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

Kubitz2

Dygz wrote: »

Nope. Revenge does not interest me at all.

I'm not vengeful either, but I would feel satisfied. There's a criminal (griefer), who stole something from a neighbor/fellow citizen of my node (profited from harming someone elses game). I support game mechanics that enable me to discourage that playstyle. Call it community service/positive social interaction/discouraging toxic gameplay or whatever. You can call it roleplay, since you call yourself a RPer.

Dygz wrote: »

I dunno what would be enticing me to give chase.

To establish law and order in your nodes ZoI? To help someone get back his ressources, which where non-consensually taken from him? Strengthening your nodes community/guild community? Getting paid for doing it? Roleplaying? Or maybe just making griefing less profitable and getting toxic game destroyers to chose another game, where that is easier.

Dygz wrote: »

People cheering me on in chat would be irrelevant.

Well, I like positive social interaction in an mmo. But that's just me.

If anyone says, that killing someone, who just killed one of mine, or cheering someone on doing that, is griefing, then i beg to differ.

Dygz wrote: »

None of what you described appeals to my playstyle.

Your answer feels really dismissive. Like alot of things AoC related you commented lately. I really thought, it would be a narrative you could get behind.

Quote Dygz: "I like the Idea of defending and building my city....wether I'm defending it from mobs, or environmental disasters, or from other players"
Isn't defending the area and the gatherers that collect ressources(contribute to growing the city) part of that. I'd say killing/chasing PKers, so that the gatherers feel safer is.

Quote Dygz: " ...if I could choose the asthetics of my towns I might be doing more PvP in New World...that's the kind of PvP that is meaningful to me..."
That wasn't in the example, but you can easyly add it. Your race xy guild gatherer got killed. You can actually influence the building style by defending a certain race, that colllects experience for your node.

Quote Dygz: "...but I don't wanna be involved with PvP all the time and I abhor being autoflagged."
You'd probably mostly be gathering yourself and you wouldn't be autoflagged in your nodes ZoI.

It's kind of confusing to me, when you say those things (2-3 days ago on his podcast/free add yw) and then state none of what I said appeals to your playstyle. The only difference I see, is that all you mentioned could be done as a solo player, or as a solo player with other humans around you, but no real interaction except throwing spells at each other. I'm starting to think, that it's not really the PvP you're on about, but the slim chance, that anyone affects your game in any way, but the way you want/allow them to and benefits you.

Dygz

Kubitz2 wrote: »

I'm not vengeful either, but I would feel satisfied. There's a criminal (griefer), who stole something from a neighbor/fellow citizen of my node (profited from harming someone elses game). I support game mechanics that enable me to discourage that playstyle. Call it community service/positive social interaction/discouraging toxic gameplay or whatever. You can call it roleplay, since you call yourself a RPer.

None of that appeals to me. Not even from an RP perspective.
I don't play RPGs to PvP and, I'm not particularly interested in hunting down NPC "criminals" either.
I have 0 interest in game mechanics that try to get players to discourage toxic gameplay.
Game mechanics should just prevent that type of gameplay.
Corruption might work to sufficiently discourage that toxic behavior, but I would have to test that to know.

Kubitz2 wrote: »

To establish law and order in your nodes ZoI? To help someone get back his resources, which where non-consensually taken from him? Strengthening your nodes community/guild community? Getting paid for doing it? Roleplaying? Or maybe just making griefing less profitable and getting toxic game destroyers to chose another game, where that is easier.

I would not chase players to establish law and order.
I have zero interest in pursuing players to try to retrieve items from them.
There should be other ways to strengthen Node and Guild communities besides chasing down other players.
Payment is not a strong motivator for me in RPGs. I play RPGs to experience a protagonists life in fantasy/sci-fi novels and those plots are rarely about the protagonist striving to get paid. Gandalf isn't really trying to hunt people down for payment.
I would rather play a game where the game mechanics don't allow griefing - and for me griefing is primarily non-consensual PvP.
I would rather choose to play a different game that doesn't allow griefing than try to push griefers out of a game that allows griefing.

Kubitz2 wrote: »

Well, I like positive social interaction in an mmo. But that's just me.

I like positive social interaction in MMORPGs, too.
That has nothing to do with PvP or egging people on while they PvP.
PvP really has nothing to do with being social in my view.

Does remind me of when I was a kid.
Some dude on the bus apparently insulted me and my older brother was telling me to kick his ass.
I was all, "Why?"
My brother said, "Because he insulted you so you have to kick his ass."
I was all, "But... I don't care."
My brother said, "If you don't kick his ass, I'm going to kick your ass."

Kubitz2 wrote: »

If anyone says, that killing someone, who just killed one of mine, or cheering someone on doing that, is griefing, then i beg to differ.

That sounds like mafia and feud mentality.
I don't think anyone would call that griefing.
I understand that PvPers love that motivation loop.
It's not gameplay that appeals to me.

Kubitz2 wrote: »

Your answer feels really dismissive. Like a lot of things AoC related you commented lately. I really thought, it would be a narrative you could get behind.

