NiKr wrote: » Nerror wrote: » 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. GW's community seems to have decided on the term in late 00s
Nerror wrote: » 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.
Nerror wrote: » don't see it being worth it unless those crops are suuuuper rare and expensive. And if they are, only dumb people will pick them unprotected.
Azherae wrote: » You know that I don't believe in Ashes' balancing for any of this yet. Ashes isn't even on a spectrum for me, it's just nonsensical. You can't stack stuff on top of Ashes' design (as of the Freehold change/clarification) and reach a point where I am satisfied. That shift marked a point where Ashes PvX stopped making sense to me, and no amount of band-aids are gonna fix it. I'm basically saying, let's discuss other games that don't have the issue to begin with. Where 'the issue' is 'the current Corruption system'.
NiKr wrote: » Azherae wrote: » You know that I don't believe in Ashes' balancing for any of this yet. Ashes isn't even on a spectrum for me, it's just nonsensical. You can't stack stuff on top of Ashes' design (as of the Freehold change/clarification) and reach a point where I am satisfied. That shift marked a point where Ashes PvX stopped making sense to me, and no amount of band-aids are gonna fix it. I'm basically saying, let's discuss other games that don't have the issue to begin with. Where 'the issue' is 'the current Corruption system'. I personally don't see the corruption system as the issue for this particular context, and rather the loot on death as one. Which is why I'm trying to address that part, by using the preexisting systems. You gave the example of "both sides need particular tools to execute this activity". What if we had "stolen goods" bags in Ashes? And you needed high quality bags for high quality goods (I'm assuming here that majority of farm raids would happen against high quality stuff, though not exclusively of course). And said bags could be acquired through the Highwayman system, which in turn requires successful caravan assaults and all that. In other words, the gatherer would've put crazy time/effort/money into their farm (leveling profession, getting FH, getting seeds, etc), while the thief would be required to go through their own expenditures to be able to steal shit. And then the stolen goods bag could be the thing that drops from the criminal and we've come full circle. And this would also put yet another cost on the thief side, cause they'd need to get another bag to repeat their activity. I find it kinda useless to try and discuss games w/o the corruption system, cause, unless Steven removes it - Ashes simply won't be able to be like those games, as you yourself have said multiple times in the past.
Nerror wrote: » 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.
Azherae wrote: » There are nearly no current situations where shooting down another 'Green' player's ship has any real benefit to you other than to remove them as a threat.
Azherae wrote: » Adding 'Stolen goods' bags and 'Black Markets'... I think I'd be okay with it if, by putting stuff in your Stolen Goods bag, you could somehow become permaflagged at LEAST to the person whose stuff you took, but even this won't match the PvX I'm talking about. I'd say 'making Thieves bring special tools' is about as effective as Corruption, if we can't identify 'people with those tools' beforehand (for example in Elite, just attempting to attach the Hatch Breaker to a 'green' player gets a bounty and the police are on their way long before you even get anything).
NiKr wrote: » You've been tracking different data in TL. By how much does a region's activity rises when it turn into a pvp location? In other words, how willing are the players to pvp in a place where they weren't pvping before, in a current-times game.
Azherae wrote: » Riftstone/Boonstone fights though, are very popular (these are territory control battles fought by guilds).
Dygz wrote: » So, yes, if my Freehold was always safe, there would be times I would be in the mood to defend other Freeholds. If PvP is an expected part of trying to harvest crops - that is too PvP-centric for me and I will just play a different MMORPG where I don't have to constantly be thinking about PvP. I would hope we're at a point -with UE5- where we could be growing crops on some form Open World Freehold/Farmstead instead of an (Instanced?) apartment.
Aszkalon wrote: » Dygz wrote: » So, yes, if my Freehold was always safe, there would be times I would be in the mood to defend other Freeholds. If PvP is an expected part of trying to harvest crops - that is too PvP-centric for me and I will just play a different MMORPG where I don't have to constantly be thinking about PvP. I would hope we're at a point -with UE5- where we could be growing crops on some form Open World Freehold/Farmstead instead of an (Instanced?) apartment. R~IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT. Since Freeholds are "open" in the Open World - People can just go there and steal your Crops, butcher your Animals and haul axx without anyone stopping them, right ? I guess we can not just have a "magical Barrier" or so around the Freehold ? x'D That lets only People in you allow to come on the Estate ?
Nerror wrote: » Noaani wrote: » 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.
Noaani wrote: » 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.
Dygz wrote: » What Does PvX Mean?Player versus anything.
Noaani wrote: » Dygz wrote: » What Does PvX Mean?Player versus anything. 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?
Noaani wrote: » 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?
NiKr wrote: » Noaani wrote: » 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" ).
Azherae wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Noaani wrote: » 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!"
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
Azherae wrote: » 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'.
NiKr wrote: » Azherae wrote: » 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".
