If we’re being sticklers, informed consent occurs at account creation when you agree to the terms of the game. I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that Intrepid legal will define PvX as part of their EULA such that a player murdered at level one can’t attempt to recoup their sub fee because ‘they didn’t know what PvX meant.’
So consent occurs before you are even able to login.
I think what folks typically call non-consensual really translates to undesired pvp. Those are very different things. Especially, when the game systems condone attacking other players of all stripes.
The only tangible penalty is for killing greens, and even then the corruption system is meant to deter mass lowbie murder streaks, not to eliminate murdering greens (from time to time).
This all adds up to creating a dangerous world that constantly balances risk v. reward - and where there are guardrails, not hand-holding.
The above is false.
Non-combatants in a boxing ring - photographers, referees, etc... do not give informed consent merely by entering the boxing ring. There will be severe penalties applied to their attackers.
Informed consent probably is not a thing.
Non-consensual and undesired are synonyms.
Non-consensual and desired are antonyms.
Ashes is not really intended to be a "dangerous world".
Ashes is a world focused on risk v reward.
I've walked down the streets of Compton and Inglewood in the middle of the night.
That's pretty risky, but I haven't been mugged yet. Penalties applied to my would-be attackers help prevent that. And, just because I choose to walk down the streets of Compton and Inglewood in the middle of the night does not mean I have given informed consent to being attacked.
It just means I'm aware of the risks and decided to gamble on and trust that the likelihood of my being attacked is low due to the penalties on my attackers being a strong deterrent.
I think the better comparison here would be the boxing match is consensual PvP (node seige). You go to this event expecting a fight.
Where as getting mugged is nonconsensual, you don't walk down the street to work (random gathering quest) and expect a fight...
But I also noticed that everyone just latched on to the first half of your comment and ignored the better half of your explanation.
@Dygz Steven designed this as PvX which means there is a heavy incentive or both PvP and PvE. The same way there is corruption to stop griefing and too much pvp. There are mat drops for killing as incentive with risk vrs reward. IF you aren't ready to be flagged up in the world regardless of the other content to do, the game is not for you my guy.
Non-consensual and undesired are synonyms.
Non-consensual and desired are antonyms.
We can get legalistic because these are not semantic differences. Informed consent is a legal standard for permissibility, that can include knowledge of possibility. This is not synonymous with desirability. For instance, a participant in a drug trial must provide consent to participate. That informed consent includes disclosure of the primary protocol, as well as all known side-effects of the trial. Now, that participant may not desire those side effects, but consenting to the trial is very different than desiring those side effects.
Non-combatants in a boxing ring - photographers, referees, etc... do not give informed consent merely by entering the boxing ring.
You're half right, they don't give consent by entering the ring. However, they absolutely do give informed consent well in advance of the fight in order to have the role they have in the ring. Otherwise the owner of the ring (or the sponsors of the match) could be liable for damages to those persons. Anyone in that ring provides some form of consent - with the known possibility they may be hit - to be there in an official capacity. That is not synonymous with desire to be hit.
If we’re being sticklers, informed consent occurs at account creation when you agree to the terms of the game. I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that Intrepid legal will define PvX as part of their EULA such that a player murdered at level one can’t attempt to recoup their sub fee because ‘they didn’t know what PvX meant.’
So consent occurs before you are even able to login.
You're going to want to sit down for this revelation but... sports are competitive games.
A sport is a competitive physical activity.
Some sports are games. Some sports are not games.
Boxing is a sport that is not a game.
There are combatants in the boxing ring. There are also non-combatants in theboxing ring.
Non-combatants in the ring have not given consent to be attacked simply because they entered the boxing ring. Participating in the combat is not the only legitimate reason for being in the boxing ring.
Case closed.
All sports are games bud. Even the Olympics were started with "let the games begin" for the past couple thousand years.
Therefore if you aren't playing the game, you aren't a player. Your analogy is terrible.
