Can you add PvP aspects in the open world in the new expansion ?

[Yggranya.5201]

So, it is just your anecdotal evidence? In other words:

> @"saerni.2584" said:

> This just seems like a really poor justification because it isn’t backed up by data but just a “community feeling” that comes from a vocal minority of the player base.

 

 

[Fenom.9457]

There was this awesome cantha expansion post I’ve seen before where there’s a section on maps that take up space on the world and all but are based around PvP gameplay. I think that’d be neat

[saerni.2584]

> @"Yggranya.5201" said:

> So, it is just your anecdotal evidence? In other words:

> > @"saerni.2584" said:

> > This just seems like a really poor justification because it isn’t backed up by data but just a “community feeling” that comes from a vocal minority of the player base.

>

>

 

The forum tends to exaggerate a lot. The feeling that “gw2 is a dead game” or “xyz killed the game” is generally not born out by the people playing it.

 

Roaming was always tough. There are big disparities between the server links (and often you may end up severely outnumbered) in WvW.

 

Basically, you have one person saying “WvW is dead I don’t see people” and another saying “WvW has plenty of people I see them all the time. If both are not lying, then the conclusion is that there is a mixed range of population experiences and the game isn’t, in fact, dead. Due to server relinks this experience isn’t permanent either.

 

You say anecdotal. I say data point that disproves an absolute statement. The burden is on the person claiming all is vain and the game is dead. Meanwhile, I’ll be actually playing and ignoring the periodic doom and gloom on these forums.

[Yggranya.5201]

> @"saerni.2584" said:

> > @"Yggranya.5201" said:

> > So, it is just your anecdotal evidence? In other words:

> > > @"saerni.2584" said:

> > > This just seems like a really poor justification because it isn’t backed up by data but just a “community feeling” that comes from a vocal minority of the player base.

> >

> >

>

> The forum tends to exaggerate a lot. The feeling that “gw2 is a dead game” or “xyz killed the game” is generally not born out by the people playing it.

>

> Roaming was always tough. There are big disparities between the server links (and often you may end up severely outnumbered) in WvW.

>

> Basically, you have one person saying “WvW is dead I don’t see people” and another saying “WvW has plenty of people I see them all the time. If both are not lying, then the conclusion is that there is a mixed range of population experiences and the game isn’t, in fact, dead. Due to server relinks this experience isn’t permanent either.

>

> You say anecdotal. I say data point that disproves an absolute statement. The burden is on the person claiming all is vain and the game is dead. Meanwhile, I’ll be actually playing and ignoring the periodic doom and gloom on these forums.

 

I couldn't care less if any and every form of PvP would gain an ephiphany in unison and crawled to their grave, where they belong.

But since PvP is popular, according to you and people are playing it, according to you, why do people so desperately want to ruin PvE with it? Maybe it isn't what you want, but since this topic keeps popping up... Is it's some PvP community joke or something?

[Mewcifer.5198]

> @"Yggranya.5201" said:

> > @"saerni.2584" said:

> > > @"Yggranya.5201" said:

> > > So, it is just your anecdotal evidence? In other words:

> > > > @"saerni.2584" said:

> > > > This just seems like a really poor justification because it isn’t backed up by data but just a “community feeling” that comes from a vocal minority of the player base.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > The forum tends to exaggerate a lot. The feeling that “gw2 is a dead game” or “xyz killed the game” is generally not born out by the people playing it.

> >

> > Roaming was always tough. There are big disparities between the server links (and often you may end up severely outnumbered) in WvW.

> >

> > Basically, you have one person saying “WvW is dead I don’t see people” and another saying “WvW has plenty of people I see them all the time. If both are not lying, then the conclusion is that there is a mixed range of population experiences and the game isn’t, in fact, dead. Due to server relinks this experience isn’t permanent either.

> >

> > You say anecdotal. I say data point that disproves an absolute statement. The burden is on the person claiming all is vain and the game is dead. Meanwhile, I’ll be actually playing and ignoring the periodic doom and gloom on these forums.

>

> I couldn't care less if any and every form of PvP would gain an ephiphany in unison and crawled to their grave, where they belong.

