My PvX != Your PvX

Noaani wrote: »

Nerror wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Nerror wrote: »

Vaknar wrote: »

chibibree wrote: »

All in all, I'm just trying to say that I think PvX can be considered more of a spectrum where some of us like the (in my opinion) PvP heavy version of PvX and I'm sure there are some that prefer a more PvE heavy version of PvX.

As I revisit this thread and parse through its pages, I'm reminded of this part of the OP from @chibibree

It makes me wonder what elements (perhaps game mechanics or systems) from that spectrum have you all enjoyed in other MMORPGs. Do you have examples of MMORPGs that have a spectrum of PvX? If so, what are your thoughts on them, and those relevant systems?

Eve Online probably. They have hi-sec, lo-sec and nul-sec each with different consequences for PvP, but nowhere is 100% safe except inside stations. Other than that, their PvX is also very much along the lines of "PvE builds the world (universe) and PvP changes it".

An oft quoted saying from Eve - "Don't fly what you can't afford to lose" - is probably also going to be something we end up seeing in Ashes: "Don't carry what you can't afford to lose", be it inventory or caravans. Even in what you think is a fairly safe area.

How is this a spectrum of PvX as opposed to just a spectrum of PvP?

Because all the mining, ratting, running wormholes, etc. is the required PvE to build stuff in the universe. So both PvE and PvP in the same space. Funnily enough, nul-sec can be the safest areas to PvE in. If Eve Online was a PvP game, it would be vastly different. I know you have your own personal definition of what a PvP MMO is, but that doesn't make it true

Yeah, but the PvE isn't on a spectrum, just the PvP.

Can't really call that a PvX spectrum imo.

The spectrum for PvX is always about the balance, interaction and simultaneous presence between the PvE and the PvP. Saying the PvE is not on a spectrum is irrelevant to the PvX discussion. It has to be in relation to PvP, not to itself.

Tarkov and Overwatch are not MMOs. Just multiplayer, not massively. The Planetside games are a great example of PvP MMOs though. They are also the only PvP MMOs I have played and know of. They actually fit the bill without all that required PvE that other MMOs have.

I haven't played Albion, but it clearly has elements of PvE like solo, group and open world dungeons and such as well, just from doing a quick search, and you need to PvE to level up. But sure, call it more PvP focused on the PvX spectrum if you want.

Look, we're not gonna agree on this. You are certainly not convincing me with any of those arguments, and I doubt I am changing your mind either.

Noaani

Ace1234 wrote: »

Well, this is probably the premise causing the "disagreement?", because nothing I say would make sense if you hold that position on this point.

The position I hold is that Intrepid have said they want competition over resources, and so I expect there to be competition over resources.

The position you seem to hold is that Intrepid have said they want competition over resources, but will also have resources where there is no competition despite never saying anything to suggest this.

Your example of corruption preventing you from getting fish from a location makes no sense in the context of corruption being a negative resource that can be worked off - which is what it is.

I fully understand that if you ignore comments developers have made, you may well have opinions on this that are both perfectly logical and also vastly different to my own. However, when you consider the notion that resources in Ashes are literally intended to be fought over, your position that is based on them not being fought over doesn't make sense.

Noaani

Nerror wrote: »

Look, we're not gonna agree on this. You are certainly not convincing me with any of those arguments, and I doubt I am changing your mind either.

Of course we aren't - you are objectively wrong, and almost as stubborn as I am.

By your defintion of what a PvP MMORPG needs to be, there are none.

I mean, you seem to be not wanting to call Albion a PvP MMORPG despite the developer and publisher of the game calling it that - and despite MassivelyOP calling it the "Best PvP MMORPG" for three years in a row.

This is why I am comfortable with stating that your definition for "PvP MMORPG" is fundamentally, objectively wrong. You maintaining it as your opinion means you are saying that the developers, publishers and press for the product you are talking about all know less than you do.