Lets take a look at your real world analogy though. The reason that one is terrible is that not only can you be killed at any moment for any reason, you technically didn't consent to being born. In a game, you are entering it fully knowing what you are getting into and consenting to it. So again, your analogy doesnt hold up.
"Non-consensual PvP" is something mentioned quite a bit on these forums regarding PvP and Corruption systems. Does "Non-consensual PvP" actually exist in a game that you log into knowing full well that at any moment another player can kill you at any time for any reason, and that it is indeed even a part of the system and games design?
Let the debates begin!
The term can mean different things for different people but it is used in some games already to help defining different kind of PvP rules. For example, in games EvE, Albion and UO this term is used even you can expect that non-consensual PvP will happen. Therefore, answer is easy yes.
Making up a definition doesnt back an argument. Non-consensual means you didn't provide consent for an action. However when joining a game, you are knowingly consenting to all of the possibilities within its parameters. You may not enjoy everything about it, but you are still giving consent to all of the systems required by the game once you make the choice to log in. Including all forms of PvP and their related systems.
4
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Dygz is correct that there are going to be players that never want to pvp in any way.
However, ashes is being made to be pvx. Its not that you will be forced into pvp. It is that you can not be excluded from the pvp.
You never have to participate in pvp. The game does not force you. Even while under attack from another player you can decide to stay green, and the other player is punished for not respecing your wishes of not participating. But you can not be excluded from it.
Not fighting back, and letting someone kill you, is not participating in pvp. Its being killed for refusing to play the game. And on the other hand, the party that doesnt respect your want to not play that part of the game, is still punished for it.
Ashes is PvX. Non-consensual PvP is penalized with Corruption and is intended to be severe enough that people who would normally play on PvE-Only servers will be comforatable enough to play the game.
Not fighting back is a part of playing the game. Which is why, if you die, it's just normal death penalties.
Same death penalties as dying from a mob.
If you fight back, you are rewarded for participating in Battlegrounds PvP by only suffering half the normal death penalties - PvE-focused players are rewarded for agreeing to participate in an activity they don't like or aren't in the mood for.
Corruption punishes people who kill non-combatants with 4x the death penalties for taking away player agency and harassing them by not allowing them to do the other stuff in the game theu want to do.
I'm not sure how you're intending to use "exclude" in your sentence.
"We like to really refer to ourselves as a PvX game, because in those systems of PvP, PvE, crafting they're all intertwined: They're interdependent on each other... Our system of development really requires some interdependence there between those things. You're going to need a crafter to give you the best items. You're going to need PvPers to secure cities and castles. You're gonna need PvErs to take down those world bosses for those materials to craft."
---Steven
What Steven means by PvX is closer to PvPers and PvEers being on the same servers and both playstyles will rely on each other to dynamically change the world of Verra.
Steven and Jeffrey have already stated that PvErs can avoid PvP combat 95+ % of the time...if not a guarantee of 100%. Which is probably acceptable..
"Non-consensual PvP" is something mentioned quite a bit on these forums regarding PvP and Corruption systems. Does "Non-consensual PvP" actually exist in a game that you log into knowing full well that at any moment another player can kill you at any time for any reason, and that it is indeed even a part of the system and games design?
Let the debates begin!
The term can mean different things for different people but it is used in some games already to help defining different kind of PvP rules. For example, in games EvE, Albion and UO this term is used even you can expect that non-consensual PvP will happen. Therefore, answer is easy yes.
Making up a definition doesnt back an argument.
I am not making it up. It looks like that because some people are not heard about the definition called "non-concensual PvP" they presume it does not exist or whatever weird reason they argue against it.
Here is two examples how "non-consensual PvP" term is used. The first example is from Ultima Online wiki and the second one is a post made by Sandbox Interactive's developer (from Albion Online).
"Ultima Online began with a single world, with specific expansion packs adding additional territory and new worlds. The second world was the "Lost Lands", with additional land, dungeons, creatures, and terrain. The third was Trammel. This led the developers to distinguish the original world by making the environment more grim, and naming it "Felucca".[5] The two kinds of servers were "normal" servers with both Trammel (consensual PVP) and Felucca (non-consensual PVP) ruleset and "siege" servers with non-consensual PVP and no item insurance."