> But since PvP is popular, according to you and people are playing it, according to you, why do people so desperately want to ruin PvE with it? Maybe it isn't what you want, but since this topic keeps popping up... Is it's some PvP community joke or something?

 

It's impossible to know the thought process of everyone. But to many people PvP is such an important thing to them that they want it everywhere. They want to be able to PvP at any place at any time. They want to be able to drop of a hat stop gathering mats and attack another player. These types of people can't understand why others would not want the same thing. They see PvP as an added spice to the game. "I think PvP is fun. I also think PvE is fun. Why not put PvP into PvE? Two fun things put together is like double the fun!"

 

For others it can be a sense of superiority. They know that PvE people are far less likely to know how to fight back against or even want to encounter PvP. This makes adding PvP to PvE zones an area ripe for them to harvest that easy confidence boost of killing someone who didn't even want to fight them to begin with. "Haha I win!"

This also goes hand in hand with the people who just like being a nuisance and ruining the day of other people. Being able to go around and kill people in PvE, especially in a game that did not have any PvP in PvE before, is a very good way to troll other users. "Haha you want to buy that collection item from this npc? I'm going to repeatedly kill you so you can't"

[saerni.2584]

> @"Yggranya.5201" said:

> > @"saerni.2584" said:

> > > @"Yggranya.5201" said:

> > > So, it is just your anecdotal evidence? In other words:

> > > > @"saerni.2584" said:

> > > > This just seems like a really poor justification because it isn’t backed up by data but just a “community feeling” that comes from a vocal minority of the player base.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > The forum tends to exaggerate a lot. The feeling that “gw2 is a dead game” or “xyz killed the game” is generally not born out by the people playing it.

> >

> > Roaming was always tough. There are big disparities between the server links (and often you may end up severely outnumbered) in WvW.

> >

> > Basically, you have one person saying “WvW is dead I don’t see people” and another saying “WvW has plenty of people I see them all the time. If both are not lying, then the conclusion is that there is a mixed range of population experiences and the game isn’t, in fact, dead. Due to server relinks this experience isn’t permanent either.

> >

> > You say anecdotal. I say data point that disproves an absolute statement. The burden is on the person claiming all is vain and the game is dead. Meanwhile, I’ll be actually playing and ignoring the periodic doom and gloom on these forums.

>

> I couldn't care less if any and every form of PvP would gain an ephiphany in unison and crawled to their grave, where they belong.

> But since PvP is popular, according to you and people are playing it, according to you, why do people so desperately want to ruin PvE with it? Maybe it isn't what you want, but since this topic keeps popping up... Is it's some PvP community joke or something?

 

In what way is 100% opt in PvP “ruining PvE”?

 

This sounds incredibly biased and dismissive of other people’s requests for content.

[kharmin.7683]

> @"saerni.2584" said:

> > @"Yggranya.5201" said:

> > > @"saerni.2584" said:

> > > > @"Yggranya.5201" said:

> > > > So, it is just your anecdotal evidence? In other words:

> > > > > @"saerni.2584" said:

> > > > > This just seems like a really poor justification because it isn’t backed up by data but just a “community feeling” that comes from a vocal minority of the player base.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > The forum tends to exaggerate a lot. The feeling that “gw2 is a dead game” or “xyz killed the game” is generally not born out by the people playing it.

> > >

> > > Roaming was always tough. There are big disparities between the server links (and often you may end up severely outnumbered) in WvW.

> > >

> > > Basically, you have one person saying “WvW is dead I don’t see people” and another saying “WvW has plenty of people I see them all the time. If both are not lying, then the conclusion is that there is a mixed range of population experiences and the game isn’t, in fact, dead. Due to server relinks this experience isn’t permanent either.

> > >

> > > You say anecdotal. I say data point that disproves an absolute statement. The burden is on the person claiming all is vain and the game is dead. Meanwhile, I’ll be actually playing and ignoring the periodic doom and gloom on these forums.

> >

> > I couldn't care less if any and every form of PvP would gain an ephiphany in unison and crawled to their grave, where they belong.

> > But since PvP is popular, according to you and people are playing it, according to you, why do people so desperately want to ruin PvE with it? Maybe it isn't what you want, but since this topic keeps popping up... Is it's some PvP community joke or something?

