PvX means your gear can be used for any event, although tailored gear might be better for certain events. Most other MMOs differentiate between PvE Gear and PvP Gears (Which I detest) and PvX was the reason I backed. It does not denote Player vs player vs environment because as Noaani said, all MMOs can be classified as such. The PvX Title relates only to the gear in my opinion.
PvX means your gear can be used for any event, although tailored gear might be better for certain events. Most other MMOs differentiate between PvE Gear and PvP Gears (Which I detest) and PvX was the reason I backed. It does not denote Player vs player vs environment because as Noaani said, all MMOs can be classified as such. The PvX Title relates only to the gear in my opinion.
Edit: Spelling mistakes.
This is a unique take on the definition of PvX that I have never seen before - and if nothing else just furthers the point that as a term it really means nothing, as it means different things to different people.
I'm amazed you have never come across the term before. I believe Archeage is also PvX in terms of gear. Age of Conan was PvX until the devs added PvP Armour. Some definitions may be obscure but the obscurity doesn't make the term wrong. I would not accept another definition.
I'm amazed you have never come across the term before. I believe Archeage is also PvX in terms of gear. Age of Conan was PvX until the devs added PvP Armour. Some definitions may be obscure but the obscurity doesn't make the term wrong. I would not accept another definition.
I've come across the term before - that isn't the issue.
The issue is - as I have said - the term has no real definition.
Your definition still leaves EQ2 as being a PvX game (when I left it, at least), even if WoW isn't.
Yeah, the problem relates to the server functions - Most MMOs will have a RP Server, a PvE Server and a PvP Server, but, the same equipment would be used on all three which umbrellas them under PvX.
If you add in PvP Armour then on the PvP Server most would use PvP Armour, in a PvE Server most would use PvE Armour and in an RP Server you would have a mixture.
Of course, I've simplified the umbrella term to avoid confusion. I will repeat I only play PvX Games, once the gear becomes separated by the PvE and PvP Tag I often quite within a year.
0
Options
mcstackersonMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
How is PvX and sandpark not generic terms if those others are?
Define them.
I'm pretty sure i did.
You didn't - though at least now you have tried.
When it comes to PvX, It's either PvPvE or player vs anything. I'm not sure what more you want. If PvE means player verse environment and pvp means player vs player, how is it hard to understand pvx is player vs both environment and player.
This definition would have every online game I have ever played be considered a PvX game.
A game with both an arena and a raid is a PvX game by the above.
If Intrepid wanted Ashes to be a PvPvE game, why did they not use that instead of PvX? PvPvE is a term that a few games have used - including ESO. PvX is simply a way to try and distance Ashes from those games - which then forces us to have to ask what exactly is it about those games that Ashes is trying to do differently in order to need to create that distance?
We don't know, because we have no real idea what Intrepid mean by PvX - so we can't compare that to games that are PvPvE that Intrepid is trying to create that space between.
Perhaps someone should ask Steven what the difference between PvX and PvPvE is - and if nothing, why he didn't just stick with a term that has been in use for years and is somewhat understood.
Yep, COD is a pvx game. Has a pve campaign and a pvp multiplayer.
Someone can say im wrong but to my knowledge PvX == PvPvE. I's an easier way of saying it and a term i've seen used for a while now. Not sure why they need to say something else. What did you think the x meant. You think we were going to be fighting aliens or something?
Once again, you ignore the fact they have given us more than this. Back to my mechanic example, they said there was a leak and explained it. You are coming back and saying a leak could be anything.
While i agree sandpark is a little weirder and is more of a term we use because of people's bias for both sandbox and themepark games but i also don't see it as being a hard thing to understand if you can define the two others. Sandbox is a game focused on player freedom and agency, basically go do what you want. Themepark is focused on curated content i.e. linear questing and progression. A Sandpark is a game that has elements of both, usually using themepark elements to get players into the game and then give them the freedom of the sandbox.
Archeage is a sandpark if you want an example, at least thats what the devs were trying to make.
I'm aware that Archeage attempted to call itself a sandpark game, but it did an equally bad job of defining what that was.
The game had an incredibly linear leveling progression, and had a single path to gear once you hit the level cap - and no real content other than getting that gear. In their case, "sandpark" became little more than a marketing term to explain why they never spent any development time on new content (that game received less new content in 4 years than EQ2 received yearly - over a decade after release).
