Noaani wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Chicago wrote: » I mean you make your own content, isnt that what a sandbox is all about? No, developers should still be making content - a sandbox simply means you can pick and chose how you do that content rather than having to follow a track or rail system as per a themepark game. That said, Steven has never claimed Ashes is a sandbox. Ashes of Creation is referred to by the developers as a "themebox" or "sandpark" Each of these is a portmanteau of "sandbox" and "themepark", suggesting that this is just another bullshit marketing term that Intrepid came up with like "PvX" so that they can still appeal to players that like both sandbox and themepark MMO's. 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.htmlhttps://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. 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.
Depraved wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Chicago wrote: » I mean you make your own content, isnt that what a sandbox is all about? No, developers should still be making content - a sandbox simply means you can pick and chose how you do that content rather than having to follow a track or rail system as per a themepark game. That said, Steven has never claimed Ashes is a sandbox. Ashes of Creation is referred to by the developers as a "themebox" or "sandpark" Each of these is a portmanteau of "sandbox" and "themepark", suggesting that this is just another bullshit marketing term that Intrepid came up with like "PvX" so that they can still appeal to players that like both sandbox and themepark MMO's. 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.htmlhttps://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.
Noaani wrote: » Chicago wrote: » I mean you make your own content, isnt that what a sandbox is all about? No, developers should still be making content - a sandbox simply means you can pick and chose how you do that content rather than having to follow a track or rail system as per a themepark game. That said, Steven has never claimed Ashes is a sandbox. Ashes of Creation is referred to by the developers as a "themebox" or "sandpark" Each of these is a portmanteau of "sandbox" and "themepark", suggesting that this is just another bullshit marketing term that Intrepid came up with like "PvX" so that they can still appeal to players that like both sandbox and themepark MMO's.
Chicago wrote: » I mean you make your own content, isnt that what a sandbox is all about?
Ashes of Creation is referred to by the developers as a "themebox" or "sandpark"
You tell an MMORPG player that a game is PvX and they know nothing.
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).
Depraved wrote: » 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?
Depraved wrote: » lets say you are hunting deer. thats pve 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
Caww wrote: » STOP IT !!!! I had to lookup "portmanteau"
Noaani wrote: » Caww wrote: » STOP IT !!!! I had to lookup "portmanteau" I assume you assumed I wasn't talking about a piece of luggage.
Noaani wrote: » Depraved wrote: » i understand it and im a mmorpg player. many others do as well. You may understand it as it related to Ashes, but only due to following Ashes. 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. then we should just use solo, cooperative, competitive and cooperative-competitive, and not even bother with pvp, pve, themepark and sandbox. why dont we? Because these terms are less explanatory than basic PvP and PvE. Depraved wrote: » lets say you are hunting deer. thats pve 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 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.
Dygz wrote: » Depraved wrote: » lets say you are hunting deer. thats pve 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 Please list a few MMORPGs with OW PvP where this example is not possible.
Chicago wrote: » Im all for corruption adding death penalties or dropping more on death, but reducing the combat abilities of the corrupted player seems a bit boring? I like the idea of a powerful enemy needing a group to take down or atleast give them a fighting chance but a corrupted player just being an easy kill essentially bottlenecking them into going into hiding till they work off the corruption sounds a bit lame, Whats everyones thoughts
Depraved wrote: » 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).
Depraved wrote: » 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.
Depraved wrote: » 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.
Dygz wrote: » Depraved wrote: » 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 don't know that I have a goal to "beat" PvE. I have a goal to play without other players forcing me to participate in activities I'm not in the mood for during my game session. 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. 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.
Depraved wrote: » by beat pve i mean the challeneges, mobs, dungeons, puzzles, bosses, etc.
Depraved wrote: » by 50-50 i meant in content distribution, not separating them, but yeah i probably worded that badly.
Depraved wrote: » wow and gw are a pvp and a pve game 2 in one. you could say 3 since gw has a pvx map.
Ravicus wrote: » concent is given when logging in to the game. There is no force.
Ravicus wrote: » Right, and thats why we are voicing our concerns when there is time before launch. We are still in alpha. You want certain changes also, and you lobby for them. We all want what we want. In the end, however, when the game launches, you consent. But there are always ones that cry. I think many things mentioned are worth noting and I bet they are taking them into consideration. We do not want a dead game.
In the end we have to come to an agreement on what we want, mutually giving and taking in agreement.
CROW3 wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Right, and thats why we are voicing our concerns when there is time before launch. We are still in alpha. You want certain changes also, and you lobby for them. We all want what we want. In the end, however, when the game launches, you consent. But there are always ones that cry. I think many things mentioned are worth noting and I bet they are taking them into consideration. We do not want a dead game. Agreed. In the end we have to come to an agreement on what we want, mutually giving and taking in agreement. 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.
