Private/Solo is not Coop
The cry that if you don't want PvP then you should play Solo is a fallacy. Most of the people calling for another mode are those who want to continue interacting with players in a coop game. Those who don't want coop already play in Solo and aren't calling for any changes.
And those that play in PG? What about them? Does PG not equal Co-Op? The assumption that there are lots of CMDRs who are looking to join up with other CMDRs also needs examining in my opinion. From what I have seen, even in Open, this is not the case. It is true that there are large events that are organised, but these aren't random encounters. If we consider that CMDRs
aren't looking for random encounters then PG and Solo already fill this niche, don't they?
I think you illustrate my point quite well - as you say, there is already Private mode for friends to play, yet many people are calling for a Cooperative mode where you don't have to have a prior relationship with people. Whilst you might not personally be interested in this mode of play doesn't discount the number of players who do and the number of players resorting to fudges such as the Mobius groups - which is an administrative overhead on a player(s) to plug a gap left by the game. I wouldn't accept the argument that Mobius fills this need - it's a sticking plaster at best.
I am not suggesting for any moment that Private is removed either. Private fills a very important purpose, people who want to play
privately, under whatever guise they want. To think that only PvE takes place in Private is inaccurate. I would imagine major events like DW2 would still arrange private groups for organisational reasons. This though is a bit of a straw man to whether the game should facilitate a cooperative mode between players.
The problem with unconsensual PvP
The biggest outcry is the "gank" style of game play - where Player A is wanting to do a non-PvP activity and is attacked by Player B, who wants to kill humans. In this scenario it is likely that Player A has a PvE orientated ship, something that has been crafted to work within the game mechanic to be effective at playing against the AI - which comprises most of the game. Player B on the other hand has something built focused for killing player ships.
Since engineers, dispatching stock or unarmed ships takes a matter of moments. There isn't any viable option to fight back short from bringing a pretty well defended ship - this is at odds with the rest of the game that does not require this. It's a minority of players who like praying on non-PvP equipped ships.
There is always the option to run away, which you haven't included. Of course it's a nonsense to try and fight an Anaconda in a T7. A survivable T7 build is less credits per hour of course but you survive. Could this be phrased as "The Biggest Problem is Unsafe and Dangerous Builds in Open?" It's a matter of perspective.
I didn't include running away, very deliberately, and that's my critical point about the inbalance - this is
not an option for the vast majority of players doing things like exploring - even if they do go shielded. A large ship with unengineered gimbals will destroy an Asp with a 5A shield in about 10 seconds - less if with a PvP engineered build, less with more than one player. Running away once you've been engaged is not an option. Likewise, fighting an interdiction with a smaller massed ship, against multiple assailants is iffy at best.
Your perspective is excluding game players who don't have the credits to build a survivable build from playing with other people unless it's in a pre-arranged private group. This is unfair as it is mandating an unbalanced game player where the power dynamic is unreasonably skewed to the PvP'er.
- There needs to be a defence against zerg mechanics where a wing of multiple players provide an unbalanced fight to a lone player.
- Gameplay mechanics that allow for all ships to defend themselves against unbalanced attacks.
- Consideration to the time available to players - so called "gankers" are usually a part of a clan or similar and frequently are able to invest significant more time into casual players who want to play cooperatively.
There is defence against zerg mechanics and player wings -
1. Don't tangle with them
2. Good scanner and spatial awareness
3. Run away
Gameplay mechanics to defend against unbalanced attacks:-
1. Run away.
As you can only be interdicted from your 6 o'clock - keep your 6 o'clock clear. If that sounds simplified, it is; but it really is that simple. You cannot be killed if you can high wake escape. You cannot be killed if you cannot be interdicted. You cannot be killed if your opponent cannot get on your six. You cannot be killed if you do not have other CMDRs in your instance.
