Is the goal truly PvX?

This is a general question on both how players interpret Intrepid Studio's vision, as well as what players actually desire.

I seem to see a general consensus that PvP is the main focus. But I'm wondering is PvE really even a big part of the game? Sure there are NPC mobs and bosses but their importance seems to be dwarfed by the ability to PvP around them. Most people seem to only want their PvE if it also has PvP.

Rust is a PvP game, just because PvE elements exist in Rust doesn't mean people call it a PvX game.

So is this game PvX? Or is it just a PvP game?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Voxtrium

Noaani wrote: »

I'm curious.

Of the following, which store had the most variation in its product offering.

Shop A has 120 varieties of Kit Kat.

Sop B has 4 varieties of Kit Kat, two Reeces products, Twinkies, Doritos, apples, bananas, two types of hot burritos, four types of cookies, Dr Pepper, Red Bull and four Ben and Jerry's flavors.

The way you are arguing about PvP variety suggests you think shot A has more variety, due simply to the fact that it sells more products that are all technically different.

I am of the opinion that shop B has more variety, because there is a greater difference in its offerings.

An excellent point that I truly think is a matter of opinion in this case. However I will say store 1 isn't just hundreds of varieties, its dozens of individual types, millions of varieties, store 2 is hundreds of types.

PVP has: spells, augments, 64 classes, gear, reactive players, learning players + 1200 km^2 of battle locations.
PVE has: spells, augments, 64 classes, gear, reactive players, + only the locations that these mobs exist in.

reactive being to the content that is going on player to player or player to enemy
learning is players changing the way to play based on the other side, something an enemy will not do outside of base code.

You cannot quantify the number of variations that exist for a player to player interaction, you can for a player to enemy interaction. Your example is excellent you are right, technically the distinction between a PVE battle and a PVP battle can be larger, but they can't provide you but a few dozen truly unique special PVE raids, so yeah PVE might get 100 unique products, but PVP will get 100 unique products and infinite variations.

In this case being unique can be, caravans, guild wars, castle sieges, node sieges, freehold fights, gathering fights, ship battles, underwater fights, dozens other ones, but the point is, you can get so specific inside every single PVP scenario and it changes how it is played because its PVP. for example a siege will literally provide dozens of unique battles inside it.

worddog2

Kubitz2 wrote: »

worddog wrote: »

So is this game PvX? Or is it just a PvP game?

It's a legitimate question and the current YT-content-creator spam about PvE vs. PvP is proof that there are alot of misconceptions on both sides of the spectrum.

I think there is a major misconception in the PvP crowd too.

We agree that AoC will not be a game for PvEers, who grudgingly accept owPvP, but actively avoid PvP whenever possible. You will have to like PvP in a general sense.

However. I don't think it will be a PvP game, with some good PvE content added either. I don't think you can just opt out of PvE except for some dungeon runs(for mats) and some grinding(for progress/gold).

My take on PvX: PvP and PvE content are intertwined in a way that one doesn't go without the other.
As a PvEer, you will have to PvP/play with PvPers to defend yourself/node, while gathering/grinding/dungeoning.
As a PvPer you will have to support your dungeon groups, crafters and gatherers. You will even have to have decent crafting/gathering levels and a good understanding of dungeons yourself.
I hope AoC won't be a game where you can just say: "I do PvP and don't care about the rest".

A lot of the comments in the current YT-discussion are in the vein of:
- "AoC has owPvP, so it's a PvP game. PvX means that you can do some PvE-stuff, if you want to."
- "AoC is PvP focused, so the combat will be designed for those that like competitive hc-PvP."

I don't agree with these statements and think alot of PvPers have interpreted their own wishes into Stevens comments.

The funniest thing would be if so many PvE players joined the game, that they actually ended up making the game PvE lol.

Imagine mayors investing heavily into bounty hunters and the majority of players never going purple.

Mag7spy

worddog wrote: »

Kubitz2 wrote: »

worddog wrote: »

So is this game PvX? Or is it just a PvP game?

It's a legitimate question and the current YT-content-creator spam about PvE vs. PvP is proof that there are alot of misconceptions on both sides of the spectrum.

I think there is a major misconception in the PvP crowd too.

We agree that AoC will not be a game for PvEers, who grudgingly accept owPvP, but actively avoid PvP whenever possible. You will have to like PvP in a general sense.

However. I don't think it will be a PvP game, with some good PvE content added either. I don't think you can just opt out of PvE except for some dungeon runs(for mats) and some grinding(for progress/gold).

