Steven does not yet have the credentials as an MMORPG developer to make up his own terminology. Money doesn't by the respect or experience that is needed to be able to do this. When we start seeing PvX MMORPG's as a catagory in the press (proper press, as far as proper press exists in the gaming sphere - not some random guy on YouTube), then Steven can start calling Ashes a PvX MMORPG.
Until then, he is just labeling his game as being some undefined thing.
Wait, do you think Steven came up with PvX as a term, or was the first to use it about an MMORPG? It almost sounds like it. And PvX is not an undefined thing.. what are you on about?
I know I have seen it used back in the GW2 days, in 2012 or 13. I can't remember if the developers back then used it, but the gaming community certainly did.
And why do you think YOU are the authority to decide if a developer is allowed to call their game PvX? Are you secretly the King of Game Developers? That would be pretty amazing.
No, I don't think he did - the term currently has no meaning. As such, he has to attribute his own meaning to it in order for it to make sense to himself. His failure so far to define the term as he sees it, along with his lack of developer credentials make him using that term absolutely meaningless.
Also, I am not claiming that I am any authority - I am saying that developers and the MMORPG press are. I've literally said this several times in reply to you - this is not me and my definitions, it is me accepting the definitions the industry has laid out.
It is you and Steven that are claiming to be the authority on this, not me. All I am doing is denying the authority Steven is presuming to have and you agree with, and deferring to a larger, more experienced body.
Cool, so Pac Man is now a PvX game. So is The Sims. The Sims Online was a PvX MMORPG.
Are people still trying to claim that PvX is a useful term?
Is there anyone else out there who doesn't think PvX is gimmicky bs? Because I don't. I see what they're trying to do, and think PvX fits it pretty perfectly.
Cool, so Pac Man is now a PvX game. So is The Sims. The Sims Online was a PvX MMORPG.
Are people still trying to claim that PvX is a useful term?
There's the P-layer and the E-nvironment. By the definition of that separation, players are not seen as part of the environment (otherwise pvers wouldn't complain that there're players in their games), so if you're only interacting with the game's world and its npcs - that's pure pve. If you're only interacting with players - that's pure pvp. Anything else is PvX.
As Dygz loves to say, rpgs aren't meant to be "versus Players", so the pvp nomenclature had to have come into the picture at some point that was not at the start, right? Which means that PvX can do the same. Language changes and all that.
As I posted before, PvX has already been a term in the genre for over a decade (almost 2 tbh). The only thing it needs is a massive push to be truly relevant (just as new words do afaik). Which means that if Ashes manages to become successful and Steven doesn't start calling it a pvp mmo - PvX will have way more relevancy as a term.
His money might not necessarily give him "the right" to make a term valid, but his attitude does imo, just as it did for those who made first pvp mmos back in the day where "pvp" in an rpg was beyond a novel concent (I call those "the Dygz times" ).
Cool, so Pac Man is now a PvX game. So is The Sims. The Sims Online was a PvX MMORPG.
Are people still trying to claim that PvX is a useful term?
There's the P-player and the E-nvironment. By the definition of that separation, players are not seen as part of the environment (otherwise pvers wouldn't complain that there're players in their games), so if you're only interacting with the game's world and its npcs - that's pure pve. If you're only interacting with players - that's pure pvp. Anything else is PvX.
As Dygz loves to say, rpgs aren't meant to be "versus Players", so the pvp nomenclature had to have come into the picture at some point that was not at the start, right? Which means that PvX can do the same. Language changes and all that.
As I posted before, PvX has already been a term in the genre for over a decade (almost 2 tbh). The only thing it needs is a massive push to be truly relevant (just as new words do afaik). Which means that if Ashes manages to become successful and Steven doesn't start calling it a pvp mmo - PvX will have way more relevancy as a term.
His money might not necessarily give him "the right" to make a term valid, but his attitude does imo, just as it did for those who made first pvp mmos back in the day where "pvp" in an rpg was beyond a novel concent (I call those "the Dygz times" ).
Nah, even I'll disagree here.
PvX isn't a pointless term 'because it doesn't describe anything'. It's a pointless term 'because it describes too much without any specifics'.
Cool, so Pac Man is now a PvX game. So is The Sims. The Sims Online was a PvX MMORPG.
Are people still trying to claim that PvX is a useful term?
I think in the AoC context, PvX is the equivalent of a PvP server on other MMORPGs.
But I feel AoC is forgiving enough and helps players to accommodate to the environment if PvP is not their strong point.
Cool, so Pac Man is now a PvX game. So is The Sims. The Sims Online was a PvX MMORPG.
Are people still trying to claim that PvX is a useful term?
There's the P-player and the E-nvironment. By the definition of that separation, players are not seen as part of the environment (otherwise pvers wouldn't complain that there're players in their games), so if you're only interacting with the game's world and its npcs - that's pure pve. If you're only interacting with players - that's pure pvp. Anything else is PvX.
As Dygz loves to say, rpgs aren't meant to be "versus Players", so the pvp nomenclature had to have come into the picture at some point that was not at the start, right? Which means that PvX can do the same. Language changes and all that.
As I posted before, PvX has already been a term in the genre for over a decade (almost 2 tbh). The only thing it needs is a massive push to be truly relevant (just as new words do afaik). Which means that if Ashes manages to become successful and Steven doesn't start calling it a pvp mmo - PvX will have way more relevancy as a term.
