My PvX != Your PvX

Noaani wrote: »

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

I'd call it indirect pvp (and shoulda specified this in the previous comment). Or maybe competitive pvp, rather than combatative pvp.

Noaani wrote: »

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

Isn't that what arenas are? In L2 1v1 arenas had two modes: in-class and inter-class. In-class arenas meant that you only went up against your own class in the arena. Inter meant any opponent.

The competition was only between the same class of players, because rewards were based on leaderboard placement within your own class. But points for that leaderboard could be attained through either mode of the arena, so majority of fights happened in the inter mode.

So in that case a player in the inter arena would've been having an indirect competitive combatative pvp

If Ashes pvp seasons have a similar design (or are at least calculated within class limits) - we might have the same situation.

I'm fine with indirect instanced pvp, as long as it's the minority of pvp you have in the game. Same applies to different types of pve as well.

Noaani wrote: »

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.

how is that poor game design? if the goal is to have players make the choice between killing each other for the resource or allying and sharing, then the design is doing what its supposed to be doing...and if the goal is to create wars and alliances, then that should be the direction of the design, and it is going that way.

you are just looking at it in isolation, forgetting the objective of the game, which Is make players decide wether to cooperate and share or fight each other.

and yes, i consider anything that can slow down my progression coming from another player a form of PVP. I'm not trolling or anything. any form of competition is pvp. but ill concede that the majority of people refer to pvp as killing each other.

i started talking about it because I'm curious if pve players just dont want competition or they want competition that doesn't involve killing each other. players would still be competing against one another and someone's progression will be affected, even if they arent fighting each other, so I'm not sure why they necessarily have an issue with fighting, but not other forms of competition.

NiKr wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

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

I'd call it indirect pvp (and shoulda specified this in the previous comment). Or maybe competitive pvp, rather than combatative pvp.

Noaani wrote: »

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

Isn't that what arenas are? In L2 1v1 arenas had two modes: in-class and inter-class. In-class arenas meant that you only went up against your own class in the arena. Inter meant any opponent.

The competition was only between the same class of players, because rewards were based on leaderboard placement within your own class. But points for that leaderboard could be attained through either mode of the arena, so majority of fights happened in the inter mode.

So in that case a player in the inter arena would've been having an indirect competitive combatative pvp If Ashes pvp seasons have a similar design (or are at least calculated within class limits) - we might have the same situation.

I'm fine with indirect instanced pvp, as long as it's the minority of pvp you have in the game. Same applies to different types of pve as well.

that was a bit different because you had to fight an opposing player to climb the leaderboard. another player could directly prevent you from winning the game mode. in pve instances, opposing players cant prevent you from beating the game, since they arent even there to begin with, so not a competition. a leaderboard would just give you the illusion that you are competing with another player.

Depraved wrote: »

that was a bit different because you had to fight an opposing player to climb the leaderboard. another player could directly prevent you from winning the game mode. in pve instances, opposing players cant prevent you from beating the game, since they arent even there to begin with, so not a competition. a leaderboard would just give you the illusion that you are competing with another player.

It's all of that included. It is a competition because you're directly competing with other players in your class (hence the leaderboard). You're directly having pvp combat with people, but not necessarily the same ones that you're competing against. And the ones you're fighting can keep you from progressing by defeating you AND the people who you're competing with can do the same, but w/o fighting you (by doing better in their own fights).

It was peak competition for a reason. If we had some pve in there as well - we'd have the best competitive activity ever

huh i didnt say it wasnt T_T

Depraved wrote: »

huh i didnt say it wasnt T_T

My bad, I misread a part of your comment

Instanced PvE could be on a farms-per-period limit, which would kinda accomplish that. Just how Seed of Destruction was in L2's Gracia. So there are still ways to make it more directly competitive, while still not having combat pvp involved.

Mag7spy

Anything can be competitive if players decide it to be. It doesn't mean we need to be finding loop holes to suddenly say its pvp. The essence of pvp is directly fighting other players that can't be twisted....

Mag7spy wrote: »

Anything can be competitive if players decide it to be. It doesn't mean we need to be finding loop holes to suddenly say its pvp. The essence of pvp is directly fighting other players that can't be twisted....

yes but there is a difference between player made pseudo competitions, and dev designed actual competitions. are players an obstacle to beat the encounter, instance, game, etc or not?

Azherae

Can we just use 'non-consensual PvP' since that's the term Steven uses?

I think that's clear enough to everyone, even the people who don't agree with Steven on the terminology.

NiKr wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

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

I'd call it indirect pvp (and shoulda specified this in the previous comment). Or maybe competitive pvp, rather than combatative pvp.

Right, and if people are talking about this, they will specify.

If people are just saying PvP, then both you and I know what is being talked about.

Noaani wrote: »

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

Isn't that what arenas are?

My bad, a letter is wrong above.

It should have been instanced PvE. If you want to define PvP as being "in competition with another player", then a solo PvE instance with a leaderboard would be considered PvP.

