Grading MMOs on the PvE/PvP scale.

Inspired by a couple of other threads, I wonder where on the PvP/PvE scale you think Ashes will be, and where it stands compared to other MMOs.

First some definitions:
An MMO requires all of the following: Massive scale, with players numbering in the hundreds or thousands, a persistent world, some type of social interaction, longevity and a progression system of some kind.

Pure PvE is just that, no PvP elements at all. Not even optional PvP elements. Pure PvP is the same, with no PvE elements at all in the game.

And then everything in between. There are no set metrics or definitions really, so maybe use percentages? Like 90/10% PvE/PvP. This would have to based on the overall content of the game and average gameplay, not your own specific playstyle. For example, a WoW PvE server is not a 100% PvP game just because you only ever do arenas or battlegrounds

It's by no means a perfect way to do it, so feel free to come up with a different way to do it. I just want to see where you think Ashes is in comparison.

I think the term PvX is more about having game systems where both PvE and PvP are present at the same time, more than the balance between the two. For example, a castle siege (assuming no guards) is pure PvP, while a caravan attack (with defending guards) is PvX.

MMOs

The only pure PvP MMO I know of and have played is Planetside 1. Even Planetside 2 introduced PvE elements at some point. On the flip-side, while I haven't played them, I hear games like Secret World Legends and AdventureQuest Worlds are pure PvE MMOs. I am sure there are a few more.

I would place WoW (PvE server) at around 90-95% PvE and 5-10% PvP

I would tentatively place Ashes at around 80% PvE and 20% PvP. While the potential for PvP is there in almost all cases, I honestly think players in general won't be engaging in it for the vast majority of the time. Sieges will be somewhat rare, but caravan raids might occur fairly often. The frequency of monster coin events and guild and node wars can significantly tip the scale either way probably.

Edit: I have a really hard time placing EVE Online. The focus is super hard on the PvP side of things, but in terms of actual gameplay, I think a lot of players spend a lot of time ratting, mining or doing missions as well. Definitely more PvP focused than Ashes I think.

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

Kilion

A few points before I give my opinion on the rating:

If I understand the Castle Nodes correctly, these will have constant raids on the 3 sub node villages, one during each week of the month and a bigger raid during the fourth week. This is something to take place at all five castle Nodes on the servers once they are occupied by a guild. I would say that is fairly frequent.
On the matter of "regular" Node sieges, I think it comes down to how fast reputation loss between two nodes can occur. Since negative reputation makes resource acquisition from those areas significantly more difficult, I would expect the economy to lock up in those areas, which in turn creates incentives to either solve the matter diplomatically (if that is even possible) or to fight it out in a full scale war.
On naval content: I think this is for obvious reasons, something people might want to take into greater account. Lawless open seas are a significant factor when it comes to PvP and depending on the unique content we might actually see a lot more engagement in open waters than is obvious yet.

From all I see I would think the game as it is now will be more of a 65% PvE and 35% PvP where neither will properly function without the other.

Noaani

I want to some clarifications to some terms.

Nerror wrote: »

Pure PvE is just that, no PvP elements at all. Not even optional PvP elements. Pure PvP is the same, with no PvE elements at all in the game.

To me, if you are harvesting materials (mining or what ever), that is not PvE. PvE is killing stuff (note - this is not a definitive definition of PvE). The number of people I have seen here trying to use harvesting as PvE is somewhat disappointing. I'm not saying you are doing this here, I am just clarifying the definition.

Same with crafting.

Someone could well come in and say "but harvesting is literally the environment, so its PvEnvironment". To that, I would say the missing aspect is not the word "environment", but the word "versus".

If someone wants to include harvesting as PvE, then I would insist that buying and selling in the marketplace is PvP. This is because you, a player, are working against other players to try and get the best price you can, or make the most money you can. This involves multiple players, and they are all acting against each other - meaning it meets a literal definition of player versus player.

So I think both sides should probably agree that we are only talking combat with PvP and PvE definitions.

Fact is, an MMORPG needs an environment (NPC's, enemies, quests etc) to satisfy that RPG element of the genre. Sure, Planetside didn't have any PvE - but SoE made it VERY clear at launch that it wasn't an MMORPG so as to not set player expectations incorrectly. They termed it an MMOFPS, as it was an attempt to capture some of the popularity of Half Life (from memory - it may have been a different FPS game that triggered it).

