Darren at one of the panels slipped a bit I think when he differentiated between PvP and the "overworld". I get the distinct impression that unless there are PvP severs, PvP will be on a different "plane" that PvE.
The griefing and destroying the world part has been in reference to players using the destructible environments against others such as collapsing a player made tunnel or platform people are fighting on.
Originally posted by grifj Those quotes don't make any allusion to PVP. That just means they don't want people running around griefing folks by destructing the terrain in the newbie area.
Agree, nothing to do with PVP.
The newbie areas are protected! Whooptie Doo! They are protected in other games too.
It's at least nice to know EQN is copying WoW style zones with safe vs contested areas. They are presumed to be copying a huge amount from other games, but at least they admit to copying WoW for starters.
Once those newbs leave the protected area, well that is a good PVP topic .. ! Unless that get's nerfed?
EQN copying WoW, really?
EQ's PVP servers had PVP immunity for first few levels, pretty much the same thing. No mention yet of safe/contested areas as nothing about PVP has been announced. Griefing != PVP.
It implies destroying terrain can hurt other players though.
Like if I cause an avalanche above someone it's going to damage them or something.
So if that's turned off in newbie areas, what about everywhere else? What if you're fighting a dragon and I bring a bunch of rock down on top of you? Those are the areas where I see PVP on because the way the game works means inevitable conflicts that need to be duked out.
You are very selective in your reading.
"We're going to use permission systems and tools to make sure the game is enjoyable for everyone who's playing it.
So, if someone isn't into open pvp then ffa pvp isn't really going to happen. I still think there are going to be areas like EVE but "more strict" in what players can do.
I don't think it's "newb areas = no pvp and pvp everywhere else".
Oof good point .. that is very lame if SOE doesn't separate play-styles and just makes it a /pvp on .. /pvp off bullshit model.
I hope that's exactly what they do.. Worked great in SWG, it allows players to drop in and drop out at their leisure, it doesn't separate players into feuding camps. I never saw this hate between PVE and PVP players in SWG. It was not needed, everyone got what they wanted in terms of experience. Not to mention each type of player served the other types.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I'm to the point that I don't know if people are trolling to just try and get a flaming pile of hostile replies.. or just so desperate to be able to force pvp on someone in a PvE based franchise... that they see what they want to see.
I've been kind of wondering the same thing. I've been seeing lots of seemingly "hopeful" posts about Open World PvP; but they are always followed by pretty angry and flat out determined people that simply wont play such a title.
For a business that requires financial backers; making a title that enrages a large amount of the loyal fan base seems like financial suicide to me. If I were a shareholder, I would be crossing my arms and asking lots of questions as to what all the negative feedback SOE is already taking (towards art direction, Action styled combat and so on). I can't imagine the lash back if they pulled the rug out from under those fans and said "Oh, btw; now that you've seen all this great new stuff and you are really looking forward to playing EQN; it's Open PvP."
I'm to the point that I don't know if people are trolling to just try and get a flaming pile of hostile replies.. or just so desperate to be able to force pvp on someone in a PvE based franchise... that they see what they want to see.
I've been kind of wondering the same thing. I've been seeing lots of seemingly "hopeful" posts about Open World PvP; but they are always followed by pretty angry and flat out determined people that simply wont play such a title.
For a business that requires financial backers; making a title that enrages a large amount of the loyal fan base seems like financial suicide to me. If I were a shareholder, I would be crossing my arms and asking lots of questions as to what all the negative feedback SOE is already taking (towards art direction, Action styled combat and so on). I can't imagine the lash back if they pulled the rug out from under those fans and said "Oh, btw; now that you've seen all this great new stuff and you are really looking forward to playing EQN; it's Open PvP."
Yeah, I can see that going over really well. O.o
I don't know that I've ever seen so much speculation on so little information. Any discussion of pvp right now is almost pure speculation based on either the past (EQ, EQII) or interpretation of very ambiguous statements. I know we all speculate about different things, and this would quickly become a boring place to visit without some speculation, but for some reason (I can't quite put my finger on it) to me it seems a little different in this case. I think it has something to do with how almost every statement they make with pvp overtones can be interpreted as either having open world pvp or not having open world pvp. They have clarified some of the mechanics at their convention, but when it comes to pvp they have (purposefully, i think) made almost every comment open to interpretation. They should all run for political office.