"Non-consensual PvP" is a term used for years by players and developers in different games and forums. Some people might not have heard about it but it is used to help define open world PvP rules. Yeah some people might talk about person's login choise but I am talking here about ingame rules.
My hope for PvX is that these cardboard concepts of 'I'm a PvEer' or 'I'm a PvPer' are used less and less. Ultimately, I/my group/my guid/my node have goals and I'll do what's necessary to achieve those goals. Most likely those goals will involve working with and fighting both players & NPCs.
My hope for PvX is that these cardboard concepts of 'I'm a PvEer' or 'I'm a PvPer' are used less and less. Ultimately, I/my group/my guid/my node have goals and I'll do what's necessary to achieve those goals. Most likely those goals will involve working with and fighting both players & NPCs.
Yeah, I really hope Ashes brings back this part of the mmo genre. I get that L2's pve was shit, but you still did a ton of it, yet no one differentiated between pvers or pvpers. You were just a player who lived in a world where you had to do both in order to succeed.
My hope for PvX is that these cardboard concepts of 'I'm a PvEer' or 'I'm a PvPer' are used less and less. Ultimately, I/my group/my guid/my node have goals and I'll do what's necessary to achieve those goals. Most likely those goals will involve working with and fighting both players & NPCs.
Yeah, I really hope Ashes brings back this part of the mmo genre. I get that L2's pve was shit, but you still did a ton of it, yet no one differentiated between pvers or pvpers. You were just a player who lived in a world where you had to do both in order to succeed.
Play the whole of a game and enjoy it? Ya'll are crazy
My hope for PvX is that these cardboard concepts of 'I'm a PvEer' or 'I'm a PvPer' are used less and less. Ultimately, I/my group/my guid/my node have goals and I'll do what's necessary to achieve those goals. Most likely those goals will involve working with and fighting both players & NPCs.
Yeah, I really hope Ashes brings back this part of the mmo genre. I get that L2's pve was shit, but you still did a ton of it, yet no one differentiated between pvers or pvpers. You were just a player who lived in a world where you had to do both in order to succeed.
That is how a lot of those old games were. I feel the pver and pvper are separated in a way to try to push for pver servers and other more strong pve functions in those types of games, rather then accepting everything together as it is one and the same game.
Consensual means there must be consent. It makes no sense to play a game with PvP enabled everywhere and say "I do not consent to PvP". It's like playing CS and asking "is there consensual PvP here?".
I believe the better terms are "opt-in PvP" for caravans, castle sieges, guild wars, arena where you choose to participate.
And to me words such as "forced" (compelled by force or necessity: involuntary) or "involuntary" (done contrary to or without choice; compulsory) describe PKing a lot better: it doesn't matter if you want it or not, the PvP is coming your way.
Someone who doesnt fight back can not complain about pvp as they did not participate in pvp. They just got killed.
Yep. If I die to a mob, I don't complain that the mob is too difficult or too strong. I either change my farming place or just do better. A person is no different. Just a glorified difficult mob.
We need invisible mobs which gank silently, without agro music. Just a critical backstabbing.
I'd love those. I'd have to bring a de-stealthing class to that location and farm it up that way. Elden Ring had invis mobs and people were just fine with it.
My hope for PvX is that these cardboard concepts of 'I'm a PvEer' or 'I'm a PvPer' are used less and less. Ultimately, I/my group/my guid/my node have goals and I'll do what's necessary to achieve those goals. Most likely those goals will involve working with and fighting both players & NPCs.
This is my hope as well.
As I have been saying for a long while though, in order for Ashes to be able to do this, it needs those people to play the game. In order for it to convince people that consider themselves to be mostly PvP'ers or PvE'ers, those people need to actually be playing Ashes.
People won't make that transition before picking the game up, and won't even make it overly quickly once in the game. Any shift in mindset takes time, and that is what this is - that is ALL this is.