Nerror wrote: »

I think the term PvX is more about having game systems where both PvE and PvP are present at the same time, more than the balance between the two. For example, a castle siege (assuming no guards) is pure PvP, while a caravan attack (with defending guards) is PvX.

Now, I agree with you that PvX means having both PvP and PvE together, however, guards dont change something from being PvP to being PvX. Guards are an extension of the player that hired them.

To me, the difference between PvP and PvE is at the top level - it is the intent. Both the intent of the developer, and the intent of the player.

If a developer puts in an encounter with the intent of inciting PvP, then that encounter is PvP. It doesn't exist for the purpose of PvE, it exists to get players to fight.

As another illustration - picture a capture the flag match. That is pure PvP, right?

If you give the flag some HP that need to be removed before it can be picked up, that doesn't alter it to be PvX, it is still PvP. Giving it a damage reflect doesn't alter it to be PvX, it is still PvP. You can keep adding more and more to that flag (including attacks and legs), but it isn't until the purpose of the developer shifts from adding it to the game to incite fighting between players to it being in the game as it's own thing that it moves from being PvP to PvE.

As such, a PvX game needs encounters that exist to be encounters. Encounters not designed to be fought over. If they are designed to be fought over, they are PvP, as again, that is the design intent behind them.

In order to meet intent from the player perspective, if you are doing a thing to further the goal of winning in PvP, then the thing you are doing is PvP in purpose - from a high level perspective.

This means that a PvX game needs high level PvP goals (castles), but also needs high level PvE goals. Note again that those PvE goals need to be things that are in the game for a purpose other than being a thing to fight over - as if they are in the game for that reason, they are PvP.

To your issue with EVE, it is a pure PvP game. Every action players make in that game is done to prepare for PvP. The game had no high level goals that were not PvP.

With what we know of Ashes right now, it has the minimum environment needed to satisfy the "RPG" aspect of MMORPG. I know you were only talking about MMO, not MMORPG, but since Ashes is an MMORPG, I think it is fair to focus in tighter.

Since it has that minimum environment needed to be an MMORPG and quite literally no more (that we currently know of), it seems disingenuous to attempt to call it anything other than a PvP MMORPG at this point in time.

The game is still in development, so this is all subject to change, obviously. However, this is how it is today.

Edit to add; just to point out that this does indeed work both ways, if the developers added an open world raid boss that is in a cage, and required guilds to fight over access to it, and then the winner of that fight had unobstructed access to the encounter - that is PvE, as the intent is the encounter.

Sure, you have to PvP to get it, but in the same way that having to PvE to a PvP end goal is PvP, having to PvP to a PvE end goal is PvE.

These things absolutely do go both ways.

Ludullu

Noaani wrote: »

Edit to add; just to point out that this does indeed work both ways, if the developers added an open world raid boss that is in a cage, and required guilds to fight over access to it, and then the winner of that fight had unobstructed access to the encounter - that is PvE, as the intent is the encounter.

By this definition, L2's epic bosses (at least the biggest ones) were PvE encounters. And my suggestion of semi-instanced dungeons would also be considered PvE. But I feel like this would only apply to non-BiS-loot (semi-)instanced content, because in that case the players' intention is not the loot and instead just the encounter itself.

And I feel like that kind of system would be much better for Ashes exactly because it combines pvp and pve in the overall encounter event, even if you don't necessarily have them both at the same time. And I'd prefer if those kinds of events provided people with BiS gear, because both sides would have to be the best players in both pve and pvp (even if that "bestness" comes in the form of social relations). At which point the intent would be "get better loot so that you could pvp/e better", which kinda goes against your definition.

As for the main topic. I can't truly answer because I don't know the gameplay loop of the game. Intrepid have said that they want to move away from grindy designs, but in my experience that is exactly what provides the pve in a game. You do pve over and over and over again until you get what you want. And other players might come fight you during that process, but the fight will happen with pve as the backdrop (making it a PvX encounter).

But that is only doable when you can do pve for hours on end. Which to the majority of people would be seen as grind. And the last time I checked a lot of people dislike grind. I know that some might argue that fun pve is not grind, but at some point the novelty will disappear and you'll just have yourself a chore (EQ2's content output pace notwithstanding).