My take on PvX: PvP and PvE content are intertwined in a way that one doesn't go without the other.
As a PvEer, you will have to PvP/play with PvPers to defend yourself/node, while gathering/grinding/dungeoning.
As a PvPer you will have to support your dungeon groups, crafters and gatherers. You will even have to have decent crafting/gathering levels and a good understanding of dungeons yourself.
I hope AoC won't be a game where you can just say: "I do PvP and don't care about the rest".

A lot of the comments in the current YT-discussion are in the vein of:
- "AoC has owPvP, so it's a PvP game. PvX means that you can do some PvE-stuff, if you want to."
- "AoC is PvP focused, so the combat will be designed for those that like competitive hc-PvP."

I don't agree with these statements and think alot of PvPers have interpreted their own wishes into Stevens comments.

The funniest thing would be if so many PvE players joined the game, that they actually ended up making the game PvE lol.

Imagine mayors investing heavily into bounty hunters and the majority of players never going purple.

You are incorrect this is a pvx game so those players are pvx players, clearly you seem to be trying to push pve in your post without realizing what ashes is doing with PvX thinking it is some tacked on title like pvp in WoW which is not the chase.

So you say you are not a troll yet you are trying to imagine weird things, funny.

Dygz

NiKr wrote: »

Imo WoW destroyed any potential for a pvx game to survive, because it created and cemented in people's minds the idea of pure duality. You either do pvp or pve. It then reinforced this idea by giving people equal gear by being good at either instead of both.

And this led to people only thinking within that duality. PvErs can never enjoy pvp and PvPers can't do PvE. And after several generations of gamers we have ourselves the current situation, where PvX doesn't mean shit, or, to be more exact, it means that "it's a pvp game that also has pve, but only pvpers can enjoy it".

That was created by EQ and a bunch of other MMORPGs before WoW.

Kubitz2

[/quote]

The funniest thing would be if so many PvE players joined the game, that they actually ended up making the game PvE lol.[/quote]

You actually didn't get my point at all. It doesn't matter how many PvEers join, they won't change the design choices. Imo it also won't matter, how many PvPers will play the game and how loud they express themselfs. It won't be a PvP game either.

Ludullu

Dygz wrote: »

That was created by EQ and a bunch of other MMORPGs before WoW.

Oh, I'm sure that it was, but WoW was the thing that made mmos as popular as possible. Most mmos just copied its designs later on and/or tried to replicate its success w/o really knowing the real reasons for it.

worddog2

Kubitz2 wrote: »

You actually didn't get my point at all. It doesn't matter how many PvEers join, they won't change the design choices. Imo it also won't matter, how many PvPers will play the game and how loud they express themselfs. It won't be a PvP game either.

You didn't get my point.

I was just saying it would be funny if most of the players simply chose not to engage in PvP.

It doesn't matter how the game is designed if players actively chose to ignore PvP.

Imagine everyone just building up nodes and never actually sieging other nodes. And no one ever flagging for PvP or contesting open world content or caravans.

I'm not saying that's gonna happen I'm just pointing out it would be funny.

Noaani

Voxtrium wrote: »

PVP has: spells, augments, 64 classes, gear, reactive players, learning players + 1200 km^2 of battle locations.
PVE has: spells, augments, 64 classes, gear, reactive players, + only the locations that these mobs exist in.

This is incorrect.

PvP is limited buy the classes and gear in the game.

PvE is not.

The funny thing about location, 99% of the time in PvP it doesn't matter. When it does matter, it is usually a really small consideration. Saying it is something that adds variety to PvP is disingenuous, especially when you incorrectly say that PvE is limited by classes and gear.

As to reactive play, for the most part, players are more predicable than top end encounters. Any given class usually only has one way to play it against any other given class. 95% of all players use the same basic strategy.

While PvE can only do what it is scripted to do, there is often more variety in that script than there is in what a player is likely to do.

An example of this is a mob that every 30 seconds may summon any of 5 different sets of adds (all of which require different strategies), or may fire off one of three different AoE's (each of which needs a different counter).This is a fairly low end mob, and every 30 seconds it can do one of 8 different things, and does not always do the thing that is the best for it to do at that point in time.

Players almost never have 8 options that are viable - or at least not 8 options that will require vastly different actions from their opponent.

Now, I fully accept that these things don't apply to PvE in games like BDO, or L2, or Archeage. However, those games don't really have PvE - they have mobs that exist in the game doer the express purpose of encouraging players to fight.

