I think it could be implemented fairly well honestly, as long as player owned bases and outposts were very small ragtag operations compared to the fixed Frontier placed locations. Allowing a base building and business operation dynamic to Elite could really add some incredible flavor to the game IMHO, while also giving the rich players things to spend their money on. No players should outright own Coriolis stations though, that would just be ridiculous.
Now, do I have confidence that Frontier could implement this in a positive way with interactive, engaging, and rewarding game mechanics? Um, lately, yeah I'm not so sure anymore....
I agree with most of this, and would add that UNTIL a lot more realisms of INconstant events / NPCs/AI behaviours are added to the game, many systems will still SEEM similar, even if you do different things in them, or fly in a different craft, or solo/in a wing... etc etc...
in other words, UNTIL more LOCALLY-GENERATED background realisms are added ... to make a more complete environment ... like a dull only-main-characters episode of star treck where an population of billions is represented by a few not-complex-enough characters that someone with inter-stellar /galatic experience deals with... yawwwwnnn...
that the LEVEL of how we interact, in terms of what kind of role we are a PART OF , in a role play sense , will always be constricted.
and "deliberately so" , to quote someone i can't remember...
So ... IF, that does not change, ED will remain a bit of a gear-grinder ... getting cool stuff, but NOT having much of an impact in terms of a choice of a broad range of interaction types... ie, differenet things TO DO.
if they do not, (not, not-change that) and recognise the need for more KINDS of things, interactively, not just more gear (or dune buggies... what is this, party-animal revenge of the nerds? ) & sensibly make it LESS combat-focused, and moreso of a range of dynamics, so that ppl can interact with dynamic BGS aspects COMBINING DIFFERENTLY IN A VARIETY of individual worlds or perhaps at most, small grouped systems(like UNDER a single faction with multiple), ( when then anything much larger should probably be overseen by FD/plot-dev.s themselves )...
then there COULD be a lot more, that player CHOICES, could also, interact with, when owning something.
i personally would LOVE that - a friend told me once that fatansy-RPG games were never the same, after a very minor addition to Ultima ... WHEN-OFFLINE actions , of your character - essentially, taking the RP another step up - while offline, according to your choices, your character would do things AS THOUGH another NPC in game... fish, chop wood... etc
when hearing that, (this was years ago) it totally blew my mind, in terms of POSSIBILITIES of things similar, in all kinds of games.
THAT ... in a much expanded in terms of interaction-TYPES ... situation, would be awwwwwwwesome.
you could when owning a small low-staff automated mine, say , mean you have to interact with markets / buyers/sellers ... interact with factions AS WELL AS non-faction buyers ... etc ... different oppertunities / dynamics would combine with both... if you were heavily involved in factional activities, that might put buyers off buying YOURS ... if you were not , or maybe only a few 'sensible' ones , (commodities factions, brokers, etc (venturists could be risky by comparison) ) ... they might PREFER you,..
etc etc...
when with a farming operation , depending on whether or not it was underground and with artificial light, or in a green-zone , and able to be cheap, BUT vulnerable ... you would or would not need more security / private-mercs , to protect it, etc
ALTHOUGH this might seem endlessly complicated ... i think if FD made some sensible choices about WHICH to allow, to test the waters soto speak, they would WHILE being able to justify doing that, also add much more of a sense of being a part and contributing to the BGS.
even IF, the commodities numbers, reset / are generated periodically, instead of seem to add up , instantaneously - the apparent non-sense quantity problem with many commodities, especially when some are in the single didgits, and others are in the millions ...
is also something that could be modified / continued to be justified IN PART ... when there's a role play REASON, why some fought over rare trade good only comes in single digit quantities , the role play REASON could continue to deny TOO MUCH IMPACT.
that justification / deliberate-restriction/constriction...
might seem like an un-appealing thing ... but it's actually a very good game-maangement / DM/ GM way of not rocking the boat.
i know DESPITE wanting more kinds of BGS interactions / impact ... i would have no disagreement, about HOW MUCH, compared to fighting for an hour, at a factional cz ... should or should not have - LITTLE, by comparison.
a lot sometimes rides on the ability of those who APPEAR to have power, to actually be able to use it.
consequentially, it is also very congruent in ED , for FAILURES , of especially tech & military power, but also politics, or humanities, etc...