So if Intrepid somehow succeed in their goal of limiting grind - I have 0 fucking clue how the gameplay loop will be designed and how the pvp encounters will influence the overall PvX balance. L2 had the grind, so even if you were in a guild war against several guilds and were a person who was willing to flag up against any attacker - the split was still around 60/40 pve/pvp (at least in my experience).

If Ashes doesn't have that grind, the split could range from 20/80 E/P (because you get what you want quickly in the pve) to 90/10 (if you only participate in forced pvp events).

Noaani

NiKr wrote: »

And I feel like that kind of system would be much better for Ashes exactly because it combines pvp and pve in the overall encounter event, even if you don't necessarily have them both at the same time.

I think you know that my idea of what Ashes should be doing with PvE content is that it is all good to at times take away either PvP or PvE, as long as it is added back in way that balances out so that there is still just as much of both.

A fight in order to be able to get in to a cage to take on an encounter adds PvP at the start, and then leaves PvE. Likewise, an instance that then requires you to transport the rewards via the caravan system back to a node and announces the fact adds PvP after the PvE (realistically, this is probably adding significantly more PvP than instancing the encounter is removing).

My preference is for encounters where PvP and PvE are required at the same time tobe where BiS gear is located (or the components for it, at least) - however, this is a personal preference as opposed to something I see as vital for the games success.

In terms of the grind in Ashes - I think we will all find that the game will still have one. I mean, just the leveling time that Steven has said is the target would amount to a grind. If players get to end game and suddenly find there is no real progress to be had (or not viable progress to be had), the bulk of people won't stay around long - it will seem to most people as if they have reached the end of the game, and so they will consider themselves finished with it.

Laetitian

Noaani wrote:

To me, if you are harvesting materials (mining or what ever), that is not PvE. PvE is killing stuff (note - this is not a definitive definition of PvE). The number of people I have seen here trying to use harvesting as PvE is somewhat disappointing. I'm not saying you are doing this here, I am just clarifying the definition.
Same with crafting.

Someone could well come in and say "but harvesting is literally the environment, so its PvEnvironment". To that, I would say the missing aspect is not the word "environment", but the word "versus".

If someone wants to include harvesting as PvE, then I would insist that buying and selling in the marketplace is PvP. This is because you, a player, are working against other players to try and get the best price you can, or make the most money you can. This involves multiple players, and they are all acting against each other - meaning it meets a literal definition of player versus player.

As long as you operate under this definition, you won't have a meaningful discussion with other MMO players about PvE-PvP balance in game design. PvE is every part of the game you play that revolves around beating the game, not beating other players.
There is nuance to those definitions, but it has obvious answers. You wouldn't say that duelling a player "is PvE, because you have to beat the game's levelling and skilling system, in order to be the stronger, more skilled player." That's just not how it works. You don't need further explanation for that.

In the same way, your other counterarguments are resolved organically:
In Eve Online, placing items on the marketplace is PvP. It's part of what makes the game a heavily PvP-oriented game. In games with less competitive economy designs, the game design itself controls the economy so much that it's closer to PvE than PvP.

These definitions are important because they serve a very clear purpose: Helping players decide if a game's design encourages the type of (social or solitary!) activity that they care about. Because if it doesn't, they either won't get to do the things they enjoy, or their impact won't feel meaningful enough.
Which doesn't mean, for instance, a PvP player can only enjoy PvP if they can dominate the server with it. Just that there needs to be a measurable impact for them onto a meaningful section of the community. Just like a PvE player probably won't enjoy PvE in a PvP game where there are no rewards/consequences for the PvE, and no social interaction surrounding it.
And the design of a game dictates which of those tendencies a community will tip towards.

Noaani wrote:

So I think both sides should probably agree that we are only talking combat with PvP and PvE definitions.

No, absolutely not.

Farming and harvesting is PvE game content.
Crafting is PvE.
Crafting/Farming/harvesting with leaderboards is still PvE.
Even exploration is PvE.

(Which doesn't mean a game that has any of those things must be "a PvE game" - it just has those elements. Which category it ultimately falls into depends on the scale and impact these design elements have, and how much they are encouraged and rewarded.)

