Otr wrote: » @Dygz You are my expert. Is this a PvP centric game?https://wccftech.com/dune-awakening-qa-creative-director-clarifies-mmo-size-hints-at-beyond-arrakis/
Azherae wrote: » Steven says things sometimes that say Ashes is 'neither PvE-centric nor PvP-centric' specifically. I agree with this. I wouldn't agree with 'PvX-centric' yet, but I don't think that's ever specifically been said. I would love to ignore the semantics without needing to also ignore the conversation, and TL has a long queue.
Dygz wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Steven says things sometimes that say Ashes is 'neither PvE-centric nor PvP-centric' specifically. I agree with this. I wouldn't agree with 'PvX-centric' yet, but I don't think that's ever specifically been said. I would love to ignore the semantics without needing to also ignore the conversation, and TL has a long queue. My take on Steven's vision is that the Risk of PvP permeates everything as much as possible. He tries to describe it as a reciprocal relationship of PvP and PvE. But, it feels to me more symbiotic... where it's not really possible to escape either. So... for me, the Ashes "PvX" actually feels worse than EQ/EQ2/WoW PvP servers - which I recall having major cities as safe zones. Pax Dei is closer to what I would expect for reciprocal PvX. And the Pax Dei PvX might even be too much PvP for me.
NiKr wrote: » As I posted before, PvX has already been a term in the genre for over a decade (almost 2 tbh). The only thing it needs is a massive push to be truly relevant (just as new words do afaik). Which means that if Ashes manages to become successful and Steven doesn't start calling it a pvp mmo - PvX will have way more relevancy as a term.
NiKr wrote: » But then we also have "pvp mmo" which apparently includes any damn mmo that has even a hint of pvp in it. Or "pve mmos" that go from "everything's in open world and only has one instance of any given mob" up to "everything is instanced on a server layer in a server shard, so you might see another player from time to time, but usually you're just alone farming mobs in your own little safe room". All of these terms are semi-all-encompassing. PvX simply signifies that you're playing against both the environment and the players on the same "plain", as opposed to "you have pve and then there's also arena pvp" or smth like that. If anything, I'd say that there's barely any true pvp games out there, but due to the roots of rpgs being in pure pve and cooperation, we've gotten ourselves into a corner of "if there's any player that's vs me - the game's PVP".
Nerror wrote: » Azherae wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Cool, so Pac Man is now a PvX game. So is The Sims. The Sims Online was a PvX MMORPG. Are people still trying to claim that PvX is a useful term? There's the P-player and the E-nvironment. By the definition of that separation, players are not seen as part of the environment (otherwise pvers wouldn't complain that there're players in their games), so if you're only interacting with the game's world and its npcs - that's pure pve. If you're only interacting with players - that's pure pvp. Anything else is PvX. As Dygz loves to say, rpgs aren't meant to be "versus Players", so the pvp nomenclature had to have come into the picture at some point that was not at the start, right? Which means that PvX can do the same. Language changes and all that. As I posted before, PvX has already been a term in the genre for over a decade (almost 2 tbh). The only thing it needs is a massive push to be truly relevant (just as new words do afaik). Which means that if Ashes manages to become successful and Steven doesn't start calling it a pvp mmo - PvX will have way more relevancy as a term. His money might not necessarily give him "the right" to make a term valid, but his attitude does imo, just as it did for those who made first pvp mmos back in the day where "pvp" in an rpg was beyond a novel concent (I call those "the Dygz times" ). Nah, even I'll disagree here. PvX isn't a pointless term 'because it doesn't describe anything'. It's a pointless term 'because it describes too much without any specifics'. It's too much like a restaurant going: "Now Open! Serving: Food!" You can make the exact same argument with the term "PvE" or "MMO" or "RPG" and many other game terms when looked at as stand-alone terms.
