blat wrote: » Where's the trash talking? It's been pretty fair I thought, all round, mostly. IMO this is part of the issue, this automatic stereotyping of anyone who enjoys PvP. Bizarre.
Dygz wrote: » blat wrote: » Where's the trash talking? It's been pretty fair I thought, all round, mostly. IMO this is part of the issue, this automatic stereotyping of anyone who enjoys PvP. Bizarre. Um. The trash-talking typically happens during PvP combat.
Dygz wrote: » No one said anything like "anyone xxxx" except you.
Dygz wrote: » Generalizations are OK. Stereotypes are absolutes; not generalizations. Since the statement does not include absolutes, it inherently means there are exceptions included in the generalization. That's the way English grammar works. If the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it.
Dygz wrote: » Uh hunh. You're saying I should have believed from the start that Steven was boldly lying to my face when I asked him about Ashes PvP
Dygz wrote: » And... the L2 players, including Steven, said, "You should reserver judgment until you test Corruption during the Alpha. I think Corruption will be enough of a deterrent that you will feel OK playing Ashes.
Dygz wrote: » 3: The type of PvP I abhor is non-consensual, free-for-all PvP, like the Open Seas - which Ashes did not have until 2 years ago. 4: The moment The Open Seas was added in 2022 is the moment that it became clear that Ashes is a PvP game rather than... a PvX game that has some PvE and some PvP. And that is the moment I realized I am no longer part of the Tartget audience.
Dygz wrote: » Steven specifically state that the difference between Ashes and AA is that Corruption-flagging is active across the entire map. That's the deal.
Dygz wrote: » I consider EQ/EQ2 and WoW to be PvX. I consider Neverwinter Online and New World to be PvX.
blat wrote: » As usual with the semantic warfare when the point is totally understood. And incidentally, stereotype is exactly the right word.
Dygz wrote: » blat wrote: » As usual with the semantic warfare when the point is totally understood. And incidentally, stereotype is exactly the right word. It clearly states: "Stereotypes tend to be less flexible and more resistant to change than generalizations." So. It's not semantics. And your use of the word stereotype remains incorrect. Case closed.
HybridSR wrote: » I don't think he was lying, he just told you it's not purely PvP because he's right. It's not strictly just PvP, there's obviously a ton of PvE and fighting bosses. There's also a ton of grind and crafting, a ton of story arcs, questing, etc etc. It's just you'll also have to deal with enemy players fighting you for that loot, for rare mats, for best grinding spots, for everything really. So he's not wrong or lying.
HybridSR wrote: » The flagging system may be not exactly the same because the flagged time (the time where you can be attacked without corruption punishment for the attacker if they kill you) maybe be slightly longer or shorter (so that's not exactly the same, but it's effectively the same system,) In Lineage 2 you also couldn't see the enemy player's HP, so that's also the same.
HybridSR wrote: » When he told you the flagging system is harsher, he means that carrying corruption is harsher. And he's absolutely right. Not only you can drop equipped items (just like in L2) but here, you're also marked on the maps for BHs, so you can't just kill someone and run away and be safe. If you kill several players, your PvP damage goes down (or your effectiveness, don't know for sure), so that means you literally won't even be able to defend yourself after killing a few people. That's literally 10 times more punishment for killing players than Lineage 2's flagging system. So again, Steven is correct and didn't lie.
HybridSR wrote: » You absolutely should reserve judgement because as I already said about 30 times, PKing in Lineage 2 wasn't an issue in my experience in nearly a decade of that game. And that was having a flagging system that didn't punish you anywhere nearly as hard as AoC flagging system does. Were there annoying PK sometimes here and there? Sure. They were also instantly identified and the moment they show up, you just have someone follow them close and if they kill someone, they're dead and maybe you have a loot piñata if they accumulated a lot of PKs. In AoC they straight up won't be able to go around murdering 20 people cause of PvP dampening and because they're going to have 10 BHs chasing them. Again, Steven is correct.
HybridSR wrote: » Yeah I can see why you say that. Then again, you could just ... not engage in the sea combat? To be quite honest with you, free for all PvP isn't something I enjoy. I enjoy being ready to fight in the Open World while I'm doing my gathering or heading somewhere. I enjoy fighting with my party/clan for a specific purpose. Not a big fan of a giant place where everyone can murder each other. Can it be fun? Absolutely, for a while and even more if there's good rewards to be had, but since it's probably going to be a 24/7 killing festival, it's not something I think I will care much about. I'm open to trying it out, though.