The scenario that is complained the most about isn't the one where solo commanders are taking on PvP wings, it's the one where PvP'er pray on those who aren't interested or equipped. Not tangling is not an option presented, as the PvP'ers have the power in this situation. Spatial awareness will only get you so far, I can keep one PvP'er off my tail all day long, but against a wing I stand no chance as there is no wall to keep my back against. You are quite right that you cannot be killed if there are no other players in your instance, this is called Solo and exactly not what is being asked for by the OP. What is being asked for is a Coop mode where players are in the instance but due to the inbalance of game mechanics there is no way of fending them off apart from leaving.
Mixed modes
I've always been a fan of the idea frequently suggested of enabling PvP in the current Open - it isn't fool proof as pointed out, and there will still be method for people to trick the system in order to get people to crash. I don't think this though is unreasonable, and as with things like speeding and point defence turrets, there is usually a tweak that can be made to make these attacks unfeasible.
No, Open is Open is Open. Open means Open. No Open is better than a bad Open. "Open PVE" as a new mode - if we must, but please leave Open as Open. Anything goes, no flags, no safe spaces (I conceded maybe 1 system you can learn the basics in, but once left you can never return)
Indeed, you've hit the nail on the head, that is what Open is, but what you fail to recognise is that your opinion of what a bad open is differs from many supporters of a coop mode. You haven't actually stated an argument as to why you feel that having some players that you can't kill without consent is a bad warrant.
There are plenty of "fair game" human targets, such as those with bounties in big ships, but in reality, if they don't want to have humans collecting those bounties and run the risk with the NPCs instead, why does that matter so much to you?
The fundamental goal
There is only one way to safely play in open and get involved with community events, and that is to come in a PvP equipped wing. I am interdicted without fail by PvP'ers, some role playing pirates and some swarms who just want to get the kill (no comms etc). In a fairly engineers PvE Anaconda, I don't stand a chance against the latter group. How anybody is expected to survive in a Stock Cobra is beyond me. I also have the luxury of having a fairly big rebuy buffer - this wasn't always the case.
FD need to be able to provide an environment of sportsmanship and playing fair. The current game is in noway set up to cater for this, which I believe is the cause of the consternation from Coop supporters.
Define "safely" - do you mean without risk? I ask as it is not the only way to participate in a CG, but there is a sliding scale of risk involved to which you as a player with agency can decide on. You have choice.
Define "fair". But before that what is your objective? Is it realistic? Is it doable?
A stock Cobra is a poor choice - why would you take any stock ship to a CG, for any reason? This would be an example of an unrealistic objective "I want to PvP vs engineered ships in a stock Cobra" It's not impossible, just very very tricky.
I tend to agree it's not fair if you consider only PvP, but it is fairer when you consider countermeasures and evasion techniques anyone can learn to avoid destruction.
Above all, the golden rule applies - do not fly with what you cannot afford to lose, be that data, cargo or ships.
Fly safe, 07.
Safely is a redundant word in my post, a better way to put it would be - to play on equal ground. There is a sliding scale with the CG, but that needs to scale with the game appropriately. A CG in a high security system should allow for players in a T6 to be involved in Open with minimal risk to their ships, whether that is from NPCs or Humans. In a low security or anarchy system, that should be high risk.
Fair as in free from prejudice, the game in this current state is unbalanced and mixing players who aren't interested with PvP with those who are can never, ever, be favourable to the non-PvP'ers. This is a bad game mechanic. As noted above, there are various things that I feel should be done to improve the state of play in Open to address these, but at this point all these years on, and the drastic changes to the game that would be required (reducing the damage of ships, increasing battle times, nerfing engineering, changing payouts), it would seem to me the easier answer is a Coop mode in the game where human players cannot cause direct damage to other players.
I agree with other statements on this thread that this could be done with a mixed mode, but I did not mandate it as prerequisite to work, I merely raised it to deal with some of the issues that it would cause. A standalone Coop mode would seem to be the most straight forward way of dealing with direct damage. Piracy could continue as hatch breaker limpets don't damage your ship, along with things like Mass Lock (when it's working) this provides a mechanism for piracy to continue whilst keeping the massacre of players that so many people are, I think perfectly reasonably, unhappy with, at bay.
].
