My PvX != Your PvX

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

Is this a fantasy, yes. I know logically that PvX for Ashes consists of a blend, a mixture if you will, of both elements. Therefore, I think that when some of us say "Ashes isn't really PvX", what we mean is that it isn't what we would think PvX would be (Equal measure of both in my opinion).

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

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.

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

Dygz

I find the notion of "Ultimate PvE Goal" to be exceedingly odd.
I have never thought about an "ultimate goal".
I play RPGs hoping to ever quest. To have new quests and new adventures to complete - and they don't necessarily have to have anything "ultimate" about them. Just provide new experiences and stories.

Primary problem there is that players and gamers can race through content faster than devs can create it.
I do find it very likely that if I helped build a city - I would be invested in defending it from threats.
Preferably environmental threats and mob threats. And I probably wouldn't care if the attackers were other players - especially if the Sieges were scheduled days in advance.
The rise and fall of new Cities churning out new content with new quests and new mobs and new NPCs is a great way to reduce the length of Endgame. Endgame being stuck at max Level with no new content; just repeating the same dungeons and raids ad nauseum (for more than a year).

In the past couple of years, I'm finding that seasonal Battlepass Achievements can keep me interested during Endgame - because the Battlepasses typically introduce some new content every 3 or 4 months.
Also, it's currently fairly easy these days for UE5 games to include building homes/bases/villages a la Fortnite/LEGO Fortnite/Nightingale.
Even introducing new architecture tiles to build with could probably keep me interested during Endgame.
But, there would have to be enough land in the world for that to be be feasible in an MMORPG.
Looks like Ghost will solve that dilemma... if it releases.
So the Nodes system, with PvP Sieges and Caravans, is currently not the Holy Grail for ending Endgame it might have been had Ashes released before 2020.

Dygz

Otr wrote: »

I used also PvM to refer to combat against mobs but I forgot about that abbreviation.
PvE would include survival elements like sand storms, need to carry torches ...
Gathering, crafting, trading would not be part of any of these PvP, PvE or PvM but would be part of an RPG.
Gathering is for me a survival activity but I would not include it into PvE.

Gathering becomes part of RPG if it is associated with progression - in MMORPGs that's typically associated with some xp for Adventurer Level in addition to progression of Artisan Professions.
And then, I prefer to Gather on PvE-only servers, where my progression goals for a play session cannot be disrupted by gamers who want to PvP.

blat

Dygz wrote: »

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.

It’s still true today. And it’s not really about technical reasons because it’s easier to program for PvP combat than it is for PvE combat.

Generic MMO is not the same thing as an MMORPG, specifically.
Which is why I stated that if you’re coming from some other genre of gaming than RPG, yes, by comparison any RPG is going to seem heavily PvE focused because foundationally RPGs are PvE.
MMORPGs that skew towards PvP are niche at best. And generally tend to last less than 10 years.

I think what you are envisioning as a “living, breathing world”…
Ombwah (an Ashes dev) refers to as a MEOW:
Multiplayer Evolving Online World.
Which is not the same thing as an MMORPG.
Similar to the differences between American Football, Soccer and Rugby.

The technical reasons most definitely were very relevant historically, less so today and not necessarily restricted to programming either.

Internet speeds for a start were a severe bottleneck. And that's before you start worrying about managing server load before cloud infra and containerised servers were a thing.

So of course historically games would be PvE focused, out of necessity as there was simply no other choice. And the genre developed from there.

Your "MEOW" suggestion sounds pretty apt. I'm not here to debate semantics, but yes you may be right in the sense that the expectations of an MMO have evolved in this direction.
But I'd argue it's an evolution, an improvement on the same underlying concept.

Personally there's no getting away from the fact that in a world like Ashes (and many others); artificial restrictions on what can be attacked and when, are exactly that... artificial.

blat

Dygz wrote: »

I find the notion of "Ultimate PvE Goal" to be exceedingly odd.
I have never thought about an "ultimate goal".
I play RPGs hoping to ever quest. To have new quests and new adventures to complete - and they don't necessarily have to have anything "ultimate" about them. Just provide new experiences and stories.

Primary problem there is that players and gamers can race through content faster than devs can create it.
I do find it very likely that if I helped build a city - I would be invested in defending it from threats.

Agreed on all fronts!
I think the node dynamics, castles, sieges etc are a great way to bring us all together in "PvX" harmony.

