Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!
For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.
You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.
Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!
For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.
You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.
Comments
25 years later, Ultima online is still being played and with a subscription base. It has full loot pvp as well.
Actually, it's relative.
If we are talking about how meaningful one item within a set of items (all PvP in Ashes) is, then that one item can only be compared to the other items in that set.
Thus, if you want to claim that random open world PvP is meaningful PvP in the context of Ashes, you would have to think that it means about as much as caravan PvP, or siege PvP.
You've not offered up a reason as to why you think this to be the case, and I really can't even imagine a situation where it would be the case, so I'm going to stick with my original notion. I mean, if open PvP results in 1% of the outcome of caravan PvP, I don't see how you can call that open PvP meaningful.
ive been hearing the term pvx for 20 years now, if you havent, thats your fault xD
also, here are 2 blogs that mention the term sandpark. they are 10 years old.
http://tobolds.blogspot.com/2013/02/whats-sandpark.html
https://www.engadget.com/2014-01-30-defining-sandparks-within-the-mmorpg-space.html
intrepid didnt come up with anything. if you didnt know, thats your fault for burying yourself in one game (eq) and thinking nothing outside that game exists or is good.
yeah i know, then they changed it :P
That will depend on how much scarce resources will be, because I don't mind at all sharing spots with other people. Only if it is extremely scarce I would consider killing another player over it. Maybe if my guild needs them asap... I don't know, we will see how it goes.
The entire economy will be based off of scarcity. Expect both.
Even if I had heard of PvX (I have not), it still doesn't have anything even close to a definition.
You can say an MMORPG is PvE to players and they understand other players cant just attack them. You tell an MMORPG player that the game is PvP and they understand that other players can attack them, at least some of the time.
You tell an MMORPG player that a game is PvX and they know nothing.
As to sandpark/themebox, those terms have been around since well before that blog about "Wildstart" you linked. That doesn't mean they actually mean anything either.
If you tell an MMORPG player that a game is themepark, they know that content is basically curated for them, that they will have a path to follow. If you say a game is a sandbox, they will know that a game won't have that path for them to follow.
If you say a game is sandpark or themebox, that player is left scratching their head.
All three of these terms (thembox, sandpark and PvX) exist to get players to purchase who wouldn't if you used any of the other four actual descriptive terms (PvP, PvE, themepark, sandbox).
That is literally the function of these terms.
Players shouldn't be using them, marketing departments should.
i understand it and im a mmorpg player. many others do as well.
then we should just use solo, cooperative, competitive and cooperative-competitive, and not even bother with pvp, pve, themepark and sandbox. why dont we?
lets say you are hunting another person, and you can both shoot each other. thats pvp
lets say you are both hunting deer, but the other person pushes you so you miss the shoot and he can get the deer. or you can both shoot each other or / and the deer. thats pvx, you could say theres softcore and hardcore as well
Here is proof of that actual fact. I am thinking of an MMORPG, calling it PvX is valid, based on just that, explain what players should expect from this game. Because these terms are less explanatory than basic PvP and PvE. In the context of MMORPG's -
You are hunting a deer - PvE.
You are hunting a player - PvP.
You are hunting a deer and a player - PvP.
The reason for this is simple - the existence or absence of PvP has a bigger impact on expected gameplay than any other facet of a game (not hyperbole).
As such, if it is possible that another player can attack you, that is the major facet of the game, making the game PvP.
You can say there are other elements to this, but this is the basics of it.
I assume you assumed I wasn't talking about a piece of luggage.
I had to play both in my mind to see what worked.... didn't like the results...
see those terms are the root of game types, which is your argument. so im just going one step deeper but somehow that isnt valid. just using your own logic here.
you arent hunting a deer and a player. you are hunting a deer but another player is interfering with you. you dont necessarily have to shoot th e other player. maybe he could just be pushing you so you miss, or he could be scaring the deer. pvx means another player will interfere with your pve win condition. the goal isnt to beat the other player. the goal is to beat the pve, just have pve obstacles and player obstacles together.
if your goal is to beat pve, and there is player interference, then its pvx. but as you said, there are some games that are more pve centric and more that are pvp centric. aoc is more of a 50-50, maybe 60-40 leaning towards pvp, but its still pvx. a pvp game implies there isnt pve in that particular game (or activity).
i understand why the confusion though. remember that one game isnt always one game (specially mmorpg). refer to my example when i explained how wow is 2 different games in one. a pvp game and a pve game just accessed from the same client. this applies to guild wars 2 as well.
so far there isnt any indication that ashes has a sepparate pve only activity or a pvp only activity. whenever they add arenas, then you can say ashes turned into 2 games as well. 1 is pvp (arenas) and the other mode is pvx.
To me red player's abilities should be less effective at leat when using on green, on purple/red/monster/bounty hunter I don't feel it needs to be reduced if the bounty hunter gameplay is doable and enough.
I think that did not answer my request to list some other games that are PvX.
I would say that Ashes is not striving to be 50% PvP/50% PvE.
Ashes is striving to be 100% PvX - as much as possible.
And... that is too PvP-centric for me.
So... WoW is PvX?
Is GW2 PvX?
That would be worse than a WoW/EQ/EQ2 PvP server - which already too PvP-centric for me.
So... if PvX has as much or more non-consensual PvP influence than a WoW/EQ/EQ2 server, that tells people who play WoW on PvE-Only servers that Ashes is probably not the game for them.
Is GW2 PvX?
That would be worse than a WoW/EQ/EQ2 PvP server - which already too PvP-centric for me.
So... if PvX has more PvP influence than a WoW/EQ/EQ2 server, that tells people who play WoW on PvE-Only servers that Ashes is probably not the game for them.[/quote]
by bea tpve i mean the challeneges, mobs, dungeons, puzzles, bosses, etc.
by 50-50 i meant in content distribution, not separating them, but yeah i probably worded that badly.
wow and gw are a pvp and a pve game 2 in one. you could say 3 since gw has a pvx map.
also, every time you come farm where im farming, you are forcing me to play in a certain you, then the carebears excuse is well the mobs arent yours. still forcing me though. so you can do it but i cant.
I think this would be way better than what Steven hopes to do with Ashes.
Reciprocal relationship would be better (for me) than symbiotic relationship..
I have never heard anyone label WoW or GW as a "PvP and PvE game 2 in One".
Pretty sure that is not a term people use, so... it's not at all helpful. And especially not helpful when Steven says Ashes is PvX.
So... it's confusing because people can't seem to give consistent, clear examples of a PvX MMORPG.
Which is why PvX is meaningless. And does nothing to help people who play on PvE-Only servers but like PvP sometimes determine if Ashes is a comfortable fit.
Yes, and it's a 2-way street. By logging in you also consent to the punishment for killing too many greens. My bet is the current corruption system will result in a normal distribution curve of:
- a few greens murdered
- some greens avoiding pvp
- a BOAT LOAD of purples having fun with actual open world PvP (finally...thank you, jeebus)
- some temporary reds
- a few perma red murderhobos that haven't figured out that griefing isn't pvp
Agreed.
Disagree. This isn't a consensus driven effort. They'll take some of our ideas into consideration for some things. But no one is waiting for a collective nod unless you're looking for the lowest common denominator of a game.
yes, I agree. I meant after launch, in hopes that we have a good game, not a pile of crap.