worry about PvP. Such content might exist in isolation in Ashes, but really, to truly play the game and get somewhere, you'll also have to participate in non-PvE-only content, such as open-world dungeons, world bosses, gathering, open-world mob farming, etc.

As I see it, another issue in this thread is that people try to convince others that there indeed is PvE content, just for the sake of arguing with other people who disagree. While in other threads, they will just say "Ashes is not for everyone" or whatever else, and that's it.
That's the exact argument I see Noaani making here. They're not really arguing about whether the game should change to cater to those PvE-only players (or if they are arguing that, then I clearly haven't read through the entire thread). Instead, I see the argument as them trying to say there isn't enough PvE-only content that will appeal to those players, and that's that. I don't know why people are suddenly trying to argue against that, instead of just saying, "Hey, the game is not for everyone, they're not the target audience".

Ludullu

Noaani wrote: »

The only time I have said this is in the context of a discussion (usually with you) where we are talking specifically about top end PvE, the kind of PvE I and my guild are after.

Ah right, I forgot that this time it was BlackBrony who said that. You just directly agreed with him and it all went downwards from there

Either way, until Intrepid shows us some top lvl pve, majority of "pve" discussions will be kinda pointless, cause we don't have any reference for the range of difficulty.

Noaani

NiKr wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

The only time I have said this is in the context of a discussion (usually with you) where we are talking specifically about top end PvE, the kind of PvE I and my guild are after.

Ah right, I forgot that this time it was BlackBrony who said that. You just directly agreed with him and it all went downwards from there

Either way, until Intrepid shows us some top lvl pve majority of "pve" discussions will be kinda pointless, cause we don't have any reference for the range of difficulty.

All good.

And yeah, discussing top end PvE in Ashes right now is limited to two things.

The first is pointing out that we don't have any. This may change, but right now we don't have any.

The second is to comment on how we would like it to be.

As discussions, these are perfectly valid to have. I'm sure you remember our discussion on L2's cage fights, how I initially didn't like them but then you convinced me they were content worth having.

It's the people that come in and say "well, what *I* think is top end PvE is catered to is in Ashes, so obviously all is fine and you should just shut up" that are causing the problem. Well, that and people that will just argue against anything I say, and people claiming explortaion or guild progression are valid PvE content types. Then you have posters like Liniker with his purposeful misrepresentation of comments, and complete fabrication of other comments.

Noaani

iccer wrote: »

I see the argument as them trying to say there isn't enough PvE-only content that will appeal to those players, and that's that. I don't know why people are suddenly trying to argue against that, instead of just saying, "Hey, the game is not for everyone, they're not the target audience".

The funny thing (at least to me), is that I am actually saying both of these things in this thread.

I am saying there isn't any top end PvE content, and that my guild is not considering this as a game to play because of that. But I am also saying "but that's ok, we are not the target market - the game is not for everyone".

Then you have the anti-Noaani mob coming in having to disagree with what I am saying just because I am saying it, which basically results in them having to say "well may be the game IS for PvE players, you don't know." and then making up bullshit like I said the game was a scam.

It really is amusing, and they really are pathetic.

BlackBrony

Rivalzs wrote: »

BlackBrony wrote: »

Liniker wrote: »

BlackBrony wrote: »

But Ashes doesn't really have PvE.

Dungeons & Raids both open world and instanced, POIs, Narrative events, world events with stuff like invasions etc, regional and world bosses, treasure hunting, Housing, 23 different professions across gathering crafting and processing,

Saying AoC has no PVE should be a bannable offense lol

Bro, that's not PvE. That's filler content. It's like saying that Arenas 1v1 is PvP, and that's all you have.
That's the problem. You people think PvE is that, but it's not. It won't satisfy PvE players.
PvErs want to run dungeons and raids, not pick flowers.

Wdym that not pve? That's literally pve content they listed off

Have you seen a single raid? I haven't. That's endgame PvE. So far there is none. There is no real PvE for someone who enjoys PvE and sticks to the game in the long run.
Every single thing has PvP, but not PvE. A sponge boss is hardly PvE. Killing a boos that requires no coordination, no min maxing, not having to study their animations, abilities is not PvE.
I am not even a hardcore PvErs and yet I still remember killing some bosses with a guild. Took me time to get better at healers, knowing what to do.
So far I have not seen that. I am sorry but crafting it not PvE, it's a downtime activity. The same for gathering flowers, it's not PvE, it's just something you do to be able to be better at PvE content, which requires high optimization and/or strategy.
Do you call PvP the time you're looking for someone to kill? So let's say you go out in the world and spent 2 hours looking for a target. Does that count as PvP? Even if you didn't find anyone?

iccer

Noaani wrote: »

iccer wrote: »

I see the argument as them trying to say there isn't enough PvE-only content that will appeal to those players, and that's that. I don't know why people are suddenly trying to argue against that, instead of just saying, "Hey, the game is not for everyone, they're not the target audience".

The funny thing (at least to me), is that I am actually saying both of these things in this thread.