Obviously it's a tough problem to solve (without resorting to the PvP/PvE server workaround as other games have) but I think they're having a bloody good crack at it.

Dygz

blat wrote: »

The technical reasons most definitely were very relevant historically, less so today and not necessarily restricted to programming either.

They were not.
UO is the first MMORPG and had plenty of PvP.
EQ is the first MMORPG with first person view and third person view. There were PvP servers.
But, the foundation of RPGs is PvE. So MMORPGs are going to primarily have PvE with PvP kind of tacked on.
They are RPGs with some PvP.
As opposed to being an MMO PvP game with some RPG elements.
Ashes skews closer to being an MMO PvP game first and foremost - because what Steven wants most is to have large scale, 250 v 250 PvP battles with near-constant Risk v Reward (where Risk = the threat of PvP).
And then, he also wants that to be taking place in a High Magic Fantasy RPG setting.

blat wrote: »

Internet speeds for a start were a severe bottleneck. And that's before you start worrying about managing server load before cloud infra and containerised servers were a thing.

Internet speeds did not prevent UO from having plenty of PvP.

blat wrote: »

So of course historically games would be PvE focused, out of necessity as there was simply no other choice. And the genre developed from there.

I didn't say "games were PvE focused" because that is not true. There were plenty of video games that were PvP focused before MMORPGs were a thing.
I worked on some of them at Activision, like MechWarrior: Netmech, Heavy Gear, Hyperblade and Call of Duty.

There were no rules restricting PvP in D&D or Pathfinder or Shadowrun.
It just very rarely occured. I've only encountered PvP twice in 40 years of playing those games.
Competitive video gamers wanted PvP to be added to multiplayer Online RPGs precisely because they enjoyed PvP in other genres of video games.

Tech limitations do not prevent the creation of PvP MMO FPS games with some RPG elements.
ShadowBane seemed to be great for the PvP gamers who wanted to play in a Fantasy RPG setting - but it wasn't popular among the majority of RPG fans because RPGs are fundamentally coop PvE, rather than competitive PvP.
And that tends to remain true today. MMORPGs like Lineage II, ArcheAge and EvE tend to be niche.
Because the vast majority of RPG fans prefer PvE.
That's why the Lineage II, ArcheAge and EvE devs are currently developing games with a lesser focus on PvP than their previous games - because they've determined that's what the majority of the MMORPG audience prefers.
That decision has nothing to do with tech limitations.
(Also why it's great that Steven is making a game that skews towards MMORPG fans who enjoy PvP.)

blat wrote: »

Your "MEOW" suggestion sounds pretty apt. I'm not here to debate semantics, but yes you may be right in the sense that the expectations of an MMO have evolved in this direction.
But I'd argue it's an evolution, an improvement on the same underlying concept.

It's not semantics.
Just as the differences between American Football, Soccer, Rugby and Kickball are not semantics, even though all include some amount of kicking a ball. And they all have different degrees of maneuvering the ball with your hands.
MEOW might be an evolution from MMORPG, just as American Football, Soccer and Rugby evolved from Association Soccer.
And, sure, Steven is trying to develop Ashes as an evolution from Lineage II, ArcheAge and EvE to have PvP more seamlessly integrated into the PvE: in order to have what he considers to be a truly PvX MMORPG.

blat wrote: »

Personally there's no getting away from the fact that in a world like Ashes (and many others); artificial restrictions on what can be attacked and when, are exactly that... artificial.

Um. All games have "artificial" rules and restrictions.
Basketball
Football
Soccer
Chess
Checkers
Poker
Bridge

blat

Dygz wrote: »

blat wrote: »

Personally there's no getting away from the fact that in a world like Ashes (and many others); artificial restrictions on what can be attacked and when, are exactly that... artificial.

Um. All games have "artificial" rules and restrictions.
Basketball
Football
Soccer
Chess
Checkers
Poker
Bridge

You've seen those "Life is an RPG" t-shirts yeah?
I think no matter which fancy acronym we give it, we all broadly know what is inferred by "MMORPG", despite the various different takes on the genre.

I think it's pretty fair to say the scope of an MMO doesn't in any way compare to the game Basketball.. etc.

A modern MMO (MEOW/WOOF/whatever) is striving for an immersive online multiplayer world.
Then when a game adds factions into the mix, or other forms of rivalry such as nodes etc
AND puts your characters combat abilities to the fore.. I think it's reasonable to suggest that the addition of consent systems with arbitrary flag timers can feel artificial to some.

