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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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....
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?
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.
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.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
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.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
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.
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%).
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".
But are you ok calling it PvP content? Because that is the argument being made.
Like I said, I wish people used more detailed terms, but they won't so I know that we'll just keep using "pvp" for when we mean "punch player face".
To me anything that's a competition against a player is pvp, because I like looking at the whole picture of the process. All of it is on a spectrum, and all that.
Though I do agree with Depraved's point that it's difficult to call an unlimited instanced pve a competition. It could be argued that if this pve provides best possible gear, which could then be used to prevent others from some final progress in the game - it is in a way competition. But that would be a bit too much abstraction even for me.
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.
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.
but not every conflict is resolved the same way...
simple example, do you know how many times I won farming spots in l2 simply because iw as faster at killing mobs so the other person had to leave? i won because I was better at pve than the other dude. we didn't have to fight for it. I've lost spots the same way.
you could kill bosses before your enemies come by getting there first and using a good pve build. could do the same thing in the multiple parties instances steven talked about. be better at pve, beat the boss first.
if we are fighting over a fishing spot..you probably wont pk me since there will be other people around, so whoever is better at fishing, will win. and if we are both alone, then there isn't really any reason for us to fight over the spot. you take one side and I take the other. don't even have to compete
etc
etc
etc
edit: we can say the opposite eas well. why would the victor in a PVP combat be determined mostly by that player's ability to do pve. if pve conflict should be won by your pve skills, PVP conflict should be won by your pvp skills. but we both agree that gear obtained through pve and other stuff you get doing pve should affect your pvp. basically every pvp conflict will be solved mostly by your ability to do pve. no levels, no gear, no augments, no gemz = no winning. so if we can agree that's fine, then why you disagree that pve conflict cant be won by your ability to do pvp?
edit2: its good design, or rather implementation of the design, since it goes in the direction of the intention. back to vanilla and chocolate again. chocolate is good, but dont add it to a vanilla cake. just make a separate chocolate cake.
It could be argued that if this pve provides best possible gear, which could then be used to prevent others from some final progress in the game - it is in a way competition. But that would be a bit too much abstraction even for me.
That is literally EQ2 you are talking about.
If Depraved wants to consider any situation in which a player can prevent your progress to be PvP by definition, then EQ2 is inherently a PvP game.
simple example, do you know how many times I won farming spots in l2 simply because iw as faster at killing mobs so the other person had to leave?
The actual and honest answer is zero.
You got the spot because the other player wasn't confident in being able to beat you in PvP (by PvP I mean players fighting each other using the games combat system until one of them is dead - since you seem to need clarification as to what the term PvP means).
Every conflict in the entire history of L2 had the PvP aspect considered. People don't leave a spot because you are out harvesting them, they leave because they don't want the fight.
Your vanilla chocolate cake example is backwards.
In order to be a successful fisher in Ashes, you need to be chocolate (fishing) and vanilla (PvP, and by PvP I mean players fighting each other using the games combat system until one of them is dead - since you seem to need clarification as to what the term PvP means).
The problem with Ashes (using that cake analogy), is that everything in the shop is actually vanilla. The chocolate cake is looks like chocolate on the outside, but it's actually just vanilla. A jam donut may look full of berry filling, but actually, on the inside it's just vanilla. Perhaps they make a really nice looking sourdough loaf - but on the inside it is again, just vanilla.
Obviously, if you were going out to buy a loaf of sourdough bread, you would want it to taste like sourdough, not vanilla.
Likewise, if you are entering in to a competition over a fishing location in a game, most people would want that competition to be resolved via fishing, not via PvP (by PvP I mean players fighting each other using the games combat system until one of them is dead - since you seem to need clarification as to what the term PvP means). As long as PvP is an option, it remains the top tier option and if someone loses the fishing aspect but feels they can win in a PvP competition, a PvP competition will happen.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
how is it non consensual if you logged into an open world PVP game with no safe zones?xD
In the original Ashes design, throughout the entire map - non-consensual PvP could be punished by giving your killers Corruption.
With that ruleset, you do not really give consent just by playing the game.
With the addition of large permanent areas on the map that auto-flag Corruption-free PvP, that, to me, makes Ashes auto-consent just by choosing to play the game.
