Greetings, glorious testers!
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
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. 😉