PvX tilted towards PvE High Risk vs High Reward

We have not received permission from JamesSunderland to share the quoted post.

I'd be opposed to this, but I think I count as "PvP oriented", so not sure I'm the opinion you're looking for.

It goes against the reasons I personally have interest in this game. At that point I might as well play Throne and Liberty (given my other preferences for game design).

I dislike stratification, I further dislike the separation of PvP and PvE players that I would expect to follow this, and I don't like the ramifications of the effects it would have on the geopolitical landscapes of the game and Nodes (as I see it).

We have not received permission from JamesSunderland to share the quoted post.

I haven't seen many opinions from PvE oriented players yet though, other than Dygz? (I'm admittedly worried about that, so I expect some bias to come through here)

So for the sake of checking my bias, who are you talking about?

We have not received permission from JamesSunderland to share the quoted post.

Ok, thanks, if it's not here specifically, it saves me checking my parser... but my worry/bias remains

I haven't read all the new threads (cause Genshin removed me from the face of the earth for a week), but my main argument against the "pve-leaning content" thing would be that instances exist (and potentially could increase in numbers), while the open seas could be seen as just a different form of caravan pvp zoning.

Steven said that we'll have other means of travel between continents, so all the intercontinental trade would just be the same as the caravans running within the continents - a pvp zone.

We have not received permission from Vaknar to share the quoted post.

Well, responding to this purely as if you were any other poster...

Intrepid implied we are supposed to group up anyway. If we weren't grouping up whenever we could as part of the core design of the main game, I feel like we'd already have a different problem relative to the goals set out.

So I'd definitely consider 'grouped up' to already be the baseline, particularly for even remotely rewarding PvE. I don't really see 'these enemies are strong enough to require a 16 man group instead' as a good method, as that increases stratification even further, I think.

We have not received permission from Vaknar to share the quoted post.

It does. But only by specifically incentivizing PvP in the area.

If a group is up against the toughest PvE content they can handle, that means that there's little room for error (or they'd be able to handle more), and it doesn't take much to upset the balance. This means that it doesn't take much for a PvP attack to make the content unwinnable. The less margin you have for error, the less margin you have for recovering from interference. Enemy guilds know they will have an even easier time stopping their competition from getting whatever gear or materials. So you do group up more, but it comes in the form of "bringing another group to protect you from the inevitable PvP attack, just so you have any chance of completing your PvE content". I'm not sure that's what most PvE-tilted players were looking for. It sounds like just "standard Ashes" to me.