Dygz

We know what an MMORPG is.
And we know that different genres of MMO have different audiences.
What counts as immersive is going to be different depending on playstyle audiences and genre interest.
There are MMO genres that do not focus on combat. And MMO RPGs - the ones with the highest populations and longevity - tend to have more focus on PvE combat than on PvP combat.
An MMO FPS is likely to have more of a focus on PvP combat than an MMO RPG.

There will always be players of any game who feel some of the rules are arbitrary/"artificial".
So there is no surprise that any individual might fall into that category.

Similarly, we probably all know what Kickball is, but...
The "kickball" I want to play is Soccer.
The "kickball" Steven prefers is American Football - which includes tackling and more hands maneuvering the ball.
The "kickball" you prefer to play might be Rugby - "I want to tackle without all the extra padding, like helmets and kneepads and shoulderpads."
And then some people might prefer to play the Kickball that is closer to Baseball.

blat

Dygz wrote: »

We know what an MMORPG is.
And we know that different genres of MMO have different audiences.
What counts as immersive is going to be different depending on playstyle audiences and genre interest.
There are MMO genres that do not focus on combat. And MMO RPGs - the ones with the highest populations and longevity - tend to have more focus on PvE combat than on PvP combat.
An MMO FPS is likely to have more of a focus on PvP combat than an MMO RPG.

There will always be players of any game who feel some of the rules are arbitrary/"artificial".
So there is no surprise that any individual might fall into that category.

Similarly, we probably all know what Kickball is, but...
The "kickball" I want to play is Soccer.
The "kickball" Steven prefers is American Football - which includes tackling and more hands maneuvering the ball.
The "kickball" you prefer to play might be Rugby - "I want to tackle without all the extra padding, like helmets and kneepads and shoulderpads."
And then some people might prefer to play the Kickball that is closer to Baseball.

Agreed so to bring this convo nicely back to the context of Ashes of Creation (I refer to the url), this is a game with heavy focus on both a) combat and b) rivalry.

So I think stating that flagging rules with arbitrary timers which punish pvp feels artificial, is an easy argument to make.

Bearing in mind I've never once expressed a wish to get rid of these rules! Quite the contrary, I understand and appreciate the intent behind corruption. I just think there are some rough edges which could be smoothed out, such as the example presented in this thread.

Dygz

Just because you make an argument does not mean the ref or the devs will oblige you.

I never said anything about you trying to get rid of rules.
I said I don't support your suggested addition to the current rules.

There will always be some players, for every game, who want to "smoothe out" rules they feel are arbitrary/"artificial" to better suit how they prefer to play.

blat

Dygz wrote: »

Just because you make an argument does not mean the ref or the devs will oblige you.

I never said anything about you trying to get rid of rules.
There will always be some players, for every game, who want to "smoothe out" rules they feel are arbitrary/"artificial" to better suit how they prefer to play.

Lol of course it doesn't. I've made no appeal to any refs or devs.
I was thinking about corruption and various wpvp scenarios, and wondered if these examples might be a case where the system doesn't quite work as intended. An open question really. So I thought a thread on an Ashes discussion forum might be the place!

The suggestion of pre-flagging as a combatant came partway through as a potential solution, is all.

Nerror

Dygz wrote: »

What Does PvX Mean?
Player versus anything. A PvX player is a player who enjoys doing both PvE and PvP. Similarly, a PvX guild is a guild which does both PvE and PvP.

Yeah that's probably how it started. And Steven is making a game catering to those players and guilds.

Noaani wrote: »

People understand that if a game is an MMORPG it will have many players on a server, it will have mobs, it will have social aspects, it will have quests. For the most part, these things are true if every MMORPG, and so that term has meaning.

Sure, it's board, but it is understood. If you say a game is an MMORPG to most average gamers, they will likely reply with "oh, so, like WoW then", or something similar. People understand the term.

PvX though - not so much.

If I were to define an MMORPG as PvE, most people would understand that to mean:

an MMORPG where you primarily or only fight against environmental factors

Saying an MMORPG is PvP would tell people

Fighting against other players is a significant part of this MMORPG

And you can't see how "an MMORPG where you primarily or only fight against environmental factors" is super vague and not a definition of anything specific, without any context. Do you think a random non-gamer would have any clue what that means specifically? They'll be asking "So are you like, fighting the weather or surviving in the desert?". It's not supposed to be specific either, btw, just like "PvX" at the top level isn't supposed to be any more specific than that. The same people that understand the average PvE and PvP terminology will completely understand PvX as being both, because that's what it means. Unless they are deliberately being obtuse.

