My PvX != Your PvX

Basis: I prefer PvE over PvP so, in my mind, I'd like to see more balance between the systems.

Is this a fantasy, yes. I know logically that PvX for Ashes consists of a blend, a mixture if you will, of both elements. Therefore, I think that when some of us say "Ashes isn't really PvX", what we mean is that it isn't what we would think PvX would be (Equal measure of both in my opinion).

Do I want PvE only servers? No. I enjoy the risks that come with the PvP Systems in mind. Will I need a group of friends to play with because (even though I'm complimented for living in the Caravan stream) I'm a big scaredy cat when it comes to PvP? Absolutely!

All in all, I'm just trying to say that I think PvX can be considered more of a spectrum where some of us like the (in my opinion) PvP heavy version of PvX and I'm sure there are some that prefer a more PvE heavy version of PvX.

I plan to play Ashes all the same, but I had seen this topic floating around and wanted to discuss it, or share my thoughts.

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

Ace1234

@Noaani

Your previous post stated that you thought that if you always had a reason to attack someone, there was no dissuasion happening.

I pointed out that from the perspective of the attacker, there isn't always a good reason - even if from the perspective of the player running the content there is always likely to be someone with a good reason.

Again, this is why I mentioned hyperbole - I'm sure you were being hyperbolic in your statement that there is always a reason to attack- but that hyperbole made your statement incorrect.

Ah okay I see what you are saying. Well, from my perspective this would really depend on whether:

"even if from the perspective of the player running the content there is always likely to be someone with a good reason."

is true or not, which really depends on how they design the points of interest, and how common ganking would be outside of those more competitively desirable points of interest, after adjustments are made post alpha-2. In other words , is the intent that there is always something worth going corrupt for throughout the entire progression experience or is that content intended to be more late game stuff? And, if it is only intended to be more late game content, what is stopping gankers from ganking outside of that specific content in earlier levels of progression? These would be key things to understand regarding the intent and what changes might be made towards these goals post alpha-2 in order to fully understand how the corruption system and the non-consensual pvp will play out at launch. My assumption, due to previous mentions of Intrepid quotes, which I haven't really referenced yet, was that it this content where "its supposed to be worth it" would be delegated to later game content to uphold the goal of "corruption preventing non-consenual pvp", because if these scenarios were baked in throughout the whole experience then that would undermine that perceived intent. This is also why my perception of "griefer behavior" is so important, because griefers would be the types of players to break the mold of what corruption would be intended to prevent at that point, which at this point if someones is "just trying to piss you off" and can continously avoid penalties by making alts, then it isn't as relevant that "only a portion of later content is designed to be worth going corrupt for by various types of players" because it could still be worth it to gankers to go corrupt regardless.
I reconcile this by understanding as things are, corruption may not be sufficient for preventing enough ganking to appeal to the desired amount of pve players, but that things will likely be tuned to better appeal to these players in a way that the non-consensual pvp is more tolerable, due to the perceived understanding of the intent behind corruption, the design approach, and the intended player experience.

Dygz

Otr wrote: »

I agree with e-sports and I would agree with PvP too if you would give a good example where risk can be implemented without PvP and feel as good or even better.

Feeling good/better is going to depend on how much challenge and adrenaline rush you want.
Steven loves the adrenaline rush of PvP. So he wants that in all the games he plays.
Similar for e-sports fans and competition.

I play RPGs primarily for the narrative; not for the adrenaline.
And I prefer adrenaline rush to be in small doses, rather than near-constant.
I can tolerate PvP combat for about 1 hour out of an 8-hour play session. After that 1 hour, I need to be able to focus on PvE challenges without other gamers interrupting me because they want to PvP.
Because in the 40+ years I've played RPGs that are not MMORPGs, I've only encountered PvP once.
And Cooperative PvE RPG gameplay already feels excellent.

bigepeen

Dygz wrote: »

Otr wrote: »

I agree with e-sports and I would agree with PvP too if you would give a good example where risk can be implemented without PvP and feel as good or even better.

Feeling good/better is going to depend on how much challenge and adrenaline rush you want.
Steven loves the adrenaline rush of PvP. So he wants that in all the games he plays.
Similar for e-sports fans and competition.

