I do both as i please, as allowed by the game mechanics...
Seperatist. I don't enjoy having to deal with crap from parts of the game I don't enjoy
Unionist (Anet stance). There aren't two sides, people should learn to play the whole game
Neither. Or this is a gross overgeneralisation.
A lot of you are right. My definitions suck and the poll is flawed. It should be clear that Seperatist means you don't want PvE and PvP to be tightly coupled, and Unionist should mean the inverse of that
Unionist doesn't mean you play both, it should mean that you have to do both sides of the game, or depend on another side of the game that you may or may not find interesting.
However I think despite my crappy definitions, this has made more headway than a year of UAS whinging lol and has quantified a large group of people that do believe in there needing a proper decoupling and the benefits of. Gaile you reading this? where's your vote :)
The results so far are about what I've expected, but with more seperatists. I don't attack people, I just say that by their own definition it made that one guy sound more like a seperatist.
We have very different opinions of what the word "force" means. They DON'T force you to interact. They encourage. If you or I don't want to do pvp, WE DON'T HAVE TO. If we did, then it would be forced.Originally Posted by salaboB
As far as I can tell, the only FORECED pvp is going post-searing. Like I said originally, I've never felt the slightest compulsion to win favor for America just to go into fow/uw. If I personally had to win favor in order to unlock fow/uw, then that would be FORCING me to play pvp in order to enjoy pve. That would be seriously unionistic.
They don't do that, so I consider it encouragement. In other words, I consider Anet to be, at best, very weak unionists, but mostly seperatists.
I really see very little coupling between the two aspects of the game, but I would love to see more. I'm far more unionist than Anet. I would like it to go back to the days when skills were only unlocked in pve. I would love if fow/uw were only available after gaining X amount of fame in pvp.
But I wonder how it would be recieved if you (or someone else in your region) had to complete some PvE criteria before you were allowed to enter a certain arena? Would this be regarded as a form of "force"? I think so.
Unionist, but I am having trouble voting for it. The phrase 'people should learn to play the whole game' is not something I would choose. Noone 'should' do anything really, but I also think the seperation is a bit too extreme.
So: third one.
What's surprising me, is the fact that obviously the Anet employees themselves are seperatists....
2 lines from the last Gaile chat log:
We don't favour pvp over pve, honestly.
There are a ton of us who play PvE as much as PvP. Some more !
Now translate that from propaganda speak to real speak
(I was trained to switch to red alert mode when a sales person uses the word "honestly" )
Only a minority of anet employees play pve as much as pvp. Very few of them play more pve than pvp.
That finally explains a lot. Anet designs this game in a way they like to play it, not in a way the majority of their customers likes to play it...
I think I understand what the OP is trying to find out in the pol, but in my opinion the choices are not defined clearly enough and are a slighly misleading. Which is why I haven't voted.
Some who are clearly against favour being the only way to enter FoW and UW defined themself as unitionists.
I think there should be incentives for people playing PVE and PVP (unitionist), but I don't agree one should be limiting the other = should not be a requirement (separatist). All in all, implementing of both types of gameplay would bother me more in some cases that in others (overgeneralisation).
Why am I writing this? Because by the meaning of the pol, I suspect the OP would stilld define me as separatist.
Ideas as "PVE vs PVP" are causing enough troubles, we don't need "Separatist" against "Unitionists" now.
(And the terms really sound like political parties I don't want to join. Now we just have to wait for the "Extremists" to start the "bomb attacks".;) )
So if someone loves to play PvE, but hates PvP more than cleaning toilets, they should have to PvP to get to the PvE they enjoy?Originally Posted by PrometheusG
Considering it is a game, in which the only goal is to have fun, I just don't understand.
sorta unionist, I mean I would like to play both sides, but I think its perfectly ok for ppl only to do one
I'm playing both PvP & PvE, but what's good in GW is that everyone can play exactly what suits them, and nothing is forcing them to eg. play in the Arenas if they don't want to.