WOW Beta Emails Sent

[tanandae]

Do items decay?

No item decay. A rare few items that are bound to your character. I think I've encountered two of these so far. I expect a few more once we hit higher level quests, but still a small minority.

[HRose]

A rare few items that are bound to your character.

You mean they stick on your character even without the corpse run?

[Wukong]

When did anyone here make that argument? Though the claim that market is nothing but raid centered EQ clones and that PvPers are marginalized is manifestly true.

It is exactly this sort of characterization that I disagree with. Where you see marginalization, I see choice. PvP has been a valid choice since the very beginning of graphical MUDs; from M59's full PvP, through EQ's alternate rules servers, right up to the forthcoming release of L2. The only problem has been that it has proved to be an unpopular choice.

This is why I am unswayed by the vocal segment of board posters you cite. The history of MMOGs tells us that they are not the majority. And, flankly, if the postings of WoW fanbois were to dictate what the game should be, then it would be retarded.

[Calantus]

Lets take a look at Blizzard's last 5 games (I'd also include WC1, but I know nothing about it):

Warcraft 2 - Multiplayer based soley around PvP.
Diablo - PVP+ multiplayer environment.
Starcraft - Multiplayer based soley around PvP.
Diablo 2 - PVP+ multiplayer environment.
Warcraft 3 - Multiplayer based soley around PvP.

They are possible reasons why Blizzard might want at least some PvP in their game.

Me? I'd be happy with a PvP switch that can only be put on and taken off in "safe" areas that allows PvP with anyone else also flagged this way, clan wars, and/or factions of some kind. I've never been a fan of PvP+ in games, and I'll never refuse a mmog without PvP if it's good enough without, but I love being able to PvP if I want to.

[angry.bob]

It is exactly this sort of characterization that I disagree with. Where you see marginalization, I see choice. PvP has been a valid choice since the very beginning of graphical MUDs; from M59's full PvP, through EQ's alternate rules servers, right up to the forthcoming release of L2. The only problem has been that it has proved to be an unpopular choice.

First off, I'd like to hear which games you don't cosider grind/raidfests with PvP tacked on as an afterthought. The only two that don't unquestionably qualify are UO, which went haywire years ago, and DAoC, which started off as a grindfest with PvP as the focus, but is now focused on rediculous epic raid shit.

In the instances where PvP has been unpopular, it was unpopular because it’s been a shitty implementation. M59 I can’t speak to, but I’d imagine it’s popular enough or it wouldn’t still be around as long as it’s been. UO’s original implementation was crap that pretty much soured a whole generation of players to the concept of PvP, though it was fixed for a short while before they went o to break the game in general. Last reports I had the game was a ghost world. You’ve got to be kidding if you act surprised why EQ or AC’s PvP servers are unpopular. In the same vein, DAoC’s open PvP servers are/were unpopular, but the entirely RvR concept behind DAoC was popular until they irreparably broke it with ToA. Lineage and L2 are insanely popular, though they aren’t/won’t be here because of the games are monotonous grinds and we aren’t nerve-stapled inhabitants of The Human Hive. If you don’t consider one or two token servers with a statement that there won’t be any GM support on them to be marginalization, what is it?

With the exception of DAoC, the only implementations of PvP have been Shadowbane (which drove scads of people away at launch with technical issues) and the rest have simply been a server with everyone’s PvP flag turned on. Why the fuck would anyone want to play that? DAoC, a stable game engine designed wholly around player conflict is/was incredibly popular and fun. And for those who wanted to play it as a strictly PvE game, that’s a viable option too.

But pointing to the Zeks or Darktide using them as an example of PvP being unpopular is like taking a loaf of bread, mashing it up into a ring, and then using it to prove that  doughnuts are unpopular because no one wants to eat it.

Really, the issue is people wanting good PvP in a Blizzard game. As Calantus pointed out in the post above, PvP is the entire portfolio of Blizzard. Why are people surprised or pissy when people bring up PvP in a game made by people famous for their online PvP games? Like I said before, they misjudged the market for this game, and they’re really going to have to cater to what their player base is actually going to be. Of course you’re welcome to say they don’t, but even The Vision was changed to meet demand.

[tanandae]

A rare few items that are bound to your character.