I really think some of ya'll are missing the forest for the trees here.

Steven wrote:

A defining principle of Ashes of Creation as a PvX game is that PvE builds the world, and PvP changes the world.

You want to know what that means specifically? We have pages of specifics of what PvX means in Ashes: https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Nodes

PvX = The node system, with everything in it. The PvM, the PvP, the artisanship, the economy, the politics. All of it interconnected to a point where it starts to fall apart if you remove one of the elements. That is what PvX means, specifically.

There is more to it than the node system of course, but that's the big one.

For both the PvE, PvP and PvX terms, you always have to go to a specific game if you want anything remotely resembling specific game mechanics. Try telling a WoW player looking for a new MMO to go play Eve Online because both are MMOs with PvE, and not tell them anything else, and see what happens.

blat

Well said @Nerror

Unfortunately I think this hits the nail on the head a significant % of the time:

Nerror wrote: »

Unless they are deliberately being obtuse.

Ludullu

Noaani wrote: »

I've yet to see evidence that there is an ultimate PvE goal in Ashes.

Dygz wrote: »

I find the notion of "Ultimate PvE Goal" to be exceedingly odd.

By "ultimate goal" I mean "there's a story that you can complete". We'll even have instanced dungeons whose pure reason for existence is to let people complete said story.

Yes, we haven't seen any story content, but I'd imagine we won't see it even in beta, considering how protective Steven is of just lore, let alone direct story.

Yes, you can choose your own adventure (role), for it is gonna be a "role playing game", but there's gonna be a predetermined dev-created system-based "end" of the game. It'll most likely get prolonged through expansions and stuff, but that's not any different from "part 2"s or dlcs in other story games, so that's nothing new.

Azherae

NiKr wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

I've yet to see evidence that there is an ultimate PvE goal in Ashes.

Dygz wrote: »

I find the notion of "Ultimate PvE Goal" to be exceedingly odd.

By "ultimate goal" I mean "there's a story that you can complete". We'll even have instanced dungeons whose pure reason for existence is to let people complete said story.

Yes, we haven't seen any story content, but I'd imagine we won't see it even in beta, considering how protective Steven is of just lore, let alone direct story.

Yes, you can choose your own adventure (role), for it is gonna be a "role playing game", but there's gonna be a predetermined dev-created system-based "end" of the game. It'll most likely get prolonged through expansions and stuff, but that's not any different from "part 2"s or dlcs in other story games, so that's nothing new.

Even so, it's probably more true that if Ashes intends to deliver on a 'PvX goal' system, they can. So can Pax Dei.

Despite all else, this is the thing I know is the 'most robust' thing you can develop. A studio might mess up the process of getting to it, but I think it takes a special kind of failure to attempt to make a PvX game and mess up the PvX goal structure.

Build, Maintain, Defend, Reshape.

Works for both PvP and PvE game types, combines easily for 'PvX' games.

It's a really simple definition. If you don't like that the game has all four aspects or aren't really interested in at least 2 of them, you probably should play something else. That's not a PvP or PvE thing in this space (unless you're talking about PvP players that don't care about building and just want to fight all the time, and they'd probably move on too).

Azherae

Also I'm 100% willing to go with Ombwah's definition here, provided by Dygz, and the resultant extension.

Not every MEOW is an RPG. Not every MMORPG bothers or wants to be a MEOW. The majority of players don't even want one.

A group of RP players (or some studio GMs) can absolutely put in some effort to make a MEOW into an MMORPG for any given player. A game could have systems that then work against or tear down the RPG aspects.

We end up discussing that part of this way more than any other part. We know we have a MEOW-RPG, and it is true that they aren't common, so it's good that we might be getting another one or two. The question is now 'is this one in an acceptable place on the PvX spectrum for what it's trying to be?'.

But, since they're rare, Intrepid, via Vaknar, is asking for 'hey who has played these?'

It can't be just us and Nerror.

