Quit Using "PvP"...

[jesterab]

I wont go as far as to call the op autistic however I'd argue we'd need more than pliers to unclench his anus as it's proving to be quite retentive. I'd even wager that if we gave him an enema we'd never see a drop of it return.

[Ferinex]

I can't belive how much the OP has contradicted himself in this thread.

"Quit Using "PvP" to Refer to Inter-Player Conflicts Within H&H"

"What would you call the following, if not PvP:
"Player A overcomes defenses to steal from Player B".
"Player A competes for business with Player B".
"Player A and Player B run for the same official position within the same political entity".
"Player A attempts to sabotage Player B's relations with a third party".
"Group A competes for resources with Group B"."

[Erik_the_Blue]

And yes of course there are players who avoid creating conflict. That's quite common on various MMORPGs that allow PvP but don't emphasize it.

Allowing PvP but not emphasizing it would be the same as not having PvP be fundamental to the game, which is why there would be players who avoid creating conflict. You're stating an observation, while I'm stating a reason for the observed effect.

I disagree that the term PvP carries such a connotation. I also don't see games like chess ever referred to as PvP... perhaps because the game is entirely about a "battle" between 2 players. I usually see PvP used for player-vs-player conflict in a fairly open game, where both PvP and non-PvP styles are possible.

A game like golf - where players compete for higher scores, not attack each other directly, is in no way PvP. The same applies to a number of MMORPGs - Runescape, for example, outside of its PvP worlds. (It used to have PvP area in all worlds - and still wasn't primarily a PvP game, even for those who went into the PvP areas.)

There are others who refer to chess as PvP, as shown in these two links. I'll concede that golf isn't PvP, however, and I was hasty in using it as an example.

I'll clarify my premise: I am not arguing about the definition of "PvP", but rather the connotation it takes on when using it to describe a game. Using your example, it would not be accurate to describe a non-PvP world of Runescape as being a PvP game, though it would be an accurate description of a PvP world. The distinction is in whether or not the PvP aspect is fundamental to the game. If one were to remove the PvP aspects from a PvP world, one would have something nearly identical to a non-PvP world; ergo the PvP aspect is fundamental in creating a version of Runescape that is not non-PvP.

Runescape, however, is a convenient example because it has multiple variants, whereas H&H does not, so we can't remove an aspect from H&H and compare it with another (non-existant) version. In either case, my argument is that there is no fundamental PvP aspect to be removed from H&H because it's not the case that rules for PvP were created to add to the game, but rather that rules were created which happen to allow for PvP. Some behaviors we have seen (scent baiting, alt-vaulting, etc.) are not rules created to support PvP, but rather emergent behavior on the part of the players in response to player conflict. The distinction is important. If an aspect of a game is codified by the game's rules, then the developers are responsible for it. If an aspect is emergent behavior, however, then the players are responsible for it, so it could never have been fundamental to the game to begin with as different games would emerge with different groups of players.

I'll conclude with a brief thought experiment: If there were to exist a village/nation/whatever where any and all conflict between its members is strictly prohibited, and this rule were easily enforceable (and violations harshly punished), and the vast majority of the game's players were to belong to this entity, would it still be apt to describe the game as PvP, despite player conflict largely having been removed from the game? If no, was it ever accurate to describe the game as PvP without further clarification (i.e. "a game with PvP at the moment", "a game that's as PvP as the greater community will allow", etc.)?

@Ferinex:

"Quit Using "PvP" to Refer to Inter-Player Conflicts Within H&H"

PvP means Player versus Player.

"Player A kills Player B". What would you call it, if not PvP

I'll accept that, given a context, the connotation can be limited...

You've ignored part of the context of my argument, which I've highlighted for you. Referring to my previous post which you quoted, those are all examples of both PvP and inter-player conflict, which are one in the same in the general sense. To assert that PvP in the general sense should be restricted to one player killing the other limits the usefulness of its meaning in context, and this is not my original argument anyhow. None of those are examples of games, nor necessarily fundamental properties of games. The definition and connotation of a term need not be identical, which is central to my premise.

[Yolan]

In all honesty, and with all the politeness I can muster, you have spent a heck of a lot of time arguing a point that doesn't really seem to amount to a hill of beans.

[Jackard]

It would seem brevity is not highly regarded by this forum.

[AlexFili]

PvP = A player killing another player.

Your topic fails. PvP should be banned from H&H right away.

[Jackard]

because...?