You mean they stick on your character even without the corpse run?

All items stick to you when you die. You either rez at your respawn point, and take an exp loss, or you do a "ghost run" to pick up your ghost. While you are a ghost, you can't access your items, but you don't need to as you are pretty much immune to and invisible to everything. Either way, no chance of item loss.

When I said bound to your character, I just meant it can't be traded to another character.

[vukicevic]

Lets take a look at Blizzard's last 5 games (I'd also include WC1, but I know nothing about it):

Warcraft 2 - Multiplayer based soley around PvP.
Diablo - PVP+ multiplayer environment.
Starcraft - Multiplayer based soley around PvP.
Diablo 2 - PVP+ multiplayer environment.
Warcraft 3 - Multiplayer based soley around PvP.

They are possible reasons why Blizzard might want at least some PvP in their game.

They are also all games without a persistent world and no monthly fee (and thus little to no customer support).  Those two aspects vastly change things -- namely, it becomes possible for someone to negatively affect your in game experience, an experience that you're paying for.  Whether it's "griefing" or just someone coming around and picking a fight, I think this is essentially what scares off companies (and to some degree, non-PvP players).  To them, the risk of not including PvP and instead focusing on PvE content is a much smaller risk than including full PvP -- they'll piss off less players, and less forcefully than the pissed-off-ness potential PvP has.  If someone who's playing Diablo 2 or Warcraft 3 gets pissed off and stops playing, Blizzard doesn't lose any money; they actually save money in bandwidth costs.  If someone gets pissed off in WoW and cancels, they lose revenue.

Me? I'd be happy with a PvP switch that can only be put on and taken off in "safe" areas that allows PvP with anyone else also flagged this way, clan wars, and/or factions of some kind. I've never been a fan of PvP+ in games, and I'll never refuse a mmog without PvP if it's good enough without, but I love being able to PvP if I want to.

I would love for WoW to have either full PvP, or even alliance vs. horde PvP, assuming there was something for them to fight over (PS style lattice/base system comes to mind, for taking over the world).  Even better yet would be a set of PvP+ or faction PvP servers (more than 1, i.e. not throwing a token SZ out there and saying "woo, PvP!"), to try to placate both camps.

But please, no PvP switch.  It's a horrid non-solution; the people you really want to PK for asstardery will invariably never have the switch on, unless there are some very very inticing reasons to leave it on.

[Argh Im A Pirate]

I dont know, maby im not the norm, but i never played any Blizzard games online. Oh i tried at some point with Diablo 2, at the time i had a horrible connection which pretty much made it unplayable. Also tried with Starcraft, got smacked down so hard i went limping back to the single player.

You could argue that all Blizzard games are PvE games with optional Pvp tacked on the side. Which is exactly what WoW will be.

[Calantus]

But please, no PvP switch.  It's a horrid non-solution; the people you really want to PK for asstardery will invariably never have the switch on, unless there are some very very inticing reasons to leave it on.

My reason for liking a pvp switch (one that you can turn on and off) is that sometimes you feel like a little quick pvp with no real consequence. Basically I could engage in pvp without having to join a guild/faction, without taking part in some dueling system, and without having to go to a specific place.

All I'd have to do is change my pvp status, wait a while in the safe zone (to prevent abuse), then go do whatever I'd normally be doing. It's better than a dueling system (all these "better than" examples are for casual pvp) because then you're not spamming "Duel?" all the time and being ignored by those happily playing the PvE game. It's better than going to a place because I am not forced into doing something I might not otherwise be doing. In UO for example, if I want pvp, but I want to go to Doom (pvp-) then I'm SoL because I can only pvp in Feluccia. It's also better than a guild/faction system because I don't have to put up with all the BS that goes with that (not that I don't like that, but if I just want a quick pvp fix, I don't want the extra hassles).

The switch is just a way of either upping the risk in what you're doing, or advertising for pvp without having to sit your ass down somewhere and spam requests, people just know you want some pvp (it also acts as its own request, someone could see the flag and say "hey, if you stick around I'll flag up and we can fight, okay?", or they could just request a duel knowing you're more likely to accept than an unflagged player).