Which is why I'm no longer really interested in actually playing Ashes - beyond hanging out with friends.
(I don't log into Open World PvP MMORPGs. Steven will say that Ashes is an Open World PvX game.)
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.
This is 100% true - but in the absence of clarification, PvP combat should always be assumed.
If someone is talking about economic PvP, or political/social PvP, they would usually specify this. If someone is talking about bashing faces with fists in game, they will just call it PvP. It is indecorous to assume otherwise.
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited April 8
It should not always be assumed. It's just very frequently the case that PvP is being used to mean PvP combat.
Frequently enough that if you do assume it means PvP combat, you will be correct the vast majority of the time.
Your (false) assumptions are why I have you on ignore and only very rarely open up your posts - in order to prevent 10+ pages of you arguing with me about something I didn't actually say, but you assumed I meant.
It should not always be assumed. It's just very frequently the case that PvP is being used to mean PvP combat.
Frequently enough that if you do assume it means PvP combat, you will be correct the vast majority of the time.
Your (false) assumptions are why I have you on ignore and only very rarely open up your posts - in order to prevent 10+ pages of you arguing with me about something I didn't actually say, but you assumed I meant.
If someone is talking about non-combat PvP and uses the term "PvP" without clarification or context, any misunderstanding is on that person, not on the person that makes the assumption that PvP refers to combat based PvP.
If you disagree with this basic point, feel free to point us all to where you have asked Steven for clarification as to what he means when he talks about PvP - have you been making this same assumption with what he talks about?
I feel it also worth pointing out to you that in the context of this discussion,there is enough context behind the use of the term PvP to fully understand the meaning.
simple example, do you know how many times I won farming spots in l2 simply because iw as faster at killing mobs so the other person had to leave?
The actual and honest answer is zero.
You got the spot because the other player wasn't confident in being able to beat you in PvP (by PvP I mean players fighting each other using the games combat system until one of them is dead - since you seem to need clarification as to what the term PvP means).
Every conflict in the entire history of L2 had the PvP aspect considered. People don't leave a spot because you are out harvesting them, they leave because they don't want the fight.
Your vanilla chocolate cake example is backwards.
In order to be a successful fisher in Ashes, you need to be chocolate (fishing) and vanilla (PvP, and by PvP I mean players fighting each other using the games combat system until one of them is dead - since you seem to need clarification as to what the term PvP means).
The problem with Ashes (using that cake analogy), is that everything in the shop is actually vanilla. The chocolate cake is looks like chocolate on the outside, but it's actually just vanilla. A jam donut may look full of berry filling, but actually, on the inside it's just vanilla. Perhaps they make a really nice looking sourdough loaf - but on the inside it is again, just vanilla.
Obviously, if you were going out to buy a loaf of sourdough bread, you would want it to taste like sourdough, not vanilla.
Likewise, if you are entering in to a competition over a fishing location in a game, most people would want that competition to be resolved via fishing, not via PvP (by PvP I mean players fighting each other using the games combat system until one of them is dead - since you seem to need clarification as to what the term PvP means). As long as PvP is an option, it remains the top tier option and if someone loses the fishing aspect but feels they can win in a PvP competition, a PvP competition will happen.
u got the cakes analogy wrong. what I meant by that is you need to focus on catering your target audience, and your design should go into that direction, instead of adding things that arent for your target audience. in this case, the target audience is people who like to resolve conflicts through pvp, not pve.
anyways I like how you assumed things. not everybody in l2 pvped. its a PVP game but you spend 95% of your time doing pve T_T
anyways. you might be right when you say that they didn't wanna fight me, but not because they weren't going to kill me, some people didn't fight because even if they won, someone else could finish them off. so by avoiding the fight, you literally have to win the spot by being better at pve. I've even won spot 1 vs 2 that way.