I play RPGs primarily for the narrative; not for the adrenaline.
And I prefer adrenaline rush to be in small doses, rather than near-constant.
I can tolerate PvP combat for about 1 hour out of an 8-hour play session. After that 1 hour, I need to be able to focus on PvE challenges without other gamers interrupting me because they want to PvP.
Because in the 40+ years I've played RPGs that are not MMORPGs, I've only encountered PvP once.
And Cooperative PvE RPG gameplay already feels excellent.

It honestly sounds like FF14 or something like that is your ideal MMO.

Noaani

Ace1234 wrote: »

Ah okay I see what you are saying. Well, from my perspective this would really depend on whether:

"even if from the perspective of the player running the content there is always likely to be someone with a good reason."

is true or not

Imagine you and I both want to get hold of some flowers. We would both be wanting to find the same flower patches. Since resources don't always spawn in every node, it means people from several nodes would all be heading towards that one flower patch.

This means the chances of there being more than one person in any given flower patch at any give time is high.

The notion of being during progression or late game isn't really worth discussing - 90%+ of all MMORPG play time is spent at the games current level cap. Ashes may be a little bit lower, but I would still wager it would be no lower than 85% after a few years (95% if the people not wanting a level cap increase got their way).

Going back to your PvE player comments - I'm going to try and do a better job of explaining why corruption is simply not able to entice the crowd of people I have played with for 20 years (top end PvE players that also enjoy PvP at times) to come to Ashes.

The thing that mostly drives PvE players away from PvP oriented games isn't being killed or losing items of minor value, it is being interrupted. To many of these players, if they have some leisure time to spend in a game, they want to participate in the activity in that game that they want to participate in, not in the activity the game tells them they really should participate in, or in an activity some other player forces them to participate in.

Since most of these people have either very time consuming careers or have families that demand (rightly) most of their non-productive time, free time to play an MMORPG is something to be cherished.

PvP MMORPG's as a general design essentially force (or highly motiovate) people in to specific actions at very specific times. In many ways, the core design is disrespectful of it's players time. Ashes takes it further than just open world PvP though, with sieges, wars and events all demanding players time if they don't want to redo progression they have already past.

Most PvE focused players that I know simply won't participate in that kind of disrespect. If they are unable to log in to a game to participate in the content they want to participate in at that time, they will instead play a different game.

Otr

Dygz wrote: »

Otr wrote: »

I agree with e-sports and I would agree with PvP too if you would give a good example where risk can be implemented without PvP and feel as good or even better.

Feeling good/better is going to depend on how much challenge and adrenaline rush you want.
Steven loves the adrenaline rush of PvP. So he wants that in all the games he plays.
Similar for e-sports fans and competition.

I play RPGs primarily for the narrative; not for the adrenaline.
And I prefer adrenaline rush to be in small doses, rather than near-constant.
I can tolerate PvP combat for about 1 hour out of an 8-hour play session. After that 1 hour, I need to be able to focus on PvE challenges without other gamers interrupting me because they want to PvP.
Because in the 40+ years I've played RPGs that are not MMORPGs, I've only encountered PvP once.
And Cooperative PvE RPG gameplay already feels excellent.

I think nobody can have "near-constant" adrenaline. They take breaks from the game or in game to be ready for the next dose.
But because you say you want primarily narrative and only small doses of adrenaline, it means there could be ways to have what you want while others to get their adrenaline too in whatever amount they want.
The only constraint for the game is to place the narrative into low adrenaline areas.
Maybe also to have an RP mode additional to the flagging system.

Dygz

bigepeen wrote: »

It honestly sounds like FF14 or something like that is your ideal MMO.

Something similar - yep.

Dygz

Otr wrote: »

I think nobody can have "near-constant" adrenaline. They take breaks from the game or in game to be ready for the next dose.
But because you say you want primarily narrative and only small doses of adrenaline, it means there could be ways to have what you want while others to get their adrenaline too in whatever amount they want.
The only constraint for the game is to place the narrative into low adrenaline areas.
Maybe also to have an RP mode additional to the flagging system.

There is.
Keep the current design.
I will ignore all progression and strive to have the lowest Adventurer Level possible with 0 kills.
The Ultimate Carebear Challenge.

But... most PvEers will be playing other MMORPGs."Steven and Margaret are content with Ashes being niche.
So... it's all good.