I think it's a good tool for a PvE game to include PvP, the carebears can go STFU because it doesn't affect them (although they will still bitch, they live off bitching about PvP), and anybody else can PvP without too much trouble. Of course it depends on how it's done, and how it's advertised. The old EQ way of perma-switching a character is just wrong. The switch (IMO) should only be used to promote quick and easy PvP without ruining the PvE parade, not segmenting the player-base and/or gimping char slots.

[Mesozoic]

PvP: What are you making?
PvE: Soup.
PvP: Can I shit in it?
PvE: What?  No.
PvP: Seriously, no one will eat this soup without the shit.  It will still be soup after I sqeeze a few logs into it.  Just eat around it, the soups still there.

or about the nine-millionth last time, PvP and PvE are not mutually exclusive,

Yes Timmy, yes they are.  Because one fucks up the other.  Theres no reason that one person's PvE catassery should give him an advantage over another in PvP.  And theres no reason that classes and abilities that work fine in PvE should be nerfed and rebalanced based on PvP results.

PvPers just keep trying to mix these two very different games, keep trying to put this square peg in this round hole.  Devs keep trying to appease them, the result always sucks, and the PvPers always blame the implementation and run off to the next new game.  Meanwhile the rest of us stand around staring into our soup, with its big floating PvP shitlogs.

[Mesozoic]

Lets take a look at Blizzard's last 5 games (I'd also include WC1, but I know nothing about it):

Warcraft 2 - Multiplayer based soley around PvP.
Diablo - PVP+ multiplayer environment.
Starcraft - Multiplayer based soley around PvP.
Diablo 2 - PVP+ multiplayer environment.
Warcraft 3 - Multiplayer based soley around PvP.

Its ridiculous to call an online RTS "PvP."

[dyvvu]

I dont know, maby im not the norm, but i never played any Blizzard games online. Oh i tried at some point with Diablo 2, at the time i had a horrible connection which pretty much made it unplayable. Also tried with Starcraft, got smacked down so hard i went limping back to the single player.

You could argue that all Blizzard games are PvE games with optional Pvp tacked on the side. Which is exactly what WoW will be.

Starcraft duels are the #1 spectator sport in Korea. Also, do check the War3/TFT ladders and/or boards and you'll find that the only thing that's being discussed is PvP balance and that a lot of people play competitively.

[Calantus]

Its ridiculous to call an online RTS "PvP."

The point is that the multiplayer components to Blizzard's last 5 games have either been soley based around player conflict, or have a system where player conflict can be forced. Blizzard built its name around games where the multiplayer pits (or potentially pits) you against other players.

[Mesozoic]

The Warcraft RTS's cannot be used as an example of Blizzard's view of player conflict in RPGs.  You're essentially trying to discern their attitude towards PvP by noting that their RTS's can be played online.  Thats stupid, because no one would release an online-capable RTS without allowing players to play against each other.  Diablo is a better indicator of Blizzard's attitude towards PvP, but even that is strained due to reasons listed above (lack of monthly fee, for example).  

By all appearances, Bliz really just wanted a MMOG set in Warcraft as opposed to Diablo.  Once that decision was made, some PvP was going to be needed just to keep with the backstory.  (Ironically, the dark and brooding world of Diablo would have been a more likely setting for 100% PvE. Diablo raid, anyone?)  Bliz seems to be dropping just enough PvP into the game to use the Warcraft world without totally breaking fiction, but otherwise they spend their man hours on quests, raids, and PvE content in general.  Its apparent in the interviews, in the material addressed in the website, and in the progression of the alpha/beta (no PvP tested yet).

[fraggleroc]

Starcraft duels are the #1 spectator sport in Korea. Also, do check the War3/TFT ladders and/or boards and you'll find that the only thing that's being discussed is PvP balance and that a lot of people play competitively.

found this in the pvp-faq-

"- The arena will attract crowds and Blizzard will allow players to purchase tickets to watch these spectacles.

- These events will be organized via a broadcast system in the game and other players in the world will be able to purchase tickets for game currency to watch these epic battles.

- No ticket no spectating."

has this been implemented in other games before? if not, i think bringing a gladiator-sort arena with audiences may add to the pvp/dueling experience. blizz is going for the "spectator-sports-effect" inherent in their rts games? i remember playing this mud that allows u to spectate from a first-person-view of a duel between heroes- in effect a FPS in a mud. that is the 'end-game' for this particular mud and it's viable end-game coz it's simply 'fun-to-spectate'.

