Open World PvP

[ElciaDeiLinus]

The only toxic thing here is when you are against this idea. Simply because the real (not made up by OP) plan of implementation would be a separate pvp world. Being against that is simply toxic as it doesn't influence the person who doesn't engage with it in any way. Then again everyone is free to argue for and against non existential problems

"If you don't agree with me, you're toxic"- well I guess we'd all better agree, since there's apparently only one permitted opinion on this matter.

I can see how some find this community very toxic now, if 'has a different opinion' is the threshold. I admit, being a WoW refugee, my opinion of toxic involves being spam reported on the forums, stalked in game or to discord, have every thread have more hostility in the first five posts than this thread has had in 45 pages, be threatened on a regular basis, have groups fall apart constantly amid slurs and personal insult spam. But if 'has a different opinion' is what's considered toxic here, then these forums are positively dripping with people disagreeing with each other in calm and rational discussions- truly a chilling situation.

There are plenty of reasons to be for open world pvp realms, and plenty to be against it- bringing up reasons on either side isn't toxic, and we shouldn't pretend it is. If it could be implemented with minimal effort (which I personally think is extremely doubtful, I think this would be a monumental undertaking) I would have no issue with it provided it is contained. I think though there's enough evidence in other games that it is not contained- of course from a physical standpoint it is, if you want to be involved with it you can go to a pvp realm, but would the community, complaints about wpvp balance, toxicity over things like camping, etc... end up being contained?

I don't know, but I do know that at the moment, those who want a wpvp realm to be added are going to have to convince SE (and to a degree, the community) that it is: a wanted feature, would see significant use to warrant the time it'd take to add it in, and wouldn't see a great deal of hostility pop up in the community as we see in other wpvp games. I doubt you'll convince anyone by antagonizing them and calling them toxic however.

[SturmChurro]

No matter how it is spun. Adding a whole separate server (like was implied years ago) does not negatively affect anybody in any way.

"But I'd be forced to play on a PvP server, just so I can have a house!"

[ElciaDeiLinus]

Imagine this. SE wants to add more housing. Is there a non toxic way to argue against that? No. Any way you spin it, it comes down to "I don't want others to have more houses".
Some people might argue with the famous (which has already been used here) "But SEs resources". Theyre not taking away anything from you by adding it. The "they could add XX instead" Is something made up by someone it's not real. If someone says "It's bad for SE or it's SEs resources" it's made up. They are not SE they don't have documentation of their business model and they aren't their business counsellor. It's a valid opinion sure but without value.

No matter how it is spun. Adding a whole separate server (like was implied years ago) does not negatively affect anybody in any way.

Except housing is already a feature in the game so it doesn't need to be developed, and housing is also a feature with proven, massive interest, so much so that not everyone can get houses.

Let's look at pvp- there is pvp in the game already, but it's not in a great state and it's not overly popular. There's already a place for duelling and settling personal differences in an opt in manner, if you need that 'wpvp' itch scratched... and it's empty basically all the time on almost every realm.

If the duelling arena was constantly so full of players that want to duel it was causing problems, then there could be a comparison made.

That said- I want more housing available (I actually already have my house- but I'd want it for other people)- but if you said 'I do not think SE should add more housing, because...' and brought up a reason in a constructive way... no, I wouldn't consider that toxic. I'd disagree with you, maybe I wouldn't understand how you could think that- but consider you toxic for having an opinion I don't like? Of course not, that's kind of absurd.

[Eldevern]

The really funny thing is since Y-P talk about new "Small Scale PVP" people translate... "Open World PVP".

That's... kind of a weird word twist especially when Y-P also add "more casually" in his own words + no "role lock" + "only a few fraction of players do PVP". And it was a reply after a question about... Onsal Hakair.

I make my bet that some people will be... really disappointed.

[linayar]

And? It is their choice 100% whether they have friends there or not.

Uh, no, lol, it's their friends' choice.

Also, frankly, if someone doesn't want to PvP and they join a PvP server just to take up PvPer's housing? ..

When there is shortage, it's a bad idea to segregate availability by locking some inside PvP server.

[SturmChurro]

Uh, no, lol, it's their friends' choice.

When there is shortage, it's a bad idea to segregate availability by locking some inside PvP server.

There are quite a few games my friends enjoy, that I don't enjoy. You know what I do? I don't play with them. It's okay! Those games aren't for me, just like PvP might not be for some players!

They aren't "locked" on a PvP server, there are DOZENS of other worlds players can join, plus there would be house openings with the players transferring to the PvP world, not to mention Oceania being added. For that matter, it's very rude if there would be players who have no interest in a potential PvP world's premise, join that world and complain about "forced PvP", and on top of that take up actual PvPer's housing. That's just my opinion though.