In one of the Reddit posts, Georgeson mentioned any info on PvP was coming "Much later".
Which is why I said what I had said; I can't see them revealing all the content and game mechanics to sell to the EQ fans and potential new fans; then pull the carpet out from under them with a "It's Open PvP"... The back lash would be massive IMO.
Shareholders and "banks" wont like that very much I imagine. They are going to want lots of players playing (and buying) so they can get a nice return on their investment.
I'm to the point that I don't know if people are trolling to just try and get a flaming pile of hostile replies.. or just so desperate to be able to force pvp on someone in a PvE based franchise... that they see what they want to see.
I've been kind of wondering the same thing. I've been seeing lots of seemingly "hopeful" posts about Open World PvP; but they are always followed by pretty angry and flat out determined people that simply wont play such a title.
For a business that requires financial backers; making a title that enrages a large amount of the loyal fan base seems like financial suicide to me. If I were a shareholder, I would be crossing my arms and asking lots of questions as to what all the negative feedback SOE is already taking (towards art direction, Action styled combat and so on). I can't imagine the lash back if they pulled the rug out from under those fans and said "Oh, btw; now that you've seen all this great new stuff and you are really looking forward to playing EQN; it's Open PvP."
Yeah, I can see that going over really well. O.o
In every forum about a MMO under development, there is always an extremely vocal (and vanishingly small) minority of fringe PvP players. I remember in WoW beta there was post after post of guys demanding an FFA server with full item loot. The hilarious part is these guys seem to be under the delusion that it takes more skill to play on these kind of servers.
Back in EQ, there were three team pvp servers and one FFA server. When all these servers were combined eventually, every single team server performed better than the FFA server. See, FFA servers tend to be a lot more about griefing and PvE than team servers. So when they are put against players that have actually practiced a lot of even footed, challenging PvP, they don't fair so well.
I guess the griefers have determined that its more fun to grief the PvE crowd than to try to take each other's items. That would explain the influx of this "no PvE servers" argument.
Originally posted by Bidwood It's going to be so fun watching the vocal anti-PVP crowd explain their way out of the reveal.
lol, I find your posts interesting. I'm trying to follow your thinking; I just can't seem to wrap my head around it.
What does anti-PvP crowd have to explain towards a Dev reveal? The Devs are the ones that would have to explain their reasons one way or the other. The ticked off players simply wont follow anymore after a few days of raging. They wont stick around "explaining" anything and they sure wont stick around to play a game they wont enjoy.
If they go Open World PvP; they are going to enrage a crap ton of their fan base; most of which will jump ship and leave even their older games out of spite. Which means explaining why they went that route to the players and then explaining to the shareholders why the core fans are ticked off.
If they don't go Open World PvP; then the franchise remains as is and the Devs only have to explain to the PvPers their choice.
EQ has been a long time PvE focused title after all. Would really like to see an explanation on where your thinking is at.
wonder if this implies a player can decide whether any structures they build are attackable by other players.
could be the ol' 'pvp flag' though
They have already said that player housing would be protected from destruction. A logical way to impletement that would be with "permissions and tools".
Originally posted by Bidwood It's going to be so fun watching the vocal anti-PVP crowd explain their way out of the reveal.
Funny part about this comment is nearly every thread created about PvP is from the Pro-PvP, FFA PvP crowd. They are by FAR the most vocal on this forum, so to say the vocal anti-PvP crowd is rather comical.
Most people, even those who don't like PvP all that much, have no trouble with PvP people getting some form of PvP...it's the whole FFA PvP I'm FORCED to PvP that most people don't like, and is something, based on everything I have read, they are not going to do.
The real question is, when EQnext has either PvP servers or consensual PvP...will the vocal FFA PvP folks stick around to play or because it's not FFA will they just say the game isn't for them?
Hopefully the game has something for everyone, but if FFA PvP is your be all end all with this game, you may be disappointed
Originally posted by Bidwood It's going to be so fun watching the vocal anti-PVP crowd explain their way out of the reveal.
Even after the reveal of the happy go lucky graphics and their strong focus on FUN for EVERYONE, I'm surprised anyone still thinks there is even a chance of any type of "forced" PVP. I love PVP, but I can see the writing on the wall. There will be PVP, but I highly doubt it is what you want. It will be completely consensual with either SWG type system or different server rules.