Azherae wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Cool, so Pac Man is now a PvX game. So is The Sims. The Sims Online was a PvX MMORPG. Are people still trying to claim that PvX is a useful term? There's the P-player and the E-nvironment. By the definition of that separation, players are not seen as part of the environment (otherwise pvers wouldn't complain that there're players in their games), so if you're only interacting with the game's world and its npcs - that's pure pve. If you're only interacting with players - that's pure pvp. Anything else is PvX. As Dygz loves to say, rpgs aren't meant to be "versus Players", so the pvp nomenclature had to have come into the picture at some point that was not at the start, right? Which means that PvX can do the same. Language changes and all that. As I posted before, PvX has already been a term in the genre for over a decade (almost 2 tbh). The only thing it needs is a massive push to be truly relevant (just as new words do afaik). Which means that if Ashes manages to become successful and Steven doesn't start calling it a pvp mmo - PvX will have way more relevancy as a term. His money might not necessarily give him "the right" to make a term valid, but his attitude does imo, just as it did for those who made first pvp mmos back in the day where "pvp" in an rpg was beyond a novel concent (I call those "the Dygz times" ). Nah, even I'll disagree here. PvX isn't a pointless term 'because it doesn't describe anything'. It's a pointless term 'because it describes too much without any specifics'. It's too much like a restaurant going: "Now Open! Serving: Food!"
NiKr wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Cool, so Pac Man is now a PvX game. So is The Sims. The Sims Online was a PvX MMORPG. Are people still trying to claim that PvX is a useful term? There's the P-player and the E-nvironment. By the definition of that separation, players are not seen as part of the environment (otherwise pvers wouldn't complain that there're players in their games), so if you're only interacting with the game's world and its npcs - that's pure pve. If you're only interacting with players - that's pure pvp. Anything else is PvX. As Dygz loves to say, rpgs aren't meant to be "versus Players", so the pvp nomenclature had to have come into the picture at some point that was not at the start, right? Which means that PvX can do the same. Language changes and all that. As I posted before, PvX has already been a term in the genre for over a decade (almost 2 tbh). The only thing it needs is a massive push to be truly relevant (just as new words do afaik). Which means that if Ashes manages to become successful and Steven doesn't start calling it a pvp mmo - PvX will have way more relevancy as a term. His money might not necessarily give him "the right" to make a term valid, but his attitude does imo, just as it did for those who made first pvp mmos back in the day where "pvp" in an rpg was beyond a novel concent (I call those "the Dygz times" ).
Noaani wrote: » Cool, so Pac Man is now a PvX game. So is The Sims. The Sims Online was a PvX MMORPG. Are people still trying to claim that PvX is a useful term?
an MMORPG where you primarily or only fight against environmental factors
Fighting against other players is a significant part of this MMORPG
Ashes is a PvX game; and so in that regard, your ability to wholesale disconnect from the PvP elements of the game are likely not going to be entirely successful. Now, does that mean that you can reduce your exposure to PvP? A hundred percent; and there are multiple play paths and progression points that players can elect instead to be more PvE focused, but by the sheer nature of risk-versus-reward, and risk including not being able to predict how other players might impact your gameplay, that is an element of the innate risk that exists in the multiplayer environment of a PvX setting. So, not everybody is going to like that and we accept that; and we're not trying to build a game that everybody is going to like, because everybody it's doing that is not going to be successful, because there're just people with different interests; and you know we accept that and we're very on the nose about what we're trying to achieve. The idea is not to create a gank fest, is not to create a grief fest. That is not what PvX is; and so because of that we have certain mechanisms and systems that govern the way players engage in PvP and the majority of those are opt-in, but there is always that element of risk that's governed by the flagging system. And so, if you're interested in that I would take a look at the Wiki and look up what flagging is, and look up what corruption is. My experience tells me- and my expectations of the system are that they will signal significantly reduce a player's exposure to non-consensual PvP, but that risk is always going to be present to some degree. – Steven Sharif A defining principle of Ashes of Creation as a PvX game is that PvE builds the world, and PvP changes the world. Around 80% of the content is open-world, where healthy competition is an instigator for player friction; for potential cooperation; for the ability to yield alliances; and the political theater that comes with it. This is an intended part of the PvX game design. There won't be separate PvE and PvP servers but some servers may be more PvP focused than others. All stats relate to a player's combat effectiveness in PvX. We're very clear with our objective and philosophy on the game and we understand that they may not appeal to everybody. But it is an important reciprocal relationship between the content that's related to PvE and the content that's related to PvP and they feed off of each other. They're catalysts for change: Their progression, their development. It's things that people can value when they see something earned and they see something lost. That elicits an emotional response from the player: That they've invested time in to either succeed or fail; and PvP allows for that element to be introduced into gameplay. And we're very clear that is our objective: That risk versus reward relationship, that achievement-based mentality. Not everybody's going to be a winner and that's okay. – Steven Sharif
Dygz wrote: » Pax Dei is closer to what I would expect for reciprocal PvX. And the Pax Dei PvX might even be too much PvP for me.