--------------------
to affect LOGICAL NPC/roleplay behaviour of the billions upon billions in the BGS.
THAT, WOULD NOT CHANGE.
-------------------
So it should also be possible, to constrict the IMPACT, of players assets/NPCs , especially if they try to deliberately use high numbers of employed ones, to have more of an impact on PP.
while insurance covers SOME things, the consequences of screwing with people's lives, by such manipulation, SHOULD also, be expensive.
employment is expensive, AS WOULD THAT - unhappy NPCs could do all sorts of things ... sabotage... give away trade secrets... reveal to local business that you have a history as a pirate or assasin... etc.
THEMATIC difficulties, or encounters ... like on a board game, of IF-the-player.... blah blah...
would be VERY SUITED ... to making problems, for people who would try to EXPLOIT , such a ownership system.
whereas automatic systems, although simpler , could DO LESS.
that would be a basic-enough a dynamic, that many/most would probably choose the automatic.
a bit like on a moba/3rd-person-view battlefied directing easy-tile-palcement tactical game ... players to NOT LIKE tedious maangement.
so anyone then spending the time it takes to constantly manage what they have chosen , would probably DESERVE what they get.
if THAT, was done well... both options would be there... and from my perspective ... the only remaining problems would be the as mentioned in other posts , game-play in terms of attacking/bug / game-mode type things.
in terms of that, i think making them off-limits absolutely , like a needing-a-permit system ... but a ZONE ... a no-fly-zone , you might say...
forcing automatic turnarounds in flight/barriers while driving ... would be a simple enough METHOD of managing that.
if you WANTED more access, UNLIKE at a private droid-controlled mine, say...
you could choose to do so, and you might get AI traffic...
but most in then knowing other players would SEEK them out ... would not.
so while strong player-controlled ones might, which would no doubt be heavily defended...
most would not have to worry, if the in game role-play automatic entry-refusal systems or whatever they're meant to be...
would deny it anyway.
but as for the ACTUAL composition of the buildings etc?
aaaaaaaahhh, they'd work that stuff out in the process - that'd be the fun bit, design wise...
the real problems, would be in the way they do and do not intereact with the REST of local and extra-system parts of the game.
*** ----------------------------------- ***
*** DEVELOPER IMPORTANT POINT ***
PERHAPS only one direction x2 , would be the way to go ... ie , whatever your owned assets create , interacts one-directionally INTO the BGS , and periodically, a bit like with weekly factional / commodities re-calulations ....
after the weekly re-set ... the BGS then acts one-directionally, on your assets.
that way, a bit like with what i assume are COLLECTIONS , per week... instead of TOO-INSTANT a effect situation, which could mean bugs galore...
would only happen at a PREDICTABLE TIME.
that would mean that as bugs happen, you'd be able to SEE WHERE they would happen, by knowing WHEN they would happen.
well, i mean you'd be able to test it.
that would make fixing bugs a LOT easier.
*** ----------------------------------- ***
*** ----------------------------------- ***
missions / contacts-page/s interactions with player-owned assets / orgs ... could be ;
random?
with a higher chance BY-CHOICE (choosing general trade, choosing particular trade, choosing smuggling, choosing political bargaining/crime, choosing crime-versus-particular groups (sysA / factions / system-present groups, like pirates (there temporarily?) ) ... OF GENERATING , particular missions, added to the factional lists?
maybe even chosen BEHAVIOURS ?
missions could be offered to pilots via the messaging system, like the special offers you get sometimes in your mailbox?
that would be awesome too. only player orgs/businesses , being the ones who send offers to players though, when RP-wise ... thousands would be doing them all the time ... would be quite unrealistically discrepant though.
as is however, never getting offers from private business/owners , in high-population systems... ALREADY.
