I am aware solo exists, that being said I stand by what I say. This is a multiplayer game.
Perhaps introduce some sort of "Passive Mode" that you can toggle when not in immediate danger in your right hand panel. Kinda like flicking the switch for your crimes. If you want to do some pve activities in open(Limited to missions, exploring or travelling), you are safe from ganking wings. However it would be limited. You would be unable to toggle "Passive Mode" at Community Goals, When conducting BGS or Powerplay activities. You also wouldn't be able to toggle it when you have cargo in your hold (To enable PvP piracy).
In this mode it disables PvP interaction when in open play, but you can still see other players. When someone targets you It would come up after they scanned you or maybe on the radar you would be a different colored hollow square.
I personally feel that a PVE OPEN only mode would reduce the number of players in Open even less than it already is. I also believe FDEV have said that they are not going to be implementing said mode. I much prefer my idea. It's not perfect, but we leave the devs to decide in the long run
Blimey, talk about putting the cart before the horse.
Firstly, Elite is a Solo game, and Elite Dangerous is an evolution of Elite that is basically a Solo game with multiplayer added on to it as another layer.
Secondly, the hotspots and activities that you suggest would be the ones were your "Passive Mode" would be disabled are
precisely where players would want to be inhabiting an Open PvE mode the very most.
You'll probably come back and say that wouldn't be satisfactory to you, maybe because you have designs on engaging with "weaker" ships, and probably because you have the thought that a CG would be unable to be blockaded, etc...?
In reply, I'd simply remind you that there are already a legion of players using PG and Solo to contribute to the CG you want to blockade. I
get it that you probably think that should not be allowed either, but there we are - it is - and strictly by deliberate design - and backed up by years of deliberate consideration on whether that should still be the case or not - and yet it remains this way.
So the conclusion that logically presents itself is that the legion of players who use Solo and PG
might emerge from those modes on make up the bulk of any PvE Open mode. Maybe some other players
would migrate from Open to PvE Open mode, but only the ones that are not looking for the excitement of running the blockade. The end result would be that the players who remain in Open would be the very ones
most prepared for Open mode and the ones who
enjoy the excitement of Open mode CG running, etc. so it's the ones that
want to be there, rather than the ones that are reluctantly there because of some compromise or lack of awareness.
Help me out here because I'm not seeing the notional downsides (theoretically speaking - I'm not deliberating the technical hurdles here).
The end result would be a potential zeroisation of any threads like these where players who have not foreseen the consequences of being ganked and yet get "blown up for no reason". The players inhabiting Open are the ones that can foresee and are happy with the mode's ecosystem and potential outcomes.
You could also logically expect to zeroise the potential for combat-logging. Remember, the players who chose Open instead of PvE Open would be the ones who are content to choose risk and accept the consequences... Like I said - I'm really not seeing any potential downsides to a PvE Open mode, only benefits for everyone.
Ganksalot has already sneered at the salty players that he thinks good riddance of - surely that also logically extends the same sentiment to anyone who would rather choose a PvE Open. Good Riddance? No? If not, why not?
Is it a Good Riddance, or a "Please don't take the players away that I want to
interact with?". Help me out with some logic, because I'm still failing to see the downsides for every single player.
Or is it that you want to see more players when you play?
What about Mobius Group players - they would mirror that same sentiment, so what makes your desire more important than theirs? Is there an element of hypocrisy in the appeal "don't take players away from Open"?
Is it because there would be no "unwilling" players left in Open that makes gankers dead set against the idea of a PvE Open?
Or is there some other tangible reason than someone can elucidate for me, please?
Discuss...