I am saying there isn't any top end PvE content, and that my guild is not considering this as a game to play because of that. But I am also saying "but that's ok, we are not the target market - the game is not for everyone".

That's what I got from reading the last 2 pages of this topic.

It really looks like a lot of people just come in to straight up disagree with what's being said, only based on the person who made the comment, and not based on the actual argument. It's funny seeing them argue against the same argument that they're making in other threads.

BlackBrony

Dolyem wrote: »

Just because the content isn't instanced, doesn't mean it isnt PvE. Sure, it likely won't be for everyone, but to make the claim that the game doesn't have more than enough PvE content planned is a lie.

Then all games are PvP, why don't you enjoy them? They all have instanced PvP

Ludullu

I feel like this whole pointless discussion could've been solved by just adding an adjective or a descriptor to the "pve", to explain the context of what's being said.

Instead of just saying "pve", say "top lvl pve" or "peak quality pve", or "high-end pve", or literally anything of that sort. And if anyone tries to argue that we have seen that type of content, they'd just say way more about their own experience in games than the topic at hand.

The core of the issue seems to be the "attack" at a super general term, when it's really meant for a small part of that generality. So just as Steven has problems with presenting his ideas/designs well - his audience does the same with their arguments (them being the audience is obviously debatable, which is kind of part of this discussion).

Noaani

NiKr wrote: »

I feel like this whole pointless discussion could've been solved by just adding an adjective or a descriptor to the "pve", to explain the context of what's being said.

Don't take this the wrong way, but it's kind of cute that you think people like Liniker would read a post well enough to understand an adjective such as that. Or that Mag wouldn't just follow Linikers lead like a lost little puppy.

For context, the wording I have been using in this topic, purely in an effort to do as you are suggesting here, is that what we know of for Ashes PvE content is PvE content for PvP players, as opposed to PvE content for PvE players. Realistically, the PvE content we know of is actually quite good for a PvP setting - I'm not commenting on that at all in this thread though (other than here).

The above is specifically accurate in regards to open dungeons and raids - it is PvE content for PvP players. It exists to spark conflict, for people to fight over. This is PvE for PvP players.

The thread went from me making that distinction directly to Liniker suggesting mental illness, followed by him suggesting we are calling the game a scam.

When that is the scale of the purposeful misrepresentation happening, a single adjective isn't going to change much. Or, at least, I don't think it would.

JamesSunderland

Noaani wrote: »

the anti-Noaani mob.

They are in the mirrors, inside your walls, above the celling and hiding in the straws!
They are after you! Run to the hills!

Ludullu

Noaani wrote: »

Don't take this the wrong way, but it's kind of cute that you think people like Liniker would read a post well enough to understand an adjective such as that. Or that Mag wouldn't just follow Linikers lead like a lost little puppy.

In this case my comment applies more to Brony than you purely because they were the one who started this shit this time.

Liniker's and Mag's own dumbness can be represented in whichever way they wish to represent it. I'll be honest, I didn't read all those 60 new messages cause I couldn't be bothered to go through the same shit yet again. I skimmed the beginning, saw that it was just people piling on you for the somewhat usual reasons and just skipped it all.

Your love for being the last one to seem right just comes in conflict with others' love of the same thing

And usually those attempts at being the last one just either devolve into petty name calling or with someone just exiting the convo. The latter usually only happens when the stupidity and pointlessness of what's being currently discussed outbalances the love for "being right". I guess your love is just too great, so you just can't help but stay in those dumb convos.

Noaani

NiKr wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Don't take this the wrong way, but it's kind of cute that you think people like Liniker would read a post well enough to understand an adjective such as that. Or that Mag wouldn't just follow Linikers lead like a lost little puppy.

In this case my comment applies more to Brony than you purely because they were the one who started this shit this time.

Fair point.

Percimes

Questions.

Can IS showcase a top end raid encounter without all archetypes presented first? Can they show anything without revealing these archetypes' abilities sets? How representative would showcasing that encounter with place holders or incomplete sets be? Would it be received as false promises? Lies?

Aside from concept arts of the big bad guy, some maps or modeled terrain, are we there yet to be presented more? Beside saying there will high end PvE stuff, what would be pertinent and convincing?

Shikisei

Honestly when I backed it years ago, I really liked how actions affected the world/town etc... but now I'm not really sure what's happening...

Ludullu

Percimes wrote: »

Can IS showcase a top end raid encounter without all archetypes presented first? Can they show anything without revealing these archetypes' abilities sets? How representative would showcasing that encounter with place holders or incomplete sets be? Would it be received as false promises? Lies?

Aside from concept arts of the big bad guy, some maps or modeled terrain, are we there yet to be presented more? Beside saying there will high end PvE stuff, what would be pertinent and convincing?

Imo an AI dev on stream explaining their approach to high end pve would be enough. We've had "roads" mechanics on streams, we've had a whole stream about "events" where just a bunch of mobs were running towards smth.

