Did you see this today?
And there's hardly a need for hostility when arguing against someone's points that overlook important factors or simply don't hold weight. The general argument of most in favor of the changes was that they were now interested in trying the Feast because they didn't have to worry about being harrassed or insulted. They said this as if it were a frequent and common thing. Many of us who DO PvP regularly spoke up and clarified that it was not as frequent as they implied. Some were a bit more rough in response, and I'm not defending them. I AM however defending a community that is constantly mislabeled and treated secondhand.
This isn't about community size either. You would never hear me say, for example, "Crafters are more important than Gatherers because there are more of them!" (This is purely conjecture, the statement could be reversed and still be just as wrong). Or perhaps that Raiders don't matter as much as Non-Raiders because they're a minority. To even think like that is bad business, and if a company would think like that, it's the fast track to losing those people entirely. Even if PvP was "bolted on" to this game, it's here and a community has formed that enjoys it. Once again, pointing to that community and saying "well, it's only you few, so we don't need to do as much for you" is all too dismissive. Want to be like that? Then I say "Well if there's only so few of us and we only get what little you feel we deserve, then I suppose it's fair I only pay you proportionally to what you offer me." Or are you going to say $15 from a PvE-only player is worth more than $15 from a PvP-only player?
The time, money, and resources argument is invalid as well. The same time, money, and resources would be spent on, say, an issue of harrassment between players that used to date, or a player who has a history of negative behavior in PvE content (language, vote kick abuse, disruptive behavior). So no, PvP is NOT different, nor needs to be treated differently. A player behaving badly is a player behaving badly regardless of where. The idea that the Feast deserved chat restrictions - as a smaller, less-frequented content - becomes invalid if we were to apply the earlier logic that because it's not big, it's not in their interest to handle it accordingly. If we're arguing that kind of logic, then PvE content deserves chat restrictions because it's bigger, and by that logic, has more offensive players who misuse chat and behave badly. . . But we know that kind of solution would never be considered valid or sensible would it? Why then is it fine for the Feast?
I have spoken on this time and again, and I hold quite firmly to my statements. If as a PvPer - and let it be known I too enjoy PvE, but I regularly enjoy PvP - am supposed to settle for being a second priority, then it would only make sense to pay a lower "second-priority" subscription fee. But that's not how it works. My feedback - and money - as a customer should be just as valuable whether I raid, gather, dance afk in town all day, or PvP.