I've left spots that way, not because I cant kill the other person, but because I might have to go red, or someone else could finish me off after I win the PVP.
also, sometimes one person actually attacks the other person, signaling they want to pvp for the spot. plenty of times they just leave for another spot when they realize the person being attacked didn't wanna pvp so your theory of not attacking because they weren't confident in winning doesn't apply anymore. in this case, you have to be better at pve or just leave, which happened all the time. some people win spots by karma bombing too...
also, you didn't answer my edit. why are you ok with pve contributing into solving a PVP conflict, but you arent ok with pvp solving a pve conflict?
and yes, I agree, if you enter a fishing competition, the winner should be determined by who is better at fishing, in a pve game...except, ashes hasn't isn't a pve game and hasn't given us a fishing competition and then asked us to pvp for it. read what I wrote about the fishing spots. it applies to raiding too. doesn't matter if my party kills yours, we cant beat the boss if we don't have the set up for it. we still need to be able to kill it. people in ashes fight over the opportunity of doing things, but when it comes to doing that thing, you need to be good at doing that thing. if I killed you at your fishing spot and I didn't even pick fishing as my profession, what I'm I winning? what if you are a t5 fisherman and I'm t1, I'm still not winning. what if you are level 30 and I'm 20 nd somehow I kill you, I still cant kill level 30 mobs
the winning condition is still win at pve, players are just another obstacle (or an ally).
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.
Generally speaking I think if everyone just agreed to Steven's definitions at face value, half the posts on this forum would never happen. From PvX to risk vs reward to battlegrounds (caravan pvp) etc. A lot of time is spent discussing the semantics of pvp and pvx and pve.
Comments
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
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.
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.
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 was peak competition for a reason. If we had some pve in there as well - we'd have the best competitive activity ever
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.
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?
I think that's clear enough to everyone, even the people who don't agree with Steven on the terminology.
If people are just saying PvP, then both you and I know what is being talked about.
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.
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.
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.
Technically, PvP is not limited to combat.
Sometimes it is good to clarify which meaning is in use during a specific discussion.
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.
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%).
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".
But are you ok calling it PvP content? Because that is the argument being made.
To me anything that's a competition against a player is pvp, because I like looking at the whole picture of the process. All of it is on a spectrum, and all that.
Though I do agree with Depraved's point that it's difficult to call an unlimited instanced pve a competition. It could be argued that if this pve provides best possible gear, which could then be used to prevent others from some final progress in the game - it is in a way competition. But that would be a bit too much abstraction even for me.
But PvP will move the World.
how is it non consensual if you logged into an open world PVP game with no safe zones?xD
but not every conflict is resolved the same way...
simple example, do you know how many times I won farming spots in l2 simply because iw as faster at killing mobs so the other person had to leave? i won because I was better at pve than the other dude. we didn't have to fight for it. I've lost spots the same way.
you could kill bosses before your enemies come by getting there first and using a good pve build. could do the same thing in the multiple parties instances steven talked about. be better at pve, beat the boss first.
if we are fighting over a fishing spot..you probably wont pk me since there will be other people around, so whoever is better at fishing, will win. and if we are both alone, then there isn't really any reason for us to fight over the spot. you take one side and I take the other. don't even have to compete
etc
etc
etc
edit: we can say the opposite eas well. why would the victor in a PVP combat be determined mostly by that player's ability to do pve. if pve conflict should be won by your pve skills, PVP conflict should be won by your pvp skills. but we both agree that gear obtained through pve and other stuff you get doing pve should affect your pvp. basically every pvp conflict will be solved mostly by your ability to do pve. no levels, no gear, no augments, no gemz = no winning. so if we can agree that's fine, then why you disagree that pve conflict cant be won by your ability to do pvp?
edit2: its good design, or rather implementation of the design, since it goes in the direction of the intention. back to vanilla and chocolate again. chocolate is good, but dont add it to a vanilla cake. just make a separate chocolate cake.
That is literally EQ2 you are talking about.
If Depraved wants to consider any situation in which a player can prevent your progress to be PvP by definition, then EQ2 is inherently a PvP game.
I agree with you in that it is not.
You got the spot because the other player wasn't confident in being able to beat you in PvP (by PvP I mean players fighting each other using the games combat system until one of them is dead - since you seem to need clarification as to what the term PvP means).
Every conflict in the entire history of L2 had the PvP aspect considered. People don't leave a spot because you are out harvesting them, they leave because they don't want the fight.
Your vanilla chocolate cake example is backwards.
In order to be a successful fisher in Ashes, you need to be chocolate (fishing) and vanilla (PvP, and by PvP I mean players fighting each other using the games combat system until one of them is dead - since you seem to need clarification as to what the term PvP means).