I fundamentally do not think they know less than I do, which is why my definition isn't "my" definition - it is their definition and I just use it because it is objectively correct.

Tarkov and Overwatch are not MMOs. Just multiplayer, not massively.

This comment tells me that you either didn't read my post, or didn't understand it at all.

I specifically called the above games and Planetside "PvP games". I didn't call them MMORPG's. I was illustrating the point that the definition for PvP in games in general is different to the definition of PvP in MMORPG's.

The three games above were examples of PvP games - not PvP MMORPG's.

Noaani wrote: »

Nerror wrote: »

Look, we're not gonna agree on this. You are certainly not convincing me with any of those arguments, and I doubt I am changing your mind either.

Of course we aren't - you are objectively wrong, and almost as stubborn as I am.

By your defintion of what a PvP MMORPG needs to be, there are none.

Lol, I have been called stubborn before, that's true, but you are the one who is objectively in the wrong here about what a PvP MMO is. (This is a fun game isn't it?

) Planetside is an actual PvP MMO though. I don't know why you keep trying to dismiss that as an example. Or are you just trying to be "clever" and say that it's an MMOFPS and thus doesn't count?

Noaani wrote: »

I mean, you seem to be not wanting to call Albion a PvP MMORPG despite the developer and publisher of the game calling it that - and despite MassivelyOP calling it the "Best PvP MMORPG" for three years in a row.

This is why I am comfortable with stating that your definition for "PvP MMORPG" is fundamentally, objectively wrong. You maintaining it as your opinion means you are saying that the developers, publishers and press for the product you are talking about all know less than you do.

I fundamentally do not think they know less than I do, which is why my definition isn't "my" definition - it is their definition and I just use it because it is objectively correct.

Aren't you dismissing the PvX moniker from Steven in the same way? It's his game, so by your logic, he can call it a PvX game and it's the Truth, no matter what you think. He can call it PvE-centric, and by your logic he is still correct, because he knows more about it than anyone else. Trying to make an argument from authority like you do is a fallacy, you know?

Now, if the Albion developers called the game more PvP-centric or PvP-focused, I would have zero issues, and my guess is that is what they mean in the first place. Maybe they thought calling it PvPvE or PvX would confuse people. They still aren't widely used terms.

Noaani wrote: »

Tarkov and Overwatch are not MMOs. Just multiplayer, not massively.

This comment tells me that you either didn't read my post, or didn't understand it at all.

I specifically called the above games and Planetside "PvP games". I didn't call them MMORPG's. I was illustrating the point that the definition for PvP in games in general is different to the definition of PvP in MMORPG's.

The three games above were examples of PvP games - not PvP MMORPG's.

I understood. I was making a point that bringing in Tarkov and Overwatch are irrelevant to the discussion, because no, the definition of a "PvP game" doesn't change just because the genre is different. That's just something you made up. Or somebody else made up and you agreed with. Hell, even Tarkov isn't a pure PvP game. There are NPC scavs and their bosses you fight as a major and important component of the gameplay, which just undermines your argument a little more

I understand that for many people "PvP game" is just short-hand meaning the game has PvP elements in it. It is what it is, and it's normally not worth discussing. But when an entire thread - like this one - is purely about the semantics of the term "PvX" and you claim that PvX isn't really a thing for Ashes, and to just call it a PvP MMO, I will happily call you out for being factually wrong

Depraved wrote: »

pvp centric yet players are going to spend 95% of their play session doing pve or socializing. funny how that works.

PvP-centric because the foundation of RPGs has no PvP. The foundation of RPGs is PvE and then PvP was added on top of that.
So... the moment you have PvP that is anywhere close to the amount of PvP on an EQ/EQ2/WoW PvP-server that is PvP-centric.
Most PvPers will say that EQ/EQ2/WoW PvP servers are PvE with PvP poorly tacked on - almost as an after-thought.
Which it is. Because RPGs aren't really designed for PvP.
That is a releatively late addition to the genre, implemented by competitive video game fans (also because it's quicker and easier to test combat with real life Humans than programming mobs).