I think that would be the most "concrete" info on this topic that we can currently get.

HumblePuffin

NiKr wrote: »

Percimes wrote: »

Can IS showcase a top end raid encounter without all archetypes presented first? Can they show anything without revealing these archetypes' abilities sets? How representative would showcasing that encounter with place holders or incomplete sets be? Would it be received as false promises? Lies?

Aside from concept arts of the big bad guy, some maps or modeled terrain, are we there yet to be presented more? Beside saying there will high end PvE stuff, what would be pertinent and convincing?

Imo an AI dev on stream explaining their approach to high end pve would be enough. We've had "roads" mechanics on streams, we've had a whole stream about "events" where just a bunch of mobs were running towards smth.

I think that would be the most "concrete" info on this topic that we can currently get.

I too would really love an AI dev to come on and at least try to paint a picture of where they think they want to go with it all both big and small.

I think the things I am most critical about while watching the updates is the mob ai behavior (I know it’s early). Pathing especially with regular mobs, but even the Tumok fight, the targeting decision making seemed too unnatural (this could also be a lot to do with current animation pass).

This is definitely way down animation pass lane but I would love to be able to see some of the decision making in the AI as a player started to gain threat off someone. Some glances by the mob before switching targets as opposed to just suddenly turning on a dime and attacking you.

Would love more information on the adaptive AI and get to see it in action on a simple fight where we could see the differences. Hopefully they’ll consider doing a technical showcase after nodes soon.

Noaani

NiKr wrote: »

Percimes wrote: »

Can IS showcase a top end raid encounter without all archetypes presented first? Can they show anything without revealing these archetypes' abilities sets? How representative would showcasing that encounter with place holders or incomplete sets be? Would it be received as false promises? Lies?

Aside from concept arts of the big bad guy, some maps or modeled terrain, are we there yet to be presented more? Beside saying there will high end PvE stuff, what would be pertinent and convincing?

Imo an AI dev on stream explaining their approach to high end pve would be enough. We've had "roads" mechanics on streams, we've had a whole stream about "events" where just a bunch of mobs were running towards smth.

I think that would be the most "concrete" info on this topic that we can currently get.

Yeah, basically this.

In fact, this would be better than a showcase. The best raids in games don't come until well after release. I don't want them to show me raid content, I want them to tell me what their intention with it is.

Depraved

not all pve players are the same, and not all pvp players are the same.
many pvp players like ow pvp, but many dont. many like arenas, many dont. many like equalized arenas and many dont.

same can be said for pve players. not all of them enjoy the same type of content. saying the game doesnt have content for REAL pve players (whatever real might be) is just silly.

Liniker

Noaani wrote: »

Don't take this the wrong way, but it's kind of cute that you think people like Liniker would read a post well enough to understand an adjective such as that. Or that Mag wouldn't just follow Linikers lead like a lost little puppy.

You said people like me and Steven are narcissists because we play MMOs with guilds remember, thats why I don't read your posts, I only read what I type, sorry

but for real now, I don't really care about these discussions Noaani I am just here for the entertainment, sure, I think you say a lot of stupid shit, but that's what keeps the entertainment rolling so carry on

Noaani

Depraved wrote: »

not all pve players are the same, and not all pvp players are the same.
many pvp players like ow pvp, but many dont. many like arenas, many dont. many like equalized arenas and many dont.

same can be said for pve players. not all of them enjoy the same type of content. saying the game doesnt have content for REAL pve players (whatever real might be) is just silly.

Well, yeah. Some enjoy solo content, some enjoy group content, some enjoy raids. Some like their content instanced, some like it open.

One thing they all have in common though, is they want the challenge to come from the PvE, not from PvP. The reason I can state this with abslute certainty is because that is literally the bracket of players I am defining and then talking about. Is that everyone that enjoys PvE? No, obviously some very PvP oriented players also sometimes like PvP. Thing is, I am not talking about them, I am tlaking about the group defined above.

So far, no PvE content in Ashes has been shown where the challenge does not actually come from PvP, and it is probable that none ever will.

As I have said though, that is fine. Ashes is not for everyone, and all I am doing (that people seem to be taking offense with) is defining one of the groups that this game is not aimed at.

Noaani

Liniker wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Don't take this the wrong way, but it's kind of cute that you think people like Liniker would read a post well enough to understand an adjective such as that. Or that Mag wouldn't just follow Linikers lead like a lost little puppy.

You said people like me and Steven are narcissists because we play MMOs with guilds remember

No I didn't.

Again, you being unable to actually read. This is why NiKr's suggestion of adding an adjective just won't work.

For the record, I suggested that you may well have such tendencies, but that is based on your posts here, nothing at all to do with your guild. Then, as a seperate comment, one that only a person with narcissistic tendencies would assume to be about themselves, I claimed that based on Stevens guild in Archeage, he may also.

To anyone other than Liniker, feel free to go back through the thread to find the posts - the above is what you will see. Liniker will still see what ever he wants, and make it about him.

Child Item