Then I’m glad I don’t play ESO. Arguably, I guess I might accept such a thing if it were clearly advertised in advance - eg ’ you are paying x cost for access to x maps - some of these are exclusively for PVP, some are exclusively for PVE’ (preferably with clear statements regarding exactly how many ‘some’ means in each case). But in the way that Siptah was released - not a chance I’d accept it. This was released and sold as a product for everyone, and only then started being described in ‘PVP terms’. That, in my view, would be a form of false advertising if it had actually been the result - because it would have been sold to me (and many others) as being suitable for us, only to then subsequently be revealed not to be. Likewise, if a new map dlc was announced and clearly stated as a ‘PVP map’, I would not object to its release (unless cynically bundled with a lot of things that non-PVPers would also want), but I also would not buy it.
(This may also be coming across more strongly than I intend it - I bought Siptah with a pretty clear understanding that there was a bunch I wasn’t interested in - I bought it primarily for the building sets and to support the game. But given the usual b******t that I was responding to, I think a little directness was justified )
No, that wasn’t it. I got that it meant only the placers were vulnerable. I’m just somewhat opposed to the idea that PVE should ever include any mechanism that requires PVP, no matter how limited. That just seems to miss the point of why the game modes are separate in the first place. IMO PVE should never have any element of content that requires PVP in order to interact with it - purely voluntary stuff like battle flags is one thing (because there is no other content behind it), but however much there is another pre-existing way to do it (resource gathering) this proposal does block something without accepting PVP.
(Primarily though - for me it’s about the ‘slippery slope’ element - see later)
I guess what I’m primarily thinking of is the clan that never places resource farms of their own, but raids any that anyone else ever places. Not the deepest form of griefing, admittedly - but essentially it creates space for aggressive little PVP clans to set up on PVE servers and, at very least, prevents the PVEers on those servers from having access to the new mechanism without having to start playing PVP themselves.
And, without the ‘slippery slope’, it could remain optional certainly. (Though it also locks away a much desired animation/added life factor of thralls appearing to be working and gathering - I wasn’t joking earlier about wanting that - I’d like the additional life it would bring). But certainly - so long as it remains truly optional - then it would seem ok. But even then - how long before PVE players who do not wish to engage in PVP (and bought the game on the understanding that they would never have to engage in PVP) begin to feel a bit bitter about being the only ones in the game not granted access to passive resource gathering? (Denied access by their own refusal to PVP, certainly - but denied access nonetheless).
Let’s be clear - of course, none of this applies to me. All of my objections here are purely theoretical, and should be weighed on that basis - I will not use this system and PVP has no meaning in singleplayer. But nonetheless I can see ways in which it can still have impact on me. (And I still want the animations part, dammit )
Always amuses me when you’re being the optimistic one about these things
This of course is the ‘slippery slope’ I’ve referred to above (and maybe it is no more than a slippery slope fallacy - but I still think it’s important to consider). I don’t have the same faith that it wouldn’t lead to at least some rebalancing down the line. Aside from anything else, there would be players constantly complaining that now resources are too cheap, and enemies can repair too easily. If passive resource gathering takes the average player’s resource gather over time to eg 150%, it would not be surprising to see Funcom eventually shift the costs of building materials up by 10-20%. And then it even negatively impacts me…
But above all - I would point to what happens on PVE Siptah servers - players work to summon a surge, only to have other players perform essentially PVP actions (stealing the products of the first player’s labour) - and Funcom says this is fine and intended. It’s only a week ago that we had to explain to yet another new player that he couldn’t report for cheating the people who robbed him - because somehow this element of PVP is considered acceptable to include in PVE - he accepted the information, but he was not happy about it (and, I would argue, seemed to feel very much as though he had been lied to when sold a game that he could play without having to engage in PVP).
So, while I would hope that you are right, and that Funcom would not make such a dumb mistake, I can’t be so sure as all that…
At its core, that’s my objection (theoretical, as stated) - once such a mechanism is added, one way or another there is increased pressure on PVE players to ‘choose’ to open themselves up for PVP attack - whether through their own perception that they are ‘missing out’ or through a gradual rebalancing of the resource economy (which inevitably has to take a broad view of how much resources the average player amasses in a given period - and may take little account of how that number is reached - if passive resource gathering raises the average, then it is likely at some stage to have a knock on effect in raising the average cost).
Maybe I’m just too cynical here…