Likewise; Atm this game is just as saturated with players who came here expecting pvp, if not more so, than players who expect PVE. We haven't seen that fallout that happens when a game in its maturity turns one of those aspects off.
At this time, I can assure you if nothing changes, far more players will leave the game than those who you feel would react adversely to having pvp for 3 hours.
A Game MUST have balance between pvp and pve. Atm there is no such balance. PVE is winning over vastly.
Blue: You're missing the point because of some tangent feeling that using the word Utilitarianism derives a subsequent loss of choice or representation by players/customers/citizens.
This has nothing at all to do with Economics. My point does.
No service (this game is a service) has Perfect Demand Elasticity. Any change will have a positive gain for someone, and a negative gain for someone else. They key is making satisfying customers utility = profit making utility of a producer (called Market Equilibrium).
As far as substitution: This is a fact, not a theory. While a change in pvp would result in a demand curve shift, Players who still play would be choosing between pvp and pve like a substitute good. In other words, they will not choose 1.5 hours of pvp versus 1 hour of pve. They will either spend .5 hours pvping and .5 hours pveing, or they will spend 1 hour doing both (a Slope of -1).
It is very difficult to measure as a player whether the change would result in a positive, or a negative shift in demand though. Some players would treat is as you do: a loss of choice, bringing the demand curve inward. Others though, would see it as a positive change, and perhaps even advertise the game to their friends (for example Shaiya players who love pvp), bringing demand outward (growth).
@ the Paragraph on channels/region specific; Time is simply another way to segregrate options. 21 hours to please the pve-loving minority in exchange for 3 hours of enjoyment for pvpers. Channels thin out pvp, and create displeasure overall for pvpers. They also restrict pve, as friend networks are thinner. Restricted areas only work if that area has a resource or a pvp advantage that players want. Restricting Time AND Region, is the most extreme manner in which you can regulate pvp, and that will offend far more players who like pvp. This is being advertised as a PVP game. It has PVP implementation. So why does it have the strictest form of pvp regulation?
@Purple: I already have a Epic 30 weapon and can easily farm a 40 weapon. That is what the Dailies are for. And they will run out of usefulness. For each player, the length will vary, but for adamant players it will be mere months.
The statement claiming, "I am not the only one who feels this way," once again is a two edged sword with damage that is hard to quantify. Do more players feel like you? Or do more players feel like the pvp here sucks, and that the game will suffer because of it?
If anything, my suggestion offers MORE (not less) play styles than your attack against it. Castle Siege is Voluntary, for example. Adding global pvp would simply deviate one function, into two functions. So, we would have 20.3 hours of pure PVE, .6 hours of "Choice to participate," and 3 hours of Mandatory pvp.
Why have factions on a game, if the factions play no role? We are supposed to fight. Not choose not to (a choice that kills games).