Ludullu

Azherae wrote: »

We end up discussing that part of this way more than any other part. We know we have a MEOW-RPG, and it is true that they aren't common, so it's good that we might be getting another one or two. The question is now 'is this one in an acceptable place on the PvX spectrum for what it's trying to be?'.

But, since they're rare, Intrepid, via Vaknar, is asking for 'hey who has played these?'

It can't be just us and Nerror.

I feel like my L2 bias and the general outlook of "humans are the same as npcs in a game" wouldn't allow me to see an rpg even if it was looking me straight in the face. To me rpg have always been just "you player a role and you have tools to make that role show through better". A meow would just be a sub-type of an rpg to me.

And that's probably the biggest reason for why it's hard for me to have a proper discussion about rpgs. Especially with someone like Dygz, who has a very entrenched definition of what an rpg must be (or what a game must be to be considered an rpg).

Nerror

Dygz wrote: »

UO is the first MMORPG and had plenty of PvP.

Dygz

Nerror wrote: »

Yeah that's probably how it started. And Steven is making a game catering to those players and guilds.

Yep. That's great.

Nerror wrote: »

<sad Meridian 59 noises>

Yep. Meridian_59 a sad wannabe.

Dygz

NiKr wrote: »

I feel like my L2 bias and the general outlook of "humans are the same as npcs in a game" wouldn't allow me to see an rpg even if it was looking me straight in the face. To me rpg have always been just "you player a role and you have tools to make that role show through better". A meow would just be a sub-type of an rpg to me.

And that's probably the biggest reason for why it's hard for me to have a proper discussion about rpgs. Especially with someone like Dygz, who has a very entrenched definition of what an rpg must be (or what a game must be to be considered an rpg).

You're L2 experience mostly just gives us a different of what a PvEer is. Because to me that's a PvEr who is willing to play on what essentially is a PvP server in EQ/EQ2/WoW.

I'm not aware of a MEOW that has been released yet.
Just as I'm not aware of a PvX MMORPG that has been released yet.

Likely a MEOW would not be so heavily invested in Questing, in Leveling via Classes or in Character Background/Character Acting.
Rather, it would be a multiplayer online game that is closer to life activities in the real world.
Kind of a cross between New World, Ashes (Sieges and Caravans to evolve the world) and vanilla Valheim.
Of course, blat would be hoping that the PvP could be as intense as New World Alpha.

And, yeah, it would kind of be like saying you can't tell the difference between American Football, Soccer and Rugby because they are all Kickball to you.

Dygz

Azherae wrote: »

A group of RP players (or some studio GMs) can absolutely put in some effort to make a MEOW into an MMORPG for any given player. A game could have systems that then work against or tear down the RPG aspects.

We end up discussing that part of this way more than any other part. We know we have a MEOW-RPG, and it is true that they aren't common, so it's good that we might be getting another one or two. The question is now 'is this one in an acceptable place on the PvX spectrum for what it's trying to be?'.

But, since they're rare, Intrepid, via Vaknar, is asking for 'hey who has played these?'

It can't be just us and Nerror.

Chronicles of Eliriya is striving to be a MEOW.
Ashes is a bit too tied to Steven's homebrew Pathfinder game to be a MEOW instead of an RPG.
Ashes is an MMO RPG. But it's primary focus is Massively Multiplayer PvP combat and Risk v Reward.
What isn't common about Ashes is that Steven is trying to make the PvP and PvE more symbiotic in a way that we haven't seen before. Steven says "reciprocal", but I view them as being more inextricably intertwined in the Ashes design than "reciprocal" suggests.

Ashes is the first MMORPG I've heard of that's trying to attach the PvX label to the Server/Game instead of to the playstyle of a Player or Guild. So, I don't really consider there to be a PvX spectrum for MMORPGs, yet.
I'm also not aware of any video games in any genre that have PvX attached to the Server/Game.
Perhaps people can list some.

Is Steven's vision of a PvX Server/Game acceptable?
Sure. It's going to be acceptable for the vast majority of MMORPG players who love Lineage II, ArcheAge and EvE.
It's not going to be accepted as well by gamers who love PvP games that are other genres besides MMORPG - they are likely to want more PvP.
Also, it's unlikely to be accepted by players who typically play MMORPGs on PvE-Only servers.
Which is a little different than Steven's original claim that Ashes should feel comfortable for PvErs who don't 100% hate PvP. Especially since that claim was based on Corruption and Steven has subsequently implemented large areas of the map that are Corruption-free.

Child Item