So I have taken many days using my spare minutes to read through and digest this entire thread.
May I say that there appears to be a whole heap of tripe being peddled by the No camp in this poll.
"It will split the player base"
I think this is untrue and unfounded. Only in so far as the player base is already split. Many players in Solo. Many players in Private Groups. I see most of the uptake of a new Open PvE mode would be those who have already left the Open mode in favour of Solo or for instance Mobius. Then, of course, there is INSTANCING, which means that the Open mode itself is fractured. Strictly by intent. Strictly by design. Maximum 32 players in SC in a CG system... when thousands are actually participating. This is the way the game was intended and built from the ground up. So stop with the "it will fracture the game". It already is. In the unhelpful words of the No camp: "You need to deal with this or move onto another game".
"It would ruin immersion"
Who's immersion? Your immersion? But you wouldn't select the Open PvE mode, so this is an intentional diversion and not a real reason or argument at all. My immersion? Other players immersion? Myself and other like-minded players would only enter the Open PvE mode with the clear intent of not shooting at other CMDRs (unless against players on the other team in a CZ or WZ, perhaps?) So please do not worry about the immersion of the players who enter a PvE mode. Nothing to see here, so move along please. My immersion would be just fine. In fact, my immersion would probably be enhanced... Finally, what about the immersion of the type of player who enters a no-shoot-at-other-players mode to expressly shoot at other players? The "subversive" player type? I for one hold no interest whatsoever for those players' immersion. It matters not. There is no justification or reason to mourn the loss of immersion for the individual who enters a mode of play in order to go against the rules of play.
"No one even agrees on how it would be implemented"
Surely that is between Frontier and the designers. Perhaps they would take some input. Perhaps not. In any case this is no reason to say that it shouldn't be a mode that they *consider*. If they thought that the game would benefit in any way: in a direct way in the increased enjoyment of a majority of players; in an indirect way by boosting profits and therefore keeping the game going for longer or adding better features or more features more regularly; or in an indirect way because perhaps not adding this mode there might be the projection of a player retention issue and a down-turn on income at each new season launch.
"Players will -hide- in Open PvE and I cannot affect them even though they are affecting me"
Ahem, this contradiction is so poignant. Do you mean that the players in an Open PvE mode would game the BGS and you would be unhappy with this. Well you must already be in anguish because the majority of modes of play - two-out-of-three of them - already do just that. You want to be able tackle that player who is playing the BGS by trading or doing missions or CGs by doing what, exactly? Splat them with your lasers? This is a non-argument because Solo play and Group play already affect the BGS and you already cannot touch them. How about you modify your game style and run a bit of trade or do some counter-missions? Don't want to play that way, eh? In which case it is hypocritical of you to expect others to come face your lasers in Open mode when those players do not want to play in that way. There is a second and equally poignant reason that this argument does not hold water: Even if there were no other modes, the game is built on a foundation of instancing. Has instancing been mentioned here? As a direct consequence of instancing, there are other players in Open, in the same system as you, that are already affecting the BGS, but you are still unable to see them, unable to reach out to them with your PvP lasers, because instancing.
"Go play in Mobius"
Oh dear. Either you don't want it to "split the community", or invite other players to "go play another mode". Which is it, please?.
Simple fact here is that the private group of Mobius is just a single example of the burgeoning demand for PvE. Sadly, Mobius group is now proving to be inadequate for the growing demand for a PvE mode. It has done nothing but grow and grow and grow, and so have other similar groups dedicated solely to PvE.
The sad truth is that Mobius in particular, and Private Groups in general, are simply not adequate any more. They probably never really were adequate for the purpose of MMO PvE.
"Because Community"
When I hear the word "community" I conjure up thoughts of a large group of individuals accomplishing things together that individuals acting alone could never hope to achieve. I imagine the cooperative groups in a willing society doing stuff together because it serves the needs and wants of the entire group. This is a similar notion to how I view PvE. It is also the antithesis of the idea of PvP. PvP is never going to be a "community". Community is a togetherness, not an adversarial notion of me versus you, them versus us, or your mob versus the individual travelling through your notional "territory". Appealing to the word Community does the PvP clowns no favours at all. Mobius is a community. Open is definitely not a community. An Open PvE group would cater to the play-styles of the community minded player and become a community mode. Appealing to community is, in effect, agreeing that an Open PvE mode would flourish for those that wanted to play in this mode. As Mobius and others continue to flourish.
Oh, and bye-the-way, "because community" directly contradicts "go play in Mobius"
"Why don't you assemble a group to hunt griefers in Open"
Firstly, and most importantly, most players in Mobius have no interest in doing so. End of point. Simply goes against how the want to have fun in the game or how they want to be able to spend their hard-won leisure time. However, there is also a secondly... perhaps more relevant to your way of thinking is the way the game this works. Have I mentioned instancing? I can hear it now - the call of *Help, there are griefers in Eravate*. So the hunters spawn in Eravate only to find there is no wing of FdLs, Clippers or Anacondas. *They* are in a different instance. Selflessly helping the Mostly Harmless enjoy the sound of their Sidewinders and Haulers going pop. Assembling a protection group is nice idea in the sense of the argument against PvE, but sadly, lacking in analysis.
It is clear to me that some of these reasons are direct contradictions of other reasons.
I think the final piece-de-resistance of all arguments is that "Open would become a ghost-town"
Why on earth would players who voted NO to the addition of an official Open PvE mode even say that? It would infer that a new official Open PvE mode would gather up most players and leave only a minority of players in *their* favoured group. But I gotta ask - why is Open *their* favourite gameplay mode and why would they think most other people would leave them to it? Just Why? Now *that*, my friends, is the question which, for me at least, sheds a lot of light on the NO camps' motivations to not have a PvE mode added.
Regardless of their motivations, it appears that some players who voted NO do imagine that most other players do not enjoy the current Open mode as much as they would enjoy an official Open PvE mode. In effect, those No voters don't want other players to gain an enhanced experience. Even when they imagine the other players belong to the majority. So even if we disregard the NO voters' motivations... What kind of argument is that to put themselves, who are on their own admission, *the minority* ahead of the majority of other players?
Cheerz
Mark H
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