This means that from day 1, the game needs to appeal to people that consider themselves to be PvP'ers, but also to people that consider themselves to be PvE'ers (in both cases, people need to accept the other, at a minimum).
2
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
My hope for PvX is that these cardboard concepts of 'I'm a PvEer' or 'I'm a PvPer' are used less and less. Ultimately, I/my group/my guid/my node have goals and I'll do what's necessary to achieve those goals. Most likely those goals will involve working with and fighting both players & NPCs.
They can't really be used less and less.
A lot of people will be in the middle.
You can't make someone who doesn't enjoy coffee to suddenly enjoy coffee. You might be able to get them to tolerate the taste a bit more.
It's likely PvEers will tolerate and participate in Battlegrounds PvP when they are in the mood, for it because Sieges are on a schedule. And you can choose to either join a Caravan battle or not.
But, PvErs are not going to enjoy random, non-consensual PvP. And PvPrs will enjoy it.
Labels exist for a reason.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Someone who doesnt fight back can not complain about pvp as they did not participate in pvp. They just got killed.
Yep. If I die to a mob, I don't complain that the mob is too difficult or too strong. I either change my farming place or just do better. A person is no different. Just a glorified difficult mob.
Mobs have predictable haunts. Players do not.
I ragequit PvP servers precisely because I've changed my farm spot and been relentless followed and attacked by PvPers.
I would not play a game where the mobs are as ruthless as PvPers.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Someone who doesnt fight back can not complain about pvp as they did not participate in pvp. They just got killed.
Um. If a payer attacks and kills another player, that is PvP.
If a mob attacks and kills a player that is PvE.Doesn't matter whether the victim attacks back.
PvP one-shot kill is still PvP. Everyone knows that.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Consensual means there must be consent. It makes no sense to play a game with PvP enabled everywhere and say "I do not consent to PvP". It's like playing CS and asking "is there consensual PvP here?".
I believe the better terms are "opt-in PvP" for caravans, castle sieges, guild wars, arena where you choose to participate.
And to me words such as "forced" (compelled by force or necessity: involuntary) or "involuntary" (done contrary to or without choice; compulsory) describe PKing a lot better: it doesn't matter if you want it or not, the PvP is coming your way.
Also this.[/quote]
Just because something is possible in an area does not mean everyone in the area has given cosent for it happen. Again, just because it's possible for someone to mug me in Compton or Inglewood, does not mean I give consent to be mugged if I walk down those streets. It does mean that I take the risk. But, I also take that risk because I trust that the associated penalties for someone mugging me is enough of a deterrent that it's unikely to happen
Which is why, in Ashes, non-cosnensual PvP is penalized with Corruption.
And, if Corruption is not a sufficient deterrent for non-consensual PvP - people who normally play on PvE servers will not be playing Ashes.
That's OK. Don't play what you don't like.
My hope for PvX is that these cardboard concepts of 'I'm a PvEer' or 'I'm a PvPer' are used less and less. Ultimately, I/my group/my guid/my node have goals and I'll do what's necessary to achieve those goals. Most likely those goals will involve working with and fighting both players & NPCs.
They can't really be used less and less.
I mean, this is just blatantly false.
Most people on these forums would consider me a PvE player, based on me wanting to see Ashes have solid PvE, and being somewhat vocal about that. However, I'm quite at home with PvP as well.
This didn't used to be the case. When I first started Archeage, I wasn't that in to PvP at all. I would have happily called myself a PvE player, if someone asked.
After 4 or 5 years in Archeage though, I am decidedly not just a PvE player, and enjoy good PvP as well.
I argue for good PvE in Ashes because I saw that not having it in Archeage lead to many people leaving the game very early on, which lead to Trion having to increase their monetization aggression for the game. Basically, I want the people that left Archeage due to it not having good PvE to try Ashes, but to stay in the game.
I stayed in Archeage due to being intrigued by it's economic system, primarily. This led me to taking on more PvP than I had in any other game, to the point where *I* no longer consider myself a PvE player.