The problem with Ashes (using that cake analogy), is that everything in the shop is actually vanilla. The chocolate cake is looks like chocolate on the outside, but it's actually just vanilla. A jam donut may look full of berry filling, but actually, on the inside it's just vanilla. Perhaps they make a really nice looking sourdough loaf - but on the inside it is again, just vanilla.
Obviously, if you were going out to buy a loaf of sourdough bread, you would want it to taste like sourdough, not vanilla.
Likewise, if you are entering in to a competition over a fishing location in a game, most people would want that competition to be resolved via fishing, not via PvP (by PvP I mean players fighting each other using the games combat system until one of them is dead - since you seem to need clarification as to what the term PvP means). As long as PvP is an option, it remains the top tier option and if someone loses the fishing aspect but feels they can win in a PvP competition, a PvP competition will happen.
With that ruleset, you do not really give consent just by playing the game.
With the addition of large permanent areas on the map that auto-flag Corruption-free PvP, that, to me, makes Ashes auto-consent just by choosing to play the game.
Which is why I'm no longer really interested in actually playing Ashes - beyond hanging out with friends.
(I don't log into Open World PvP MMORPGs. Steven will say that Ashes is an Open World PvX game.)
This is 100% true - but in the absence of clarification, PvP combat should always be assumed.
If someone is talking about economic PvP, or political/social PvP, they would usually specify this. If someone is talking about bashing faces with fists in game, they will just call it PvP. It is indecorous to assume otherwise.
Frequently enough that if you do assume it means PvP combat, you will be correct the vast majority of the time.
Your (false) assumptions are why I have you on ignore and only very rarely open up your posts - in order to prevent 10+ pages of you arguing with me about something I didn't actually say, but you assumed I meant.
If someone is talking about non-combat PvP and uses the term "PvP" without clarification or context, any misunderstanding is on that person, not on the person that makes the assumption that PvP refers to combat based PvP.
If you disagree with this basic point, feel free to point us all to where you have asked Steven for clarification as to what he means when he talks about PvP - have you been making this same assumption with what he talks about?
I feel it also worth pointing out to you that in the context of this discussion,there is enough context behind the use of the term PvP to fully understand the meaning.
u got the cakes analogy wrong. what I meant by that is you need to focus on catering your target audience, and your design should go into that direction, instead of adding things that arent for your target audience. in this case, the target audience is people who like to resolve conflicts through pvp, not pve.
anyways I like how you assumed things. not everybody in l2 pvped. its a PVP game but you spend 95% of your time doing pve T_T
anyways. you might be right when you say that they didn't wanna fight me, but not because they weren't going to kill me, some people didn't fight because even if they won, someone else could finish them off. so by avoiding the fight, you literally have to win the spot by being better at pve. I've even won spot 1 vs 2 that way.
I've left spots that way, not because I cant kill the other person, but because I might have to go red, or someone else could finish me off after I win the PVP.
also, sometimes one person actually attacks the other person, signaling they want to pvp for the spot. plenty of times they just leave for another spot when they realize the person being attacked didn't wanna pvp so your theory of not attacking because they weren't confident in winning doesn't apply anymore. in this case, you have to be better at pve or just leave, which happened all the time. some people win spots by karma bombing too...
also, you didn't answer my edit. why are you ok with pve contributing into solving a PVP conflict, but you arent ok with pvp solving a pve conflict?
and yes, I agree, if you enter a fishing competition, the winner should be determined by who is better at fishing, in a pve game...except, ashes hasn't isn't a pve game and hasn't given us a fishing competition and then asked us to pvp for it. read what I wrote about the fishing spots. it applies to raiding too. doesn't matter if my party kills yours, we cant beat the boss if we don't have the set up for it. we still need to be able to kill it. people in ashes fight over the opportunity of doing things, but when it comes to doing that thing, you need to be good at doing that thing. if I killed you at your fishing spot and I didn't even pick fishing as my profession, what I'm I winning? what if you are a t5 fisherman and I'm t1, I'm still not winning. what if you are level 30 and I'm 20 nd somehow I kill you, I still cant kill level 30 mobs
the winning condition is still win at pve, players are just another obstacle (or an ally).
Generally speaking I think if everyone just agreed to Steven's definitions at face value, half the posts on this forum would never happen.