Thing is, I have also seen other games (EQN, specifically) that called themselves a sandpark that basically had a plan of building a complete sandbox game, and then adding full themepark content to it. This is vastly different to what Archeage did (or tried to do, or claimed to have done), and was what Steven made it seem like Intrepid was aiming for with Ashes back in 2017 - 2019.
This is why these terms are not good terms to use. They are not defined in any way, shape or form.
When AA was first launched, it had linear level progression but not have linear gearing which was the idea. The game is introduced with the linear level progression and then sets you loose at the end.
Define what you mean by full themepark content and what made you think it was going to have it and now wont?
If this is about instanced raids, they said early on the instancing was going to be limited, mostly around story content and the best gear was going to come from open world bosses.
Once again mechanic example, they have explained a lot of the games features to us so saying they said this one word that you thought meant something doesn't excuse you ignoring all the other things they have said about the game.
What is important is that the three of us all have different meanings for it - and all of them are both right and wrong because there is no definition for it.
Some of you guys are overcomplicating the fk out of this. This is not rocket science. Pvx is a term that describes a game or a game mode as being player vs anything, including pvp and pve and generally not separating the two.
That pvx game could still have elements of pve or pvp separately sectioned off, but in general the pvx rule set applies so it labels itself a pvx game.
Some of you guys are overcomplicating the fk out of this. This is not rocket science. Pvx is a term that describes a game or a game mode as being player vs anything, including pvp and pve and generally not separating the two.
That pvx game could still have elements of pve or pvp separately sectioned off, but in general the pvx rule set applies so it labels itself a pvx game.
It describes the general rule set of the game and let's players know that they can expect pvp and pve to be intermixed with each other the vast majority of the time.
1
Options
mcstackersonMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Some of you guys are overcomplicating the fk out of this. This is not rocket science. Pvx is a term that describes a game or a game mode as being player vs anything, including pvp and pve and generally not separating the two.
That pvx game could still have elements of pve or pvp separately sectioned off, but in general the pvx rule set applies so it labels itself a pvx game.
In other words, it doesn't really mean anything.
If it means nothing to you then yes, ignore it, and focus on the features they have mentioned.
The problem remains that the definition is available but people don't want to accept the definition in some sort of crusade against the information the devs have given. If Ashes becomes anything other than PvX I won't play and if the game continues the current path of PvX I will play. I think if you are quibbling about tags then perhaps you have bigger issues, at least with the current information provided I can suggest that I am of the target audience at least.
If it means nothing to you then yes, ignore it, and focus on the features they have mentioned.
Again, you are not getting it.
Intrepid want to explain the game to people.
They say the game is PvX.
We have what - four different definitions of PvX in the last few posts of this thread?
While you may well have a definition that you like, there is literally no way for you to know if that is the definition Intrepid have for it. PvX encompasses games from WoW through to Dark Souls, Mario Cart to CoD, and as such is not a particularly good term to try and explain your game to people.
People coming from those games would look at what Intrepid have said about the game and have wildly different pictures of what the game will be - if you don't see that as an issue, I'm not sure what to say.
And again, this is the easier of the two terms we are talking about here to try and define.
If people are that challenged that they can't figure out what pvx means in the context of an mmo, theres nothing anyone can say to help them. 5th graders deal with harder concepts.
Let's not be pedantic, and just look at the systems described so far to give us a good idea of what the game aims to be. Obviously, we know that this game isn't meant to be a PvE or PvP game, otherwise it would be generalized as such.
1
Options
mcstackersonMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
If it means nothing to you then yes, ignore it, and focus on the features they have mentioned.
Again, you are not getting it.
Intrepid want to explain the game to people.
They say the game is PvX.
We have what - four different definitions of PvX in the last few posts of this thread?
While you may well have a definition that you like, there is literally no way for you to know if that is the definition Intrepid have for it. PvX encompasses games from WoW through to Dark Souls, Mario Cart to CoD, and as such is not a particularly good term to try and explain your game to people.
People coming from those games would look at what Intrepid have said about the game and have wildly different pictures of what the game will be - if you don't see that as an issue, I'm not sure what to say.
And again, this is the easier of the two terms we are talking about here to try and define.
With your logic, using Pv*anything* is confusing. If someone says it's pve, then how do they know if it's mario, darksouls, wow. How do i know a pvp game isn't a fps or a fighting game?
They said there will be dragons in the game, is that going to confuse people and make them think this is monster hunter?