[dyvvu]

The Warcraft RTS's cannot be used as an example of Blizzard's view of player conflict in RPGs.

It's not entirely unreasonable to assume that a company which has been producing the most competitive PvP environments in existence might add a strong PvP component to their games independent of genre, is it?

Not that it really matters but when WoW was first announced that train of thought was what got me interested in it. However, as you have pointed out it has become apparent that Blizzard doesn't really care about the PvP aspect of WoW so my interest has waned.

--dyvvu

[El Gallo]

The one mainstream RvR game there was added “raid” content with ToA and for all purposes wrecked their unique draw doing it.

The one mainstream RvR game there was just added "raid" content and is now doing better than it has ever done before, and has finally passed up that vanguard of real man's PvP, UO, in subscribers with said expansion.  Oh shit, nobody PvPs in UO anymore, 99% of the people are crammed into the carebear lands.  They must be living under some false consciousness because everybody knows they really want to be PvPing...

PvP in persistent, Western, pay to play worlds is, has been, and always will be a niche product at best and a toilet down which money is flushed at worst.  Nobody who makes mainstream games to make money is going to make PvP a focus.  Nice games, yes.  A "SB done right" could do quite well, but it won't challenge the industry leaders.  The only game that was ever a major player was UO, and that was because there was no where else to go.  

I thought SWG -- where you need to go PvP+ to get access to any real Star Wars content at all and people still don't go PvP+ in great numbers -- would end this debate.  But when you are dealing with religious fanatics, facts are irrelevant.

[El Gallo]

Have any of you seen this classic troll:
http://www.battle.net/forums/wow/thread.aspx?FN=wow-general&T=1468982&P=1

Deleted now - what was it?  I think my favourite troll on the SWG beta boards was "PETITION TO ENABLE SAME-SEX IN-GAME MARRIAGES" - and that was before anybody had ever heard of Gavin Newsome.

Someone from Something Awful made a "I don't remember ever signing up for the beta but I got an invite, does anyone want it" post, and there were page after page of people begging and throwing money at him.  He then said he would give it to the person who wrote the best story to be judged by his 5 year old son, and they wrote stories.  I LOLed.

[Arydon]

Someone from Something Awful made a "I don't remember ever signing up for the beta but I got an invite, does anyone want it" post, and there were page after page of people begging and throwing money at him.  He then said he would give it to the person who wrote the best story to be judged by his 5 year old son, and they wrote stories.  I LOLed.

It's like teasing the kids with Down's Syndrome at the Special Olympics ---  the kind that never will get that it was a joke.

[Numtini]

Given the apparent intelligence of the userbase and the fact that it's going to be large, WOW is really a game that cries out for some kind of "roleplaying" server or some way to up the IQ a few points.

Everything I've heard about the game, sans the pvpers, much to my surprise, is positive. But looking at the boards and screenshots, I can't get too excited.

[Sloth]

I think it's a good tool for a PvE game to include PvP, the carebears can go STFU because it doesn't affect them (although they will still bitch, they live off bitching about PvP), and anybody else can PvP without too much trouble. Of course it depends on how it's done, and how it's advertised. The old EQ way of perma-switching a character is just wrong. The switch (IMO) should only be used to promote quick and easy PvP without ruining the PvE parade, not segmenting the player-base and/or gimping char slots.

I don't see any "carebear" bitching about PVP in games anymore, not since early UO. The complainers are the PVP crowd who don't know what they want, despite a wide variety of choices. You name a PVP system, and you can find a MMOG with it.

[Numtini]

The complainers are the PVP crowd who don't know what they want, despite a wide variety of choices. You name a PVP system, and you can find a MMOG with it.

I think the big thing people, particularly those who remember UO, pine for is really unwilling victims, trapped by a lack of choices into playing a PVP game when they aren't interested in PVP.

Whether it's because they're griefers or they want to play the heros protecting the sheep, unwilling victims are the holy grail of PVP.

And they are never ever ever coming back.