Otr wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Dygz wrote: » What Does PvX Mean?Player versus anything. Cool, so Pac Man is now a PvX game. So is The Sims. The Sims Online was a PvX MMORPG. Are people still trying to claim that PvX is a useful term? I think in the AoC context, PvX is the equivalent of a PvP server on other MMORPGs. But I feel AoC is forgiving enough and helps players to accommodate to the environment if PvP is not their strong point.
Noaani wrote: » Dygz wrote: » What Does PvX Mean?Player versus anything. Cool, so Pac Man is now a PvX game. So is The Sims. The Sims Online was a PvX MMORPG. Are people still trying to claim that PvX is a useful term?
Dygz wrote: » What Does PvX Mean?Player versus anything.
NiKr wrote: » This was a very convoluted line of thought, but they are shower thoughts for a reason. If anyone got anything interesting to say on the topic of "goal/process differentiation" - I'd love to read it.
NiKr wrote: » And this is why I thought that PD is way more pvp than Ashes, because, at least afaik, there's no ultimate pve-based goal in PD, while there is one in Ashes. And considering that the pvp designs of both games might be somewhat similar - a game with a pve goal swings closer to pve side of the whatever spectrum imo.
Dygz wrote: » Pax Dei has much less PvP than Ashes.
blat wrote: » See it's funny because it's a perspective thing. From my PoV I see it as more like a PvE server (flags, rules, timers, PvP immunity...). Except rather than blanket immunity via flags (which is horribly game-breaking and boring); they've opted to use a system of incentives/penalties instead, risk v reward. To me it sounds a bit PvE, to you it sounds a bit PvP. = PvX anyone?
Dygz wrote: » blat wrote: » See it's funny because it's a perspective thing. From my PoV I see it as more like a PvE server (flags, rules, timers, PvP immunity...). Except rather than blanket immunity via flags (which is horribly game-breaking and boring); they've opted to use a system of incentives/penalties instead, risk v reward. To me it sounds a bit PvE, to you it sounds a bit PvP. = PvX anyone? I don’t know what PvP MMORPGS you’ve played. But, yes, if you are coming from PvP Online Games other genres that are not RPGs - MMORPGs are highly likely to feel very PvE-centric. Even when they include PvP. Because the foundation of RPG game design is cooperative PvE, rather than competitive PvP. So… adding in competitive PvP is like trying to jam a square peg into a round hole. Same for adding in E-Sports.
NiKr wrote: » Judging by this, they seem to be going for smth similar to AoC's "pvx" design
Noaani wrote: » See, not a single utterance at all of "PvX" in that. It's almost as if they are professionals and have done this before or some shit.
blat wrote: » Yeah again just a simple disagree. The "foundation" as in historically, maybe. But there are many reasons for that, including technical ones. I'm not debating the history of RPGs here, talking about MMO more broadly; a living breathing world. "Life is an RPG" type of thing.
NiKr wrote: » Noaani wrote: » See, not a single utterance at all of "PvX" in that. It's almost as if they are professionals and have done this before or some shit. Yes, it was Steven-lvls of wordvomit that could've been replaced with a "it's gonna be pvx" Literally no different from spiels Steven goes on when trying to explain Ashes design.
Azherae wrote: » Ashes is gearing up to be a game with great depth and options, supposedly. Every 'PvX' game sounds fine on paper until you ask for specifics, though. Maybe PD will be more PvP than Ashes, and Dygz won't play that either because it too, will 'add a large area where you are autoflagged for PvP'. Too early to know.
NiKr wrote: » And this is why I thought that PD is way more pvp than Ashes, because, at least afaik, there's no ultimate pve-based goal in PD, while there is one in Ashes.