HybridSR wrote: » It is. With the exception of the sea. There's 2 gigantic continents full of content and stuff to do, you can just not engage in it, you understand that, right? In Lineage 2 there was a lot of content I never cared to join. Particularly a lot of group PvE, defintely never engaged much in economy, I was just a soldier for my clan and fought everyone and everywhere they asked me to and I was always ready to "protect" players from my clan who weren't as strong as I was. There was so so much I wasn't a part of and I still had a blast playing that game. AoC as a game is 10 times bigger in L2, there's literally 50 more things to do. You don't have to not play a game because you don't like the fact that there's ONE place in the map where it's a free for all. Try being a little bit more open minded Dygz, you might be surprised.
HybridSR wrote: » I don't know about EQ or NW Online, but WoW isn't a PvX game. WoW is a PvE game which allows players to PvP. You can literally click one button and all PvP is gone from the game.
HybridSR wrote: » That's not PvX buddy. It USED to be PvX until they added warmode. If you call WoW a PvX game, then Lost Ark is a PvX game because you can PVE and then you can also go PvP when want. New World isn't PvX either. It's a PvE game with an option to PvP, same as WoW. A PvX game is when the PvE has constant, never ending risk of PvP. Very few games were like that. Lineage 2 being the best and closest example.
blat wrote: » Yeah which is exactly as intended. It was my sentence not yours! Jaysus. Americans debating English. Give us all a laugh.
Dygz wrote: » Your incorrect
blat wrote: » Noaani wrote: » As for median attempts per boss, this is something that is both hard to really work out (especially a decade after the fact) but also not overly applicable to the notion of a discussion on repetitive gameplay. It was fairly common for only a few pulls at an idea to happen at a time, and if no real progress was being made, a different idea that was vastly different was attempted. Some encounters absolutely were killed first attempt, without a doubt. Some encounters took hundreds of hours of attempts, with the above multiple different ideas being fairly common. You're referring here to different ideas being attempted. IE: different attempts at cracking the encounter. Once cracked, it stays cracked. Then it just becomes a case of everyone knowing the script and not fucking up. PvP is never solved in the same way. Yes there can be dominant strategies, groups etc - but the enemy then continues to evolve around your strategies. So the variety in PvP is not coming from the different group setups (yes that contributes), but more fundamentally from the very nature of competing vs enemies who learn, improve and adapt. As I said earlier, PvE is like Agent Smith to PvP's Neo. It can be very advanced, difficult, fun etc.. but is inherently limited by its programmed nature.
Noaani wrote: » As for median attempts per boss, this is something that is both hard to really work out (especially a decade after the fact) but also not overly applicable to the notion of a discussion on repetitive gameplay. It was fairly common for only a few pulls at an idea to happen at a time, and if no real progress was being made, a different idea that was vastly different was attempted. Some encounters absolutely were killed first attempt, without a doubt. Some encounters took hundreds of hours of attempts, with the above multiple different ideas being fairly common.
blat wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Your incorrect You're* I know, petty isn't it? How about we just give everyone the benefit of the doubt and meet each other in the middle?
Dygz wrote: » blat wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Your incorrect You're* I know, petty isn't it? How about we just give everyone the benefit of the doubt and meet each other in the middle? I mean... when you are factually incorrect, you are factually incorrect. There was no stereotyping where you claim there was. There is no middle there. Just true or false And your claim was false.