His money might not necessarily give him "the right" to make a term valid, but his attitude does imo, just as it did for those who made first pvp mmos back in the day where "pvp" in an rpg was beyond a novel concent (I call those "the Dygz times" ).
Nah, even I'll disagree here.
PvX isn't a pointless term 'because it doesn't describe anything'. It's a pointless term 'because it describes too much without any specifics'.
It's too much like a restaurant going:
"Now Open! Serving: Food!"
You can make the exact same argument with the term "PvE" or "MMO" or "RPG" and many other game terms when looked at as stand-alone terms. It's always all about the context. Steven has defined the PvX for Ashes like this:
Ashes is a PvX game; and so in that regard, your ability to wholesale disconnect from the PvP elements of the game are likely not going to be entirely successful. Now, does that mean that you can reduce your exposure to PvP? A hundred percent; and there are multiple play paths and progression points that players can elect instead to be more PvE focused, but by the sheer nature of risk-versus-reward, and risk including not being able to predict how other players might impact your gameplay, that is an element of the innate risk that exists in the multiplayer environment of a PvX setting. So, not everybody is going to like that and we accept that; and we're not trying to build a game that everybody is going to like, because everybody it's doing that is not going to be successful, because there're just people with different interests; and you know we accept that and we're very on the nose about what we're trying to achieve. The idea is not to create a gank fest, is not to create a grief fest. That is not what PvX is; and so because of that we have certain mechanisms and systems that govern the way players engage in PvP and the majority of those are opt-in, but there is always that element of risk that's governed by the flagging system. And so, if you're interested in that I would take a look at the Wiki and look up what flagging is, and look up what corruption is. My experience tells me- and my expectations of the system are that they will signal significantly reduce a player's exposure to non-consensual PvP, but that risk is always going to be present to some degree. – Steven Sharif
A defining principle of Ashes of Creation as a PvX game is that PvE builds the world, and PvP changes the world.
Around 80% of the content is open-world, where healthy competition is an instigator for player friction; for potential cooperation; for the ability to yield alliances; and the political theater that comes with it. This is an intended part of the PvX game design.
There won't be separate PvE and PvP servers but some servers may be more PvP focused than others.
All stats relate to a player's combat effectiveness in PvX.
We're very clear with our objective and philosophy on the game and we understand that they may not appeal to everybody. But it is an important reciprocal relationship between the content that's related to PvE and the content that's related to PvP and they feed off of each other. They're catalysts for change: Their progression, their development. It's things that people can value when they see something earned and they see something lost. That elicits an emotional response from the player: That they've invested time in to either succeed or fail; and PvP allows for that element to be introduced into gameplay. And we're very clear that is our objective: That risk versus reward relationship, that achievement-based mentality. Not everybody's going to be a winner and that's okay. – Steven Sharif
PvX isn't a pointless term 'because it doesn't describe anything'. It's a pointless term 'because it describes too much without any specifics'.
But then we also have "pvp mmo" which apparently includes any damn mmo that has even a hint of pvp in it. Or "pve mmos" that go from "everything's in open world and only has one instance of any given mob" up to "everything is instanced on a server layer in a server shard, so you might see another player from time to time, but usually you're just alone farming mobs in your own little safe room".
All of these terms are semi-all-encompassing. PvX simply signifies that you're playing against both the environment and the players on the same "plain", as opposed to "you have pve and then there's also arena pvp" or smth like that.
If anything, I'd say that there's barely any true pvp games out there, but due to the roots of rpgs being in pure pve and cooperation, we've gotten ourselves into a corner of "if there's any player that's vs me - the game's PVP".
PvX isn't a pointless term 'because it doesn't describe anything'. It's a pointless term 'because it describes too much without any specifics'.
But then we also have "pvp mmo" which apparently includes any damn mmo that has even a hint of pvp in it. Or "pve mmos" that go from "everything's in open world and only has one instance of any given mob" up to "everything is instanced on a server layer in a server shard, so you might see another player from time to time, but usually you're just alone farming mobs in your own little safe room".
All of these terms are semi-all-encompassing. PvX simply signifies that you're playing against both the environment and the players on the same "plain", as opposed to "you have pve and then there's also arena pvp" or smth like that.
If anything, I'd say that there's barely any true pvp games out there, but due to the roots of rpgs being in pure pve and cooperation, we've gotten ourselves into a corner of "if there's any player that's vs me - the game's PVP".
I think those terms are useless too as descriptors of MMOs.
An MMO can tell you 'it has lots of PvE', and 'it has lots of PvP', but it (in my biased opinion) cannot tell you 'it has lots of PvX' because that definition doesn't help you understand.
Like, I'm (possibly wasting my time) trying to get us to talk about the 'spectrum' like Vaknar 'asked' for precisely this reason.
Steven says things sometimes that say Ashes is 'neither PvE-centric nor PvP-centric' specifically. I agree with this. I wouldn't agree with 'PvX-centric' yet, but I don't think that's ever specifically been said.
I would love to ignore the semantics without needing to also ignore the conversation, and TL has a long queue.
Sorry, my native language is Erlang.
2
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Steven says things sometimes that say Ashes is 'neither PvE-centric nor PvP-centric' specifically. I agree with this. I wouldn't agree with 'PvX-centric' yet, but I don't think that's ever specifically been said.
I would love to ignore the semantics without needing to also ignore the conversation, and TL has a long queue.
My take on Steven's vision is that the Risk of PvP permeates everything as much as possible.
He tries to describe it as a reciprocal relationship of PvP and PvE.
