This was born out of the "PvP or rather PwP" thread by Thod. I thoguth I captured my own ideas of it fairly well so I am making a new thread for larger readership and input.
Back on the topic of PwP vs. PvP or PwPvPwP, I am honestly beginning to wonder if the game should be re-branded.
Ryan seems really intent on human interactions and, I suspect, his vision of that is way broader than PvP'ing, even in organized forms like wars and feuds.
I think the player-player interactions in this game, if it is healthy and robust, will be mostly in the PwP category and are intended (by Ryan, for example) to be such. PwP includes the party-company-settlement-nation hierarchy, of course. But it also includes the massive amount of trade that will ultimately be taking place in game between all different levels of player organization. It will hopefully also be present in the need to band together to fight back escalations that have real teeth. And, finally, it will be present in the simple joy of role playing characters in non-hostile environments.
As was pointed out, PvP will show up in the natural course of there being haves and have nots (or haves that don't have what you have and want it). But even then, the PvP will require PwP for the aggressor party. So, in a healthy game, we will rarely see PvP, but instead will see PwPvPwP. Take, for example, the settlements Aragon and Freevale (now the nation of Kathalphas). They are almost certain to be butting heads with the lawful good settlement of Ozem's Vigil. This is a natural tension that is to be expected in the game and, even, desired. It will make player interactions seem more real and forge stronger bonds between players on the same side.
I think a key to all of this is the dedication of GW to stomping out griefers and gankers and other anti-social behaviors. No one will want to have their account banned if it is 2 years old and almost at level 20! And constantly waiting 2 months to be at level 8? Not really going to be very appealing, either.
So the question: Should we add a new "P" to the list?
I think we should. Just listing "PvP" captures a very narrow range of player interactions. I think most people read "PvP" and think only of direct player-to-player combat and, more likely, themselves getting ganked and killed by non-consensual PvP encounters.
Adding PwP would help get people to think more broadly about what this game is and what kinds of payer-player interactions are to be expected. It will also help build the notion of this game being a cooperative play experience rather than a strictly solo one.
Thoughts?
Goblin Squad Member
|
Co-op gameplay, economical warfare and direct PvP-combat(including Sieges): how do you catch that in a single acronym?
CoEWPvP? ;)
I understand where this is coming from though: the phrase PvP does not seem to cover the scope of the game, and has a negative connotation for many to boot.
However PwP does not cover it either, imo; it misses the struggle for resources and the animosities and hostile actions that may arise from it.
FWS: Fantasy World Simulator? :)
Unfortunately, no one will know, at a glance, what PwP means, and seeing it may not be enough to generate enough curiosity to find out.
You are absolutely right and at this point there is nothing I can do about it except create a new thread.... err... maybe in a day or two.
I like the use of PwP. No, it's not common, but if a community of people start to use it and integrate it then it'll spread.
My group of friends get funny, unhappy looks on their faces when they hear that Pathfinder online is PvP focused. I don't think saying it's PvP focused really encapsulates the nature of the game that I'm reading about.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As soon as the people (that look at this game) get the hang of the idea that play (in this game) is a cooperative endeavor, the better. When I think about PVP in a game, I think about the struggle of myself (alone) vs. all the "bad guys" that want to kill me.
That isn't the best way to look at playing in PfO. Think of it in terms of GVG (group vs group). Some groups are friends and allies. Some aren't.
But you will do best in a Group/Company/Settlement/Nation. Think of playing a little different in this game.
Think of being part of a "group" and then it isn't "me against the world". It is "My gang and I, against the Bad Guys".
As soon as the people (that look at this game) get the hang of the idea that play (in this game) is a cooperative endeavor, the better. When I think about PVP in a game, I think about the struggle of myself (alone) vs. all the "bad guys" that want to kill me.
That isn't the best way to look at playing in PfO. Think of it in terms of GVG (group vs group). Some groups are friends and allies. Some aren't.
But you will do best in a Group/Company/Settlement/Nation. Think of playing a little different in this game.
Think of being part of a "group" and then it isn't "me against the world". It is "My gang and I, against the Bad Guys".
Would GvG be a short version of PwPvPwP?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As soon as the people (that look at this game) get the hang of the idea that play (in this game) is a cooperative endeavor, the better. When I think about PVP in a game, I think about the struggle of myself (alone) vs. all the "bad guys" that want to kill me.
That isn't the best way to look at playing in PfO. Think of it in terms of GVG (group vs group). Some groups are friends and allies. Some aren't.
But you will do best in a Group/Company/Settlement/Nation. Think of playing a little different in this game.
Think of being part of a "group" and then it isn't "me against the world". It is "My gang and I, against the Bad Guys".
PvP is kinda nonsense word that can mean what you want it to mean.
To the general public PvP means "bunch of high level players behaving like schoolyard bullies and camping spawn points and ganking newbies and abusing them in chat as they try to login " .
Combat Flight Sims on the other hand are absolutely PvP by definition but almost never get that label.