I'd say that's an odd use of the word "dismissive".
Maybe if my only response was "LMFAO", I might agree that is dismissive.
Instead I informed you that none of what you've suggested appeals to my playstyle.
None of what you suggested is a form of PvP that enjoy.

Kubitz2 wrote: »

Isn't defending the area and the gatherers that collect resources (contribute to growing the city) part of that. I'd say killing/chasing PKers, so that the gatherers feel safer is.

Defending an area could be a form of PvP I would like, but not in the scenarios you've suggested. And being auto-flagged in the area would still be a deal-breaker, but...

If depleting an area of resources could result in a catastrophic Event, I might be motivated to kill players who continue to deplete that region despite my admonishments to stop. Not because I care about the PvP, but because PvP might be necessary to prevent the regional catastrophe. That would still be a last resort.
Similarly, I might be motivated to reclaim an object from an enemy lair - but that would be about a place; not a player. And, that might involve some PvP, but it would still need to be with Non-Combatant as the default mode and Corruption in play.
Or a temporary scenario, like a Siege, rather than a permanent scenario, like the Open Seas.

Again, I understand that killing PKers is a fun motivator for PvPers.
It just has no appeal for me. It's not a form of PvP I enjoy.

Kubitz2 wrote: »

Your race xy guild gatherer got killed. You can actually influence the building style by defending a certain race, that collects experience for your node.

The form of PvP I enjoy is already part of the Ashes of Creation Node Siege design.
It includes racial architecture as a motivator. That does appeal to me.
Protecting a gatherer from getting killed really has nothing to do with that.
Definitely has nothing to do with auto-flagging in the Open Seas.

Kubitz2 wrote: »

You'd probably mostly be gathering yourself and you wouldn't be auto-flagged in your nodes ZoI.

The issue is that players will be auto-flagged in the Open Seas.
That is a deal-breaker for me.

Kubitz2 wrote: »

It's kind of confusing to me, when you say those things (2-3 days ago on his podcast/free add yw) and then state none of what I said appeals to your playstyle. The only difference I see, is that all you mentioned could be done as a solo player, or as a solo player with other humans around you, but no real interaction except throwing spells at each other. I'm starting to think, that it's not really the PvP you're on about, but the slim chance, that anyone affects your game in any way, but the way you want/allow them to and benefits you.

Right. Again. I understand that it's confusing to PvPers.
I've been having these discussions with PvPers and PvEers ever since EQNext chose to exclude PvE-Only servers from its design 9 years ago.
It's common for PvPers to not understand the needs of non-PvPers and for non-PvPers to not understand the needs of PvPers.
It's challenging to get players who typically play on PvE-Only servers to play a game with PvP that does not have a PvE-Only server - precisely because these two playstyles also have opposing perspectives about gameplay.
PvPers hope that Corruption will solve that challenge. Sure.
But, Corruption can't solve the challenge if the game includes permanent zones without Corruption.

The difference in your scenarios has very little to do with solo play v group play.
The difference is that I enjoy objective-based PvP, where I am really focused on completing the objectives. I'm not really interested in the actual combat.
My Bartle Score is Explorer 87%; Socializer 73% ; Achiever 47%; Killer 0%
While the 0% Killer rating is not completely accurate, it's a fairly decent measure of what interests me in RPGs. I kill sometimes. But it is the very least of my interests.
Combat is the least of my interests. I typically use Social Skills in D&D to avoid combat. PvP combat is the very least of my interests, but... when I am interested, I'm usually focused on very specific objectives that don't involve killing.
I'm a carebear, so the scenarios you suggested just aren't going to be motivators for me. You're trying to convince a pacifist to fight. And, while it's not impossible to find scenarios where I will be motivated to fight, it's not going to be over stuff that easily motivate PvPers.

What I've been hoping for group play is that augments will allow us to synergize our attacks with the attacks of other players in the group, so... I have been quite eager for player interaction. I'm not particularly interested in "player interaction" with enemies in PvP combat, but I have been intrigued by the defense of Caravans and Sieges and opportunities to synergize my abilities with the abilities of other player defenders to do so.
Doesn't necessarily matter whether that defense is vs mobs or players or environmental catastrophes, but...
The game having a permanent zone that auto-flags as a Combatant would still be a deal-breaker because I am an explorer first and foremeost - who only enjoys PvP sometimes. Which means I would need to be exploring the Open Seas primarily as a Non-Combatant.

VekoKrava

worddog wrote: »

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?

I think it will all be fine, I played WoW for many years and I played WoW when there were PVP servers. Even then people did not attack on sight because they were not in a mood to attack, they just choose PVP to have fight from time to time.

People will be selfish and they won't attack everyone because then they would not be able to play questing/gathering/PvE. If you are purple that does not mean you have to PVP everyone. Trust me it will be fine, only hard core PVPers will attack everyone on sight.

Kubitz2

You are dismissing even the slightest chance, that a situation like that could fit into the definition of appealing gameplay, you yourself defined.(objective driven gameplay/city progress/node defence/etc)

Dygz wrote: »

None of what you described appeals to my playstyle.