Saying it is forced Pvp is so egocentric. You aren't even playing the game yet. It is going to be a FREE game and you can decide if you want to play. So whatever happens, if the devs are open about it before release then nobody forced you into anything.
And just backtracking a little bit, Sovrath, I also see it like EVE. But probably with more safe space and not just in one sector. There will probably be safe NPC cities and surrounding areas so people can play without being ganked. And then a frontier outside of that where the world is much more interactive and people can attack you.
Originally posted by Bidwood Saying it is forced Pvp is so egocentric. You aren't even playing the game yet. It is going to be a FREE game and you can decide if you want to play. So whatever happens, if the devs are open about it before release then nobody forced you into anything.
And just backtracking a little bit, Sovrath, I also see it like EVE. But probably with more safe space and not just in one sector. There will probably be safe NPC cities and surrounding areas so people can play without being ganked. And then a frontier outside of that where the world is much more interactive and people can attack you.
I completely agree, people can choose to play a game or not. Hence the " " around forced. No one is forcing anyone to play anything.
If we were talking about Darkfall or Counterstrike or some other game where PVP is the entire point of the game, there would be no talk of consensual or not. A game is either PVP based or it is not. EQ has always been PVE based with PVP as a server alternative.
Unlike you, I would love a totally FFA OW PVP game with no rules or restrictions. I find rules very immersion breaking in PVP.
DAoC's FFA rules: Gotta problem with someone, fix it yourself.
I just see no evidence from the past to present that would suggest EQN will have by default OW PVP that is non consensual for any part of the map.
I do believe there will be servers with what you are suggesting though and I will play on them gladly. Of course they could have 10 PVP servers and 2 PVE servers and see how it goes....I'm assuming they'd have to close and open servers after not too long.
A flag system like SWG would work out great for everyone besides those that can't stand giving people options beyond "Don't buy the game if you don't like what I do."
And just backtracking a little bit, Sovrath, I also see it like EVE. But probably with more safe space and not just in one sector. There will probably be safe NPC cities and surrounding areas so people can play without being ganked. And then a frontier outside of that where the world is much more interactive and people can attack you.
Yeah, I agree and makes more sense.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
"The idea is that while everything can be destructible, it doesn't mean we're going to let everything be destructible," he said.
"We're going to use permission systems and tools to make sure the game is enjoyable for everyone who's playing it. We probably wouldn't let someone come in and destroy the newbie area, that's a more protected area. But maybe NPCs, for instance, can destroy part of that area, because it's part of the content going on in there.
"Without a doubt there are lots of griefing opportunities we haven't seen in this kind of game before. There's visual griefing in Landmark, where the idea of creativity is so important. People could actually try to impede other people's ability to see your stuff. We have to think about these things and tackle these things that are unique to our game. We did it to EverQuest and the things people could do there, and we'll do it again in EverQuest Next and make sure players have an enjoyable experience."
So yeah like I said... good design choices to limit griefing, but the game they're making has a lot more griefing opportunities. (Open-world PVP, naturally.) With some protected areas like newbie zones.
Good old Sony - always thinking that PvP means you can just duke it out in a cornfield while Bob the level 5 ranger is trying to grind a kill ten bunnies task. Why is it so hard for these people to open a book?
The Battle at Helms Deep- Elves and Humans (and 1 dwarf) defending against the orc horde
Kingdom of Heaven - the defense and siege of Jerusalem
Battle of Hoth (Star Wars the Empire Strikes Back)
The 300 - 300 Spartans, shield walled to defend against the might of the Persian Empire
And then there's Sony: pvp = lifting the coding on targetting people and let it roll. Yeah, now that's epic.
The most interesting thing I am taking from this thread and a variety of others is the raw amount of concern some of you express over grief and bullying behavior online in a social game environment designed to encourage people to play together. It doesn't matter how they handle the starter areas or anywhere else. No game survives contact with its player base. Every rule, mechanic, and fixture will be abused for some form of gain. It is the nature of people online in a world without real consequence in games that will only support short term communities before the masses move on to something else. Your fellow has little value to most as anything other than a means to an end you will never see again. If you want to kill such boorish behavior in play then the only way to do so is to build a strong community where its members are valued.