But, it feels to me more symbiotic... where it's not really possible to escape either.
So... for me, the Ashes "PvX" actually feels worse than EQ/EQ2/WoW PvP servers - which I recall having major cities as safe zones.
Pax Dei is closer to what I would expect for reciprocal PvX. And the Pax Dei PvX might even be too much PvP for me.
Steven says things sometimes that say Ashes is 'neither PvE-centric nor PvP-centric' specifically. I agree with this. I wouldn't agree with 'PvX-centric' yet, but I don't think that's ever specifically been said.
I would love to ignore the semantics without needing to also ignore the conversation, and TL has a long queue.
My take on Steven's vision is that the Risk of PvP permeates everything as much as possible.
He tries to describe it as a reciprocal relationship of PvP and PvE.
But, it feels to me more symbiotic... where it's not really possible to escape either.
So... for me, the Ashes "PvX" actually feels worse than EQ/EQ2/WoW PvP servers - which I recall having major cities as safe zones.
Pax Dei is closer to what I would expect for reciprocal PvX. And the Pax Dei PvX might even be too much PvP for me.
I had the same thought, if we consider the risk aspect.
As I posted before, PvX has already been a term in the genre for over a decade (almost 2 tbh). The only thing it needs is a massive push to be truly relevant (just as new words do afaik). Which means that if Ashes manages to become successful and Steven doesn't start calling it a pvp mmo - PvX will have way more relevancy as a term.
In the future, this may happen.
If Ashes is successful enough to run for 4 or 5 years and not shrink to an insignificant population size, Steven will then have those credentials I spoke of earlier that he doesn't yet have.
That isn't now, however.
Him having money allows him to pay to have a game made. It allows him to call the game what ever he wants. It doesn't require us to accept his definition of terms - especially when he hasn't defined it in any reasonable way.
1
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
But then we also have "pvp mmo" which apparently includes any damn mmo that has even a hint of pvp in it. Or "pve mmos" that go from "everything's in open world and only has one instance of any given mob" up to "everything is instanced on a server layer in a server shard, so you might see another player from time to time, but usually you're just alone farming mobs in your own little safe room".
All of these terms are semi-all-encompassing. PvX simply signifies that you're playing against both the environment and the players on the same "plain", as opposed to "you have pve and then there's also arena pvp" or smth like that.
If anything, I'd say that there's barely any true pvp games out there, but due to the roots of rpgs being in pure pve and cooperation, we've gotten ourselves into a corner of "if there's any player that's vs me - the game's PVP".
MMO PvP Game most often is some other genre of MMO than MMO RPG.
Most MMO RPGs are going to fundamentally be PvE because PvE historically and traditionally is a fundamental aspect of RPGs.
If we're going to apply the term PvX to games, I would call Neverwinter Online PvX.
There is Open World PvE and Instanced PvP. There is no non-consensual PvP.
New World would also be PvX. I just have PvP turned off 99.95% of the time and ignore whatever PvP might be happening. There is Open World PvE and Open World PvP. There is no non-consensual PvP.
I also would label EQ/EQ2 and WoW PvX MMORPGs.
EvE is too PvP-centric for me because there are sectors that I can't explore without being auto-flagged for PvP.
My Bartle score is Explorer 87%; Socializer 73% ; Achiever 47%; Killer 0%
So... as soon as there are areas that I can't explore without being auto-flagged for PvP combat - that's too PvP-centric for me and I'm probably not interested in playing that game - although...
It does depend on how detrimental the death penalties are:
If I can just let you kill me and the consequences of the encounter only takes me 5-10 minutes to return to my PvE goals. That's probably fine for me 2-3 times out of an 8-hour play session.
What's meaningless to me is applying PvX to an MMORPG server that always has PvP active everywhere, especially when there are large sections of the map that have auto-flag, Corruption-free PvP and the only areas with no PvP are in Freehold houses and player-shop stalls.
That is too PvP-centric for me. And then "PvX" becomes meaningless. You can label that whatever you like.
But that is too focused on PvP for me.
I'd rather play other MMORPGs that don't have that much emphasis on PvP.
Cool, so Pac Man is now a PvX game. So is The Sims. The Sims Online was a PvX MMORPG.
Are people still trying to claim that PvX is a useful term?
There's the P-player and the E-nvironment. By the definition of that separation, players are not seen as part of the environment (otherwise pvers wouldn't complain that there're players in their games), so if you're only interacting with the game's world and its npcs - that's pure pve. If you're only interacting with players - that's pure pvp. Anything else is PvX.
As Dygz loves to say, rpgs aren't meant to be "versus Players", so the pvp nomenclature had to have come into the picture at some point that was not at the start, right? Which means that PvX can do the same. Language changes and all that.
As I posted before, PvX has already been a term in the genre for over a decade (almost 2 tbh). The only thing it needs is a massive push to be truly relevant (just as new words do afaik). Which means that if Ashes manages to become successful and Steven doesn't start calling it a pvp mmo - PvX will have way more relevancy as a term.
His money might not necessarily give him "the right" to make a term valid, but his attitude does imo, just as it did for those who made first pvp mmos back in the day where "pvp" in an rpg was beyond a novel concent (I call those "the Dygz times" ).
Nah, even I'll disagree here.
PvX isn't a pointless term 'because it doesn't describe anything'. It's a pointless term 'because it describes too much without any specifics'.
It's too much like a restaurant going:
"Now Open! Serving: Food!"