In fact, it would be considered mass PvP, as you are in competition with many players at once.

Depraved wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

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.

how is that poor game design? if the goal is to have players make the choice between killing each other for the resource or allying and sharing, then the design is doing what its supposed to be doing...and if the goal is to create wars and alliances, then that should be the direction of the design, and it is going that way.

you are just looking at it in isolation, forgetting the objective of the game, which Is make players decide wether to cooperate and share or fight each other.

and yes, i consider anything that can slow down my progression coming from another player a form of PVP. I'm not trolling or anything. any form of competition is pvp. but ill concede that the majority of people refer to pvp as killing each other.

i started talking about it because I'm curious if pve players just dont want competition or they want competition that doesn't involve killing each other. players would still be competing against one another and someone's progression will be affected, even if they arent fighting each other, so I'm not sure why they necessarily have an issue with fighting, but not other forms of competition.

Explain to me why it is better game design.

Take note, the whole "alliance" thing you are talking about here isn't a factor at all. Literally at all.

If you and I are in a competition over a fishing spot in a game where the best at fishing determines the winner, forming an alliance is an option.

If you and I are in a competition over a fishing spot in a game where PvP determines the winner, forming an alliance is an option.

In both cases, it is a matter of the rest of the design around fishing, not of the design around how the competition at hand is determined.

Thus, the ONLY aspect in discussion here is the method by which a winner is determined if competition is persued.

To reiterate, I am saying it is bad game design that every conflict or competition is determined via the same method - good design would see competition over an activity be determined by who is best at that activity. All other factors (alliances etc) are non-factors in that as they are matters of other, different design choices.

i started talking about it because I'm curious if pve players just dont want competition or they want competition that doesn't involve killing each other.

In my experience (note, this is with top end players in both spheres), PvE players are far more open to competition than PvP players.

The difference is that PvE players aren't as open to interruption.

In my experience, that is the defining point - nothing to do with competition, killing each other, anything like that. It's just about not wanting to be interrupted. This is why PvP arenas in PvE games are as popular (or more popular) than they are in PvP games or on PvP servers. I don't know if it still is, but EQ2's PvP arena was the most active arena I have seen in any game when I played it. There were often more people active in the arena in my guild than there were active in the arena during prime time in Archeages arena on the entire server cluster I was on.

So no, PvE players aren't concerned about competition, or about killing other players - they are concerned about being interrupted. If someone has 2 hours of time online, and has an activity that takes 2 hours to complete, they don't want someone forcing them in to some other activity.

A game that respects player time wouldn't let this happen.

To add to the above, I've seen many PvP players shy away from a competition they weren't 100% sure they would win. In fact, other than set objective PvP, this is how most potential encounters go. If there is scope for an encounter to be avoided, it usually is - because PvP players generally aren't interested in the competition part, just the winning part (there are a handful of exceptions).

So, in my experience, PvE players are more willing to get in to competition with other players, and more willing to kill or be killed - as long as it isn't interrupting an activity they want to be doing.

Dygz

Depraved wrote: »

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

Colloquially, PvP is short for PvP combat.
Technically, PvP is not limited to combat.
Sometimes it is good to clarify which meaning is in use during a specific discussion.

Dygz

Noaani wrote: »

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.

I think that falls under what Steven refers to as Economic Warfare.
And... that is a type of PvP.
I haven't been following this discussion closely enough to know how broadly the term was typically being used in this specific thread but...
Steven wants people playing Ashes to constantly be thinking about and anticipating various forms of PvP; not just PvP combat. Even when choosing which type of bag you bring when out Gathering, Steven wants people to be contemplating Economic Warfare as an aspect of Risk v Reward.

Noaani wrote: »

It should have been instanced PvE. If you want to define PvP as being "in competition with another player", then a solo PvE instance with a leaderboard would be considered PvP.

In fact, it would be considered mass PvP, as you are in competition with many players at once.

L2 had this in 2 ways. One was the thing I mentioned to Depraved and something I've talked about (the limited amounts of boss farms changed its room into smth else for a while), and the other was a more direct pve competition with a leaderboard and server-wide consequences depending on who won.

So I'd definitely be ok with something similar in Ashes. Hell, I'd love it, cause the drama that came from both of those pieces of content was massive. I'd just want it to be a relatively small part of the pve content (namely the 20%).

Dygz wrote: »

I haven't been following this discussionclosely enough to know how broadly the term was typically being used in this specific thread but...

If the discussion is about a fishing spot and how any competition over who gets to fish from it will be resolved via PvP, the context there should suggest that the term "PvP" is being used in the same way it is being used 99% of the time it is used in MMORPG discussions.

If someone were talking about economic PvP, it would almost without fail be talked about as "economic PvP" and not just as "PvP".

NiKr wrote: »

So I'd definitely be ok with something similar in Ashes.

But are you ok calling it PvP content? Because that is the argument being made.

Mag7spy

Guess its a wrap so its pvp content so that means we need more instanced dungeons since that is suddenly considered pvp now.