[Sloth]

The complainers are the PVP crowd who don't know what they want, despite a wide variety of choices. You name a PVP system, and you can find a MMOG with it.

I think the big thing people, particularly those who remember UO, pine for is really unwilling victims, trapped by a lack of choices into playing a PVP game when they aren't interested in PVP.

Whether it's because they're griefers or they want to play the heros protecting the sheep, unwilling victims are the holy grail of PVP.

And they are never ever ever coming back.

Ah yes. I've also come to that same conclusion several times, I included it in my analysis of UO and UO journals. Wolves and Sheep are integral for meaningful PVP, and by meaningful I mean something that doesn't boil down into a deathmatch.

Lineage 2 actually offers this to some extent, anyone can be pk'd at any time. The big wrinkle over UO is , that PKs are outcasts and basically can't play the game anymore. Yes its harsh, and its certainly not like it was in UO, but nevertheless you can do it. But in a way even Lineage 2 conveys a sense of being consentual PVP because you know going into the game what the system is like. With UO it was different, clearly PVP wasn't meant to be the playstyle it turned out to be.

But you are right, UO pvp will never happen again. If that is what the PVPers are holding out for they are going to be disappointed everytime a new MMOG comes out.

[Sairon]

I've played and done excesive research on Lineage 2 for some time now, and it seems the Lineage 2 system is really great, yet to see how it turns out in the western world thou. This is how it worked in Lineage 1. Loads of people was red even if it meant penalties. Being red is a terrible thing if you're alone, everybody will try to kill you, and eventually people will most likely kill you. Which means you will be dropping goodies all over the place.

However, imagine a group of organized fairly high people being red. They run around in the woods, and people either decide to flee, or give them a shot for the chance of goodies. How much of chance do you think unorganized people will stand? I wouldn't bet they would have any. Now a bunch of white guilds form to kill this red group, but how will they find this group? The only thing they have to go on is where they last killed a guy, and that is if that guy they killed was able to pass the information over to the white guys. And there's no way to communicate with the whole world (shout did indeed reach very far before, but as of Chronicle 1, the patch which arrives at p2p in US, it only reaches 1/4 of what it did before).

This makes for some very very intresting PVP, which very much was the case in Lineage 1, according to those who have played it. There's a whole Order vs Chaos war going on.

Sure this is a bit off topic, but I really think the PVP in Lineage 2 will be great. The only bad part is the pretty harsh XP loss involved in non guild wars/sieges.

[Phred]

The truly ironic thing is, in all the debates and flames between the PvPers and the Carebears back when UO was the only choice, one of the PvP+ crowd's main arguments was, it's built into the game, so deal with it. Now there's other alternatives where having to play sheep for others amusement isn't built in, dealing with it is the last thing on their minds.

I really don't think there's much hope that many large companies are going to design a game for the crowd who used to keep score by how many people they caused to quit the game. I think their best hope is going to be some smaller company, like the guys that did ATiTD, and hopefully one who won't get the basics so screwed up that game is unplayable like Wolfpack did.

[Phred]

However, imagine a group of organized fairly high people being red. They run around in the woods, and people either decide to flee, or give them a shot for the chance of goodies. How much of chance do you think unorganized people will stand? I wouldn't bet they would have any. Now a bunch of white guilds form to kill this red group, but how will they find this group? The only thing they have to go on is where they last killed a guy, and that is that guy they killed was able to pass the information over to the white guys. And there's no way to communicate with the whole world

Are the North Americans going to be playing on the same servers as the Tiawanese? One of the big advantages they have is playing in PC Bangs, where lack of world wide communication isnt going to hinder them much at all, as they can just talk to the people around them in the cafe. If North American servers are going to be seperate, the reds will probably organise via IRC or ICQ, just as they did in UO. As UO proved fairly well, it's always the reds who manage to be the best organised, because of the huge advantage it gives them in coordinating attacks with out of band communication. The lack of long range communication will always hamper the antis, to use the UO term, far more than the pks.

[Sairon]

In Lineage 2 NA will get their own servers, and europeans have officially been allowed to play on them.