The more I see you talking about PvE players and appealing to them for the benefit of the game's popularity, the more I think you don't actually understand what PvE players want, and that the solutions you offer would just create a game that's neither for PvP players nor for PvE players.
Pure PvE players don't want to have PvP surrounding their PvE experinence. That concept restricts the community's appreciation for their PvE achievements. It restricts the amount of PvE interactions they can get into, and locks some of it behind PvP that they have to bypass/endure in order to do what they actually want to do.

If you want to make a PvX game, you have to appeal to a PvX community, and tell all the pure PvP players and PvE players to find something else that fits their preference. Otherwise you just create the next trashy themepark that tries to do it all (Just yet another WoW relaunch with an illusion of innovation,) fails miserably in producing an intriguing game, and only retains the nerds and nolifers who would have stuck around anyway because they're primarily there to escape their real lives, not for any intriguing gameplay.

Laetitian

And so with my reasoning for my definition of the term PvE out of the way, here's my response to the OP:

Nerror wrote:

And then everything in between. There are no set metrics or definitions really, so maybe use percentages? Like 90/10% PvE/PvP. This would have to based on the overall content of the game and average gameplay, not your own specific playstyle. For example, a WoW PvE server is not a 100% PvP game just because you only ever do arenas or battlegrounds

Agreed. And as mentioned above, I would extend that evaluation by the activities the game encourages and rewards, and thus tips the community's behaviour towards.

Here's my scale:

85% PvE: "World of Warcraft." Has PvP, but most of the time gets poured into mastering PvE content, proving your prowess as a PvE player, and maximising gear strength through PvE loot for even better PvE results. Player interaction serves to coordinate combined PvE efforts and advancing guild strength; rarely to resolve power struggles. Those happen on the leaderboards, which are essentially just numbers of how far each player/guild is away from being #1. That is not player interaction; it's just PvE with a score. PvP exists, but it's mostly something to do when you're tired from PvE. Even the arena is more PvE than PvP.
There could be great games in this category if they were less streamlined; allow players to walk into level 200 areas as a group of level 100s with difficult-to-brew buff potions, and figure out how to survive on their own, and reward them for succeeding. But alas, that type of game design isn't appealing enough to min-maxers and carebears alike, so the category's playerbase is its own biggest obstacle to getting a good version of the things they enjoy.
Many other games like EverQuest, RuneScape, and other PvE-centric exploration MMOs that I haven't played (much) would also be somewhere up here. They have the upside of at least not putting on the guise of having intriguing PvP.
70% PvE: "TES:O." Has RvR and instanced PvP, but the game is designed so much around dailies, dungeons, and gear grind, that most of the community forgets the purpose of RvR for the majority of the time.
60% PvE: "Guild Wars 2." "Final Fantasy XIV." "Star Wars: TOR." Similar to ESO, except the game's identity is at least a little built around the RvR/guildwar/large-scale PvP element, so at least players feel some connection to it, once they are done grinding endless singleplayer quest lines. Final Fantasy and Star Wars are probably slightly higher PvE, but these are just vague categories.
40% PvE: "(Original) ArcheAge." Probably also things like "LineAge 2". Maybe "Albion" is somewhere here. Games structured around guild combat and shaping the world or community with your PvP mastery. PvE largely serves as a gateway to PvP power, and a lot of the access to PvE opportunities is restricted by PvP contestation.
30% PvE: "Eve." Sandboxes where everything has to do with PvP, but you still have to farm the game's world in order to shape it.
15% PvE: "DaoCamelot." "Regnum Online." True RvR games. You log in to win PvP/RvR or mitigate the losses of PvP/RvR. The game's design rewards your PvP success and passes your success on to your allies. The whole playerbase is in it to advance their realm's/group's strength. (Some of them still prefer the PvE elements, but there is always some sense of awareness of the impact that PvP has on the world.) Whether you're doing PvE or PvP, you're feeling the effects of war on your efforts, and often have to be wary of enemy players showing up - especially if they are dominant in the war.

The 40% and lower section is where I would hope for Ashes of Creation to land. Preferably lower, because the more you encourage PvE from the start, the more the carebears and PvE grinders congregate and hijack the game development.

If AoC tips more towards 50-60%, which I consider approximately equally likely, I would hope that it learns from the flaws of the games listed in those categories, to turn it less into an identity-less hybrid, and more into something with clear PvX character, that gives weight to the actions you take, the impact you have on the world as a player, and the communities you build.