For some people market and industrial trading is PvP or politics and sabotage and scams are PvP.
For other people unless the activity lets you show off your leet twitch combat skills in 1 vs 1 combat its not PvP.
In EVE some people regard lobbying the forums to get rules change to suit your alliance or play style as a form of PvP.
You could go on and on, there as many "definitions of PvP" as there are players.
That isn't the best way to look at playing in PfO. Think of it in terms of GVG (group vs group). Some groups are friends and allies. Some aren't.
GvG would be the equivalent of PwPvPwP. But I think we could do one better. How about TvT- Team versus Team?
PvP is kinda nonsense word that can mean what you want it to mean.To the general public PvP means "bunch of high level players behaving like schoolyard bullies and camping spawn points and ganking newbies and abusing them in chat as they try to login " .
Combat Flight Sims on the other hand are absolutely PvP by definition but almost never get that label.
For some people market and industrial trading is PvP or politics and sabotage and scams are PvP.
For other people unless the activity lets you show off your leet twitch combat skills in 1 vs 1 combat its not PvP.
In EVE some people regard lobbying the forums to get rules change to suit your alliance or play style as a form of PvP.
You could go on and on, there as many "definitions of PvP" as there are players.
Edam's first definition is the one that does the most harm to PFO's image and seems to get the most use by potential players. But even all the other definitions still don't capture the PwP nature of this game, I think just further stresses and underlines and highlights the need for a new "P" (or TvT).
EDIT:
Anything is shorter than some of the last suggestions.
Maybe the real problem is the "v" that implies versus?
I agree. So maybe add both TvT AND PwP???
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Would GvG be a short version of PwPvPwP?
I'm used to the term RvR (realm vs. realm), from DAoC days. It's the initial impression I had of PfO - settlement vs. settlement - and I really enjoyed it there. (Except for the stunlocking. Grrrrr.) However, the extensive (and often quite heated) discussions here on individual and small-group PvP mechanics have overshadowed that, making me far more wary of the game. I suspect it hasn't helped sell the game to non-PvPers and casual PvPers who aren't Kickstarter backers already.
On a slightly related topic, if your stealth is good enough could you sneak past the Thornguards and still train even with a trashed rep ?
I think "slightly" is being a little generous there, Edam :P I suppose you will just have to wait and find out when the servers are back up.
Two observations and a suggestion. 'Team' doesn't scale well above the company level. And we seem locked up in a pattern around the 'v' of PvP. Recommend something like 'Cooperative Competition'. Emphasis added
I... like it. It is a very broad term but it captures both aspects of the game. Further, it allows for the full range of cooperation, from player-with-player up to nation-w-nation AND it emphasizes that the PvP aspect of the game is primarily driven by competition, not simply running around killing each other.
I think it is a winner.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Player to Player rather than versus might be a better descriptor "PtP", though it risks confusion with Peer to Peer. I've always been bothered by describing it as versus, when most of the interaction is co-operative, rather than antagonistic.
Or PoP, Player on Player, ToT Team on Team, or GoG, Group on Group. Or any of the above with "t" for "to" or Guild instead of Group....
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can I say that I love how we're having an intelligent conversation about the language used to describe the game? Also it's very difficult to fully describe a game that does not yet exist, but I think it's a conversation that needs to happen in order to help people draw their friends and others into the experience.
I like Cooperative Competition as a description.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Can I say that I love how we're having an intelligent conversation about the language used to describe the game? Also it's very difficult to fully describe a game that does not yet exist, but I think it's a conversation that needs to happen in order to help people draw their friends and others into the experience.
I like Cooperative Competition as a description.
I do too.
So do we have a consensus on Cooperative Competition?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I've avoided saying anything, because I don't want to be a downer, but I think Cooperative Competition implies that you're cooperating with your competition, not that you're cooperating in order to compete.
I think Realm-versus-Realm (RvR) is a reasonably accurate, and easily understood, description because it correctly captures the reality that "realms" (Settlements, Nations, Alliances) are in conflict with other "realms". What it doesn't capture is the more individualized PvP from Assassins, Bandits, and Thieves.
@Nihimon "Participation is the key to harmony."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Nihimon "Participation is the key to harmony."
I tend to be a tad too literal sometimes, and didn't want to nitpick something that seemed to have a fair bit of support. I also tend to be very deferential to the folks at Goblinworks and trust that Ryan is quite capable of competently conveying his message. That's not to say I think it's inappropriate for others to have these discussions - not by a long shot.
PwP is hard to say. I rather prefer "PaP" (Player and Player, or Player alongside Player). Yeah, the acronym isn't perfect, but it's easier to say and sounds more friendly. Shooshpap an' all that.
Wait, time to make a "Crowdforge the name of" thread!
EDIT: And if someone tries to make a "fap" comparison, I will respond with extreme prejudice and a detailed description of what "Pwp" sounds like when you try to say it out loud.
I may be being paranoid. It's very late.