Noaani

Nerror wrote: »

I understand that for many people "PvP game" is just short-hand meaning the game has PvP elements in it. It is what it is, and it's normally not worth discussing. But when an entire thread - like this one - is purely about the semantics of the term "PvX" and you claim that PvX isn't really a thing for Ashes, and to just call it a PvP MMO, I will happily call you out for being factually wrong

I specifically called it a PvP MMORPG, not a PvP MMO.

Specificity exists for a reason.

Steven does not yet have the credentials as an MMORPG developer to make up his own terminology. Money doesn't by the respect or experience that is needed to be able to do this. When we start seeing PvX MMORPG's as a catagory in the press (proper press, as far as proper press exists in the gaming sphere - not some random guy on YouTube), then Steven can start calling Ashes a PvX MMORPG.

Until then, he is just labeling his game as being some undefined thing.

If you want to say that Ashes is a PvX MMORPG because some guy with money said it was, and with quite literally no other reason at all to do so, then cool, I guess.

Edit to add; terms applied to games (not just PvP, most terms) absolutely are on a spectrum in relation to the genre of the game in question.

For example, as far as sport/driving games are concerned, Rocket Leauge is a PvP game. However, it has a solo mode which would make it not PvP if your definition were true.

As far as sport games go, however, Rocket Leauge is about as PvP as it gets - and so calling it a PvP game in the sports genre is absolutely appropriate.

Same with survival games.

When it comes to survival games, Rust is a PvP survival game. Sure, it has some non-PvP elements, but in a genre that includes games with no PvP at all (Raft, for example), and that requires non-PvP elements to even belong in the survival genre, calling it a PvP survival game is appropriate - even if calling it a PvP game may not be.

Same with MMORPG's. There are elements that are not PvP that are required to be an MMORPG. An MMORPG having those elements does not disqualify it from being called a PvP MMORPG.

Again, your definition would see there being no MMORPG's at all that can be labeled PvP.

Planetside is not an MMO RPG.
Planetside is an MMO FPS - Competitive PvP tends to be fundamental for multiplayer First-Person Shooters.
Cooperative PvE is fundamental for RPGs - including multiplayer RPGs.

So... PvP-centric MMORPGs, like Lineage 2, ArcheAge and EvE tend to be comparitively niche.
MMORPGs that try to be "Play To Crush" tend to not last long. Because the vast majority of RPG players are PvE.
Again... which is why it's common for PvPers to complain that there are very few MMORPGs designed with good PvP. That is very true. And should be expected due to the genre.

We can expect Ashes to maintain a population comparable to Lineage II and/or EvE.
So, I think there's not much need to worry about Ashes being that successful - if it releases.

The definition of PvP game does not change based on genre? That's an odd perspective.
On the PvP/PvX/PvE spectrum - which type is EQ/EQ2 and WoW?

Well, to continue discussion of PvX spectrum I guess in a way that is not so directly connected to micro and macro-competition, we have another target point of discussion.

Freehold farms.

Are Freehold farms a 'PvX' activity? Since it is technically gathering, your definition of PvE probably defines this, but the question is simply, 'is it that farming is a PvP activity, or is it that farming is sometimes interrupted by a PvP activity?'

If we're discussing a PvX 'spectrum', this is the best baseline I can come up with for framing it. The fishing example, I hope is simply useful for pointing out to people why forced-PvP-averse players can be competitive but not interested in PvP games.

But if we're moving on to talking about PvX gaming, farming is the key point here, since unlike gathering points, farms don't move or randomize in the same way at all, yet have visual indicators of many things that can attract or trigger a relatively 'timed' PvP activity.

I think I've been ganked while picking crops in BDO more than I've been ganked doing basically anything else, in total.