Ace1234

@Noaani

The notion of being during progression or late game isn't really worth discussing - 90%+ of all MMORPG play time is spent at the games current level cap. Ashes may be a little bit lower, but I would still wager it would be no lower than 85% after a few years (95% if the people not wanting a level cap increase got their way).

Well, this goes back to my original post, because it is worth discussing if we are talking about "what Intrepid needs to do" in the context of what we are talking about. We've already talked extensively on providing fun content throughout the entire game for those who don't want to engage in end-game risks, and it is possible for this content to live alongside end-game content as well (such as the metroplises being limited in number and blocking other nodes from reaching higher stages, meaning there will always be "less-contested" content available relative to that highly contested content.) So there should be content that is less desirable at any given time for a variety of player types, meaning the distinguishment between early/late game content or high/low value content is important and worth talking about in the context of my points from my perspective.

Imagine you and I both want to get hold of some flowers. We would both be wanting to find the same flower patches. Since resources don't always spawn in every node, it means people from several nodes would all be heading towards that one flower patch.

This means the chances of there being more than one person in any given flower patch at any give time is high.

This may or may not be the case and again why I said your comment about:

"even if from the perspective of the player running the content there is always likely to be someone with a good reason."

May or may not be true, which is important regarding my perspective for the rest of the points being made. If it is not true then everything else I am saying makes more sense. It might not be true due to the design of the "points of interest" in the game, and how the content is separated between more highly contested content vs less desirable content. So high value vs low value content, which can be also be separated throughout the progression paths from beginning to end game content.

The thing that mostly drives PvE players away from PvP oriented games isn't being killed or losing items of minor value, it is being interrupted. To many of these players, if they have some leisure time to spend in a game, they want to participate in the activity in that game that they want to participate in, not in the activity the game tells them they really should participate in, or in an activity some other player forces them to participate in.

Yeah at this point we are just repeating things that we both understand already, rather than puting things into context of the other person's perspective. Im not sure where i've implied otherwise, regarding this point you are making. I've already said I wasn't really talking about "someone who will never not once tolerate a single instance of non-consensual pvp". So, I understand the notion of the desired type of experience a pve player wants, and the point was more about how much a pve player can tolerate of this and how many of these types of players there are. So, the whole "its not about anything other than forcing them to play a certain way"- I understood this from the very beginning, it was more about how many players would accept that this will not be the case 100% of the time- (which I said after hearing input from a variety of players during this discussion, already admitted that I was probably wrong in my assumption of how many players would tolerate this, but this perception is also based on current expectations for the amount of griefing that is projected to occur, so if that perception ends up being changing based on design intent and adjustments made, then griefing could end up happening less and appeal to a larger amount of the "more tolerant" pve players, or it could still not be enough for them which is understandable as well, which you could just say those types of players are pvp players at that point I guess.) The point of this is that in the context of "you won't always have someone who is trying to kill you for some reason or another" then these projected behaviors are relevant to pve players, and are driven by the corruption mechanic in this context. Unless:
1. you choose to call the more tolerant pve players "pvp players", in which case yeah corruption would be irrelevant to who you refer to as "pvers" at that point.

2. Or, if your point is that there just won't be any "pve" players who will tolerate any amount of non-consensual pvp, which I already admitted earlier was something I might have assumed wrong about pve players and accept that this might be the case but would be okay for the game- and again, if you just consider these to be "pvp" players then corruption at that point would just be about giving these "pvp" players some respite.

3. Or, if your point is that there just won't be any "pve" players who will tolerate the "current projected amount of griefing", which I said could end up being addressed post alpha-2 based on my perception of Intrepid's intent- again, unless you just consider these to be "pvp" players then also yeah corruption at that point would just be about giving these "pvp" players some respite. So again, it sounds like we could agree on this and its just semantics.

Noaani

@Ace1234

So, three points.

First, the entire basis for the design of how resources spawn in Ashes is so that people wanting the same resource will need to all go to the same location, specifically so those resources are contested by people that want to make use of them.

There is no "it may or may not be this way". This is the design intent.

Second, players in a position to pick Ashes over a different MMORPG will spend most of their time at the level cap. There isn't scope or capability for players to not. If you are near the level cap and participating in near level cap activities, those activities grant you experience that push you up to the level cap.