You can make the exact same argument with the term "PvE" or "MMO" or "RPG" and many other game terms when looked at as stand-alone terms.
No, those terms all have actual meaning.
People understand that if a game is an MMORPG it will have many players on a server, it will have mobs, it will have social aspects, it will have quests. For the most part, these things are true if every MMORPG, and so that term has meaning.
Sure, it's board, but it is understood. If you say a game is an MMORPG to most average gamers, they will likely reply with "oh, so, like WoW then", or something similar. People understand the term.
PvX though - not so much.
If I were to define an MMORPG as PvE, most people would understand that to mean:
an MMORPG where you primarily or only fight against environmental factors
Saying an MMORPG is PvP would tell people
Fighting against other players is a significant part of this MMORPG
Seemingly, you want us to then take the following as the definition of PvX;
Ashes is a PvX game; and so in that regard, your ability to wholesale disconnect from the PvP elements of the game are likely not going to be entirely successful. Now, does that mean that you can reduce your exposure to PvP? A hundred percent; and there are multiple play paths and progression points that players can elect instead to be more PvE focused, but by the sheer nature of risk-versus-reward, and risk including not being able to predict how other players might impact your gameplay, that is an element of the innate risk that exists in the multiplayer environment of a PvX setting. So, not everybody is going to like that and we accept that; and we're not trying to build a game that everybody is going to like, because everybody it's doing that is not going to be successful, because there're just people with different interests; and you know we accept that and we're very on the nose about what we're trying to achieve. The idea is not to create a gank fest, is not to create a grief fest. That is not what PvX is; and so because of that we have certain mechanisms and systems that govern the way players engage in PvP and the majority of those are opt-in, but there is always that element of risk that's governed by the flagging system. And so, if you're interested in that I would take a look at the Wiki and look up what flagging is, and look up what corruption is. My experience tells me- and my expectations of the system are that they will signal significantly reduce a player's exposure to non-consensual PvP, but that risk is always going to be present to some degree. – Steven Sharif
A defining principle of Ashes of Creation as a PvX game is that PvE builds the world, and PvP changes the world.
Around 80% of the content is open-world, where healthy competition is an instigator for player friction; for potential cooperation; for the ability to yield alliances; and the political theater that comes with it. This is an intended part of the PvX game design.
There won't be separate PvE and PvP servers but some servers may be more PvP focused than others.
All stats relate to a player's combat effectiveness in PvX.
We're very clear with our objective and philosophy on the game and we understand that they may not appeal to everybody. But it is an important reciprocal relationship between the content that's related to PvE and the content that's related to PvP and they feed off of each other. They're catalysts for change: Their progression, their development. It's things that people can value when they see something earned and they see something lost. That elicits an emotional response from the player: That they've invested time in to either succeed or fail; and PvP allows for that element to be introduced into gameplay. And we're very clear that is our objective: That risk versus reward relationship, that achievement-based mentality. Not everybody's going to be a winner and that's okay. – Steven Sharif
I'm just going to go out there and say that I utterly reject this as a definition of what a PvX game is.
It isn't even a definition, let alone an acceptable one.
Pax Dei is closer to what I would expect for reciprocal PvX. And the Pax Dei PvX might even be too much PvP for me.
I was having some shower thoughts in the shower just now and Pax Dei came up, and I'd say that to me Pax Dei is way more pvp than Ashes.
Judging by this, they seem to be going for smth similar to AoC's "pvx" design
Except Ashes will supposedly have a story, while PD seems to only have "lore".
While in the shower I was trying to come up with different ways to judge whether something's pvp or e or x. I tried thinking about it in terms of "goals" and "processes". If the game has a story or the goal is "defeat THE BIG EVIL CREATURE" - that kinda seems pve, even if there's some players who might fight you along the way. If the goal is "beat players and/or remove them from the lands, to make those lands your own" (i.e. Planetside, Foxhole) - that's definitely as pvp as it comes.
But in terms of processes, as in what your day-to-day gameplay is - that pve game could have a ton of pvp on your way to the Big Evil (theoretically Ashes), while smth like Foxhole can be "beaten" by being a complete pacifist (and your impact would be bigger than a rando's on the frontlines).
The same kind of clash happens in mobas. The goal is always "beat the npc buildings", but the process is always "kill the players that are stopping you" (unless you're playing bots).
And the thought of "what if the definition was determined by both of those combined" just led me back to "Planetside is probably the only true pvp mmo out there", cause both the goal and the process is "remove the players" (if there are other games like it - they'd be true pvp as well).
And that's when I started thinking about sandbox games in general (rust, ark, etc). They seem to be "goalless", while also very varied in processes, but from all the videos I've seen about them, they usually seem to be about "removing players", unless you're playing on some solo server or smth.
And this is why I thought that PD is way more pvp than Ashes, because, at least afaik, there's no ultimate pve-based goal in PD, while there is one in Ashes. And considering that the pvp designs of both games might be somewhat similar - a game with a pve goal swings closer to pve side of the whatever spectrum imo.
This was a very convoluted line of thought, but they are shower thoughts for a reason. If anyone got anything interesting to say on the topic of "goal/process differentiation" - I'd love to read it.
This works until you consider that 'sandpark' and 'themebox' MMOs don't have rigid goal structures.
Strictly speaking, MOBAs don't either. In fact, one of the things that makes MOBAs work at all, is the variation in goal structure.