[Calantus]

I think it's a good tool for a PvE game to include PvP, the carebears can go STFU because it doesn't affect them (although they will still bitch, they live off bitching about PvP), and anybody else can PvP without too much trouble. Of course it depends on how it's done, and how it's advertised. The old EQ way of perma-switching a character is just wrong. The switch (IMO) should only be used to promote quick and easy PvP without ruining the PvE parade, not segmenting the player-base and/or gimping char slots.

I don't see any "carebear" bitching about PVP in games anymore, not since early UO. The complainers are the PVP crowd who don't know what they want, despite a wide variety of choices. You name a PVP system, and you can find a MMOG with it.

Then you don't follow UO, there's still debate about PvP with Tramelites being pissed that 1/4th of the world is PvP+. Though some of that has died down with power scrolls now being really cheap.

That doesn't matter though, the only reason that people aren't bitching about pvp is because there is no game that forces it anymore (other than shadowbane, and you know what you're getting with that one). My point was that a flag enables pvp without the bitching you'd get with a full pvp+ environment (and honestly, I don't think a MMOG can be successful on a large scale as a PvE game with PvP+ environment, it's just not workable).

Plus I think it's stupid to make a large MMOG without pv of some form, if only to sucker the pvp crowd into paying for the box and at least a month before they realise the pvp is token at best. Hell, if you're lucky you could have them subscribe for a few months before they get sick of it, or develop a long-lasting niche of pvp players. It's just extra money if the PvE isn't affected.

[Malathor]

I don't think a MMOG can be successful on a large scale as a PvE game with PvP+ environment, it's just not workable

Lineage 2, whatever you think of its other merits or faults, has implemented what you say is not workable and IMHO made it work. I just don't see where examples about the failure of UO's idiotic implementation of PvP have any relevance anymore.

[Sloth]

Plus I think it's stupid to make a large MMOG without pv of some form, if only to sucker the pvp crowd into paying for the box and at least a month before they realise the pvp is token at best. Hell, if you're lucky you could have them subscribe for a few months before they get sick of it, or develop a long-lasting niche of pvp players. It's just extra money if the PvE isn't affected.

I have nothing against PVP. From an ideological standpoint I actually like UO's pre trammel world the best, in fact I don't even consider Old School UO a PVP game anymore than I consider it a cooking simulation or a mongbat taming video. For awhile, UO was everything that MMOGs were suppose to be despite its warts.

I don't follow the UO forums, but I'm sure there are UO carebears who might bitch about being PK'd in Felucca, but my point was that for the most part if a game offers consentual PVP (safe zones, factional pvp), you won't see a meaningful number of people complaining about it.

I've found recently that the complaints are mostly from the PVP advocates. Games have too much PVE or the PVP they offer isn't "good". There really aren't many variations of PVP left to try. WoW is going to flesh out the instanced zones and after that I don't know what system you could implement next that hasn't already been done.

[Calantus]

Damn koreans... I'll be interested once it makes it in the US, I'll care when they get a Aus server. It's a self-centered statement, but I was basically thinking of the Western market when I said the above about pvp.

I suppose what pvpers are looking for is combat that isn't broken. To me, UO pvp is pretty shite, and while it has been better in the past, it was never what you'd call ideal. Frankly I'm not even sure why I like it, there's just something about mmog pvp that appelas to me in some way (and I don't pk, so the whole victim thing isn't it... I've killed 2 miners, and quickly decided it was boring). AC pvp was broken by power descrepencies (apparently it was alright in the behginning, but I didn't play it for a while), and EQ pvp was never balanced in any way, shape or form. I haven't played anything else, but I've heard bad things about all of them (buggy SB, unbalanced this, unbalanced that).

So I guess the holy grail is yet to be found, and pvpers look to each new game to contain what they crave. Sure there's FPS and RTS games to compete against other players, but mmogs definately have something that makes pvp unique and yearned for... just every iteration is teh suk at the moment.

[fraggleroc]

i don't know but i think, for all we know, pvp/duelling in an arena with spectators will be the 'end-game'/mainstay for WoW. especially if they tag a ranking system ala wc3 ladder-ranking to the duels. the arenas will be the places everyone flocks to when they want to pvp, everyone will pvp to rise in the ranks. forget about the 'frontier-daoc' battlegrounds- unless there's some real incentive to pvp there- it's been proven in daoc that it's a boring affair to have to run for half an hour to look for someone to fight with.

i think blizzard Is thinking about pvp and pvp-balance. that is why they've limited the number of classes to only 9, when they could've included lots more- it's easier to balance with only 9 classes.  

pardon my english.