Noaani

Laetitian wrote: »

Noaani wrote:

So I think both sides should probably agree that we are only talking combat with PvP and PvE definitions.

No, absolutely not.

So, what this then means is you have to believe that purchasing off the game marketplace is PvP, the node system is PvP, guild recruitment is PvP.

All of these things are one player or a group of players competing directly against another player or group of players for the same goal.

We could also add in harvesting to that list, if there is someone else present that wants the same material. The two of you are competing for resources.

If you are wanting to say that PvP is just directly fighting other players and PvE is basically everything else, then you are stacking the definitions in your favor. It is essentially gerrymandering, just with definitions instead of districts.

Either PvE is everything you do not in competition with other players and PvP is everything you do in competition with other players, or PvE is fighting encounters and PvP is fighting players.

Any other attempt at a definition is outright hypocritical.

The problem with your definition of being PvE being everything you do to beat the game and PvP being everything you do to beat other players is evident in a game like EVE. Everything players do in that game is in order to beat other players, yet you somehow listed it as being 30% PvE. No one is playing EVE to beat EVE, they play to be other players. Everything they do in that game is to beat other players. Sure, they may spend some time and effort shaping the world, but all in order to beat other players.

Nerror

When defining PvE and PvP, I think it is important to focus on the immediate action rather than the underlying reasons behind it. If you are directly competing against another player, it is PvP, and if you are against computer-controlled opponents or the environment, it is PvE. Analyzing motives can make it ambiguous, so it's better to stick to the immediate context.

For example, when attacking a world boss (PvE), you aim for better loot to enhance your ability to defeat other bosses (PvE) and players (PvP). However, during the boss fight, another raid attacks (PvP), requiring you to eliminate them first before returning to defeating the boss (PvE).

If you start considering motives, one can argue that killing players is done to kill the boss, making it primarily a PvE activity. (I know, it's PvX really). Conversely, one can argue that killing players is motivated by the desire to eliminate competition for the boss loot, which is necessary for improving the ability to defeat players in the future. This perspective leans towards categorizing it as predominantly a PvP activity. Ultimately, this classification may vary among different players.

You can make the same argument when it comes to gathering. Unless the gathering involves a mini-game pitting yourself directly against another player in order to get the goods from that specific gathering node, I would classify it as PvE, even if the motive is the financial ruin of other players by denying them the goods.

Things get a little more muddy if you are playing a broker on the auction house to make money that way, IMO. I think it can be argued that buying low and selling high and undercutting and doing all the spreadsheet work is a form of minigame against other players. At the same time, I can see an argument for it still being PvE too.

Noaani

Nerror wrote: »

When considering PvE and PvP, I think it is important to focus on the immediate action rather than the underlying reasons behind it. If you are directly competing against another player, it is PvP, and if you are against computer-controlled opponents or the environment, it is PvE.

I completely disagree.

To be clear, no matter how you slice it, there is ambiguity.

Look at your own arguments on gathering and playing the market - an argument can be made that both are PvP.

The thing is, so can solo farming mobs.

When you are out solo farming mobs, you may be competing with another player directly to get kills. However, you may not.

Even if you are not competing against that other player, you are competing against the general wealth and gear increase that the player base as a whole is experiencing over time. You are out farming your mobs in order to keep up with other players. Look at purse farming in Archeage, the effort put in was not in relation to how to kill the mobs, it was put in to whether or not purse farming was more lucritive in terms of time and labor investment than the other activities playerswere spending time andlabor on. The competition was against other players, not mobs.

Yes, that is going back to player motives, but it isn't at all ambiguous. The above is really the only reason a player has for farming solo mobs - they are trying to progress in relation to other players. I mean, as a strict definition, this fits the term player vs player better than harvesting materials fits player versus environment. You are absolutely competing against other players, even if they are not present. When harvesting materials, there is no "versus" element. Nothing is fighting back, I am not actually competing against the environment in any way at all. As such, you simply can not call harvesting player VERSUS environment.

Then we have the notion of player expectations.

Lets say the game decides that all harvesting is considered PvE. Then they may a game that is half PvE and half PvP. Then we go to a community that wants a solid PvE game and is more than happy to PvP for it and say "Hey, Ashes is 50% PvE, go try it out!".

