Quit Using "PvP"...

[Erik_the_Blue]

Full title of this thread: Quit Using "PvP" to Refer to Inter-Player Conflicts Within H&H

Warning: This post is fundamentally an argument of semantics.

Short Version: "PvP" carries a connotation that does not apply to H&H, and therefore should not be used in reference to H&H.

Full Version:
The term "PvP" is used to refer to games (or parts of games) wherein a conflict between players is a fundamental aspect of that game. Within MMORPGs, this is generally used whenever players or groups of players are expected to combat one another due to the design of the game. More broadly, the term is also apt for describing games of other genres wherein inter-player conflicts are fundamental to the design of the game: multiplayer FPSs and online strategy games are decent examples, but even traditional games and sports like chess and golf can accurately be described as PvP. Even "A Tale in the Desert" has been described as "political PvP" due to the nature of some of its "challenges".

At least one of the devs has indicated that PvP is not the purpose of H&H (unfortunately, I cannot find the exact line to which I refer). Rather (and I am now interpreting here), the purpose of the game is to allow players to live in a virtual world with a very limited ruleset on player behavior imposed by the devs. Player conflict is a consequence of the design of the game, and not a fundamental aspect of it. This distinction is important. The game is not designed purposefully to encourage player conflict, and so it should come as no surprise that some players do not seek out such conflict. At the same time, it should be understood that such conflict is not completely avoidable due to players being given the ability to create conflict. Nevertheless, the purpose of the game is not for players to create conflict, and so it is perfectly acceptable for there to be players that avoid creating conflict.

Whenever we use the term "PvP" to describe many of the inter-player conflicts we see in-game, we do a disservice to the game as we inadvertently imply that such conflicts are the purpose of the game, and thus shape people's opinions as to how such conflicts should be regarded. No longer would they be viewed as a consequence of not limiting player behavior, but rather would be treated as intrinsic to the game, which is not the case. As a result, people would form an image of the game that is in discord with the design of the game. This is a bad thing, both from a testing standpoint and an advertising standpoint. Furthermore, if some players hold an image of the game different from others due to false impressions, it could result in unnecessary meta-player conflict, as I believe we have already witnessed.

In conclusion, "PvP" carries with it the connotation that inter-player conflict is fundamental to the design of the game. This is not the case with H&H. Therefore, "PvP" should not be used in reference to H&H to avoid giving players false impressions that would be toxic to the testing and advertising of the game, and to the player community.

[Coldsteel]

PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP PvP

[theTrav]

Perhaps rather than asking us to change our language you modify your expectations to something more reasonable?

Whenever I see someone on the forums talk about PvP I assume they mean two player characters committing violent acts upon one another, nothing more nothing less. To imply that the term means something about the broad design plans of the game is, I believe, incorrect.

[Ferinex]

Who cares?

[Jackard]

no

[Erik_the_Blue]

Also, this game is not per se designed to be PvP heavy. It is intended to emulate certain aspects of reality, and it is intended to allow for PvP combat. If PvP will be common or not is something I'll leave up to the players.

As long as it isn't obvious that it's being done solely for the purpose of ruining other people's game experience, PvP in all its forms -- theft, murder, war -- is not discouraged, quite the opposite.

Those are the quotes I was looking for.

@theTrav:
Whereas I believe the term does imply something about the design of a game. This is the premise of my argument. I'll accept that, given a context, the connotation can be limited as you have done. However, should not everyone have the same connotation in mind when discussing PvP, the discussion is rendered less useful than it could be as people will only think they're discussing the same thing. Given how the term has been used in many threads over the past few weeks, it'd be useful to have some consensus regarding its meaning before arguing that H&H is "a PvP game", "a game with PvP", or "something else entirely" (for example).

Granted, it'd be useful to point out instances of semantic dissonance where they occur, but starting a semantic sub-argument threaded to an active argument can be troublesome for both, thus why I attempted to start this independent of any other discussion.

[Colbear]

You're stupid. PvP means Player versus Player.

"Player A kills Player B". What would you call it, if not PvP? In fact, this game has more PvP than most games that I play -- it's got enforced PvP, even, which is definitely a major facet of the game, because it also has permadeath. The risk that someone will gank you and you will permanently lose your stats/xp is a fundamental aspect of this game.

[Tinsley]

*shanks u*

[Erik_the_Blue]

@Colbear:
As you say, "PvP" stands for "player versus player", not "player kills player".
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".

Besides, at no point did I say that no one should use "PvP" period, as it is perfectly reasonable to give it a limited meaning based on context.

Finally, my argument is that the "risk that someone will gank you and you will permanently lose your stats/xp" is not fundamental to the design but a consequence of it (and a necessary one at that). If it is not the case that the developers designed the game for the express purpose of allowing people to kill one another, and they did not go out of their way to add the capability in to the game (evidence is to the contrary), then it is not a foundation of the game; ergo, it is not fundamental to the game.

As I said, this is an argument of semantics. If you're not willing to discuss the merits of a given meaning of a term, then you're not arguing.

[kobnach]

PvP stands for "player vs player." Folks who choose to use the so-called black skills have chosen to make conflict with other players a fundamental part of the way they play the game. Thus _they_ are playing a PvP game, and PvP is the appropriate term for both their playing styles and the skills that make it possible.

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. Some develop cultures where most respectable players avoid PvP entirely; others have a culture of consensual PvP (some folks fight _each other_, but only scum attack those who aren't into that). I hope that H&H will develop such a culture.

Whenever we use the term "PvP" to describe many of the inter-player conflicts we see in-game, we do a disservice to the game as we inadvertently imply that such conflicts are the purpose of the game, and thus shape people's opinions as to how such conflicts should be regarded. No longer would they be viewed as a consequence of not limiting player behavior, but rather would be treated as intrinsic to the game, which is not the case. As a result, people would form an image of the game that is in discord with the design of the game. This is a bad thing, both from a testing standpoint and an advertising standpoint. Furthermore, if some players hold an image of the game different from others due to false impressions, it could result in unnecessary meta-player conflict, as I believe we have already witnessed.

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.)