DW2 was announced as purely private group action without even think or discuss possibility that some of attending cmdrs will not have enough experience how prepare sbip if come to such widely announced start point in open play (on top in lowsec system) ... it's similar to come with explo build with cargo to compromised nav-beacon.I refer the honourable commander to the comments else thread of one zarek null, who stated that 900+ commanders (and later 1100) were ganked in one session during the launch od DW2 in open. This would not appear to be consistent with "clearly exaggerated", though I suppose it is possible that someone is telling porkies.
DW2 was announced as purely private group action without even think or discuss possibility that some of attending cmdrs will not have enough experience how prepare sbip if come to such widely announced start point in open play (on top in lowsec system) ... it's similar to come with explo build with cargo to compromised nav-beacon.
Didn't we had this, like, 30 times already, atleast?
Answer is and was no. And hopefully remains no. There is no need for an open PvE mode. Wanna do PvE? Solo. Wanna do PvP? Open. I must say I see an issue with PGs and custom rules but that doesn't justify yet another mode, especially not with magic rules like player damage disabled. Like, how do you explain that ingame? No.
Lastly, it shouldn't be PwP aka co-op only. That's boring and unchallenging.
The rebuy problems don't exist anymore. There is basically no oebalty to being blown up these days.
Wanna do PvE? Solo.
No!
I'll do my PvE in Open and fully accept whatever may come from that, like I have been doing for the last 4 years, thank you very much!
I can't support any new game modes that would dilute the visible population the game. The only way this can be done, imo, and it's still not something I would really want, unless it made a LOT of people happy, is a pvp flag.
Just because YOU don't want it, it in no way changes other people's desire for such.
An Open PvE mode would affect you in exactly no way at all. It would ONLY affect people currently playing in PGs.
The only possible reason for refusing to consider it (tech problems notwithstanding) is that you're afraid (yes AFRAID) that people will see it as an option and your supply of victims will dry up.
I believe recent events with DW2 have dramatised the need for an Open PvE mode. Many of the CMDRs at the DW2 launch didn't have access to a suitable Private Group. Therefore, to take part in a mass launch event they had to be in Open and risk becoming the prey of people intent on wrecking the event.
I propose Open-PvE to be an extra choice at login, in addition to Open, Private Group and Solo.
Possible implementations:
1. Player-player damage disabled. I assume that all damage is already tagged according to source to enable bounties, mission counts, notoriety etc. to be apportioned. All that's needed is a final check that damage is from an allowed source before it's applied. This should ideally include both weapon fire and collision damage between players.
2. No damage modification, but automatic sanctions. E.g. if a player is destroyed by another player in Open-PvE mode, the destroyer pays the victim's rebuy and also a fine, and/or gets banned from Open-PvE for a significant time.
3. Implementation as a PvP flag in Open; so Open-PvE is not actually a separate mode and players with and without the flag set are visible to one another. To avoid exploits it could be appropriate that the flag can only be changed when docked. Attacking a player who has the flag not set could be managed by the methods of either 1 or 2.
I believe this addition would avoid the negative publicity and problems of the kind we've just seen at DW2 and also reunite the fractured player-base. At present those who want PvE play are spread over several huge private groups (which lack admin tools and can't really prevent PvP violations of their rules when infiltrated). It would not have any effect on the play in Open.
For the naysayers that argue that 99% dont want a pve only mode, what are you worried about then?
The fact that the game's founder and CEO says that "the game would end up more broken" worries me about it somewhat.