For starters, you usually don't see ashes is a PvX, Sandpark, MMO and focus in on the pvx part and assume the game is cod. That part is being silly.
Outside of that, yea, people will have some idea but won't know what the game is until out and i don't see that as a big deal.
But what do you think they should describe their game to make sure it's not confusing to anyone?
If it means nothing to you then yes, ignore it, and focus on the features they have mentioned.
Again, you are not getting it.
Intrepid want to explain the game to people.
They say the game is PvX.
We have what - four different definitions of PvX in the last few posts of this thread?
While you may well have a definition that you like, there is literally no way for you to know if that is the definition Intrepid have for it. PvX encompasses games from WoW through to Dark Souls, Mario Cart to CoD, and as such is not a particularly good term to try and explain your game to people.
People coming from those games would look at what Intrepid have said about the game and have wildly different pictures of what the game will be - if you don't see that as an issue, I'm not sure what to say.
And again, this is the easier of the two terms we are talking about here to try and define.
With your logic, using Pv*anything* is confusing. If someone says it's pve, then how do they know if it's mario, darksouls, wow. How do i know a pvp game isn't a fps or a fighting game?
They said there will be dragons in the game, is that going to confuse people and make them think this is monster hunter?
For starters, you usually don't see ashes is a PvX, Sandpark, MMO and focus in on the pvx part and assume the game is cod. That part is being silly.
Outside of that, yea, people will have some idea but won't know what the game is until out and i don't see that as a big deal.
But what do you think they should describe their game to make sure it's not confusing to anyone?
If they say the game is PvE, you can role out all PvP.
There isn't much at all that can be ruled out by saying the game is PvX other than being able to rule out the game not having both some amount of PvP and PvE.
The reason we get so many people coming to these forums with such mistaken assumptions as to what Ashes is about is because Intrepid are not clear enough about what the game is.
Sure, someone could spend hours on the wiki trying to work out what the game is - but people should be able to do that in 30 seconds wit ha clear, concise statement from Intrepid - but that is not a statement they have made yet.
Again, this is the problem, this is why this thread exists.
0
Options
bloodprophetMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited September 2021
Interesting.
I never seemed to have that problem.
Is it really that hard to see PvX and assume there will be equal amounts of PvP and PvE?
And they are not separated.
Most people never listen. They are just waiting on you to quit making noise so they can.
Interesting.
I never seemed to have that problem.
Is it really that hard to see PvX and assume there will be equal amounts of PvP and PvE?
That is a fifth take on what PvX means.
And again, it is one that is not necessarily wrong, but is also not necessarily right.
Basically my take on PvX, is that, equal (ish) focus on Pve and PvP. If we took a larger sample size than just those on these forums, my guess is that a majority of people would interpret PvX as such. That would just be my assumption though.
Interesting.
I never seemed to have that problem.
Is it really that hard to see PvX and assume there will be equal amounts of PvP and PvE?
And they are not separated.
They aren't massively different, but they are different.
The fun thing about green is it can be equal parts blue and yellow (which would make this perspective the same as Bloodprophets), but 90% yellow and 10% blue is still a form of green - as is 90% blue and 10% yellow.
So, Bloodprophets definition is more rigid - equal parts PvP and PvE. This is essentially a single shade of green, not all greens that exist.
They aren't massively different, but they are different.
Bwahahahahahaha 🤣. I love it.
If you are selling a product that people can't see, where the only thing they have to go on is your explanation of it, would you not want that explanation to be fairly accurate?
If you are selling a product that people can't see, where the only thing they have to go on is your explanation of it, would you not want that explanation to be fairly accurate?
If you are selling a product that people can't see, where the only thing they have to go on is your explanation of it, would you not want that explanation to be fairly accurate?
Comments
Edit: Spelling mistakes.
This is a unique take on the definition of PvX that I have never seen before - and if nothing else just furthers the point that as a term it really means nothing, as it means different things to different people.
I've come across the term before - that isn't the issue.
The issue is - as I have said - the term has no real definition.
Your definition still leaves EQ2 as being a PvX game (when I left it, at least), even if WoW isn't.
If you add in PvP Armour then on the PvP Server most would use PvP Armour, in a PvE Server most would use PvE Armour and in an RP Server you would have a mixture.
Of course, I've simplified the umbrella term to avoid confusion. I will repeat I only play PvX Games, once the gear becomes separated by the PvE and PvP Tag I often quite within a year.