Also, since sieges, open world PvP, caravans, as well as guild and node wars are designed to be available to players of all levels, there reallyisnta difference in regards to end game risk or anything. The bulk of the risk exists throughout the game.

Since the risk is always there regardless, and since justbasic in game activity will see you at the level cap eventually, there really is no point in discussing this topic in relation to levels.

Third, I don't think you did get my point in relation to it being interruptions that are the issue.

The reason I say this is simple - you are still looking at open world fighting, even when I specifically said that corruption isn't the biggest issue here.

If I am a crafter getting components from a handful of nearby nodes, if any one of those nodes is put under siege, those components are no longer available for a number of days corresponding to that nodes level.

It doesn't even matter if anyone is able to mount a serious attempt with that siege, the fact that a siege is declared means storage in that node (including player housing) is locked.

That is an unacceptable interruption to almost every MMO player I know. That is a significantly bigger issue than anything open world or corruption related - and yet STILL isn't the biggest issue.

As I said right at the start, most PvE oriented players simply won't be interested in Ashes.

Depraved

Noaani wrote: »

Vargos wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Ashes isn't simply a PvP dominant game, it is just an outright PvP game.

Yeah, a PvP game where you can't do anything without PvE, local events that are triggered through PvE, etc. There's a mismatch.

Come back to this conversation when there is a way for people competing for a fishing spot to determin who gets it based on who is better at fishing rather than who is better at PvP.

how would you compete against another player without that competition being pvp? or when you mean pvp do you mean combat? as in you would have to kill the other player?

Noaani

Depraved wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Vargos wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Ashes isn't simply a PvP dominant game, it is just an outright PvP game.

Yeah, a PvP game where you can't do anything without PvE, local events that are triggered through PvE, etc. There's a mismatch.

Come back to this conversation when there is a way for people competing for a fishing spot to determin who gets it based on who is better at fishing rather than who is better at PvP.

how would you compete against another player without that competition being pvp? or when you mean pvp do you mean combat? as in you would have to kill the other player?

In a game with open world PvP, you wouldn't.

As has been said, in games like WoW, EQ etc, a conflict over fishing is won by the player with the best knowledge of fishing. A conflict over PvE content is won by a player best at PvE content. A conflict in a PvP area is won by the best player at PvP.

In a game like Ashes, a conflict over fishing is won by the best player at PvP. A conflict over PvE content is won by the best player at PvP. A conflict in a PvP area is won by the best player at PvP.

This is why games with open world PvP are inherently PvP games.

I'm not saying that to change the game, im pointing it out to other posters that are making objectively incorrect arguments.

Depraved

Noaani wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Vargos wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Ashes isn't simply a PvP dominant game, it is just an outright PvP game.

Yeah, a PvP game where you can't do anything without PvE, local events that are triggered through PvE, etc. There's a mismatch.

Come back to this conversation when there is a way for people competing for a fishing spot to determin who gets it based on who is better at fishing rather than who is better at PvP.

how would you compete against another player without that competition being pvp? or when you mean pvp do you mean combat? as in you would have to kill the other player?

In a game with open world PvP, you wouldn't.

As has been said, in games like WoW, EQ etc, a conflict over fishing is won by the player with the best knowledge of fishing. A conflict over PvE content is won by a player best at PvE content. A conflict in a PvP area is won by the best player at PvP.

In a game like Ashes, a conflict over fishing is won by the best player at PvP. A conflict over PvE content is won by the best player at PvP. A conflict in a PvP area is won by the best player at PvP.

This is why games with open world PvP are inherently PvP games.

I'm not saying that to change the game, im pointing it out to other posters that are making objectively incorrect arguments.

I get that, but my point is that pvp isn't equal to fighting the other person and killing them.

if we are playing a game, lets say eq or to with no open world PVP, and we are farming in the same area, and I'm able to kill the mobs faster than you, get the exp, get the loot, because maybe I can press my buttons faster, or o I have a better build, better rotation, whatever it is, that's PVP. for every mob I kill (or every fish I catch) you arent killing that mob. you are spending time not progressing. I'm winning the PVP (even if we arent killing each other)

every time there is a competition between players, there is pvp. i suppose "pve" players just don't like it when winning that competition or pvp involves killing each other, instead of simply performing better. they wanna be gymnasts or ice skaters, not basketball or soccer players

Noaani

Depraved wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Vargos wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Ashes isn't simply a PvP dominant game, it is just an outright PvP game.