Then they come to Ashes, look around and ask where all the PvE is.

You then point to the rocks on the ground and tell them to have at it.

You'll be laughed at for the entire time it takes those players to cancel their subscription.

To be perfectly clear, in MY definition of PvE, I am only talking about bosses. Base population isn't PvE, it's filler. When talking about the amount of PvE in a game, me and my friends literally only count the currently relevant raid bosses, as that is all that matters.

Me being willing to accept that as PvE is me accepting that PvP players have literally no idea what PvE even is, and as such is a fairly major concession.

Thus, I still maintain the only valid way to split the PvP/PvE definition across the board is to say that killing mobs is PvE, killing players is PvP, and everything else is neither. Sure, PvP players may not be super happy about that, but they are less unhappy than someone like me that is having to consider essentially filler as being PvE.

Truthfully, it comes down to the motive behind wanting to define terms though. If you want to be able to say that the game has more PvE than it does, then sure, move the definition of PvE. However, that isn't going to actually work where it matters (as per the above example).

if you want Ashes to be the most PvP game it can be while Stevens comments of the PvX natuer of the game still being true, then sure, consider rocks to be PvE content. On the other hand, if you want the game to appeal to PvE players that are willing to fight over some content, then the definitions dont matter - the content itself does.

Nerror

Ok, you definitely have your own non-standard definition of what PvE is, if you only consider bosses to be PvE. That is way too narrow and restricted IMO.

Chopping a tree is quite literally the player doing something against the game environment. Specifically it's using an axe versus a tree. Sure, the tree might not fight back but the word 'versus' doesn't automatically imply a fight or even a competition. 'Axe versus tree' is a completely appropriate use of the word 'versus' in this case. The word "versus" indicates a comparison or opposition between the axe and the tree, regardless of the tree's passivity.

And I can't believe I just had to write that.

On the point of player expectations, which is important, I would argue that the time spent doing the various activities should be a major factor, if we are talking about the mythical average gamer that wants to experience the entirety of the game.

To illustrate what I mean with an overly simple example: If a game requires 9 hours of chopping down trees in order to unlock one hour of fighting other players in direct combat, I would call that game 90% PvE and 10% PvP.

It would obviously be a huge disservice to new players to only give them those numbers instead of explaining the particulars. I would even call it misleading if that is all they were told. The point of this thread wasn't for me to come up with a consensus percentage of PvE and PvP content for Ashes, and to spread that around like some sort of gospel.

I was just curious where on the scale people perceive the game to be.

Noaani

Nerror wrote: »

Ok, you definitely have your own non-standard definition of what PvE is, if you only consider bosses to be PvE. That is way too narrow and restricted IMO.

I agree it is too narrow for this discussion, which is why I didn't put it forward as a definition that I expect others to agree on.

Nerror wrote: »

To illustrate what I mean with an overly simple example: If a game requires 9 hours of chopping down trees in order to unlock one hour of fighting other players in direct combat, I would call that game 90% PvE and 10% PvP.

By this definition, EVE and Archeage are both 99% PvE.

It does not work as a definition.

You should not be including gathering and crafting as PvE, it is it's own thing.

JamesSunderland

For me the grading of a MMORPG PvE/PvP is about its avaliable content amounts.

As a base open world pvp makes a game's world 50/50 in terms of PvP/PvE,
therefore a game without Open world PvP is a game with 100% PvE world in this main aspect.

As additional variables,
the Amount of Pure PvE instances and Pure PvE events tips the scales towards PVE% of the game
and Pure PvP instances and Pure PvP events tips the scales towards PVP% of the game
and you can have the middle ground with both aspects represented in the content.

I Grade Lineage 2 around ~70-75% PvP, Archeage around ~60-66% PvP and with the current avaliable information i expect Ashes to be around ~55-60% PvP.

George_Black

Whoever came up the idea of creating a persistent world, in which large number people can play with others, as characters (mmo) , did not stop to think about PvP or PvE.

The purpose of an mmo is to have a seamless world, in which people can adventure.
Barriers to exploration are character level, group strength and item tier.
Barriers to increasing ones power, or the groups power, is conflict of interests with other people and the ability to penetrate the market share. Those barriers is the gameplay of the vast majority of people. The more successful players aim for land control and epic encounters.
Those challenges make mmos fun. Not pve, not pvp.