If Ashes can do that for all the people that left Archeage due to no actual content, then the terms PvE'er and PvP'er will absolutely become used less and less.
I would not play a game where the mobs are as ruthless as PvPers.
Yeah, I keep forgetting that you're a hardcore time but casual challenge player.
I have to assume you say this with the same sarcastic smirk that I have every time he brings it up.
Someone that has a lot of time to play an MMO, but isn't willing to put in any real effort isn't "hardcore time but casual challenge", they are lazy. Too lazy to get good at the game, and too lazy to do anything else.
I have to assume you say this with the same sarcastic smirk that I have every time he brings it up.
Someone that has a lot of time to play an MMO, but isn't willing to put in any real effort isn't "hardcore time but casual challenge", they are lazy. Too lazy to get good at the game, and too lazy to do anything else.
Eh, not really. I understand why someone would like to just chill in a game and just so happens to have a ton of time to do that chilling.
The only problem with those kind of people I could have is if they start yelling about all the rewards they're missing out on because they ain't doing shit in the game. But Dygz doesn't seem like that kind of person to me, so I just see him as a person with a ton of time that enjoys chill slow gameplay with maybe a few high intensity times.
"Non-consensual PvP" is something mentioned quite a bit on these forums regarding PvP and Corruption systems. Does "Non-consensual PvP" actually exist in a game that you log into knowing full well that at any moment another player can kill you at any time for any reason, and that it is indeed even a part of the system and games design?
Let the debates begin!
The term can mean different things for different people but it is used in some games already to help defining different kind of PvP rules. For example, in games EvE, Albion and UO this term is used even you can expect that non-consensual PvP will happen. Therefore, answer is easy yes.
Making up a definition doesnt back an argument.
I am not making it up. It looks like that because some people are not heard about the definition called "non-concensual PvP" they presume it does not exist or whatever weird reason they argue against it.
Here is two examples how "non-consensual PvP" term is used. The first example is from Ultima Online wiki and the second one is a post made by Sandbox Interactive's developer (from Albion Online).
"Ultima Online began with a single world, with specific expansion packs adding additional territory and new worlds. The second world was the "Lost Lands", with additional land, dungeons, creatures, and terrain. The third was Trammel. This led the developers to distinguish the original world by making the environment more grim, and naming it "Felucca".[5] The two kinds of servers were "normal" servers with both Trammel (consensual PVP) and Felucca (non-consensual PVP) ruleset and "siege" servers with non-consensual PVP and no item insurance."
"Non-consensual PvP" is a term used for years by players and developers in different games and forums. Some people might not have heard about it but it is used to help define open world PvP rules. Yeah some people might talk about person's login choise but I am talking here about ingame rules.
Interesting, though I think the proper term would be "griefing" in all of the cases shown. Its bad terminology. The idea of not consenting to being killed in a game where you can, and are meant to be, killed is just silly.
My hope for PvX is that these cardboard concepts of 'I'm a PvEer' or 'I'm a PvPer' are used less and less. Ultimately, I/my group/my guid/my node have goals and I'll do what's necessary to achieve those goals. Most likely those goals will involve working with and fighting both players & NPCs.
I have to assume you say this with the same sarcastic smirk that I have every time he brings it up.
Someone that has a lot of time to play an MMO, but isn't willing to put in any real effort isn't "hardcore time but casual challenge", they are lazy. Too lazy to get good at the game, and too lazy to do anything else.
Eh, not really. I understand why someone would like to just chill in a game and just so happens to have a ton of time to do that chilling.
I mean, I would consider that to be lazy.
If all you are doing is hanging around and chilling, cool. But that is what lazy people do, they hang around and chill. Actually, I can't think of a better definition of what a lazy person is other than someone that just hangs around chilling.
Comments
I think the better comparison here would be the boxing match is consensual PvP (node seige). You go to this event expecting a fight.
Where as getting mugged is nonconsensual, you don't walk down the street to work (random gathering quest) and expect a fight...