It's difficult, but you CAN win a MOBA match (in Pred at least) as the jungler without a single gank, without a single fight, without throwing an attack at a single other player.
Junglers in Predecessor more often lose because they try to do that too much and fail objectives which, in turn, empower not only their allies, but eventually the minions themselves.
This is part of the benefit of really balanced game design. You don't need to tie the goal to any specific process. Games do that not because they have to, but so that a sufficient number of average people understand it.
Now, I WOULD say that 'no one goes into Predecessor expecting not to have to PvP', but I've played Support for some 'interesting' Carry players today. Like 'we're not behind, but I have more damage to enemy Heroes than the Carry' level of 'interesting'.
Ashes is gearing up to be a game with great depth and options, supposedly. Every 'PvX' game sounds fine on paper until you ask for specifics, though. Maybe PD will be more PvP than Ashes, and Dygz won't play that either because it too, will 'add a large area where you are autoflagged for PvP'. Too early to know.
Cool, so Pac Man is now a PvX game. So is The Sims. The Sims Online was a PvX MMORPG.
Are people still trying to claim that PvX is a useful term?
I think in the AoC context, PvX is the equivalent of a PvP server on other MMORPGs.
But I feel AoC is forgiving enough and helps players to accommodate to the environment if PvP is not their strong point.
See it's funny because it's a perspective thing.
From my PoV I see it as more like a PvE server (flags, rules, timers, PvP immunity...).
Except rather than blanket immunity via flags (which is horribly game-breaking and boring); they've opted to use a system of incentives/penalties instead, risk v reward.
To me it sounds a bit PvE, to you it sounds a bit PvP.
= PvX anyone?
This was a very convoluted line of thought, but they are shower thoughts for a reason. If anyone got anything interesting to say on the topic of "goal/process differentiation" - I'd love to read it.
I used also PvM to refer to combat against mobs but I forgot about that abbreviation.
PvE would include survival elements like sand storms, need to carry torches ...
Gathering, crafting, trading would not be part of any of these PvP, PvE or PvM but would be part of an RPG.
Gathering is for me a survival activity but I would not include it into PvE.
So if some mmo/mmorpg has more server types, I think the PvP is the PvE version with the added PvP option.
If there is no dedicated PvE server, then the servers must try to offer the expected game experience to both PvE and PvP on the same unique server type.
If that is what the PvP server does anyway when compared to a hypothetical PvE server, then we can call that server PvP, especially if they are mixed into the same area and the experience can shift fast between PvE and PvP.
If the developers insist to call it PvX, then they should compare it to a hypothetical PvP server or game and say what the difference is.
If the PvP is separated from PvE into different areas / continents... then the game could be PvP if the best gear comes from PvP areas. Or could be PvX if the best gear comes from both of if the gear has PvP or PvE gear. In such a separation, then we actually have PvE and PvP server in the same server (we login into both at the same time and just travel from one to the other - the content/land shape might be different though)
Steven calls AoC "themebox" or "sandpark".
Compared to a sandbox PvP, even if those games have mobs, the combat against them I think is more for gathering materials purpose.
A better combat we find in themepark mmos.
If I compare AoC with a sandbox PvP, I would say it is a PvX.
If I compare it with a themepark PvP, then I would say it is a PvP.
1
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
And this is why I thought that PD is way more pvp than Ashes, because, at least afaik, there's no ultimate pve-based goal in PD, while there is one in Ashes. And considering that the pvp designs of both games might be somewhat similar - a game with a pve goal swings closer to pve side of the whatever spectrum imo.
Pax Dei has much less PvP than Ashes.
The designs are not similar at all.
Pax Dei does not have Sieges or Caravans.
Pax Dei has large regions of the map that are immune to PvP - Heartlands where players build their homes and villages that can never be attacked by other players.
There are also regions perhaps similar to The Open Seas in Ashes. But there are also at least as many areas where PvP is not possible.
Pax Dei is more similar to EvE - but the devs have said they are hoping to have PvP have lesser impact on gameplay than EvE.
It’s too early for me to know how much I might play Pax Dei on my own.
I’m more likely to jump into Pax Dei to help Fantmx with his Farm because I can do that without being concerned at all about PvP.
Compared to his Ashes Freehold.
See it's funny because it's a perspective thing.
From my PoV I see it as more like a PvE server (flags, rules, timers, PvP immunity...).
Except rather than blanket immunity via flags (which is horribly game-breaking and boring); they've opted to use a system of incentives/penalties instead, risk v reward.
To me it sounds a bit PvE, to you it sounds a bit PvP.
= PvX anyone?
I don’t know what PvP MMORPGS you’ve played.
But, yes, if you are coming from PvP Online Games other genres that are not RPGs - MMORPGs are highly likely to feel very PvE-centric. Even when they include PvP.
Because the foundation of RPG game design is cooperative PvE, rather than competitive PvP.
So… adding in competitive PvP is like trying to jam a square peg into a round hole.
Same for adding in E-Sports.
See it's funny because it's a perspective thing.
From my PoV I see it as more like a PvE server (flags, rules, timers, PvP immunity...).
Except rather than blanket immunity via flags (which is horribly game-breaking and boring); they've opted to use a system of incentives/penalties instead, risk v reward.
To me it sounds a bit PvE, to you it sounds a bit PvP.
= PvX anyone?
I don’t know what PvP MMORPGS you’ve played.
But, yes, if you are coming from PvP Online Games other genres that are not RPGs - MMORPGs are highly likely to feel very PvE-centric. Even when they include PvP.
