how'd you find my picture??? wtf

I'd hit it.

This idea is retarded and I will never support such shitty ideas.

You're not alone. While many people agree with you, many more people seem to agree with this idea. Nobody seems to be giving specific reasons why this idea won't work. Why don't you discuss what you don't like about it?

EDIT: I really dont care actually... just wanna play

Some people are good at PVP
Some people are good at PVE
Some people might be able to do both (good for them).
Some people mght suck at both (and roll up rangers)

Why should you have to win a PVP fight in order to be able to fight a PVE mob.

That is my reason for not being in favor of this.

Yeah, that's valid.. But it does foster cooperative competition and like allizia said, it's not the end of the world if you lose. You still get to raid. Your last analogy about not getting to fight a PVE mob if you lose a PVP fight is therefore false.

Also, rangers are kind of awesome in PVP once they get geared.

I really don't understand why PVP can't be a decidor (yea that's how I wanna spell it) for PVE mobs. To me that argument makes no sense. Why do we /ran 100 to determine who gets an fbss? It's simply a way of determining one over another. But better than /ran 100, this, as has been said, gives us some power over it and some competition. Yes, we could also set up a giant chess game out of guild members and the guild leaders tell pieces to move and the victor gets first pick. This has the same elements of the PVP as it gives control over the process and is competitive. But PVP sounds more interesting, yeh? And if you don't understand that analogy's point, don't respond to it. It's an exaggerated example alternative.



And as for some people sucking at pvp? Don't choose them as your champions :p

^

Pvp is in no way balanced in EQ. Good enough?