Yeah, a PvP game where you can't do anything without PvE, local events that are triggered through PvE, etc. There's a mismatch.

Come back to this conversation when there is a way for people competing for a fishing spot to determin who gets it based on who is better at fishing rather than who is better at PvP.

how would you compete against another player without that competition being pvp? or when you mean pvp do you mean combat? as in you would have to kill the other player?

In a game with open world PvP, you wouldn't.

As has been said, in games like WoW, EQ etc, a conflict over fishing is won by the player with the best knowledge of fishing. A conflict over PvE content is won by a player best at PvE content. A conflict in a PvP area is won by the best player at PvP.

In a game like Ashes, a conflict over fishing is won by the best player at PvP. A conflict over PvE content is won by the best player at PvP. A conflict in a PvP area is won by the best player at PvP.

This is why games with open world PvP are inherently PvP games.

I'm not saying that to change the game, im pointing it out to other posters that are making objectively incorrect arguments.

I get that, but my point is that pvp isn't equal to fighting the other person and killing them.

if we are playing a game, lets say eq or to with no open world PVP, and we are farming in the same area, and I'm able to kill the mobs faster than you, get the exp, get the loot, because maybe I can press my buttons faster, or o I have a better build, better rotation, whatever it is, that's PVP.

By this logic, buying and selling on the auction house is PvP. This makes the notion of talking about PvP impossible.

We can all either agree that PvP refers to the act of fighting other players, or we can just not have any chance of discourse at all.

Up to you.

Edit to add; it is worth pointing out though, by your logic here, Ashes is still a PvP game - which was my point.

Additionally, by that logic, PvE WoW servers are still PvP.

When you start factoring in speed running, your logic demands that single player games like Skyrim, Pokémon and various iterations of Mario games are also PvP.

Depraved

Noaani wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Vargos wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Ashes isn't simply a PvP dominant game, it is just an outright PvP game.

Yeah, a PvP game where you can't do anything without PvE, local events that are triggered through PvE, etc. There's a mismatch.

Come back to this conversation when there is a way for people competing for a fishing spot to determin who gets it based on who is better at fishing rather than who is better at PvP.

how would you compete against another player without that competition being pvp? or when you mean pvp do you mean combat? as in you would have to kill the other player?

In a game with open world PvP, you wouldn't.

As has been said, in games like WoW, EQ etc, a conflict over fishing is won by the player with the best knowledge of fishing. A conflict over PvE content is won by a player best at PvE content. A conflict in a PvP area is won by the best player at PvP.

In a game like Ashes, a conflict over fishing is won by the best player at PvP. A conflict over PvE content is won by the best player at PvP. A conflict in a PvP area is won by the best player at PvP.

This is why games with open world PvP are inherently PvP games.

I'm not saying that to change the game, im pointing it out to other posters that are making objectively incorrect arguments.

I get that, but my point is that pvp isn't equal to fighting the other person and killing them.

if we are playing a game, lets say eq or to with no open world PVP, and we are farming in the same area, and I'm able to kill the mobs faster than you, get the exp, get the loot, because maybe I can press my buttons faster, or o I have a better build, better rotation, whatever it is, that's PVP.

By this logic, buying and selling on the auction house is PvP. This makes the notion of talking about PvP impossible.

We can all either agree that PvP refers to the act of fighting other players, or we can just not have any chance of discourse at all.

Up to you.

an auction house is literally trying to win the auction against another player and buy the item...
edit: to reinforce my point related to the market, look at companies irl. don't they compete against each other for customers and employees? they try to give better deals, better wages, etc.

and that's why I wanted clarification. players complain about pvp or competition, but in reality, they don't mind competition, they just don't want to engage in physical combat against another character.

there is always going to be competition unless you just play 24/7 in instances.

Otr

Depraved wrote: »

i suppose "pve" players just don't like it when winning that competition or pvp involves killing each other, ...

By extension, there might be a category of players who dislike combat and killing
Else I cannot explain why this game is overwhelmingly positive
https://store.steampowered.com/app/391540/Undertale/

For me when people say "PvE", that means PvM (player vs mob) and must have combat.
If doesn't have combat then is some kind of gathering, racing or jumping puzzle or management.
Some PvE players want only the story or to collect different cool looking armor sets. They want only the grind, not a competition.