>

> In what way is 100% opt in PvP “ruining PvE”?

>

> This sounds incredibly biased and dismissive of other people’s requests for content.

 

One can already 100% opt in to PvP in the mode which is already provided for that type of content.

[saerni.2584]

> @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > @"saerni.2584" said:

> > > @"Yggranya.5201" said:

> > > > @"saerni.2584" said:

> > > > > @"Yggranya.5201" said:

> > > > > So, it is just your anecdotal evidence? In other words:

> > > > > > @"saerni.2584" said:

> > > > > > This just seems like a really poor justification because it isn’t backed up by data but just a “community feeling” that comes from a vocal minority of the player base.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > The forum tends to exaggerate a lot. The feeling that “gw2 is a dead game” or “xyz killed the game” is generally not born out by the people playing it.

> > > >

> > > > Roaming was always tough. There are big disparities between the server links (and often you may end up severely outnumbered) in WvW.

> > > >

> > > > Basically, you have one person saying “WvW is dead I don’t see people” and another saying “WvW has plenty of people I see them all the time. If both are not lying, then the conclusion is that there is a mixed range of population experiences and the game isn’t, in fact, dead. Due to server relinks this experience isn’t permanent either.

> > > >

> > > > You say anecdotal. I say data point that disproves an absolute statement. The burden is on the person claiming all is vain and the game is dead. Meanwhile, I’ll be actually playing and ignoring the periodic doom and gloom on these forums.

> > >

> > > I couldn't care less if any and every form of PvP would gain an ephiphany in unison and crawled to their grave, where they belong.

> > > But since PvP is popular, according to you and people are playing it, according to you, why do people so desperately want to ruin PvE with it? Maybe it isn't what you want, but since this topic keeps popping up... Is it's some PvP community joke or something?

> >

> > In what way is 100% opt in PvP “ruining PvE”?

> >

> > This sounds incredibly biased and dismissive of other people’s requests for content.

>

> One can already 100% opt in to PvP in the mode which is already provided for that type of content.

 

But that’s not an argument against more content. Non sequitur.

[Dondarrion.2748]

> @"kharmin.7683" said:

> If Anet believes there is enough demand for a new map like you suggest, then I would have no problem with it. My issue is asking for this content in a PvE environment when the modes for this type of gaming already exist in GW2. Could WvW and/or PvP use some extra attention? Perhaps. Only Anet has the metrics to make that determination.

 

There will be PvE maps added to an xpac regardless, try to shake off the feeling this is adding PvP content to a PvE environment, my proposal would be a map to fuse elements of PvP/WvW and PvE, not shoehorning some PvP into PvE environment. Rather, hoping that Anet could develop a new "game mode" for one map in the new expansion where there is something like a conflict to be resolved - that could both impact the story but also be influenced by players be part of factions. Of course, it requires a lot of consideration to ensure factions are balanced and players don't manage to manipulate so that like Fort Aspenwood (GW1) on a bad day sees one faction annihilate the other in no time.

 

[Vancho.8750]

Player controlled NPCs might be a fun idea, something of a Game master meta event where a player gets to control the NPCs with set skill set.

[flog.3485]

> @"saerni.2584" said:

> > @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > > @"saerni.2584" said:

> > > > @"Yggranya.5201" said:

> > > > > @"saerni.2584" said:

> > > > > > @"Yggranya.5201" said:

> > > > > > So, it is just your anecdotal evidence? In other words:

> > > > > > > @"saerni.2584" said:

> > > > > > > This just seems like a really poor justification because it isn’t backed up by data but just a “community feeling” that comes from a vocal minority of the player base.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > The forum tends to exaggerate a lot. The feeling that “gw2 is a dead game” or “xyz killed the game” is generally not born out by the people playing it.

> > > > >

> > > > > Roaming was always tough. There are big disparities between the server links (and often you may end up severely outnumbered) in WvW.

> > > > >

> > > > > Basically, you have one person saying “WvW is dead I don’t see people” and another saying “WvW has plenty of people I see them all the time. If both are not lying, then the conclusion is that there is a mixed range of population experiences and the game isn’t, in fact, dead. Due to server relinks this experience isn’t permanent either.

