ShoeTattoo

I don't see the relevance of this argument. Here's a translation, as I'm hearing it:

"Years ago the devs made design choices that didn't realize their intended outcomes, and that led to perverse outcomes. Perverse outcomes occurred because the PvP zones were set up such that some players actively sought to engage in PvP, while others actively sought to avoid it; inconsistency in player objectives led to conflict and anger between players on a regular basis. Even though players routinely question dev decisions about a host of other issues, if it is pointed out that "dev intentions were <fill in the blank> about this specific set of issues, then conversation should stop at that point."

Which of the following statements do you believe are untrue?

1. These decisions you're defending were made a long time ago and we can safely conclude that they didn't have their desired effect.
2. If you put people together who have incompatible objectives, then conflict and anger is a predictable result.

You could re-frame statement 1 as "These were not the greatest decisions in the history of mankind, so why should they be showed the same reverence as the 10 commandments?" You could re-frame statement 2 as "If you actually want PvP to thrive, why are you so determined to keep a reliable, predictable mechanism for generating discontent in place?"

If the logistics / infrastructure could be organized to support this, this sounds like a great idea. It doesn't fix all the problems associated with PvP. Still, increasing the level of ease with which PvP opportunities can be found does seem like a helpful step to take.

With the caveat that those who prefer not to PvP shouldn't be coerced or continually pestered about it, if PvP is easily available and fun for those who want to engage in it, that would be a very good thing.

You're making this more complicated than it is, as well as nastier than it needs to be.

Some treat the devs' intent or design choices as open to question about issues that they believe should be changed, while at the same time arguing in this thread that the devs' intent and design is the Final Word and Law about PvE rewards in PvP zones*. A little inconsistent, no?

* even though those choices were made years ago, they obviously didn't have their desired effects, and there have been perverse consequences associated with them.

What's even funnier--and also sadder--are those who don't understand that putting together people with objectives that work against each other leads to conflict and frustration.

You get to enjoy one train wreck after another, straight through life, if you fail to grasp that simple concept.

The vast majority of COX players ignore the PvP zones entirely, and never even enter them. The ones who never enter the PvP zones have made their feelings about being in a PvP environment abundantly clear. Of those who enter the PvP zones, many do so only to get rewards for PvE purposes, and being attacked by PvPers is nothing more than a hindrance to them, a potential source of delay and irritation.

These observations lead me to ask a few questions:

1. Why should the devs continue to spend large amounts of resources on what amounts to a niche activity, one that has obviously, and repeatedly, been rejected as "not fun" by the vast majority of COX players?

2. Given that the customer base is pretty much the same now as one year ago, why are all of us still being pestered by PvP contacts repeatedly with every alt we make? Why does the response "I've already said many times that I won't go out on a date with you, so would you stop pestering me already" not elicit an empathetic response from the devs?

3. Who is it who has the misplaced sense of entitlement here?

I'll go ahead and answer the 3rd question. The near microscopic, but extremely vocal community engaging in PvP has no business trying to continue to tie access to certain PvE rewards to entering PvP zones, not when about 95% to 98% of the community has voted with their feet on having that kind of experience. If those rewards can in some way add to the fun of those who have repeatedly demonstrated, over the years, that they would rather chew off their own arm than enter a PvP zone, then re-balance the difficulty/risk/reward ratio for those PvE goodies currently available only in PvP zones, as appropriate, and spread the love around.

On a related point, those who engage in PvP are not the least bit shy about asking for a multitude of changes to the game, regarding a host of issues. And yet, curiously, about the issue being debated in this thread, the intent and design choices of the devs should be regarded as sacrosanct; those who disagree with that line of reasoning are being represented as adopting an a priori illegitimate position because of decisions made years ago, decisions that didn't have the desired effect of making PvP more popular--in fact, I would argue they had the opposite effect--and that promote conflict and ill will between players.

Getting PvE rewards out of PvP zones would be most likely to help PvP.

People who have a frustrating series of experiences at a restaurant at some point just ... stop going to that restaurant. It doesn't matter who or why, after a while. And the current way of setting PvP and PvE players up against each other is an efficient factory for mass producing frustration.

Incentives focused on PvP are fine, and a good idea.

I've been having exactly the same difficulty getting MB to follow the arguments I've been making, but perhaps this breaks the impasse; this is beautifully expressed.

The PvP zones currently have the look and feel of some trick used by the producers of a reality TV show that's designed to promote anger and conflict between contestants and crank up the drama and ratings, except that PvP zone design in COX is set in a game that is intended to be played for fun.

Poor example. HOs are available on the market. You don't need to go into the hive to get them. I'll bet you've bought some over the years, as well, despite not enjoying being in the hive.

PvP badges and PvP zone temp powers are available in one kind of zone only. There is no alternative way to get these "shinies", that was by design, it induces players who like the shinies but find PvP annoying to enter the PvP zones, which leads to predictable and repeated friction between players who have intentions for being in the PvP zones that are clearly not in synch, and that makes it a poor design decision.

Here's a two step plan for walking in a circle, as a PvP player. Argue that PvE players shouldn't have the option of acquiring shinies made available in PvP zones in any other way. Lets put aside the doubtful claim that weighing in about how others should or should not be allowed to have fun makes any sense, for a second, and pretend that it does. Then you can complain and claim the moral high ground when those people who you argued shouldn't have other options for obtaining their shinies ... complain because they don't have other, more enjoyable options for getting their shinies.

Then you get to argue that PvE players who dislike PvP shouldn't have the option of acquiring shinies made available in PvP zones in any way other than by entering PvP zones (we've agreed to pretend you have some business weighing in about that issue, right?). And so on.

Repeat ad nauseum.

You want the devs to continue to bribe PvE players to offer up their characters as bait to PvPers, even though PvE players by and large would probably rather not do that because ... why?

How is that enjoyable for you, because that just doesn't compute for me. At all.

"I'll have fun at the expense of others who were induced to be here for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with interacting with me, and who won't enjoy it when I do. Wow! How cool! Sign me up!"

Is that the line of reasoning?

The Soul Extraction results in a nameable entity.

The Lich could be named for his ... performance or stamina, perhaps?