blat wrote: » blat wrote: » Noaani wrote: » As for median attempts per boss, this is something that is both hard to really work out (especially a decade after the fact) but also not overly applicable to the notion of a discussion on repetitive gameplay. It was fairly common for only a few pulls at an idea to happen at a time, and if no real progress was being made, a different idea that was vastly different was attempted. Some encounters absolutely were killed first attempt, without a doubt. Some encounters took hundreds of hours of attempts, with the above multiple different ideas being fairly common. You're referring here to different ideas being attempted. IE: different attempts at cracking the encounter. Once cracked, it stays cracked. Then it just becomes a case of everyone knowing the script and not fucking up. PvP is never solved in the same way. Yes there can be dominant strategies, groups etc - but the enemy then continues to evolve around your strategies. So the variety in PvP is not coming from the different group setups (yes that contributes), but more fundamentally from the very nature of competing vs enemies who learn, improve and adapt. As I said earlier, PvE is like Agent Smith to PvP's Neo. It can be very advanced, difficult, fun etc.. but is inherently limited by its programmed nature. Does noone have answer for this? Or would we rather sit furiously flicking through dictionaries to engage in semantic warfare? [/yawn]
Mag7spy wrote: » blat wrote: » blat wrote: » Noaani wrote: » As for median attempts per boss, this is something that is both hard to really work out (especially a decade after the fact) but also not overly applicable to the notion of a discussion on repetitive gameplay. It was fairly common for only a few pulls at an idea to happen at a time, and if no real progress was being made, a different idea that was vastly different was attempted. Some encounters absolutely were killed first attempt, without a doubt. Some encounters took hundreds of hours of attempts, with the above multiple different ideas being fairly common. You're referring here to different ideas being attempted. IE: different attempts at cracking the encounter. Once cracked, it stays cracked. Then it just becomes a case of everyone knowing the script and not fucking up. PvP is never solved in the same way. Yes there can be dominant strategies, groups etc - but the enemy then continues to evolve around your strategies. So the variety in PvP is not coming from the different group setups (yes that contributes), but more fundamentally from the very nature of competing vs enemies who learn, improve and adapt. As I said earlier, PvE is like Agent Smith to PvP's Neo. It can be very advanced, difficult, fun etc.. but is inherently limited by its programmed nature. Does noone have answer for this? Or would we rather sit furiously flicking through dictionaries to engage in semantic warfare? [/yawn] I don't think you are going to get a answer certain people have their preferences so you aren't really going to change anyone's mind. I agree with the whole pve / pvp thing already argued this is the past and it got no where. I've always said as more eyes are on the game and the closer it gets to actual release you will get more people with this view point. Only argument that pvp strategy than PvE is if pvp becomes about who zergs harder, and war types of pvp lack objectives and is just about a giant ball. PvE is meant to be beat, PvP is players fighting and that conflict constantly increases the bar level of players strength. Pretty much all I'm going to say on this though, I don't want to get into any arguments around this since I have more important things to do atm lol.
blat wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » blat wrote: » blat wrote: » Noaani wrote: » As for median attempts per boss, this is something that is both hard to really work out (especially a decade after the fact) but also not overly applicable to the notion of a discussion on repetitive gameplay. It was fairly common for only a few pulls at an idea to happen at a time, and if no real progress was being made, a different idea that was vastly different was attempted. Some encounters absolutely were killed first attempt, without a doubt. Some encounters took hundreds of hours of attempts, with the above multiple different ideas being fairly common. You're referring here to different ideas being attempted. IE: different attempts at cracking the encounter. Once cracked, it stays cracked. Then it just becomes a case of everyone knowing the script and not fucking up. PvP is never solved in the same way. Yes there can be dominant strategies, groups etc - but the enemy then continues to evolve around your strategies. So the variety in PvP is not coming from the different group setups (yes that contributes), but more fundamentally from the very nature of competing vs enemies who learn, improve and adapt. As I said earlier, PvE is like Agent Smith to PvP's Neo. It can be very advanced, difficult, fun etc.. but is inherently limited by its programmed nature. Does noone have answer for this? Or would we rather sit furiously flicking through dictionaries to engage in semantic warfare? [/yawn] I don't think you are going to get a answer certain people have their preferences so you aren't really going to change anyone's mind. I agree with the whole pve / pvp thing already argued this is the past and it got no where. I've always said as more eyes are on the game and the closer it gets to actual release you will get more people with this view point. Only argument that pvp strategy than PvE is if pvp becomes about who zergs harder, and war types of pvp lack objectives and is just about a giant ball. PvE is meant to be beat, PvP is players fighting and that conflict constantly increases the bar level of players strength. Pretty much all I'm going to say on this though, I don't want to get into any arguments around this since I have more important things to do atm lol. If it was just "we like different things" yeah, fair. Great. But this argument that scripted PvE is more varied than PvP is just madness. I also find it odd/ironic that most hostility in this forum comes from PvEers.
blat wrote: » If it was just "we like different things" yeah, fair. Great. But this argument that scripted PvE is more varied than PvP is just madness. I also find it odd/ironic that most hostility in this forum comes from PvEers.
blat wrote: » There was. But the key point here is, as usual, that you know exactly what was meant and have chosen to drag a thread out with nitpicking instead. It's boring, totally non-constructive, and only makes you look a bit of a tit. Shall we get back to Ashes?