> > > > >

> > > > > You say anecdotal. I say data point that disproves an absolute statement. The burden is on the person claiming all is vain and the game is dead. Meanwhile, I’ll be actually playing and ignoring the periodic doom and gloom on these forums.

> > > >

> > > > I couldn't care less if any and every form of PvP would gain an ephiphany in unison and crawled to their grave, where they belong.

> > > > But since PvP is popular, according to you and people are playing it, according to you, why do people so desperately want to ruin PvE with it? Maybe it isn't what you want, but since this topic keeps popping up... Is it's some PvP community joke or something?

> > >

> > > In what way is 100% opt in PvP “ruining PvE”?

> > >

> > > This sounds incredibly biased and dismissive of other people’s requests for content.

> >

> > One can already 100% opt in to PvP in the mode which is already provided for that type of content.

>

> But that’s not an argument against more content. Non sequitur.

 

The problem with opt-in features in PvE is that so few people is gonna use it anyway because players that join PvE are for the majority PvE only players.

 

Here is what would happen: the players that would use the opt-in feature are the players who are invested in WvW/PvP or the players that have interest in the three game modes, which account for a small playerbase.

Worst effect: it would also completely deplete WvW, without fixing anything in terms of how enjoyable PvE stats are in the context of playing against players.

Even worse effect: it would fix nothing about WvW and now it would also require the PvE balance updates to also take into account this opt-in feature. It would become impossible to do some split skill updates. We all know they tried in the past to do skill update for all three game modes at the same time, it is just way too much limiting in terms what the devs can actually do.

 

In terms of player versus player in PvE I would rather have mount battles (or a big meaningful update with races) or polymock.

 

In the end, I would just prefer the devs to apply what they did in Guild Wars in Cantha for example. Territory dominance being displayed in a few PvE maps with some merchants features being locked based on how good the sever is doing in WvW. But only for the sake of convenience of course.

[Yggranya.5201]

> @"saerni.2584" said:

> > @"Yggranya.5201" said:

> > > @"saerni.2584" said:

> > > > @"Yggranya.5201" said:

> > > > So, it is just your anecdotal evidence? In other words:

> > > > > @"saerni.2584" said:

> > > > > This just seems like a really poor justification because it isn’t backed up by data but just a “community feeling” that comes from a vocal minority of the player base.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > The forum tends to exaggerate a lot. The feeling that “gw2 is a dead game” or “xyz killed the game” is generally not born out by the people playing it.

> > >

> > > Roaming was always tough. There are big disparities between the server links (and often you may end up severely outnumbered) in WvW.

> > >

> > > Basically, you have one person saying “WvW is dead I don’t see people” and another saying “WvW has plenty of people I see them all the time. If both are not lying, then the conclusion is that there is a mixed range of population experiences and the game isn’t, in fact, dead. Due to server relinks this experience isn’t permanent either.

> > >

> > > You say anecdotal. I say data point that disproves an absolute statement. The burden is on the person claiming all is vain and the game is dead. Meanwhile, I’ll be actually playing and ignoring the periodic doom and gloom on these forums.

> >

> > I couldn't care less if any and every form of PvP would gain an ephiphany in unison and crawled to their grave, where they belong.

> > But since PvP is popular, according to you and people are playing it, according to you, why do people so desperately want to ruin PvE with it? Maybe it isn't what you want, but since this topic keeps popping up... Is it's some PvP community joke or something?

>

> In what way is 100% opt in PvP “ruining PvE”?

>

> This sounds incredibly biased and dismissive of other people’s requests for content.

 

It is simple, as it has been pointed out again and again, in every single topic about this. If it has an opt in option, people who do not enjoy PvP will opt out, and that means it was wasted developing time, as why add it to PvE when no PvE player plays it? That means that the only people who opt in are people who play PvP, and that means that you can gank only other gank squads. Only new players might join in to see what it's like, but as soon as they get ganked 10 times in a row without any ability to do anything, they will opt out.