But I also noticed that everyone just latched on to the first half of your comment and ignored the better half of your explanation.
This is just awkward....
We can get legalistic because these are not semantic differences. Informed consent is a legal standard for permissibility, that can include knowledge of possibility. This is not synonymous with desirability. For instance, a participant in a drug trial must provide consent to participate. That informed consent includes disclosure of the primary protocol, as well as all known side-effects of the trial. Now, that participant may not desire those side effects, but consenting to the trial is very different than desiring those side effects.
So, in this analogy:
You're half right, they don't give consent by entering the ring. However, they absolutely do give informed consent well in advance of the fight in order to have the role they have in the ring. Otherwise the owner of the ring (or the sponsors of the match) could be liable for damages to those persons. Anyone in that ring provides some form of consent - with the known possibility they may be hit - to be there in an official capacity. That is not synonymous with desire to be hit.
Hence...
All sports are games bud. Even the Olympics were started with "let the games begin" for the past couple thousand years.
Therefore if you aren't playing the game, you aren't a player. Your analogy is terrible.
Lets take a look at your real world analogy though. The reason that one is terrible is that not only can you be killed at any moment for any reason, you technically didn't consent to being born. In a game, you are entering it fully knowing what you are getting into and consenting to it. So again, your analogy doesnt hold up.
Making up a definition doesnt back an argument. Non-consensual means you didn't provide consent for an action. However when joining a game, you are knowingly consenting to all of the possibilities within its parameters. You may not enjoy everything about it, but you are still giving consent to all of the systems required by the game once you make the choice to log in. Including all forms of PvP and their related systems.
Not fighting back is a part of playing the game. Which is why, if you die, it's just normal death penalties.
Same death penalties as dying from a mob.
If you fight back, you are rewarded for participating in Battlegrounds PvP by only suffering half the normal death penalties - PvE-focused players are rewarded for agreeing to participate in an activity they don't like or aren't in the mood for.
Corruption punishes people who kill non-combatants with 4x the death penalties for taking away player agency and harassing them by not allowing them to do the other stuff in the game theu want to do.
I'm not sure how you're intending to use "exclude" in your sentence.
"We like to really refer to ourselves as a PvX game, because in those systems of PvP, PvE, crafting they're all intertwined: They're interdependent on each other... Our system of development really requires some interdependence there between those things. You're going to need a crafter to give you the best items. You're going to need PvPers to secure cities and castles. You're gonna need PvErs to take down those world bosses for those materials to craft."
---Steven
What Steven means by PvX is closer to PvPers and PvEers being on the same servers and both playstyles will rely on each other to dynamically change the world of Verra.
Steven and Jeffrey have already stated that PvErs can avoid PvP combat 95+ % of the time...if not a guarantee of 100%. Which is probably acceptable..
I am not making it up. It looks like that because some people are not heard about the definition called "non-concensual PvP" they presume it does not exist or whatever weird reason they argue against it.
Here is two examples how "non-consensual PvP" term is used. The first example is from Ultima Online wiki and the second one is a post made by Sandbox Interactive's developer (from Albion Online).
"Ultima Online began with a single world, with specific expansion packs adding additional territory and new worlds. The second world was the "Lost Lands", with additional land, dungeons, creatures, and terrain. The third was Trammel. This led the developers to distinguish the original world by making the environment more grim, and naming it "Felucca".[5] The two kinds of servers were "normal" servers with both Trammel (consensual PVP) and Felucca (non-consensual PVP) ruleset and "siege" servers with non-consensual PVP and no item insurance."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultima_Online
Balancing non-consensual PvP: https://forum.albiononline.com/index.php/Thread/72770-Balancing-Non-Consensual-PvP/?pageNo=1&s=08b037204632c3397121aa64248eb2574d924580
"Non-consensual PvP" is a term used for years by players and developers in different games and forums. Some people might not have heard about it but it is used to help define open world PvP rules. Yeah some people might talk about person's login choise but I am talking here about ingame rules.
