The issue is finding what is a level playing field for PP when everyone chooses what field to play on.
Just because some find PvP (or the potential for it) to be fun does not mean that any other player needs to, nor does it oblige those who don't enjoy it to play among those who do.
To use a different analogy, all players are Curling on the ice. Some players in a different rink brought ice hockey gear....
Its incentives for tasks, and I view features and events equally. If there were no rewards for CGs, would people still do them? Some would, some wouldn't. The same applies with anything and IMO the same with open.
How do you know its dozens? From what I have seen via polls its a lot of people.
It can be argued that the modes are entirely equal in process, i.e. the same PvE actions in all three game modes equally affect mode shared game features - noting that some players may, due to their choices, be impeded by other players in one of the three game modes (and possibly another one depending on the rules of the Private Group).
You asked the question. You got an answer.
How is that relevant?
The process dealing with other players is different to not having them. For example an all out fight over a system requires strategy and effort while in solo you can simply fly straight in as much as you like.
Both games are competitive. Both games are played on ice. One game does not allow player/player contact the other practically mandates it. All players are playing the former where some would prefer if all were playing the latter.
Except, Curling and Ice Hockey are two very different games, with different point scoring methods and 'win' thresholds and neither game impacting on the outcome of the other.
The means of dealing with other players is arguably irrelevant as those other players are an optional extra that players play among due to choices they make.
Of course - which equally applies to what the mode shared game features are compared to what some players want them to be.
So which game is the 'one' and who decides who is playing what?
Averaged out over the whole playing field it would be trivially low, noting that hotspots do occur.
Not leading at all - simply an acknowledgement that some players to choose to play in a way that means that other players may impede them, when there is no requirement for them to do so. That there are then complaints of unfairness due to the choices that some players make is somewhat ironic.
If other players are optional then it's not Ice Hockey.
Why is everything reductive? Surely you want to encourage a variety of styles rather than flat out saying solo is the only way? Its almost as if you don't care about other modes at all....
When the alternative is for players who don't enjoy PvP to be penalised because a subset of the player-base thinks that not being forced to play among players while affecting mode shared game features in a game where other players are an optional extra and PvP is not a requirement of any in-game feature is in some way "unfair" to them it necessarily follows that, from the perspective of players who would be penalised it is "that simple".