Ludullu

Azherae wrote: »

I think I've been ganked while picking crops in BDO more than I've been ganked doing basically anything else, in total.

I definitely expect the same thing to be true if Steven doesn't change the freehold protections from "just the house" to the "entire plot".

The activity itself is pve. The process overall is pvx, with a varying threat level and economic pvp impact.

I definitely think that high value farms of high ranking guild farmers will be targets of enemy guild raids and/or just opportunists who know their stuff. I'd even like if those freeholds were tied to guild war goals and stuff, but it's hard to say if that's what Steven's going for with those, cause we don't know shit about wars.

Everything in Ashes is intended to be as PvX as possible.
(Yeah, "ganked" while picking flowers is usually what causes me to rage-quit PvP-Optional servers and move to PvE-Only servers.)

Freeholds/Farmsteads with crops would be easy targets. Yes.

Dygz wrote: »

Everything in Ashes is intended to be as PvX as possible.

Very true, but 'as requested', my goal here is to use it as a framing to discuss how PvX spectrums affect players.

You, for example, might actually be one of the biggest 'target audiences' for Freehold Harvest Defense, if implemented correctly, not so?

If you were in the mood for PvP, and your intent was to heal people, set traps, etc, while making sure the harvest was safely completed.

This is my current level of understanding of your wishes. It's non-consensual PvP in one sense, but it's also a thing one expects 'as part of trying to harvest crops'. Let's ignore the entire bulk of 'crop harvesting fiat protections' that save us all from praedial larceny for some reason.

In a very PvE game, you'd DEFINITELY be growing those crops in your own apartment (FFXI style). In a very PvP game, even if the crops could only be harvested by you, there would be squads waiting for your crops to reach maturity and patrolling at the safe edge of territory 'waiting for the harvest to begin' (MineCraft Worldsim servers).

I think anything between there counts as 'on a spectrum'.

Aszkalon

chibibree wrote: »

I prefer PvE over PvP so, in my mind, I'd like to see more balance between the systems.

" ~ PvE will build the World - but PvP will move the World ~ " - a Verra Deity known as Steven.

( he said it about as this. Dunno if this Line is 100% correct but that is not thaaat important. )

To be fair as someone who doesn't know the exact Numbers in Percents -> i would have nothing against PvE and PvP making up both about 50% of the whole Game.

People must just be willing to accept that not everything will either be PvP or PvE.

chibibree wrote: »

Do I want PvE only servers? No. I enjoy the risks that come with the PvP Systems in mind.

THAT's the Spirit !! >:-]

chibibree wrote: »

Will I need a group of friends to play with because (even though I'm complimented for living in the Caravan stream) I'm a big scaredy cat when it comes to PvP? Absolutely!

Don't worry. The worst that can happen to us is dying and having our Stuff stolen.

At least in Caravans.

chibibree wrote: »

I plan to play Ashes all the same, but I had seen this topic floating around and wanted to discuss it, or share my thoughts.

Comparing to what fits my Wishes for playing the most - i shall not even have an Issue if i will be part of a huuuge Metropolis, or just being a lowly Vassal-Node Citizen that will serve my unrelenting Masters whetever i like it or not. (lol)

Sure being inside a huge Metropolis gives You the Feeling of Greatness and Importance. But a whole Node-System doesn't fully sustain itself, now does it ?

Will we be able to build our own, adorable little Empire ? Or will we struggle just to get by in the lowliest Forms of being Node Citizens ? You can safely bet the Ability to find like-minded Spirits for fellow Players will play the decisive Role.

Whetever these People want more PvE or PvP will hardly matter. What matters is only how much they are willing to put in an Effort ingame for Success.

Well... it would kinda have to be scheduled Freehold Harvest Defense.
I like Sieges because they are scheduled far in advance.
I like Caravans because I can choose to Defend, Attack or - most importantly Ignore - depending on my mood.