I have questions on this topic, however, two Dev quotes first:
"We are not releasing a lot of information about how the PVP stuff will work and we would love there to be a very clear relationship between the abilities that you use in the overworld and the abilities that you use in PVP."
--- Q&A Panel
"Consent can come in the form of a server selection or entering an area designated for PvP…or other things."
— Darrin McPherson
If I am reading these correctly; they are clearly stating that they want "Abilities" to work similarly IN the Overworld AND in PvP (clearly he is stating them as two different things).
Then McPherson states "consent" in the form of Server selection and/or entering "areas" set for PvP (and other things, we they haven't said what those are yet).
Doesn't this more or less confirm Server Selection will be there as SOE has done in the past? PvE/PvP server setups? And doesn't this imply that there are "Areas" for PvP since they want the "Abilities" to behave similarly IN the Overworld AND in PvP? Am I reading this correctly or did my comprehension "Fizzle"?
Comment had nothing to do with pvp...lol. On a side note, this game will have a huge population and you can be rest assured that they will have pve and pvp servers.
Incognito www.incognito-gaming.us "You're either with us or against us"
Originally posted by SirBalin Comment had nothing to do with pvp...lol. On a side note, this game will have a huge population and you can be rest assured that they will have pve and pvp servers.
Which comment? They were both answers to questions on PvP and how abilities would work and how Consent would work out.
I'm seriously no trying to Bait or cause a flame war here. I'm trying to get solid info is all. If there's another way to read it; I'm all ears (or, eyes in this case). Can you explain it better so I get where they were going with the statements?
I find the overworld comment a bit ambiguous/unclear.
First of all the term "overworld". Doesn't this usually mean a top-down map that more or less connects a bunch of instanced locations? Or if taken very literally... Could it be the surface of the world? With everything underneath being PvP. (There was a comment about following someone down a hole and then taking what they found from them.)
Also ambiguous because it could be a troll way of alluding to the fact that the overworld and PvP are the same places. A very clear relationship indeed.
The quote about different servers is the clearest counter to my arguments so far. It sounds like he is describing that as one of the possibilities as opposed to saying that is what they're doing. But it is a strong possibility. If they go that route I can only hope the "standard" game is built for PvP with alternate servers where it's turned off.
I find the overworld comment a bit ambiguous/unclear.
First of all the term "overworld". Doesn't this usually mean a top-down map that more or less connects a bunch of instanced locations? Or if taken very literally... Could it be the surface of the world? With everything underneath being PvP. (There was a comment about following someone down a hole and then taking what they found from them.)
Also ambiguous because it could be a troll way of alluding to the fact that the overworld and PvP are the same places. A very clear relationship indeed.
The quote about different servers is the clearest counter to my arguments so far. It sounds like he is describing that as one of the possibilities as opposed to saying that is what they're doing. But it is a strong possibility. If they go that route I can only hope the "standard" game is built for PvP with alternate servers where it's turned off.
Thanks for the reply; gives a different point of view - which was what I was mainly looking for.
Comments
Darren at one of the panels slipped a bit I think when he differentiated between PvP and the "overworld". I get the distinct impression that unless there are PvP severs, PvP will be on a different "plane" that PvE.
The griefing and destroying the world part has been in reference to players using the destructible environments against others such as collapsing a player made tunnel or platform people are fighting on.
EQN copying WoW, really?
EQ's PVP servers had PVP immunity for first few levels, pretty much the same thing. No mention yet of safe/contested areas as nothing about PVP has been announced. Griefing != PVP.
I hope that's exactly what they do.. Worked great in SWG, it allows players to drop in and drop out at their leisure, it doesn't separate players into feuding camps. I never saw this hate between PVE and PVP players in SWG. It was not needed, everyone got what they wanted in terms of experience. Not to mention each type of player served the other types.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I've been kind of wondering the same thing. I've been seeing lots of seemingly "hopeful" posts about Open World PvP; but they are always followed by pretty angry and flat out determined people that simply wont play such a title.
For a business that requires financial backers; making a title that enrages a large amount of the loyal fan base seems like financial suicide to me. If I were a shareholder, I would be crossing my arms and asking lots of questions as to what all the negative feedback SOE is already taking (towards art direction, Action styled combat and so on). I can't imagine the lash back if they pulled the rug out from under those fans and said "Oh, btw; now that you've seen all this great new stuff and you are really looking forward to playing EQN; it's Open PvP."
