Non-consensual PvP in Gaming: a Sure Path to Long-Term Underperformance

Most people frame their analysis of PvP vs PvE in games based on a common major error in reasoning: that any particular example of a "risk vs. reward" scenario is either uniquely or particularly special, meaningful, or even unusual. In fact, in all cases... it is none of those things, ever.

Gaming (or any form of entertainment), on its own, is ALWAYS an inherent risk vs. reward interaction at all times; you are always wagering your TIME against the possibility that you can find a justifiably-valuable degree of enjoyment in doing so; if you do not enjoy that investment, you outright lose it then and there - and if you continue to invest at that point, well... you know how sunk-cost fallacies work, right? Simply changing this dynamic's degree or appearance or venue does not—and cannot—significantly influence the already-fundamentally-binary reality of its possible outcomes, i.e. "it's either enough fun, or it's not."

THAT right there is the meat and potatoes of reasoned argument against—in general, regardless of source or bias—any form of PvP that is not explicitly opt-in at all times. Accordingly, the only correct way to quantify that sort of interaction in an entertainment context would be to refer to it as one with an "arbitrarily-inflated risk requirement, regardless of outcome."

Please, consider, the following:

A) most enjoyment from any form of entertainment, including gaming, effectively boils down to its various constituent analogs to otherwise real-life psychological processes;
B) in real life, while consent is OFTEN missing from many interpersonal interactions, in such cases it is (almost universally) not only missing but in fact ACTIVELY MISSED - with the realization of that absence being a potential—and likely—source of almost every possible negative and/or harmful human emotion/experience imagineable.

The human brain's reactions to this mechanic over time are, in fact, at the root of the origins of most if not all environmentally-precipitated antisocial behavior, i.e. "crime."

In short, people overwhelmingly dislike being taken unfair advantage of by other people, regardless of format or context - and no matter how effectively such proceedings might be obscured behind the fourth-wall.

Just as there exists a relatively small—but widely impactful—demographic of devoted criminals in real life who will reliably target the most-vulnerable members of society within whatever environment is most advantageous for such a pursuit, there are a roughly-equivalent proportion of individuals who will actively seek to exercise that same pathological aspect of their psychology in any (interactive) fantasy environment that can offer a greater inherent advantage to them; non-consensual pvp is then one of the most obvious choices of outlet for these individuals in a gaming context, specifically.

Not surprisingly, MOST people with an active desire to partake in such antisocial behavior are exactly the sort that are also the MOST harmful to any gaming community over time, and—biscuits to baskets, at the end of the day—the amount of enjoyment inherent in participation within a game's community is what ultimately makes or breaks its long-term prospects.

Shrewd, forward-thinking developers know all of these things, and THAT fact—that wisdom-driven desire to safeguard the possibility of a long-lasting healthy community by cultivating the lowest-possible concentration of pathologically-antisocial and/or otherwise toxic individuals within it—is the ACTUAL reason that open/free/unrestricted/non-consensual (inflated risk) PVP is as rare as it is in (successful) games...

... and it's the reason it should absolutely always stay that way in any game that hopes to be successful in the long term.