Play the whole of a game and enjoy it? Ya'll are crazy
That is how a lot of those old games were. I feel the pver and pvper are separated in a way to try to push for pver servers and other more strong pve functions in those types of games, rather then accepting everything together as it is one and the same game.
Also this.
This is my hope as well.
As I have been saying for a long while though, in order for Ashes to be able to do this, it needs those people to play the game. In order for it to convince people that consider themselves to be mostly PvP'ers or PvE'ers, those people need to actually be playing Ashes.
People won't make that transition before picking the game up, and won't even make it overly quickly once in the game. Any shift in mindset takes time, and that is what this is - that is ALL this is.
This means that from day 1, the game needs to appeal to people that consider themselves to be PvP'ers, but also to people that consider themselves to be PvE'ers (in both cases, people need to accept the other, at a minimum).
A lot of people will be in the middle.
You can't make someone who doesn't enjoy coffee to suddenly enjoy coffee. You might be able to get them to tolerate the taste a bit more.
It's likely PvEers will tolerate and participate in Battlegrounds PvP when they are in the mood, for it because Sieges are on a schedule. And you can choose to either join a Caravan battle or not.
But, PvErs are not going to enjoy random, non-consensual PvP. And PvPrs will enjoy it.
Labels exist for a reason.
I ragequit PvP servers precisely because I've changed my farm spot and been relentless followed and attacked by PvPers.
I would not play a game where the mobs are as ruthless as PvPers.
If a mob attacks and kills a player that is PvE.Doesn't matter whether the victim attacks back.
PvP one-shot kill is still PvP. Everyone knows that.
Also this.[/quote]
Just because something is possible in an area does not mean everyone in the area has given cosent for it happen. Again, just because it's possible for someone to mug me in Compton or Inglewood, does not mean I give consent to be mugged if I walk down those streets. It does mean that I take the risk. But, I also take that risk because I trust that the associated penalties for someone mugging me is enough of a deterrent that it's unikely to happen
Which is why, in Ashes, non-cosnensual PvP is penalized with Corruption.
And, if Corruption is not a sufficient deterrent for non-consensual PvP - people who normally play on PvE servers will not be playing Ashes.
That's OK. Don't play what you don't like.
Most people on these forums would consider me a PvE player, based on me wanting to see Ashes have solid PvE, and being somewhat vocal about that. However, I'm quite at home with PvP as well.
This didn't used to be the case. When I first started Archeage, I wasn't that in to PvP at all. I would have happily called myself a PvE player, if someone asked.
After 4 or 5 years in Archeage though, I am decidedly not just a PvE player, and enjoy good PvP as well.
I argue for good PvE in Ashes because I saw that not having it in Archeage lead to many people leaving the game very early on, which lead to Trion having to increase their monetization aggression for the game. Basically, I want the people that left Archeage due to it not having good PvE to try Ashes, but to stay in the game.
I stayed in Archeage due to being intrigued by it's economic system, primarily. This led me to taking on more PvP than I had in any other game, to the point where *I* no longer consider myself a PvE player.
If Ashes can do that for all the people that left Archeage due to no actual content, then the terms PvE'er and PvP'er will absolutely become used less and less.
I have to assume you say this with the same sarcastic smirk that I have every time he brings it up.
Someone that has a lot of time to play an MMO, but isn't willing to put in any real effort isn't "hardcore time but casual challenge", they are lazy. Too lazy to get good at the game, and too lazy to do anything else.
The only problem with those kind of people I could have is if they start yelling about all the rewards they're missing out on because they ain't doing shit in the game. But Dygz doesn't seem like that kind of person to me, so I just see him as a person with a ton of time that enjoys chill slow gameplay with maybe a few high intensity times.
Interesting, though I think the proper term would be "griefing" in all of the cases shown. Its bad terminology. The idea of not consenting to being killed in a game where you can, and are meant to be, killed is just silly.
If all you are doing is hanging around and chilling, cool. But that is what lazy people do, they hang around and chill. Actually, I can't think of a better definition of what a lazy person is other than someone that just hangs around chilling.