 

**So, is this some secret plot by the PvP community to gain new maps for PvP?**

[Cyninja.2954]

> @"flog.3485" said:

> > @"saerni.2584" said:

> > > @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > > > @"saerni.2584" said:

> > > > > @"Yggranya.5201" said:

> > > > > > @"saerni.2584" said:

> > > > > > > @"Yggranya.5201" said:

> > > > > > > So, it is just your anecdotal evidence? In other words:

> > > > > > > > @"saerni.2584" said:

> > > > > > > > This just seems like a really poor justification because it isn’t backed up by data but just a “community feeling” that comes from a vocal minority of the player base.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The forum tends to exaggerate a lot. The feeling that “gw2 is a dead game” or “xyz killed the game” is generally not born out by the people playing it.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Roaming was always tough. There are big disparities between the server links (and often you may end up severely outnumbered) in WvW.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Basically, you have one person saying “WvW is dead I don’t see people” and another saying “WvW has plenty of people I see them all the time. If both are not lying, then the conclusion is that there is a mixed range of population experiences and the game isn’t, in fact, dead. Due to server relinks this experience isn’t permanent either.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > You say anecdotal. I say data point that disproves an absolute statement. The burden is on the person claiming all is vain and the game is dead. Meanwhile, I’ll be actually playing and ignoring the periodic doom and gloom on these forums.

> > > > >

> > > > > I couldn't care less if any and every form of PvP would gain an ephiphany in unison and crawled to their grave, where they belong.

> > > > > But since PvP is popular, according to you and people are playing it, according to you, why do people so desperately want to ruin PvE with it? Maybe it isn't what you want, but since this topic keeps popping up... Is it's some PvP community joke or something?

> > > >

> > > > In what way is 100% opt in PvP “ruining PvE”?

> > > >

> > > > This sounds incredibly biased and dismissive of other people’s requests for content.

> > >

> > > One can already 100% opt in to PvP in the mode which is already provided for that type of content.

> >

> > But that’s not an argument against more content. Non sequitur.

>

> The problem with opt-in features in PvE is that so few people is gonna use it anyway because players that join PvE are for the majority PvE only players.

>

> Here is what would happen: the players that would use the opt-in feature are the players who are invested in WvW/PvP or the players that have interest in the three game modes, which account for a small playerbase.

 

Exactly, yet not even all of those players would "opt in". I for example love WvW, spvp not so much. Yet the last thing I want is to opt in to pvp/wvw in a pve area, where I go when I want to PVE. Unless of course there are significant rewards or benefits involved, which in turn would make it mandatory to opt in. Which defeats the purpose to be able to opt in in the first place.

 

> @"flog.3485" said:

> Worst effect: it would also completely deplete WvW, without fixing anything in terms of how enjoyable PvE stats are in the context of playing against players.

> Even worse effect: it would fix nothing about WvW and now it would also require the PvE balance updates to also take into account this opt-in feature. It would become impossible to do some split skill updates. We all know they tried in the past to do skill update for all three game modes at the same time, it is just way too much limiting in terms what the devs can actually do.

 

For anyone who has followed discussions on why for example the guild arenas use the PVE ruleset and not the pvp or wvw one:

**it seems to be very difficult to have different rule sets per map**. Difficult enough for the developers to not have bothered yet in implementing this in any way. Furthermore, **the skill splits are done only on numeric values, not abilities or effects**. That seems currently also impossible to implement between pve, spvp and wvw. Meaning a skill which say bleeds, does so in every one of its variations, only the duration might differ between modes. Also a reason why the Warclaw lost its bleed in PvE when it was changed for WvW.

 

In short, with the current limitations in place, without new solutions or workarounds, **to have pvp balance on a pve map, the entire pve map would need to be using the pvp rule set**. So each player would be affected, no matter if they have opted in or not by being forced to use the pvp rule set, or it would be the pve rule set for pvp fights in those areas, which defeats the entire premise of splitting skills for competitive modes (not to mention the whining to go along with this about unbalanced classed).

 

In short:

That's a lot of extra work for a feature which will likely see very limited use.

[maddoctor.2738]

Imagine two players deciding to duel and then one of them uses Confusion on the other. Which... version of Confusion will be used?

