I don't think PvPers are there to RUIN your experience. I love PvP, it's challenging. It's unpredictable. Someone can do something I didn't know how to do, and I can learn from seeing them do that. I'm sure some people do want to make someone very pissed. It's a good strategy. Piss someone off so they forget their objective.
But Antags are there for the same reason you all are. TO WIN THE MAP. The Objective is all important. The problem with the view of "IT IS PERSONAL!" is just you projecting the anger of getting killed. You don't know what they're there for. When I antag, it's exclusively for the affinity or blueprints. And I can lose and get both. You're there for xp and blueprints. You can lose and get both. There is really no interruption for either of us. You just feel bad because you lost. (On either side.) Losing happens. If you didn't lose then whats the point of playing anymore? Your xp per minute was retarded slightly (MAYBE). That is all.
The biggest strength of the antag is that it makes 83% of the player base forget what map they're playing and just try to kill them. Objective wins maps.
i'm not saying it's a problem for everyone, just for some. PvEers, in particular. The issue is a philosophical one, gaming development philosophy. There isn't anything wrong with PvP in a purely PvP game, it's when you mix the two gamer types that issues, have historically, always occurred. When you make a game both PvP and PvE you are going to get angry people, it's inevitable. You are drawing two opposing type of demographics. Many games have done this and we can see how some do is correctly and others incorrectly.
As far as taking it personal. It's going to happen, because the design has pitted you against me. It is your job to ruin my fun, whether you are there for that reason or not, that paradigm is built into the design. I'll admit, Woody, that if it doesn't occur too often I can TOLERATE this system, it can be endured. But if the game turns for, what I would consider the worst, and we see more and more antagonists then I will not be able to have any more fun playing the game. And it's also questionable what the good thing about having to "tolerate" or "endure" something unpleasant in a medium created for entertainment and enjoyment. But it is what it is.
As far as being there for the same reason, I half believe that's what most antagonists are there for. If it was just rewards and theyhad no interest in ruining others fun then they would be there with us. I admit that it may be a deisng flaw to lock certain upgrades behind the "Aequilibrium" and so some, like me, may be forced to be there.
But that's the nature of the game, is it not? So we can just think of ideas to better it for both PvPers and PvEers, because, unfortunately, they made a game that caters to both...kind of not the most sound thing to do if you can't provide options for PvEers do opt out of invasions.
What you suggested before was an excellent idea; purchasing antag experience with gold or some other form of currency. this would cut down the amount of antags who don't want to be there in the first place, like me. And of course what BeerTheBrad said was a fantastic solution as well, allowing those who are interested in the additional rewards from fighting an antag can opt to have priority to become "invaded" over Raiders who have not chosen the option. These two great suggestions would be great for all parties involved. The only downside I think that the more "trollish" antags might complain about is that the raiders requesting the prioritization are bound to be badasses. This would also bode ill for new antags, but if your solution was also in effect as well this wouldn't be a problem at all.