Mag7spy

Noaani wrote: »

Voxtrium wrote: »

PVP has: spells, augments, 64 classes, gear, reactive players, learning players + 1200 km^2 of battle locations.
PVE has: spells, augments, 64 classes, gear, reactive players, + only the locations that these mobs exist in.

This is incorrect.

PvP is limited buy the classes and gear in the game.

PvE is not.

The funny thing about location, 99% of the time in PvP it doesn't matter. When it does matter, it is usually a really small consideration. Saying it is something that adds variety to PvP is disingenuous, especially when you incorrectly say that PvE is limited by classes and gear.

As to reactive play, for the most part, players are more predicable than top end encounters. Any given class usually only has one way to play it against any other given class. 95% of all players use the same basic strategy.

While PvE can only do what it is scripted to do, there is often more variety in that script than there is in what a player is likely to do.

An example of this is a mob that every 30 seconds may summon any of 5 different sets of adds (all of which require different strategies), or may fire off one of three different AoE's (each of which needs a different counter).This is a fairly low end mob, and every 30 seconds it can do one of 8 different things, and does not always do the thing that is the best for it to do at that point in time.

Players almost never have 8 options that are viable - or at least not 8 options that will require vastly different actions from their opponent.

Now, I fully accept that these things don't apply to PvE in games like BDO, or L2, or Archeage. However, those games don't really have PvE - they have mobs that exist in the game doer the express purpose of encouraging players to fight.

PvP is far more difficult than any PvE, End game PvP is far more difficult than any end game pve raid.

The exact same way players adapt to the scripted element of pve content, knowing the challenges, etc. Every time you do it things get easier. Fighting a player that is good will adapt to you and continue to improve.

Not to mention getting more gear in the game as that is also a progression that is only one sided in PvE where it is two sided in PvP.

akabear

PvX .. time commitment wise - > 95% pve / 5% pvp

Vyril

akabear wrote: »

PvX .. time commitment wise - > 95% pve / 5% pvp

I would say 75% PvE / 5% OWPVP / 20% organized PvP is from 3 - 9pm (currently planned)

BlackBrony

Mag7spy wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Voxtrium wrote: »

PVP has: spells, augments, 64 classes, gear, reactive players, learning players + 1200 km^2 of battle locations.
PVE has: spells, augments, 64 classes, gear, reactive players, + only the locations that these mobs exist in.

This is incorrect.

PvP is limited buy the classes and gear in the game.

PvE is not.

The funny thing about location, 99% of the time in PvP it doesn't matter. When it does matter, it is usually a really small consideration. Saying it is something that adds variety to PvP is disingenuous, especially when you incorrectly say that PvE is limited by classes and gear.

As to reactive play, for the most part, players are more predicable than top end encounters. Any given class usually only has one way to play it against any other given class. 95% of all players use the same basic strategy.

While PvE can only do what it is scripted to do, there is often more variety in that script than there is in what a player is likely to do.

An example of this is a mob that every 30 seconds may summon any of 5 different sets of adds (all of which require different strategies), or may fire off one of three different AoE's (each of which needs a different counter).This is a fairly low end mob, and every 30 seconds it can do one of 8 different things, and does not always do the thing that is the best for it to do at that point in time.

Players almost never have 8 options that are viable - or at least not 8 options that will require vastly different actions from their opponent.

Now, I fully accept that these things don't apply to PvE in games like BDO, or L2, or Archeage. However, those games don't really have PvE - they have mobs that exist in the game doer the express purpose of encouraging players to fight.

PvP is far more difficult than any PvE, End game PvP is far more difficult than any end game pve raid.

The exact same way players adapt to the scripted element of pve content, knowing the challenges, etc. Every time you do it things get easier. Fighting a player that is good will adapt to you and continue to improve.

Not to mention getting more gear in the game as that is also a progression that is only one sided in PvE where it is two sided in PvP.

Arguing with Noaani it's an exercise in futility, I wouldn't recommend it.

Mag7spy

BlackBrony wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Voxtrium wrote: »

PVP has: spells, augments, 64 classes, gear, reactive players, learning players + 1200 km^2 of battle locations.
PVE has: spells, augments, 64 classes, gear, reactive players, + only the locations that these mobs exist in.

This is incorrect.

PvP is limited buy the classes and gear in the game.

PvE is not.

The funny thing about location, 99% of the time in PvP it doesn't matter. When it does matter, it is usually a really small consideration. Saying it is something that adds variety to PvP is disingenuous, especially when you incorrectly say that PvE is limited by classes and gear.