[kharmin.7683]

> @"Yggranya.5201" said:

> If it has an opt in option, people who do not enjoy PvP will opt out, and that means it was wasted developing time, as why add it to PvE when no PvE player plays it? That means that the only people who opt in are people who play PvP...

Right. And since there already exists a mode for PvP, putting it in PvE doesn't make much business sense to me.

 

[aspirine.6852]

Open world dueling should be no problem if you have both players agree on this. And for the time the duel is active no outside interference.

I dont really need nor want it, but dueling when both people agree could be possible..

[Swagger.1459]

duplicate removed

[Swagger.1459]

> @"Gopaka.7839" said:

> Please make players being able to join/swap between the Kurzick - Luxon factions when Cantha comes and enable them to fight in some PvE zones with the opposite faction... it will be hilarious and will make the game feel more alive with a bit of drama. Of course make it as non-toxic as possible so players won't suffer. My ideas to make this work are:

>

> **1.** _Making some rules like if two players are in same faction you stay friendly(green name) to one another and if you are from a different faction you stay neutral(yellow name). If a player starts a fight he gets negative karma effect for minutes/hours and is displayed aggressive(red name) and can be killed by both factions._

>

> **2.** _Being able to duel much like in WoW by popping a battle flag on the ground and starting the fight when the challenged accepts the duel._

>

> **3.** _Adding an option to activate battle mode on and off like a switch like the tonics novelties when they enter battle mode to fight with other players with tonics  ._

>

> I'm veteran player with 38k AP. I've played all the content that the game has offered so far and I have the feeling that there's something missing in it. I think that there must be a stepping stone between PvE , PvP and WvW. Some places that all the game modes can intertwine with eachother and players who are fan of one mode can experience all of them at once in a familiar for them non-toxic environment. I see a lot of people missing on some content because they are just fan of one mode, let's show them the others.

 

 

http://www.mmorpg.com/blogs/TemperHoof/072012/23486_Guild-Wars-2-Redefines-Open-World-PVP

 

“The overall design for Guild Wars 2 does not support fully open world PvP and it would take a prohibitive amount of work to even make it possible. World versus world is our version of open world PvP, and while it isn’t ‘true’ open world PvP for more PvP purists, it does contain many of the elements that make world PvP so exciting. Hopefully it will mostly satisfy people that want open world PvP.” — Mike Ferguson

.

@Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:

I'm not against 1v1 dueling, with restrictions to areas. But as other's noted, to do this right requires a lot of work. (Specified duel areas, a way to change the skill ruleset used based on an area rather than a whole map, etc.

We have so many higher priorities that I can't see us ever actually getting to this in the foreseeable future. Especially as we already have the means for players to create their own 1v1's via custom arenas.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"aspirine.6852" said:

> Open world dueling should be no problem if you have both players agree on this. And for the time the duel is active no outside interference.

> I dont really need nor want it, but dueling when both people agree could be possible..

Sure. Go into duel to avoid boss mechanic and/or heal up. Drop duel mode, continue pummeling boss.

What could go wrong?

 

[saerni.2584]

I’ve never seen a group of players so interested in asking a game maker to not devote any resources to something.

 

There’s so many terrible arguments:

* A new limited PvP map accessed by entering via PvP does not use PvE rule set. It can be a separate map with separate rules.

* There are two sides arguing that this will **both** cause all other PvP modes to completely lose population and that “no one” will play this opt-in small scale content. Both can’t be right. If this is so good as to break all of sPvP and WvW then Anet should do it because PvP content that good is worth development time. If this is terrible and no one will ever play it then all you lose is the development time spent on building something new for PvP oriented players who rarely get new content built for them.

* Anet has an interest in development of a variety of content. You don’t “lose” when Anet builds something for some niche set of players. We all gain by having a rich variety of content to retain players. Those raids I never play? Great way to keep players also doing content I do play.

[kharmin.7683]

That is not what the OP is asking for. Hey, if Anet wants to create a new, limited PvP map that is accessed from the existing PvP mode, then that's fine with me. That's not what the OP wants.

[Taril.8619]

> @"saerni.2584" said:

> There’s so many terrible arguments:

> * A new limited PvP map accessed by entering via PvP does not use PvE rule set. It can be a separate map with separate rules.