Ludullu

I wish players would use more detailed terms for all of this stuff, like "combat pve/p", "economic pvp", "non-combative pve", etc. But obviously no one will do that, so pve is anything from talking to 2 npcs in a single time and getting a quest reward for it, to killing the hardest boss in the game. While pvp is "punching another player's face".

But yes, imo, as soon as you decide that you're "competing" with another person - you've entered pvp. So speedruns are inherently a pvp activity. You can always play the game w/o any intention to compete (the Dygz way), but as soon as you start consciously doing something that puts you above other players - you're a pvper.

Noaani

Depraved wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Vargos wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Ashes isn't simply a PvP dominant game, it is just an outright PvP game.

Yeah, a PvP game where you can't do anything without PvE, local events that are triggered through PvE, etc. There's a mismatch.

Come back to this conversation when there is a way for people competing for a fishing spot to determin who gets it based on who is better at fishing rather than who is better at PvP.

how would you compete against another player without that competition being pvp? or when you mean pvp do you mean combat? as in you would have to kill the other player?

In a game with open world PvP, you wouldn't.

As has been said, in games like WoW, EQ etc, a conflict over fishing is won by the player with the best knowledge of fishing. A conflict over PvE content is won by a player best at PvE content. A conflict in a PvP area is won by the best player at PvP.

In a game like Ashes, a conflict over fishing is won by the best player at PvP. A conflict over PvE content is won by the best player at PvP. A conflict in a PvP area is won by the best player at PvP.

This is why games with open world PvP are inherently PvP games.

I'm not saying that to change the game, im pointing it out to other posters that are making objectively incorrect arguments.

I get that, but my point is that pvp isn't equal to fighting the other person and killing them.

if we are playing a game, lets say eq or to with no open world PVP, and we are farming in the same area, and I'm able to kill the mobs faster than you, get the exp, get the loot, because maybe I can press my buttons faster, or o I have a better build, better rotation, whatever it is, that's PVP.

By this logic, buying and selling on the auction house is PvP. This makes the notion of talking about PvP impossible.

We can all either agree that PvP refers to the act of fighting other players, or we can just not have any chance of discourse at all.

Up to you.

an auction house is literally trying to win the auction against another player and buy the item...
edit: to reinforce my point related to the market, look at companies irl. don't they compete against each other for customers and employees? they try to give better deals, better wages, etc.

and that's why I wanted clarification. players complain about pvp or competition, but in reality, they don't mind competition, they just don't want to engage in physical combat against another character.

there is always going to be competition unless you just play 24/7 in instances.

There is competition in instances.

Leaderboards and speed running are a thing. You always have another player to try and beat, or other players to try and stay ahead of.

Therefore, by your own definition, instanced PvE is still PvP content.

This is why you (and everyone) should simply work on the understanding that when talking about PvP in relation to MMORPG's, we are talking about fighting other players in combat.

Sure, sometimes we may talk about competition with ither players in relation to the economy or some such, and in those cases that can be specified.

However, when talking about combat PvP, shortening it to just PvP shouldn't cause you any issues in understanding.

Any issues in understanding you are currently talking about are simply ones you have fabricated to derail the discussion from the point made above. The number of times you have talked about just PvP on these forums gives away the fact that you know exactly what is being said - you yourself use thw term PvP to refer specificslly to players fighting each other all the time.

If you really like, I can restate the point I made above replacing every occurrence if the term "PvP" with "combat to the death against other player characters", but at the end if the day you already understand what was being said and so there is no point in the needless extrapolation.

Noaani

NiKr wrote: »

I wish players would use more detailed terms for all of this stuff, like "combat pve/p", "economic pvp", "non-combative pve", etc. But obviously no one will do that, so pve is anything from talking to 2 npcs in a single time and getting a quest reward for it, to killing the hardest boss in the game. While pvp is "punching another player's face".

But yes, imo, as soon as you decide that you're "competing" with another person - you've entered pvp. So speedruns are inherently a pvp activity. You can always play the game w/o any intention to compete (the Dygz way), but as soon as you start consciously doing something that puts you above other players - you're a pvper.

As above, if your definition of PvP is that you are competing against other players, leaderboards and speed running ming dictate that PvE instances are PvP content.

Is that really the definition you want to attribute to the term PvP?

