My PvX != Your PvX

Azherae wrote: »

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.

how is it non consensual if you logged into an open world PVP game with no safe zones?xD

Noaani wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

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.

NiKr wrote: »

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.

I agree with you in that it is not.

Depraved wrote: »

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.

Depraved wrote: »

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.)

Dygz wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

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.

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.

Dygz wrote: »

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.

Noaani wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

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).

Nerror

Azherae wrote: »

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.

Azherae

Nerror wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

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.

Yeah, because sometimes we need to be clear on what Steven himself means, to give feedback on something (or avoid a long argument with someone who disagrees with the feedback given).

But sometimes 'the thing we are talking about' has a really specific definition that would just use too many words every time, and we can probably at least shorten those to the same 'shortened forms' as Steven uses, when he provides them.

I don't wanna write 'The PvP that Corruption is a factor in protecting a player from' every time.

Depraved wrote: »

in this case, the target audience is people who like to resolve conflicts through pvp, not pve.

Cool, so call the game a PvP game.

You may recall that this has been a point I have been making for over a year now.

Dygz wrote: »

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.)

But Dygz ... ... ...

... ... ...

You want to feel the fresh Air ... ... ... ... the different Seasons ... ... ... ... the People squalling in a global Area Chat how their Caravans are permanently sacked by the same People they ask others for Months to help them defend their Caravans against ... ... ... (hihihihihihih

)

You want to see People trying to recruit People of specific Races for Nodes as Citizens so their Nodes finally have a mostly Dünir, Kaelar, Empyrean, Pyrai or whatever else Infrastructure-kind of Look ... ...

You want to see the eternal Drama as People more or less struggle to finally get the Result they want, while the Rivers freeze and thaw,

while the Sun shines or a breezy Storm rains upon You,

while a World Area Boss might come your way and you know your behind is getting stretched beyond it's normal Limits if you don't move out of the Way fast enough ... ...

or see others intentionally pushing them into Mob Groups or World Bosses or prevent them from fleeing either PvE or a PvP Gank ... ...

What when your Friends you want to hang out with, try to use a stealthy Route for their Caravan but You Guys see Scouts of possible Caravan Ambushers on the Hills everywhere ?

" When the Roads defeat You ... ... ... ... ... will you risk an EVEN more dangerous Route ? "

Will You go through the Underground Roads of Mori- umm i mean Tulnar.

Noaani wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

in this case, the target audience is people who like to resolve conflicts through pvp, not pve.

Cool, so call the game a PvP game.

You may recall that this has been a point I have been making for over a year now.

wait, when did anybody say ashes is a pve game ?_?

Depraved wrote: »

wait, when did anybody say ashes is a pve game ?_?

Hopefully just someone having a HUUUUUUGE misunderstanding of the Game.

When was PvP always Fun even in the soul-less Husk that is WoW ? In the OPEN WORLD !!!

It was always a "Job" in a Battleground. Always. Always a Job.
In the Open World ? It was AWESOME aside from when someone is ganked without 1% Chance of resisting.

But usually, a Game which has everywhere the Chance for Open World PvP, has always the Chance and Opportunity for Fun things to happen. Not just Ganks.

Aszkalon wrote: »

But Dygz ... ... ... ... ... ...
You want to feel the fresh Air ... ... ... ... the different Seasons ... ... ... ...

I can do that in other MMORPGs. Ones that do not include non-consensual PvP.
Ashes was more intriguing when it seemed it would be the only MMORPG to release between 2017 and 2020.
Now, there are plenty of other MMORPGs to play that are not as PvP-centric and obsessed with Risk v Reward as Ashes.

Ashes should be fun and interesting to test, though.

Dygz wrote: »

Ashes was more intriguing when it seemed it would be the only MMORPG to release between 2017 and 2020.

I get it. ^.^;"

Dygz wrote: »

Now, there are plenty of other MMORPGs to play that are not as PvP-centric and obsessed with Risk v Reward as Ashes.

But isn't it nice to have for some fresh Change also sometimes an MMO which can provide PvP everywhere in the open World ?

Aszkalon wrote: »

When was PvP always Fun even in the soul-less Husk that is WoW ? In the OPEN WORLD !!!

It was always a "Job" in a Battleground. Always. Always a Job.
In the Open World ? It was AWESOME aside from when someone is ganked without 1% Chance of resisting.

There were times when PvP in the Open World was fun on the WoW PvP-Optional servers.
Just - I only like PvP for 1/8 of my play session. And abhor non-consensual PvP.
So I always end up moving to PvE-Only servers.

Aszkalon wrote: »

But usually, a Game which has everywhere the Chance for Open World PvP, has always the Chance and Opportunity for Fun things to happen. Not just Ganks.

That's not fun for players who don't enjoy non-consensual PvP.
The original Ashes design did not have Corruption-free regions of the map - so everywhere, non-consensual PvP could be punished with Corruption.

Depraved wrote: »

wait, when did anybody say ashes is a pve game ?_?

Steven says that Ashes is not a PvP game; it is a PvX game.
But, to players who play MMORPGs on PvE servers, Ashes is a PvP game. And the PvX label is meaningless hype... at best.

Dygz wrote: »

That's not fun for players who don't enjoy non-consensual PvP.

Hence why i gets clarified again and again, that Ashes of Creation will not be a Game for everyone.

I like the Fact that you have no Problems to join it however if it is to hang out with your Friends.

Dygz wrote: »

Steven says that Ashes is not a PvP game; it is a PvX game.
But, to players who play MMORPGs on PvE servers, Ashes is a PvP game.
And the PvX label is meaningless hype... at best.

Yet the Game and the - let's call it - "passive-aggressive Hype" (

) doesn't vanish from the Focus of the Video Gamer World ... ...

I bet safely that many People who usually like only PvE-Games will give Ashes a fair Chance and turn if they can find Guilds which do some protecting for them and they are mostly gathering and doing PvE-Quests and so on.

It will be spicey whenever these People should however get confronted with a Siege onto their own Node, though. When everything they own there, might be on the Line.