Because the foundation of RPG game design is cooperative PvE, rather than competitive PvP.
So… adding in competitive PvP is like trying to jam a square peg into a round hole.
Same for adding in E-Sports.
Yeah again just a simple disagree.
The "foundation" as in historically, maybe. But there are many reasons for that, including technical ones.
I'm not debating the history of RPGs here, talking about MMO more broadly; a living breathing world. "Life is an RPG" type of thing.
See, not a single utterance at all of "PvX" in that.
It's almost as if they are professionals and have done this before or some shit.
Yes, it was Steven-lvls of wordvomit that could've been replaced with a "it's gonna be pvx" Literally no different from spiels Steven goes on when trying to explain Ashes design.
0
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Yeah again just a simple disagree.
The "foundation" as in historically, maybe. But there are many reasons for that, including technical ones.
I'm not debating the history of RPGs here, talking about MMO more broadly; a living breathing world. "Life is an RPG" type of thing.
It’s still true today. And it’s not really about technical reasons because it’s easier to program for PvP combat than it is for PvE combat.
Generic MMO is not the same thing as an MMORPG, specifically.
Which is why I stated that if you’re coming from some other genre of gaming than RPG, yes, by comparison any RPG is going to seem heavily PvE focused because foundationally RPGs are PvE.
MMORPGs that skew towards PvP are niche at best. And generally tend to last less than 10 years.
I think what you are envisioning as a “living, breathing world”…
Ombwah (an Ashes dev) refers to as a MEOW:
Multiplayer Evolving Online World.
Which is not the same thing as an MMORPG.
Similar to the differences between American Football, Soccer and Rugby.
See, not a single utterance at all of "PvX" in that.
It's almost as if they are professionals and have done this before or some shit.
Yes, it was Steven-lvls of wordvomit that could've been replaced with a "it's gonna be pvx" Literally no different from spiels Steven goes on when trying to explain Ashes design.
Nah, it was a fraction of the words Steven would use, and got across a much clearer picture.
After reading just that statement, I feel I have a better understanding of the intended place of PvP there than I do in Ashes.
To be fair to Steven, most of what he says is "live", as opposed to pre-prepared statements which is I assume what the above is.
Ashes is gearing up to be a game with great depth and options, supposedly. Every 'PvX' game sounds fine on paper until you ask for specifics, though. Maybe PD will be more PvP than Ashes, and Dygz won't play that either because it too, will 'add a large area where you are autoflagged for PvP'. Too early to know.
And this is why I thought that PD is way more pvp than Ashes, because, at least afaik, there's no ultimate pve-based goal in PD, while there is one in Ashes.
I've yet to see evidence that there is an ultimate PvE goal in Ashes.
From what I can see, the biggest goal in the game are castles. I doubt there would be a PvE encounter that a guild with a castle would risk said castle in order to kill.
So, to me, this makes the ultimate goal of the game PvP (after the castles have been cleared out, of course).
Comments
No, I don't think he did - the term currently has no meaning. As such, he has to attribute his own meaning to it in order for it to make sense to himself. His failure so far to define the term as he sees it, along with his lack of developer credentials make him using that term absolutely meaningless.
Also, I am not claiming that I am any authority - I am saying that developers and the MMORPG press are. I've literally said this several times in reply to you - this is not me and my definitions, it is me accepting the definitions the industry has laid out.
It is you and Steven that are claiming to be the authority on this, not me. All I am doing is denying the authority Steven is presuming to have and you agree with, and deferring to a larger, more experienced body.
Are people still trying to claim that PvX is a useful term?
Is there anyone else out there who doesn't think PvX is gimmicky bs? Because I don't. I see what they're trying to do, and think PvX fits it pretty perfectly.
https://wccftech.com/dune-awakening-qa-creative-director-clarifies-mmo-size-hints-at-beyond-arrakis/
As Dygz loves to say, rpgs aren't meant to be "versus Players", so the pvp nomenclature had to have come into the picture at some point that was not at the start, right? Which means that PvX can do the same. Language changes and all that.
As I posted before, PvX has already been a term in the genre for over a decade (almost 2 tbh). The only thing it needs is a massive push to be truly relevant (just as new words do afaik). Which means that if Ashes manages to become successful and Steven doesn't start calling it a pvp mmo - PvX will have way more relevancy as a term.
His money might not necessarily give him "the right" to make a term valid, but his attitude does imo, just as it did for those who made first pvp mmos back in the day where "pvp" in an rpg was beyond a novel concent (I call those "the Dygz times"
Nah, even I'll disagree here.
PvX isn't a pointless term 'because it doesn't describe anything'. It's a pointless term 'because it describes too much without any specifics'.
It's too much like a restaurant going:
"Now Open! Serving: Food!"
I think in the AoC context, PvX is the equivalent of a PvP server on other MMORPGs.
But I feel AoC is forgiving enough and helps players to accommodate to the environment if PvP is not their strong point.
You can make the exact same argument with the term "PvE" or "MMO" or "RPG" and many other game terms when looked at as stand-alone terms. It's always all about the context. Steven has defined the PvX for Ashes like this:
All of these terms are semi-all-encompassing. PvX simply signifies that you're playing against both the environment and the players on the same "plain", as opposed to "you have pve and then there's also arena pvp" or smth like that.
If anything, I'd say that there's barely any true pvp games out there, but due to the roots of rpgs being in pure pve and cooperation, we've gotten ourselves into a corner of "if there's any player that's vs me - the game's PVP".