Yep, COD is a pvx game. Has a pve campaign and a pvp multiplayer.
Someone can say im wrong but to my knowledge PvX == PvPvE. I's an easier way of saying it and a term i've seen used for a while now. Not sure why they need to say something else. What did you think the x meant. You think we were going to be fighting aliens or something?
Once again, you ignore the fact they have given us more than this. Back to my mechanic example, they said there was a leak and explained it. You are coming back and saying a leak could be anything.
When AA was first launched, it had linear level progression but not have linear gearing which was the idea. The game is introduced with the linear level progression and then sets you loose at the end.
Define what you mean by full themepark content and what made you think it was going to have it and now wont?
If this is about instanced raids, they said early on the instancing was going to be limited, mostly around story content and the best gear was going to come from open world bosses.
Once again mechanic example, they have explained a lot of the games features to us so saying they said this one word that you thought meant something doesn't excuse you ignoring all the other things they have said about the game.
What you think it means is unimportant.
What Neurath thinks it means is unimportant.
What is important is that the three of us all have different meanings for it - and all of them are both right and wrong because there is no definition for it.
That pvx game could still have elements of pve or pvp separately sectioned off, but in general the pvx rule set applies so it labels itself a pvx game.
In other words, it doesn't really mean anything.
If it means nothing to you then yes, ignore it, and focus on the features they have mentioned.
Again, you are not getting it.
Intrepid want to explain the game to people.
They say the game is PvX.
We have what - four different definitions of PvX in the last few posts of this thread?
While you may well have a definition that you like, there is literally no way for you to know if that is the definition Intrepid have for it. PvX encompasses games from WoW through to Dark Souls, Mario Cart to CoD, and as such is not a particularly good term to try and explain your game to people.
People coming from those games would look at what Intrepid have said about the game and have wildly different pictures of what the game will be - if you don't see that as an issue, I'm not sure what to say.
And again, this is the easier of the two terms we are talking about here to try and define.
With your logic, using Pv*anything* is confusing. If someone says it's pve, then how do they know if it's mario, darksouls, wow. How do i know a pvp game isn't a fps or a fighting game?
They said there will be dragons in the game, is that going to confuse people and make them think this is monster hunter?
For starters, you usually don't see ashes is a PvX, Sandpark, MMO and focus in on the pvx part and assume the game is cod. That part is being silly.
Outside of that, yea, people will have some idea but won't know what the game is until out and i don't see that as a big deal.
But what do you think they should describe their game to make sure it's not confusing to anyone?
If they say the game is PvE, you can role out all PvP.
There isn't much at all that can be ruled out by saying the game is PvX other than being able to rule out the game not having both some amount of PvP and PvE.
The reason we get so many people coming to these forums with such mistaken assumptions as to what Ashes is about is because Intrepid are not clear enough about what the game is.
Sure, someone could spend hours on the wiki trying to work out what the game is - but people should be able to do that in 30 seconds wit ha clear, concise statement from Intrepid - but that is not a statement they have made yet.
Again, this is the problem, this is why this thread exists.
I never seemed to have that problem.
Is it really that hard to see PvX and assume there will be equal amounts of PvP and PvE?
And they are not separated.
That is a fifth take on what PvX means.
And again, it is one that is not necessarily wrong, but is also not necessarily right.
Basically my take on PvX, is that, equal (ish) focus on Pve and PvP. If we took a larger sample size than just those on these forums, my guess is that a majority of people would interpret PvX as such. That would just be my assumption though.
Interesting to see so many takes on it however.
Green is not yellow, but is made of yellow.
Green is green.
Such is PvX.
PvX is green.
Is this the sixth take on PvX so far?
@Noaani - explain to me how these are such different perspectives that they would be separated.
The fun thing about green is it can be equal parts blue and yellow (which would make this perspective the same as Bloodprophets), but 90% yellow and 10% blue is still a form of green - as is 90% blue and 10% yellow.
So, Bloodprophets definition is more rigid - equal parts PvP and PvE. This is essentially a single shade of green, not all greens that exist.
Yours is less rigid, some PvE, some PvP.
Bwahahahahahaha 🤣. I love it.
If you are selling a product that people can't see, where the only thing they have to go on is your explanation of it, would you not want that explanation to be fairly accurate?
It’s green.
This green? #002e00
Or this green? #bbfcbb
You decide.
Edit: Sorry, I’ll be clearer. Yes. 😉