Dygz wrote: »

None of what you suggested is a form of PvP that enjoy.

There are many ways the situation could occur in node conflicts, or land depletion/field boss situations. How about that situation suggested in the last developer update. The mayor gives the order to gather the invasive weed before it takes over and something really bad happens.
Or a neighbor node sends players to kill lumberjacks, so they can't finish the gathering quest your node needs to progress. BAM, their node grows and yours is blocked.

Dygz wrote: »

Protecting a gatherer from getting killed really has nothing to do with that.(cultural buildings)

Of course it has. Everything you do in your node's ZoI, like gathering, gathering quests, town quests, etc contributes to the progress of the node. The race of those that contributes most determins the style of the buildings. So if you send out a group of questers/gatherers of a certain race(like guildies from your tulnar guild), it would further your goal to protect them from PKers.

I could fantasize of more examples, but you will find ways to dismiss them anyways. The point is, I can find as many ways to make it fit, as you can to say it doesn't. Flatly dismissing it, just suggests a general unwillingness.

Comparing the situation to the mafia and especially to egging someone on to physically harm someone is really a lowblow. I don't even know what to say to that. I was talking about punishing someone, who did something, that you strongly condemn yourself. I'm sorry, if you have been bullied in your childhood, but please don't suggest, that I fit into that category, or that I'm like your brother. I'm sorry, you have a brother like that. If I'm supporting someone, to punish a corrupted player, I'm supporting a game mechanic, that is designed to minimize toxic behaviour. Mafia....really?
I will try to be more sensible though, regarding your bullying experiences. But please don't compare everyone, who likes any kind of PvP to bullies, toxic griefers or hc PvPers.

Dygz wrote: »

It's common for PvPers to not understand the needs of non-PvPers and for non-PvPers to not understand the needs of PvPers.

The confusing part, is not that I don't understand PvPers or the needs of PvEers, but that you constantly contradict yourself sometimes, even in the same post. You talk about EQN, a game that promised alot and delivered even less than Pantheon, and T&L, a game we know even less about than AoC, to explain the game design you like. Didn't T&L already announce a non-consensual autoflagging mechanic with a free night time gank-fest? I suppose it's optional if you stay in the city.

Dygz wrote: »

PvEers are more likely to continue playing Throne and Liberty than Ashes of Creation.
Based on the current game designs.

Really? You get that from that one dev quote? Do you know anything about, how PvE will feel in AoC? You're even not just talking about you but PvEers in general. Ah.....right you understand the needs of PvEers.

Dygz wrote: »

Or a temporary scenario, like a Siege, rather than a permanent scenario, like the Open Seas....Definitely has nothing to do with auto-flagging in the Open Seas....The issue is that players will be auto-flagged in the Open Seas...That is a deal-breaker for me...

What is your obsession with the open sea? I never mentioned it anywhere and nothing I talked about has anything to do with permanent PvP zones or autoflagging.
And yes.....I think being ok with caravans and sieges because they are temporary and the open seas being a deal-breaker is contradictory. I'm still getting autoflagged when I accidentally pass a caravan and can be non-consensually PKed and the content of just watching a siege while it happens is blocked to me because I can't just spectate. How is it possible that you can't construct an objective for yourself to explore the seas, if gathering ressources, or a quest to kill a boss isn't enough narrative for you? I don't think the reason why I'm a bit confused about that, is because I don't understand the needs of PvEers.

I AM A PvEer GODDAMMIT!!!

I don't like the attitude of griefers, hc-PvPers and most self defined PvPers. I don't like the combat(fast paced gear and level dependant), that they like. I hate arenas and duels.
I love gathering, processing and crafting. I don't like dungeon grinding and hate mob grinding, but love exploring and doing dungeons for the first time without guides. I am a PvEer, I am a PvXer and I love a certain type o PvP, that is totally different from what is considered good PvP by self defined PvPers. You described some of it, in your description of enjoyable PvP and I don't want to go into detail here. But...I recognize some of it, when Steven talks about his PvP experiences and that makes me hopeful.

What confuses me is your total aversion to being killled by another player, when you weren't prepared and specifically agreed to it. I loved exploring in WAR, WoW Aion and some other early games. In the newer games however it got stale. It felt like PoI grinding, even in the very beautiful scenery in BDO. The only experience I can remember, is when I died a couple of times climbing the highest tower in that fishing village and the view from up there and the tidelines on the coast. Hmmm....starting to remember more now. Point is, I remember those times, when the world felt alive. You know where I'm going. Yes, I'm with Steven in thinking that the risk of dying makes the world feel alive, like the PvP zones in WAR, the zones where high level mobs had giant aggro radii in WoW and the need to check the horizon for wings in Aion.
I don't care if the risk is from fall damage, roaming field bosses or other players and I don't feel cheated, if there are areas that are too dangerous for me alone.
I played with alot of people, who considered themselfs to be hardcore PvEers and none of them would've considered an autoflag zone, or an occasional non-consensual death to be a deal breaker.

Child Item