So, yes, if my Freehold was always safe, there would be times I would be in the mood to defend other Freeholds.
If PvP is an expected part of trying to harvest crops - that is too PvP-centric for me and I will just play a different MMORPG where I don't have to constantly be thinking about PvP.

I would hope we're at a point -with UE5- where we could be growing crops on some form Open World Freehold/Farmstead instead of an (Instanced?) apartment.

Dygz wrote: »

Well... it would kinda have to be scheduled Freehold Harvest Defense.
I like Sieges because they are scheduled far in advance.
I like Caravans because I can choose to Defend, Attack or - most importantly Ignore - depending on my mood.

So, yes, if my Freehold was always safe, there would be times I would be in the mood to defend other Freeholds.
If PvP is an expected part of trying to harvest crops - that is too PvP-centric for me and I will just play a different MMORPG where I don't have to constantly be thinking about PvP.

I would hope we're at a point -with UE5- where we could be growing crops on some form Open World Freehold/Farmstead instead of an (Instanced?) apartment.

Ok, that's a good starting point I think.

You're on the far PvE side, as we all know. If generally 'crop harvesting' had an expectation of PvP, that's too PvP centric for you even if you know when harvest will be.

I'm on the far PvP side, so for me, the only thing I care about in the 'crop harvesting requires PvP to happen' space, is that the opposing attacking side needs to commit something other than time to this effort. And I mean something beyond 'the risk of being attacked themselves while lurking around the Freehold'.

On a Minecraft worldsim style server, I would not even expect that, because MineCraft is full-loot and stealth requires you to remove all your defense gear, and the stealth itself is expensive.

One step 'back' from that, in Elite, you can't pick up someone's mining results by just destroying them, there are additional requirements (you can choose to do it different ways, but the point is that these ways have some defenses which go beyond just if you can win the fight, which evens it out somewhat).

And one step 'back' from that to a very easy theoretical (an extension of Throne and Liberty, conceptually), if your group 'owned an area', anyone trying to enter that area during the harvest time to kill or just steal the harvest would probably have an experience similar to a node Siege.

Also, you could incentivize other players to defend more easily, because the way in which the 'rewards' systems of that game work (or would naturally work in that case) there would be equal benefit to both sides, conceptually.

I also know people who would 'insist that their crops just go straight into Freehold Storage'. They might be ok with PvP to disrupt their harvest, but not with an added enemy incentive that they might get the crops too.

And at least one person who would 'insist that their entire Freehold plot be safe, and the enemy can only threaten them when they choose to transport those crops'. This is actually the spot where my personal preference 'gets off the train'. I get uncomfortable at this point of the spectrum, and personally don't want it to go any further. I don't mind 'guards', but 'guards' don't work well in tandem with the current corruption system, imo.

We could get guards that just 'autodefend you when you're attacked on the Freehold premises', but then we're back to incentives.

If I'm at a spot to harvest, I'm not going to be at all interested in PvP.
Auto-defending me is kind of irrelevant - I don't need protection - I need to be in PvE mode with PvP impossible. Effectively like New World.

For me, Sieges and Caravans are Meaningful Conflict that I'm on board for.
Risk v Reward is not something that I am at all interested in.
PvP harvesting seems to fall under Risk v Reward. Which is perfect for Steven's playstyle.

Noaani wrote: »

Steven does not yet have the credentials as an MMORPG developer to make up his own terminology. Money doesn't by the respect or experience that is needed to be able to do this. When we start seeing PvX MMORPG's as a catagory in the press (proper press, as far as proper press exists in the gaming sphere - not some random guy on YouTube), then Steven can start calling Ashes a PvX MMORPG.

Until then, he is just labeling his game as being some undefined thing.

Wait, do you think Steven came up with PvX as a term, or was the first to use it about an MMORPG? It almost sounds like it. And PvX is not an undefined thing.. what are you on about?

