SPO should be turned of immediately for Shardfalls and other PVP areas

Rune, I'm not acting like that at all. I'm simply recognizing that if I want to visit the other 99% of the world it's not FULL pvp which is the playstyle of many people, not just me.

So the idea that a very small subsection of the world is going to be pvp only, seems like an odd thing to fight over. It's certainly not "heavily skewed in favor of the pvper" as 95-99% of the world is going to be PVE only, and 100% of the world will be consensual pvp.

You also have to remember that the devs have said all a long that they will try to tempt people into going into pvp areas. How can they do that when there's an alternative that guarantees you don't have to pvp?

It would be like saying to a child, "You can have ice cream, or you can have vegetables, or you can have both." The ice cream doesn't give an incentive to the child unless you say "you can only have ice cream if you eat your vegetables." Btw, vegetables are good for you, and you may like them if you give them a try!

 

Well one of the dev's has already stated that SPO was only available in PVP area's until the game goes live. Right now is not PVP testing or to give PVPers something to lord over PVEers. Right now the PVP area is open to all for TOURING purposes. So, while the tour guide is there SPO should be available, once it's gone than should SPO be disabled.

 

Chris said in the dev hangout yesterday that they were shooting for R16 to disable the Single Player Online mode for pvp areas.

 

Cool, works fro me. Missed the hangout

 

Yes envy we all know your point and you want the thrill of all of this. I try to look at it more from a community standpoint. Let people explore in single player, limit the rare resources to rare all around the world, not just in shardfalls. I understand that there should be more in shardfall areas at times but there should be some chance of getting them outside of shardfalls. To be forced to either participate in something you do not want to do, or buy something from a subset that will dominate this resource, and prices, is wrong in my opinion. Looking forward to the dev + discussions.

 

Does nobody else find it comical that the so-called PVP hat is this one?


Just saying...

 

I think of it more as a Single Player Online hat... It would only be a PVP hat if you had to pvp to get it. Kind of the point of this entire thread.

 

I'm not going to lie, I'm going to fight tooth and nail against any resource that is available to one subset only that can set prices and basically control the game. I know many of us are not as vocal as some of the pvpers but this is an area that has to be addressed.

 

Instead of a hat, they could put fishing nodes in shardfalls. Even WoW has special nodes in PvP areas and a 4 year old can play that. Its not the end of the world.

 

So what I'm hearing here is.. that the "full PvP experience" includes the killing of non-PvPers and that every zone should be open PvP. So no.. it's not the same. You're comparing people who don't want to PvP at all not being able to go into certain areas vs PvPers who want to kill them not being able to despite being able to go anywhere.

 

Thats pretty inflammatory there Tahru. Are you saying that 4 yr olds are better than those who oppose your opinion?

 

They've already said that the same resources will be throughout the game (non-shardfalls). You just won't have a high concentration of them in the same places. So you're fighting against something that isn't going to happen.

It's not like you can't get the same resources in PVE only areas. You can.

 

You're hearing it wrong, so let me say it another way.

PVP Zones are supposed to be for PVP. If players can go into those zones and not pvp, then they're not really pvp zones.

 

Forcing is NOT tempting. No amount of resources are going to tempt someone who specifically wants to avoid PvP.. The whole point of their original thinking was we could go there just to explore the place unmolested by other players. Which I might add, PvPers would NEVER see. So why should you care if someone soloist is running around the area without having access to the perks that are supposed to tempt them in the first place?

This is all beginning to sound like "we want to kill easy targets who aren't any good at PvP".

 

Thats why I suggested Virtue zones, where only ones of good virtue could enter, and with special resources of their own, and one must strive to be virtuous to enter. A reward for being good and virtuous instead of rewarding murder and mutilation. If one subset gets rewards, the other should also.

 

This is why:

I think that's a sound argument. Don't you?

It's not. I can think of far more devious ways to accomplish that goal, but I'm not a griefer so I have no interest in that pursuit.

What I don't want is a backdoor that avoids the risk of pvp. If you don't like pvp, great fine wonderful, don't accept the risk. But you can't avoid the risk via SPO because that defeats the purpose of the risk. It's like saying that you want to be a skydriver but you don't want to jump out of planes. Shardfalls are pvp zones, if you go in them you have to accept that risk.

Shardfalls are not exploration PVE zones. That would allow a different kind of risk.

 

And people who playing in single player are doing so for a reason and don't want to be forced out of it into a situation where they'll be killed by other players just so they can look around an area. What does anyone care that people who are avoiding PvP aren't going to be seen by PvPers?

You're not going to see them running around in SPO. So what does it matter? The ONLY reason I can think of for any PvPer to care.. is easy targets. PvP zones weren't going to exist in SPO. What's the harm in allowing people to roam around if they don't get the benefits?

 

You're assuming two things here.

1. That PVPers can't be virtuous.
2. That it's somehow more virtuous to take on less risk by entering a PVE only zone.

FACT: PVP is greater risk than non-pvp. It's harder and it's more challenging.

Human AI trumps NPC AI. So when you take human AI out of the equation, you're taking less risk. Which is the entire point of having RISKIER zones where you can't do that.

 

Please don't put words in my mouth. I told you exactly why I think this is important and it has absolutely nothing to do with "easy targets".

 

The only person that has permission to turn my words inside out is my wife. My posts are all 99.% positive, so I think that speaks for itself.