Yeah, I can see that going over really well. O.o
I don't know that I've ever seen so much speculation on so little information. Any discussion of pvp right now is almost pure speculation based on either the past (EQ, EQII) or interpretation of very ambiguous statements. I know we all speculate about different things, and this would quickly become a boring place to visit without some speculation, but for some reason (I can't quite put my finger on it) to me it seems a little different in this case. I think it has something to do with how almost every statement they make with pvp overtones can be interpreted as either having open world pvp or not having open world pvp. They have clarified some of the mechanics at their convention, but when it comes to pvp they have (purposefully, i think) made almost every comment open to interpretation. They should all run for political office.
In one of the Reddit posts, Georgeson mentioned any info on PvP was coming "Much later".
Which is why I said what I had said; I can't see them revealing all the content and game mechanics to sell to the EQ fans and potential new fans; then pull the carpet out from under them with a "It's Open PvP"... The back lash would be massive IMO.
Shareholders and "banks" wont like that very much I imagine. They are going to want lots of players playing (and buying) so they can get a nice return on their investment.
In every forum about a MMO under development, there is always an extremely vocal (and vanishingly small) minority of fringe PvP players. I remember in WoW beta there was post after post of guys demanding an FFA server with full item loot. The hilarious part is these guys seem to be under the delusion that it takes more skill to play on these kind of servers.
Back in EQ, there were three team pvp servers and one FFA server. When all these servers were combined eventually, every single team server performed better than the FFA server. See, FFA servers tend to be a lot more about griefing and PvE than team servers. So when they are put against players that have actually practiced a lot of even footed, challenging PvP, they don't fair so well.
I guess the griefers have determined that its more fun to grief the PvE crowd than to try to take each other's items. That would explain the influx of this "no PvE servers" argument.
"permissions and tools"
wonder if this implies a player can decide whether any structures they build are attackable by other players.
could be the ol' 'pvp flag' though
lol, I find your posts interesting. I'm trying to follow your thinking; I just can't seem to wrap my head around it.
What does anti-PvP crowd have to explain towards a Dev reveal? The Devs are the ones that would have to explain their reasons one way or the other. The ticked off players simply wont follow anymore after a few days of raging. They wont stick around "explaining" anything and they sure wont stick around to play a game they wont enjoy.
If they go Open World PvP; they are going to enrage a crap ton of their fan base; most of which will jump ship and leave even their older games out of spite. Which means explaining why they went that route to the players and then explaining to the shareholders why the core fans are ticked off.
If they don't go Open World PvP; then the franchise remains as is and the Devs only have to explain to the PvPers their choice.
EQ has been a long time PvE focused title after all. Would really like to see an explanation on where your thinking is at.
They have already said that player housing would be protected from destruction. A logical way to impletement that would be with "permissions and tools".
During one of their panels they used that as a flat out example.
To paraphrase. "there will be tools in place to control whether or not your structures can be destroyed by other players".
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Funny part about this comment is nearly every thread created about PvP is from the Pro-PvP, FFA PvP crowd. They are by FAR the most vocal on this forum, so to say the vocal anti-PvP crowd is rather comical.
Most people, even those who don't like PvP all that much, have no trouble with PvP people getting some form of PvP...it's the whole FFA PvP I'm FORCED to PvP that most people don't like, and is something, based on everything I have read, they are not going to do.
The real question is, when EQnext has either PvP servers or consensual PvP...will the vocal FFA PvP folks stick around to play or because it's not FFA will they just say the game isn't for them?
Hopefully the game has something for everyone, but if FFA PvP is your be all end all with this game, you may be disappointed
Even after the reveal of the happy go lucky graphics and their strong focus on FUN for EVERYONE, I'm surprised anyone still thinks there is even a chance of any type of "forced" PVP. I love PVP, but I can see the writing on the wall. There will be PVP, but I highly doubt it is what you want. It will be completely consensual with either SWG type system or different server rules.
And just backtracking a little bit, Sovrath, I also see it like EVE. But probably with more safe space and not just in one sector. There will probably be safe NPC cities and surrounding areas so people can play without being ganked. And then a frontier outside of that where the world is much more interactive and people can attack you.