As to reactive play, for the most part, players are more predicable than top end encounters. Any given class usually only has one way to play it against any other given class. 95% of all players use the same basic strategy.

While PvE can only do what it is scripted to do, there is often more variety in that script than there is in what a player is likely to do.

An example of this is a mob that every 30 seconds may summon any of 5 different sets of adds (all of which require different strategies), or may fire off one of three different AoE's (each of which needs a different counter).This is a fairly low end mob, and every 30 seconds it can do one of 8 different things, and does not always do the thing that is the best for it to do at that point in time.

Players almost never have 8 options that are viable - or at least not 8 options that will require vastly different actions from their opponent.

Now, I fully accept that these things don't apply to PvE in games like BDO, or L2, or Archeage. However, those games don't really have PvE - they have mobs that exist in the game doer the express purpose of encouraging players to fight.

PvP is far more difficult than any PvE, End game PvP is far more difficult than any end game pve raid.

The exact same way players adapt to the scripted element of pve content, knowing the challenges, etc. Every time you do it things get easier. Fighting a player that is good will adapt to you and continue to improve.

Not to mention getting more gear in the game as that is also a progression that is only one sided in PvE where it is two sided in PvP.

Arguing with Noaani it's an exercise in futility, I wouldn't recommend it.

Im guessing your new, him and I prob have over 100 pages of that...i don't enjoy it tbh.

Noaani

Mag7spy wrote: »

PvP is far more difficult than any PvE, End game PvP is far more difficult than any end game pve raid.

Statistically incorrect.

In end game PvP, the side with the most players is most likely to win.

As such, there is a greater than 50% chance that any one player in a top end PvP fight will be on the winning side.

In top end PvE, that number goes down to single digits, if you want to talk about individual pulls as the resolution we are discussing rather than a full night, the winning percent for players in top end raiding g drops below 1%. Guilds will often spend months on a top end encounter, pulling it dozens of times a night, losing every time.

Then, when they finally get a kill, it is still fairly normal for any subsequent kill attempts to take a dozen or more attempts. It is not unusual to walk away unsuccessfully from a night of attempting a top end encounter that you have already killed, and in good games, they only have a few months of one per week kills before it is no longer top end content.

This means you will spend often 60 or more nights, each night with 25 or more pulls, trying to work out how to kill an encounter that you will then only kill perhaps 10 - 12 times, and will still die to it 10 or more times on subsequent kills.

To say PvP is harder is to say you dont understand top PvE - let alone that you have never participated in it.

Mag7spy

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

PvP is far more difficult than any PvE, End game PvP is far more difficult than any end game pve raid.

Statistically incorrect.

In end game PvP, the side with the most players is most likely to win.

As such, there is a greater than 50% chance that any one player in a top end PvP fight will be on the winning side.

In top end PvE, that number goes down to single digits. Guilds will often spend months on a top end encounter, pulling it dozens of times a night, losing every time.

Then, when they finally get a kill, it is still fairly normal for any subsequent kill attempts to take a dozen or more attempts. It is not unusual to walk away unsuccessfully from a night of attempting a top end encounter that you have already killed.

You are incorrect you need to be doing end game pvp that requires team work and when a game has action combat / hybrid as well that ups the levels compared to previous mmorpgs. (your mention of not knowing what duel for spot on BDO shows you also didn't do end game pvp in that game.)

Knowing mechanics and what to expect takes time, that does not mean they are difficult it simply means you need to spend time figuring it out and once you do it becomes easy, as well as muscle memory knowing and seeing the exact same mechanics. You can spend months trying to win a big pvp fight and never beat certain players due to their skill and knowledge elements, having to spend many more hours to practice and improve. Lets say you are a raising guild and get some better members and maybe you finally beat them, you better bet they will improve and adapt to overcome you.

PvE content does not hold a candle to the tenacity, versatility and growth of players not to mention all the people int he world on the game. Be it small or big changes, you will see more iteration in players than any pve content. The more complex the game and the combat and it is uncountable compared to PvE content.

If you want to make a argument for older tab target mmorpgs not taking much skill that is fair to make that judgement and we can look at the types of pvp combat in those games. Only because you can attempt to say it wans't skill that mattered but gear was the defining answer.

Noaani

Mag7spy wrote: »

Knowing mechanics and what to expect takes time, that does not mean they are difficult it simply means you need to spend time figuring it out and once you do it becomes easy, as well as muscle memory knowing and seeing the exact same mechanics.