 

Except, this isn't what was being asked for.

 

What was being asked for is PvP areas in PvE maps. Not a separate map, but the same as the PvE map.

 

If it was just a matter of "Add a new PvP map" that's fine.

 

> @"saerni.2584" said:

> * Anet has an interest in development of a variety of content. You don’t “lose” when Anet builds something for some niche set of players. We all gain by having a rich variety of content to retain players. Those raids I never play? Great way to keep players also doing content I do play.

 

You lose something when they shoehorn content of one variety into content of another variety. For many reasons.

 

Including, stuff like:

 

- The massive balance issues it can create due to different mechanics, skill functionalities and equipment usage.

- The fact that you may not want to participate in that other content when you're going to a particular map since if you were you'd go to one of the maps dedicated to that other content.

- The spread of resources and development on a particular map caused by trying to focus on multiple content types at the same time instead of being able to dedicate everything to crafting a good experience of one type of content.

 

Again, if the suggestion was simply getting more PvP or WvW maps, that's positively fine. I'm all for that, if that's what will be enjoyed by players who play those modes a lot.

 

Shoving in PvP into PvE maps however is what is being suggested. Which is an entirely different proposition.

 

It'd be like asking for a random Raid Boss to show up in the middle of sPvP matches because "What if I wanted to do some PvE while in the middle of my sPvP game?"

[saerni.2584]

Well the OP did suggest something unworkable as in "the same map" but I was mainly trying to point out that every attempt so far to divert the discussion into a productive one (what we could actually get in line with OPs desire) was generally met with some variation on "why are you trying to ruin my game?"

[kharmin.7683]

> @"saerni.2584" said:

> Well the OP did suggest something unworkable as in "the same map" but I was mainly trying to point out that every attempt so far to divert the discussion into a productive one (what we could actually get in line with OPs desire) was generally met with some variation on "why are you trying to ruin my game?"

 

Because putting PvP into PvE maps will ruin the game for many. And that is what the OP is advocating. Diverting the discussion would no longer remain on topic.

 

Several posters, including me, have said that putting the elements that the OP wants into its own PvP instance would be fine.

[saerni.2584]

> @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > @"saerni.2584" said:

> > Well the OP did suggest something unworkable as in "the same map" but I was mainly trying to point out that every attempt so far to divert the discussion into a productive one (what we could actually get in line with OPs desire) was generally met with some variation on "why are you trying to ruin my game?"

>

> Because putting PvP into PvE maps will ruin the game for many. And that is what the OP is advocating. Diverting the discussion would no longer remain on topic.

>

> Several posters, including me, have said that putting the elements that the OP wants into its own PvP instance would be fine.

 

I think it's completely relevant. You spent a lot of time in this thread criticizing the poster and not giving him constructive feedback. Yes, if you narrowly define the topic as "his first idea," it makes it easy to complain about how pvp needs new content (maps, etc) instead. But, what I think is more interesting is to ask "why does pvp have to be only accessed through a button on the top left of the screen? Can we integrate pvp into the broader game in a way that is still separate but feels more cohesive? Why can't I do some kind of PvP that is accessed directly through the PvE gameworld and is easy for all players to see?"

 

Ultimately, it's up to Anet to decide how they'd like to develop their game. I do think, to be honest, that PvE'ers probably won't widely embrace a mini-pvp arena type set up. Even if it comes with kudos on the map like races. It might inspire a few players who play in mixed modes to try it out. It may make for a better "WvW" training area than just throwing players in cold (or EotM which needs an overhaul--now that is another thread). I doubt it would replace spvp for gear accessibility or WvW for the rewards side (and mass pvp aspect).

 

And, as you said, the idea of unlocked PvP on a PvE map would be extremely difficult from a programming and game design perspective. GW2 is a PvE game with attached PvP elements. The most you can ask for is that the PvE zone have a portal into PvP. Anything more and you make the game into something it isn't. Dueling, while a "nice feature" can be accomplished several ways that don't violate that core design.

 

I'd like to see that happen. More pvp maps are great but new pvp modes are fun too.