In an mmo, you are you, your friends are those that you help and your rivals are those that you fight against. The mobs, the bosses, the npcs are all these as a stage for the player driven story.

For that, L2 gets a 10/10, with the rest:
AAU
Tera
Gw2
Eso
Ff14
Bdo
getting a 0, because they didn't manage to build a seamless world, in which risk and reward can exist at the same time.

In all the above mmos besides L2 you had either "risk zones" where you could PvP with nothing of importance to lose, so, so much for risk... and "reward zones", where you'd mindlessly fight mobs for gains; I dont find that rewarding at all, without the sense of danger.
You would opt in for "reward" and you would opt in for "risk".

George_Black

I hope AoC manages good combat, good class/weapon gameplay, tough gold gains, and stability in the node system. Because, thanks to the flagging system, it will be a true mmo.

Noaani

George_Black wrote: »

Whoever came up the idea of creating a persistent world, in which large number people can play with others, as characters (mmo) , did not stop to think about PvP or PvE.

While this is true, the refinement of the genre bought in the concept of PvP and PvE.

Quite honestly, among the first people to think about MMO's in this regard was Bill Trost.

Kilion

I think the PvP "VS" PvE debate is a bit misleading in the end. There has to be a reason why it is called PvX. And it might just be me trying to create a reason for this term to exist but here are my two cents on that:

It is explicitly marketed as PvX because the intended game design is that of players not deciding to do "either or" but both depending on the "cycles/seasons" the games environment will go through. There will be periods of predominantly PvE, new Nodes establish, new PvE content and with it new resources will unlock as these Nodes level up, people gear up for whats to come; PvP in this "part of the cycle" is lower as there seems to be an abundance of new stuff to do.

But this period of growth is limited.

As Nodes grow, so does their ZOI, reducing change in nearby Nodes, limiting growth, limiting new PvE stuff to do. At some point even the parent Nodes will reach their final size, so the focus of players shifts from acquiring more resources (new crafting materials, new spaces for freeholds, and so on) to competing over what is already there. This is the "PvP season" that at some point peak in a final clash between two big powers (Tier 6 Node VS some other faction). PvE during this time will be lower until the incentives become higher again (e.g. being able to build up "your own" Node to become the powerhouse in the region) and hurdles become lower (as players will migrate in and out after a ZoI falls).

TL;DR: I think Intrepids definition of PvX and goal for Ashes of Creation is
"PvE creates the need and incentives for PvP, while PvP creates the need and incentives for PvE"
As such neither of them can be seen as optional to create a good MMORPG and cannot be seen as two forces working against each other but two pieces of a whole.

But hey what do I know, I'm just reading the tea leaves here.

akabear

AI thought below

Here is a list of MMORPGs ranked based on the emphasis on player versus player (PvP) content, ranging from most PvP-focused to least PvP-focused. Listing from most to least

Eve Online
Black Desert Online
Blade & Soul
Albion Online
Guild Wars 2
Aion
Lineage II
ArcheAge
TERA
World of Warcraft
The Elder Scrolls Online
Final Fantasy XIV
Star Wars: The Old Republic
Rift
Neverwinter
Revelation Online

Laetitian

Noaani wrote: »

Nerror wrote: »

To illustrate what I mean with an overly simple example: If a game requires 9 hours of chopping down trees in order to unlock one hour of fighting other players in direct combat, I would call that game 90% PvE and 10% PvP.

By this definition, EVE and Archeage are both 99% PvE.

You should not be including gathering and crafting as PvE, it is it's own thing.

I mean, maybe the way you play them, lol. People in Eve and ArcheAge literally log on, spend 5 hours looking for people to shoot, and log off. I still categorised them as 30 and 40% PvE respectively, because you do usually have to engage in some PvE to get to that point, and even in endgame the PvE aspect remains vital for many players, but still, this perception seems so prejudiced, I struggle to believe that you don't realise your bias yourself.
(I don't subscribe to Nerror's oversimplified example, and endgame weighs a little heavier than levelling up, but still, the basic principle of how much time is spent on each segment by the community does hold true.)