I know I have seen it used back in the GW2 days, in 2012 or 13. I can't remember if the developers back then used it, but the gaming community certainly did.

And why do you think YOU are the authority to decide if a developer is allowed to call their game PvX?

Are you secretly the King of Game Developers? That would be pretty amazing.

Ludullu

Azherae wrote: »

the opposing attacking side needs to commit something other than time to this effort. And I mean something beyond 'the risk of being attacked themselves while lurking around the Freehold'.

Would money and/or a chance to die with green penalties (that is if the attacker wasn't already red) be enough for you or would you want something more?

I was thinking about a requirement for stolen gatherables to be "laundered" through an npc for a fee (value dependent on the resource) and some time.

And the "death" part coming from the thieves getting marked as reds for BHs by the victims (the BH being able to kill the "criminal" even after their purple flag goes away, hence the "green death" above). Say, the npc guard at the freehold has a function of "report a theft by the people who trespassed on the FH in the last 10m" or smth.

I'd still love if the criminals/reds dropped the stolen stuff first and always, and the BH returning that stuff to the victim gave more points to the BH's progress in their system, but there's obvious exploits with that, so that would have to be accounted for in some way.

Having a guard on the FH could cost an additional fee (or maybe the function itself costs smth), so the exploit would not be as beneficial overall as well.

Would smth like this be enough for you or do you think this is not as good of a deterrent?

NiKr wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

the opposing attacking side needs to commit something other than time to this effort. And I mean something beyond 'the risk of being attacked themselves while lurking around the Freehold'.

Would money and/or a chance to die with green penalties (that is if the attacker wasn't already red) be enough for you or would you want something more?

I was thinking about a requirement for stolen gatherables to be "laundered" through an npc for a fee (value dependent on the resource) and some time.

And the "death" part coming from the thieves getting marked as reds for BHs by the victims (the BH being able to kill the "criminal" even after their purple flag goes away, hence the "green death" above). Say, the npc guard at the freehold has a function of "report a theft by the people who trespassed on the FH in the last 10m" or smth.

I'd still love if the criminals/reds dropped the stolen stuff first and always, and the BH returning that stuff to the victim gave more points to the BH's progress in their system, but there's obvious exploits with that, so that would have to be accounted for in some way.

Having a guard on the FH could cost an additional fee (or maybe the function itself costs smth), so the exploit would not be as beneficial overall as well.

Would smth like this be enough for you or do you think this is not as good of a deterrent?

I don't even need that much, and at the same time, this doesn't apply in the way I am referring to.

We're talking about the spectrum, and I keep referencing Elite.

In Elite you literally MUST give up some combat ability to even have the capacity to take the loot. Because the miner had to give up some combat capacity in order to hold the loot. In Ashes this would be equal, so let's ignore that.

A miner in Elite also needs to have a mining laser (one less slot for a real weapon) and a Refinery (one less internal slot for defense or whatever) and PROBABLY a Collector Limpet Controller. The pirate needs to have a Collector Limpet Controller and a Hatch Breaker Limpet Controller, or some very specific skills that are difficult to do in larger ships.

Elite is also 'more equalized' automatically in any PvX situation because the upper limit of capacity for a specific conflict is much lower. Basically, there is no 'being level 50 vs level 20' in the same way. Your 10,000 hours of playtime doesn't convert into having an invincible (by comparison) ship, or at least, it didn't before 'a certain subset of players' complained about it.

You know that I don't believe in Ashes' balancing for any of this yet. Ashes isn't even on a spectrum for me, it's just nonsensical. You can't stack stuff on top of Ashes' design (as of the Freehold change/clarification) and reach a point where I am satisfied. That shift marked a point where Ashes PvX stopped making sense to me, and no amount of band-aids are gonna fix it.

I'm basically saying, let's discuss other games that don't have the issue to begin with. Where 'the issue' is 'the current Corruption system'.