I completely agree, people can choose to play a game or not. Hence the " " around forced. No one is forcing anyone to play anything.
If we were talking about Darkfall or Counterstrike or some other game where PVP is the entire point of the game, there would be no talk of consensual or not. A game is either PVP based or it is not. EQ has always been PVE based with PVP as a server alternative.
Unlike you, I would love a totally FFA OW PVP game with no rules or restrictions. I find rules very immersion breaking in PVP.
DAoC's FFA rules: Gotta problem with someone, fix it yourself.
I just see no evidence from the past to present that would suggest EQN will have by default OW PVP that is non consensual for any part of the map.
I do believe there will be servers with what you are suggesting though and I will play on them gladly. Of course they could have 10 PVP servers and 2 PVE servers and see how it goes....I'm assuming they'd have to close and open servers after not too long.
A flag system like SWG would work out great for everyone besides those that can't stand giving people options beyond "Don't buy the game if you don't like what I do."
Yeah, I agree and makes more sense.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Good old Sony - always thinking that PvP means you can just duke it out in a cornfield while Bob the level 5 ranger is trying to grind a kill ten bunnies task.
Why is it so hard for these people to open a book?
The Battle at Helms Deep- Elves and Humans (and 1 dwarf) defending against the orc horde
Kingdom of Heaven - the defense and siege of Jerusalem
Battle of Hoth (Star Wars the Empire Strikes Back)
The 300 - 300 Spartans, shield walled to defend against the might of the Persian Empire
And then there's Sony: pvp = lifting the coding on targetting people and let it roll. Yeah, now that's epic.
The most interesting thing I am taking from this thread and a variety of others is the raw amount of concern some of you express over grief and bullying behavior online in a social game environment designed to encourage people to play together. It doesn't matter how they handle the starter areas or anywhere else. No game survives contact with its player base. Every rule, mechanic, and fixture will be abused for some form of gain. It is the nature of people online in a world without real consequence in games that will only support short term communities before the masses move on to something else. Your fellow has little value to most as anything other than a means to an end you will never see again. If you want to kill such boorish behavior in play then the only way to do so is to build a strong community where its members are valued.
I have questions on this topic, however, two Dev quotes first:
"We are not releasing a lot of information about how the PVP stuff will work and we would love there to be a very clear relationship between the abilities that you use in the overworld and the abilities that you use in PVP."
--- Q&A Panel
"Consent can come in the form of a server selection or entering an area designated for PvP…or other things."
— Darrin McPherson
If I am reading these correctly; they are clearly stating that they want "Abilities" to work similarly IN the Overworld AND in PvP (clearly he is stating them as two different things).
Then McPherson states "consent" in the form of Server selection and/or entering "areas" set for PvP (and other things, we they haven't said what those are yet).
Doesn't this more or less confirm Server Selection will be there as SOE has done in the past? PvE/PvP server setups? And doesn't this imply that there are "Areas" for PvP since they want the "Abilities" to behave similarly IN the Overworld AND in PvP? Am I reading this correctly or did my comprehension "Fizzle"?
Incognito
www.incognito-gaming.us
"You're either with us or against us"
Which comment? They were both answers to questions on PvP and how abilities would work and how Consent would work out.
I'm seriously no trying to Bait or cause a flame war here. I'm trying to get solid info is all. If there's another way to read it; I'm all ears (or, eyes in this case). Can you explain it better so I get where they were going with the statements?
I find the overworld comment a bit ambiguous/unclear.
First of all the term "overworld". Doesn't this usually mean a top-down map that more or less connects a bunch of instanced locations? Or if taken very literally... Could it be the surface of the world? With everything underneath being PvP. (There was a comment about following someone down a hole and then taking what they found from them.)
Also ambiguous because it could be a troll way of alluding to the fact that the overworld and PvP are the same places. A very clear relationship indeed.
The quote about different servers is the clearest counter to my arguments so far. It sounds like he is describing that as one of the possibilities as opposed to saying that is what they're doing. But it is a strong possibility. If they go that route I can only hope the "standard" game is built for PvP with alternate servers where it's turned off.
Thanks for the reply; gives a different point of view - which was what I was mainly looking for.