I already laid out the reasons why above, but again: Everyone who debates "PvE-PvP balance" means "PvP versus PvE&Other-soloplay-content."
Because of the fundamental disagreement the debate is about: No "pure" PvP player wants to play a game where all they can do is gather/craft and clear challenging dungeons, and no "pure" PvE player wants those things locked behind or tainted by PvP. That's what pretty much everyone cares about in this debate.
And yes, plenty of in-betweeners who can enjoy a lot of both exist, but that's still the underlying balance scale people are worried about.
Feel free to correct me, but if not, I'm pretty sure "other-soloplay-content" just has to be included in PvE, because it's a big part of what the PvE crowd tends to care about in most MMOs - *at least* in the West, which you are so concerned about.

if you want Ashes to be the most PvP game it can be while Stevens comments of the PvX natuer of the game still being true, then sure, consider rocks to be PvE content. On the other hand, if you want the game to appeal to PvE players that are willing to fight over some content, then the definitions dont matter - the content itself does.

If we could just agree to a definition, that concern wouldn't become the issue at all. Because then you could just rightfully claim that you'd consider a 70%PvE design to be the minimum for a pure PvE player because the crafting doesn't do as much heavy lifting, or something (whereas a 50% PvP design might be sufficient for an average pure PvP player.)
Again my point just remains that we shouldn't be appealing to the pure PvE players in the first place, and you're unnecessarily underestimating how much work there is left to be expected for dungeon & encounter design. It's still an MMO. They're going to make it full of MMO things.

I'll confess I'm a little disappointed you didn't respond to the final paragraph in the comment in which I quoted you. It might be a little trite, but that point is still where we can agree, or how much of a different thing you expect from a good MMO than me/someone else.

tautau

Perhaps the two concepts we have: PvP and PvE, are insufficient to define all that we need to define here, even when we try to combine the two terms by saying PvX.

Since we are talking about relatively new concepts, our language has not yet developed the terms we need to express what we want to express. Once we are able to describe this 'something distinct from PvP/PvE but still an important part of this type of game' then a word or phrase will come into use to refer to it.

It is a natural process, adopting new words (or new meanings to existing words) into a language, such as 'internet', 'diss', and 'teabag.'

Noaani

Laetitian wrote: »

I mean, maybe the way you play them, lol. People in Eve and ArcheAge literally log on, spend 5 hours looking for people to shoot, and log off.

Anyone that played Archeage in that manner would find themselves outgeared in a matter of weeks. And no, you could not just buy your way to better gear.

As for EVE, when I played it, literally everyone I knew in the game would log on and continue with preperations for the next major battle.

I already laid out the reasons why above, but again: Everyone who debates "PvE-PvP balance" means "PvP versus PvE&Other-soloplay-content."

Only to a PvP player.

Games with a focus on PvE but with some PvP have been talking about PvP, PvE, crafting, harvesting and often questing as being different types of content for years now - that is why the desire some people have to force all non-PvP activities in to "PvE" comes across as nothing more than an attempt to manipulate terms that have been in use for decades at this point.

Again my point just remains that we shouldn't be appealing to the pure PvE players in the first place

I agree, and have always agreed.

Ashes is not a game for someone that wants pure PvE - but it is also not a game for someone that wants pure PvP.

However, the game should be aiming to target everyone between these two points. This means it should be suitable for someone that wants to mostly PvP but is happy to do some PvE along the way, as well as someone that wants to mostly PvE but is happy to do some PvP along the way.

For the most part, the games PvP systems (corruption PvP, caravans, sieges, all naval content, arena etc) are all in place to suit someone that wants to mostly PvP. This content will bring players that like to focus on PvP from other games - which is what Ashes needs.

For those players that want to mostly PvE though, there still isn't anything. We've seen some world bosses, but the best analogy I can make for them is if we assume sieges were only cpable of having 40 people participate. It takes it from being content to the masses to content for the few.

There is no PvE content to bring players that like to focus on PvE from other games. The way the game is now, there isn't even an incentive to bring over people that want a balancebetween PvP and PvE - because there is no PvE to speak of still.

Players that want PvP but are happy to do some crafting and harvesting to that end, they are catered to. Howevver, that isn't PvE.

Honestly, I don't get how you people even think sometimes. The concept of rocks on the ground being considered PvE content is still laugable. I'm at the point where I am seriously assuming @Nerror is just trolling.

That is how bad a take that is.

Child Item