I think those terms are useless too as descriptors of MMOs.
An MMO can tell you 'it has lots of PvE', and 'it has lots of PvP', but it (in my biased opinion) cannot tell you 'it has lots of PvX' because that definition doesn't help you understand.
Like, I'm (possibly wasting my time) trying to get us to talk about the 'spectrum' like Vaknar 'asked' for precisely this reason.
Steven says things sometimes that say Ashes is 'neither PvE-centric nor PvP-centric' specifically. I agree with this. I wouldn't agree with 'PvX-centric' yet, but I don't think that's ever specifically been said.
I would love to ignore the semantics without needing to also ignore the conversation, and TL has a long queue.
He tries to describe it as a reciprocal relationship of PvP and PvE.
But, it feels to me more symbiotic... where it's not really possible to escape either.
So... for me, the Ashes "PvX" actually feels worse than EQ/EQ2/WoW PvP servers - which I recall having major cities as safe zones.
Pax Dei is closer to what I would expect for reciprocal PvX. And the Pax Dei PvX might even be too much PvP for me.
I had the same thought, if we consider the risk aspect.
In the future, this may happen.
If Ashes is successful enough to run for 4 or 5 years and not shrink to an insignificant population size, Steven will then have those credentials I spoke of earlier that he doesn't yet have.
That isn't now, however.
Him having money allows him to pay to have a game made. It allows him to call the game what ever he wants. It doesn't require us to accept his definition of terms - especially when he hasn't defined it in any reasonable way.
Most MMO RPGs are going to fundamentally be PvE because PvE historically and traditionally is a fundamental aspect of RPGs.
If we're going to apply the term PvX to games, I would call Neverwinter Online PvX.
There is Open World PvE and Instanced PvP. There is no non-consensual PvP.
New World would also be PvX. I just have PvP turned off 99.95% of the time and ignore whatever PvP might be happening. There is Open World PvE and Open World PvP. There is no non-consensual PvP.
I also would label EQ/EQ2 and WoW PvX MMORPGs.
EvE is too PvP-centric for me because there are sectors that I can't explore without being auto-flagged for PvP.
My Bartle score is Explorer 87%; Socializer 73% ; Achiever 47%; Killer 0%
So... as soon as there are areas that I can't explore without being auto-flagged for PvP combat - that's too PvP-centric for me and I'm probably not interested in playing that game - although...
It does depend on how detrimental the death penalties are:
If I can just let you kill me and the consequences of the encounter only takes me 5-10 minutes to return to my PvE goals. That's probably fine for me 2-3 times out of an 8-hour play session.
What's meaningless to me is applying PvX to an MMORPG server that always has PvP active everywhere, especially when there are large sections of the map that have auto-flag, Corruption-free PvP and the only areas with no PvP are in Freehold houses and player-shop stalls.
That is too PvP-centric for me. And then "PvX" becomes meaningless. You can label that whatever you like.
But that is too focused on PvP for me.
I'd rather play other MMORPGs that don't have that much emphasis on PvP.
People understand that if a game is an MMORPG it will have many players on a server, it will have mobs, it will have social aspects, it will have quests. For the most part, these things are true if every MMORPG, and so that term has meaning.
Sure, it's board, but it is understood. If you say a game is an MMORPG to most average gamers, they will likely reply with "oh, so, like WoW then", or something similar. People understand the term.
PvX though - not so much.
If I were to define an MMORPG as PvE, most people would understand that to mean:
Saying an MMORPG is PvP would tell people
Seemingly, you want us to then take the following as the definition of PvX;
I'm just going to go out there and say that I utterly reject this as a definition of what a PvX game is.
It isn't even a definition, let alone an acceptable one.
Judging by this, they seem to be going for smth similar to AoC's "pvx" design
Except Ashes will supposedly have a story, while PD seems to only have "lore".
While in the shower I was trying to come up with different ways to judge whether something's pvp or e or x. I tried thinking about it in terms of "goals" and "processes". If the game has a story or the goal is "defeat THE BIG EVIL CREATURE" - that kinda seems pve, even if there's some players who might fight you along the way. If the goal is "beat players and/or remove them from the lands, to make those lands your own" (i.e. Planetside, Foxhole) - that's definitely as pvp as it comes.
But in terms of processes, as in what your day-to-day gameplay is - that pve game could have a ton of pvp on your way to the Big Evil (theoretically Ashes), while smth like Foxhole can be "beaten" by being a complete pacifist (and your impact would be bigger than a rando's on the frontlines).
The same kind of clash happens in mobas. The goal is always "beat the npc buildings", but the process is always "kill the players that are stopping you" (unless you're playing bots).
And the thought of "what if the definition was determined by both of those combined" just led me back to "Planetside is probably the only true pvp mmo out there", cause both the goal and the process is "remove the players" (if there are other games like it - they'd be true pvp as well).
And that's when I started thinking about sandbox games in general (rust, ark, etc). They seem to be "goalless", while also very varied in processes, but from all the videos I've seen about them, they usually seem to be about "removing players", unless you're playing on some solo server or smth.
And this is why I thought that PD is way more pvp than Ashes, because, at least afaik, there's no ultimate pve-based goal in PD, while there is one in Ashes. And considering that the pvp designs of both games might be somewhat similar - a game with a pve goal swings closer to pve side of the whatever spectrum imo.