Should we all just argue for instanced PvP content in Ashes with leaderboards and call it PvP content?

Depraved

Noaani wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Vargos wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Ashes isn't simply a PvP dominant game, it is just an outright PvP game.

Yeah, a PvP game where you can't do anything without PvE, local events that are triggered through PvE, etc. There's a mismatch.

Come back to this conversation when there is a way for people competing for a fishing spot to determin who gets it based on who is better at fishing rather than who is better at PvP.

how would you compete against another player without that competition being pvp? or when you mean pvp do you mean combat? as in you would have to kill the other player?

In a game with open world PvP, you wouldn't.

As has been said, in games like WoW, EQ etc, a conflict over fishing is won by the player with the best knowledge of fishing. A conflict over PvE content is won by a player best at PvE content. A conflict in a PvP area is won by the best player at PvP.

In a game like Ashes, a conflict over fishing is won by the best player at PvP. A conflict over PvE content is won by the best player at PvP. A conflict in a PvP area is won by the best player at PvP.

This is why games with open world PvP are inherently PvP games.

I'm not saying that to change the game, im pointing it out to other posters that are making objectively incorrect arguments.

I get that, but my point is that pvp isn't equal to fighting the other person and killing them.

if we are playing a game, lets say eq or to with no open world PVP, and we are farming in the same area, and I'm able to kill the mobs faster than you, get the exp, get the loot, because maybe I can press my buttons faster, or o I have a better build, better rotation, whatever it is, that's PVP.

By this logic, buying and selling on the auction house is PvP. This makes the notion of talking about PvP impossible.

We can all either agree that PvP refers to the act of fighting other players, or we can just not have any chance of discourse at all.

Up to you.

an auction house is literally trying to win the auction against another player and buy the item...
edit: to reinforce my point related to the market, look at companies irl. don't they compete against each other for customers and employees? they try to give better deals, better wages, etc.

and that's why I wanted clarification. players complain about pvp or competition, but in reality, they don't mind competition, they just don't want to engage in physical combat against another character.

there is always going to be competition unless you just play 24/7 in instances.

There is competition in instances.

Leaderboards and speed running are a thing. You always have another player to try and beat, or other players to try and stay ahead of.

Therefore, by your own definition, instanced PvE is still PvP content.

This is why you (and everyone) should simply work on the understanding that when talking about PvP in relation to MMORPG's, we are talking about fighting other players in combat.

Sure, sometimes we may talk about competition with ither players in relation to the economy or some such, and in those cases that can be specified.

However, when talking about combat PvP, shortening it to just PvP shouldn't cause you any issues in understanding.

Any issues in understanding you are currently talking about are simply ones you have fabricated to derail the discussion from the point made above. The number of times you have talked about just PvP on these forums gives away the fact that you know exactly what is being said - you yourself use thw term PvP to refer specificslly to players fighting each other all the time.

If you really like, I can restate the point I made above replacing every occurrence if the term "PvP" with "combat to the death against other player characters", but at the end if the day you already understand what was being said and so there is no point in the needless extrapolation.

we already discussed this in another thread. even if there are leaderboards, other players arent preventing me from completing the instance or stopping my progression. its not a real competition since you cant stop me from completing the dungeon or stop my progression.

in an auction house, if I buy the item you need, now you cant get it and finish your build. I'm stopping your progression.

and yes, I can agree that pvp means fighting another player and dropping their hp down to zero, but in this case, talking about ashes s a pvx game, it might means that you need to compete with other players to do your pve without actually having to kill them (in many cases, there wont be a fight because of the corruption system).

me pulling mobs away from you and killing them, that's PVP. ashes just gives you the option to also kill the player. there are limited resources at any given time. so in this case of a pvx game, we need to make the distinction between competing vs another player without killing them and competing vs another player and killing them. they are both pvp.

Noaani

Depraved wrote: »

we already discussed this in another thread. even if there are leaderboards, other players arent preventing me from completing the instance or stopping my progression

Right, so now you are changing your definition of PvP from what you said earlier.

Stop making pointless bullshit up in order to distract from the blatantly obvious point that it is poor game design that a competition over a resource or task is unable to be resolved within the sphere of that resource or task.

We all know that is all you are doing. None of us here believe that you consider buying on a games auction house to be PvP.

Child Item