Ever wonder why I keep saying I know you have never been involved in top end PvE?

It's because of comments like this.

Low end PvE sees you dealing with the same mechanics, and muscle memory is all it takes once you've killed a mob once and figured it our.

Top end PvE though, that doesn't work. You aren't facing the same mechanics, and muscle memory simply will not get you through.

Your comments also make me think you have never participated in top end PvP. You mentioned about about dueling in BDO - that isnt top end PvP. You also talked about learning from fighting a good player - that isnt top end PvP in an MMO either.

Top end PvP in an MMO is guild or faction based. You dont fight 1 on 1 in top end PvP. If you think you do, then not only do you not know what top end PvE is, but you also dont know what top end PvP is. All you know in regards to top end is your few days at the top end in one shit fighting game - easy to be top 10 when only 30 people are playing.

Ludullu

Noaani wrote: »

To say PvP is harder is to say you dont understand top PvE - let alone that you have never participated in it.

I mean, to me that description sounds like my party trying to kill the enemy party that was holding a spot. The enemy was overgeared so we'd kill ourselves several times against them, but after trying different approaches we might be able to get a win, cause either rng was on our side or the enemy slipped up (which in pve's case would mainly just be ability/mechanic rng being more favorable towards players in a particular run).

And unless the game's pvp balance is completely out of whack, there's usually at least a few parties on the server that can beat yours more often than not (this would be the "when they finally get a kill, it is still fairly normal for any subsequent kill attempts to take a dozen or more attempts" part), especially if there's RPS balancing.

And, just as you said, there's always the potential of the other side bringing in more people, so even if your side is at the very peak of power - you can still get into situations where the odds are against you, while the fight also requires you to be at your best performance.

And the "winning" is always subjective. I don't care that in pvp "a player" has won if I was the loser. To me there's no difference between "a player" winning against me a "a mob", because in both cases I am the one who lost. And until I win against whichever target I chose, there won't be "a win" state.

And it's the same for the other side if they lose. They might've gotten zerged by some huge guild or a boss rng triggered several wipe mechanics one after the other and they didn't manage to avoid them. Both instances would probably feel "unfair". And if the boss doesn't have that kind of rng, that'd mean that it's scripted and it'd be way easier than pvp.

Noaani

NiKr wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

To say PvP is harder is to say you dont understand top PvE - let alone that you have never participated in it.

I mean, to me that description sounds like my party trying to kill the enemy party that was holding a spot. The enemy was overgeared so we'd kill ourselves several times against them, but after trying different approaches we might be able to get a win, cause either rng was on our side or the enemy slipped up (which in pve's case would mainly just be ability/mechanic rng being more favorable towards players in a particular run).

I've had boss encounters that took over 1k attempts to kill the first time ( not many encounters fit this, but it is more than 1 encounter).

What's the most attempts at a single PvP situation you've had?

Then you have to consider that the harder it is for you, the easier it is for the other side. Top end PvP is thus - in aggregate - neutral in difficulty.

Ludullu

Noaani wrote: »

I've had boss encounters that took over 1k attempts to kill the first time ( not many encounters fit this, but it is more than 1 encounter).

What's the most attempts at a single PvP situation you've had?

Then you have to consider that the harder it is for you, the easier it is for the other side. Top end PvP is thus - in aggregate - neutral in difficulty.

I've had people that I could literally never beat. No matter how stronger I became at my class, they always found a way to beat me. And I've had several guilds that managed to wipe my own w/o any issues each time we fought each other, be it at party vs party lvl or full GvG. And both of those cases were across months of gameplay, with at least several daily encounters and dozens of such encounters during sieges every week.

And I've seen people quit the game because they felt like fighting those guilds was useless due to them being way too strong. And even after we joined up with a few other guilds, we still couldn't beat our enemies fully, though we did get closer. Those enemies were pretty much the strongest guild on the server, so in terms of "quality" of pvp, I'd say that we were going up against the best possible pvp content on that server.

Have there been cases where people stopped playing the game, or at least attempting the boss, during those 1k tries? I'd assume there must've been at least someone who had lost all hope. Cause if not, I'd say we were going up against worse odds

Ludullu

Noaani wrote: »

Then you have to consider that the harder it is for you, the easier it is for the other side. Top end PvP is thus - in aggregate - neutral in difficulty.

Like I said, winning is subjective. I don't care for the aggregate, because if we were to take the aggregate - that boss saw you as the easiest content around. It's just that you don't respect AI rights

Child Item