This was a very convoluted line of thought, but they are shower thoughts for a reason. If anyone got anything interesting to say on the topic of "goal/process differentiation" - I'd love to read it.
Strictly speaking, MOBAs don't either. In fact, one of the things that makes MOBAs work at all, is the variation in goal structure.
It's difficult, but you CAN win a MOBA match (in Pred at least) as the jungler without a single gank, without a single fight, without throwing an attack at a single other player.
Junglers in Predecessor more often lose because they try to do that too much and fail objectives which, in turn, empower not only their allies, but eventually the minions themselves.
This is part of the benefit of really balanced game design. You don't need to tie the goal to any specific process. Games do that not because they have to, but so that a sufficient number of average people understand it.
Now, I WOULD say that 'no one goes into Predecessor expecting not to have to PvP', but I've played Support for some 'interesting' Carry players today. Like 'we're not behind, but I have more damage to enemy Heroes than the Carry' level of 'interesting'.
Ashes is gearing up to be a game with great depth and options, supposedly. Every 'PvX' game sounds fine on paper until you ask for specifics, though. Maybe PD will be more PvP than Ashes, and Dygz won't play that either because it too, will 'add a large area where you are autoflagged for PvP'. Too early to know.
See it's funny because it's a perspective thing.
From my PoV I see it as more like a PvE server (flags, rules, timers, PvP immunity...).
Except rather than blanket immunity via flags (which is horribly game-breaking and boring); they've opted to use a system of incentives/penalties instead, risk v reward.
To me it sounds a bit PvE, to you it sounds a bit PvP.
= PvX anyone?
I used also PvM to refer to combat against mobs but I forgot about that abbreviation.
PvE would include survival elements like sand storms, need to carry torches ...
Gathering, crafting, trading would not be part of any of these PvP, PvE or PvM but would be part of an RPG.
Gathering is for me a survival activity but I would not include it into PvE.
So if some mmo/mmorpg has more server types, I think the PvP is the PvE version with the added PvP option.
If there is no dedicated PvE server, then the servers must try to offer the expected game experience to both PvE and PvP on the same unique server type.
If that is what the PvP server does anyway when compared to a hypothetical PvE server, then we can call that server PvP, especially if they are mixed into the same area and the experience can shift fast between PvE and PvP.
If the developers insist to call it PvX, then they should compare it to a hypothetical PvP server or game and say what the difference is.
If the PvP is separated from PvE into different areas / continents... then the game could be PvP if the best gear comes from PvP areas. Or could be PvX if the best gear comes from both of if the gear has PvP or PvE gear. In such a separation, then we actually have PvE and PvP server in the same server (we login into both at the same time and just travel from one to the other - the content/land shape might be different though)
Steven calls AoC "themebox" or "sandpark".
Compared to a sandbox PvP, even if those games have mobs, the combat against them I think is more for gathering materials purpose.
A better combat we find in themepark mmos.
If I compare AoC with a sandbox PvP, I would say it is a PvX.
If I compare it with a themepark PvP, then I would say it is a PvP.
The designs are not similar at all.
Pax Dei does not have Sieges or Caravans.
Pax Dei has large regions of the map that are immune to PvP - Heartlands where players build their homes and villages that can never be attacked by other players.
There are also regions perhaps similar to The Open Seas in Ashes. But there are also at least as many areas where PvP is not possible.
Pax Dei is more similar to EvE - but the devs have said they are hoping to have PvP have lesser impact on gameplay than EvE.
It’s too early for me to know how much I might play Pax Dei on my own.
I’m more likely to jump into Pax Dei to help Fantmx with his Farm because I can do that without being concerned at all about PvP.
Compared to his Ashes Freehold.
Luckily Q3 is coming.
But, yes, if you are coming from PvP Online Games other genres that are not RPGs - MMORPGs are highly likely to feel very PvE-centric. Even when they include PvP.
Because the foundation of RPG game design is cooperative PvE, rather than competitive PvP.
So… adding in competitive PvP is like trying to jam a square peg into a round hole.
Same for adding in E-Sports.
Yeah again just a simple disagree.
The "foundation" as in historically, maybe. But there are many reasons for that, including technical ones.
I'm not debating the history of RPGs here, talking about MMO more broadly; a living breathing world. "Life is an RPG" type of thing.
It's almost as if they are professionals and have done this before or some shit.
Generic MMO is not the same thing as an MMORPG, specifically.
Which is why I stated that if you’re coming from some other genre of gaming than RPG, yes, by comparison any RPG is going to seem heavily PvE focused because foundationally RPGs are PvE.
MMORPGs that skew towards PvP are niche at best. And generally tend to last less than 10 years.
I think what you are envisioning as a “living, breathing world”…
Ombwah (an Ashes dev) refers to as a MEOW:
Multiplayer Evolving Online World.
Which is not the same thing as an MMORPG.
Similar to the differences between American Football, Soccer and Rugby.
Nah, it was a fraction of the words Steven would use, and got across a much clearer picture.
After reading just that statement, I feel I have a better understanding of the intended place of PvP there than I do in Ashes.
To be fair to Steven, most of what he says is "live", as opposed to pre-prepared statements which is I assume what the above is.
MO2 with a conscience.
I've yet to see evidence that there is an ultimate PvE goal in Ashes.
From what I can see, the biggest goal in the game are castles. I doubt there would be a PvE encounter that a guild with a castle would risk said castle in order to kill.
So, to me, this makes the ultimate goal of the game PvP (after the castles have been cleared out, of course).