[ClumsyOaf]

But please, no PvP switch.  It's a horrid non-solution; the people you really want to PK for asstardery will invariably never have the switch on, unless there are some very very inticing reasons to leave it on.

My reason for liking a pvp switch (one that you can turn on and off) is that sometimes you feel like a little quick pvp with no real consequence. Basically I could engage in pvp without having to join a guild/faction, without taking part in some dueling system, and without having to go to a specific place.

All I'd have to do is change my pvp status, wait a while in the safe zone (to prevent abuse), then go do whatever I'd normally be doing. It's better than a dueling system (all these "better than" examples are for casual pvp) because then you're not spamming "Duel?" all the time and being ignored by those happily playing the PvE game. It's better than going to a place because I am not forced into doing something I might not otherwise be doing. In UO for example, if I want pvp, but I want to go to Doom (pvp-) then I'm SoL because I can only pvp in Feluccia. It's also better than a guild/faction system because I don't have to put up with all the BS that goes with that (not that I don't like that, but if I just want a quick pvp fix, I don't want the extra hassles).

The switch is just a way of either upping the risk in what you're doing, or advertising for pvp without having to sit your ass down somewhere and spam requests, people just know you want some pvp (it also acts as its own request, someone could see the flag and say "hey, if you stick around I'll flag up and we can fight, okay?", or they could just request a duel knowing you're more likely to accept than an unflagged player).

I think it's a good tool for a PvE game to include PvP, the carebears can go STFU because it doesn't affect them (although they will still bitch, they live off bitching about PvP), and anybody else can PvP without too much trouble. Of course it depends on how it's done, and how it's advertised. The old EQ way of perma-switching a character is just wrong. The switch (IMO) should only be used to promote quick and easy PvP without ruining the PvE parade, not segmenting the player-base and/or gimping char slots.

I disagree, and I think you're wrong :)

I don't like this type of switch for two reasons:
1. I don't like having 2 characters with different sets of rules applied to them standing in the same location. If nothing else, it can be really confusing and annoying. It will also, most likely, result in a number of bugs.
2. The only thing that really annoyed me as a crafter in uo was the people who were having guild or chaos/order wars in town - they were in my way and they were spamming and lagging me like crazy.

However, I have to admit I can think of a way to implement the type of switch you want where the two above points would not be an issue. But it would only be a partial solution, and it might have to be in a particular setting for people to accept it and not hate it. So maybe it isn't any good anyway... Oh well :)

I also don't see the need for pvp in every game. Why slap a crappy pvp implementation onto a perfectly good pve game? It's just stupid; you'll just end up annoying everybody. To have a fair chance of making a good pvp game it should be in the design from the start - to take it into consideration while balancing the pve part, if nothing else.

[Daeven]

From where I sit, I think the core aspects of MMOGs are pretty much set. Grind XP, Get Loot, Some kind of endgame like PVP and/or Raiding. I don't think thats going to change. They will get refined, but essentially if you don't like XP grinding with friends or strangers and spending lots of your time online, this is not the genre for you.

If this premise is correct, then yes this genre is not for me.  Fortunately, I think UO didn't really fit this meta-archetype so I'll continue to hold out hope. Further, this genre is capable of so much more than the above that, well, what a horribly shallow and unfortunate such an eulogy it would make if your prediction proved accurate.

[Daeven]

I would love for WoW to have either full PvP, or even alliance vs. horde PvP, assuming there was something for them to fight over (PS style lattice/base system comes to mind, for taking over the world).  Even better yet would be a set of PvP+ or faction PvP servers (more than 1, i.e. not throwing a token SZ out there and saying "woo, PvP!"), to try to placate both camps.

Actually alliance v Hoarde would be a lot of fun, as long as there was a reasonable expectation that characters are of relevantly equal stature in terms of power, instead of artificially segregated by extreme power differentials induced by the 'necessary grinding mechanic' that some people find entertaining.

And since the latter is essentially guaranteed I see no reason to waste my time or cash on something I know that *I* will find annoying as hell.

*shrug*