i.e , only-factions do... where's all the regular business?
if you're prepared to accept that non-realism, FD, then the above would not be any worse.
imagine having chosen your org/business , to target agents of a opposiing neighbouring GP power, since you've noticed since they've been active , your favourite trading partner faction, has been targeted and lowered, or, they're a additional nuisance, when you're trying to fix a relationship with someone...
by choosing to target them, your business/org might add the occasional special offer to target GP agents, via special offer missions , or temporarily hire criminals to do it.
that level of COMBINATIONs , of dynamics, would be a LOT MORE complicated and demanding...
and i think THAT LEVEL ... is what is feared / known would be too mych.
=================
BUT does it only have to be that much?
there are arguably many things that are constricted ALREADY.
so why not another?
would be a fair counter-argument.
and its one i started arguing after the first time i thought about it.
as long as FD restricted how much of an impact private industry/groups had ... and added difficulties ...
then only well maintained/defended ones (i dont mean militarily, neccessarily) , would survive, if they were large enough to ATTRACT THE ATTENTION, of , ALSO, logical, role play difficulties.
if a broad-enough range of encouter-card, or event-card like events, made managing ANY business difficult, then ppl could not just buy something and leave it, and rake in the dough.
NPC officers, or directors, etc ... could betray you! could be only in it for the money! etc
a bit like in the crew-lounge ... a range of character-attributes of NPC directors / other staff ... could be a cool way of adding a minimally simplified NUMBERS-SUB-GAME ... or MINI-GAME ... of sorts ... without having to make too many new-screen-views, or modelling, etc additions, if they were simplified ... a bit like how in the missions screen, the FORMAT , makes the dynamics EFFICIENTLY generated and displayed.
if MANAGEMENT of assets , was like that...
you could go shopping for managers/directors, etc...
and a MINIMUM, of variation in management, could SIMPLIFY the NUMBERS part, of HOW to manage, from a player's perspective - how we'd see how chance works in terms of the game - if that side was not too complex, but the DYNAMIC way in which choices of what your org/business SHOULD BE DOING , to/in the BGS ... including in terms of missions/offers for players ... then it would not be too demanding while still require SOME attendance/matinenance... but also ADD a lot, in terms of players being able to become more actually a PART OF the bgs , when otherwise limited to only being able to IMAGINE what they'd be doing.
an example of how this is currently mis-matched , in my experience, has defianately been the absurdity of the player-faction government-type choice , a player faction we Utopians have denied and rejected - the Dark Syndicate was a "democratic" , bunch of would be BGS dominating conspirators, with little actually clearly stated purpose ... all talk, soto speak *waves inanely at the camera to all Dark Sndicate players with a grin* ... and clearly bloodletting / exploitative / inuhmane ...
but supposedly at the same time ... a "democracy".
the falsity of this group was no challenge , in terms of the RECOGNITION, when playing as a part of something larger , in PP/GPs-play.
it was in our interests, to REJECT this group, in terms of their potential impact on the BGS.
However, some players in Utopia insisted that the BGS is this unchanging, static thing.
PERHAPS IT ONCE WAS.
but at least since i've been playing, ive noticed that is far from the truth.
some things might still be being developed ... but there is already much logic in the BGS.
so CONGRUENT reason , should continue to add, not complicate, the BGS ... make more, responsive, or correspondative... than externally/arbritrarily ADDED to, infrequently.
the IMAGINING , of what one's wing WOULD be doing, is clear to see, when looking at how absurd some of the wings on INARA are - in realizing that , rejecting the dark syndicate was for me, a satisfying part of GP-play (not to be confused with PP).
GP... management, maintenance... etc
asset ownership, could be a interesting, but commitement-dependent way of adding to this, without forcing combat-excellence , demands, upon EVERYONE.
ED is no flight combat SIM, fellas - i like a dogfight as much as the next of you, but as i've said here ... if that's all you're in it for ... play the championships , or just organise fights like a outside sports fight per fight-club like desire - ie, if we're not bothereing anyone else ... our preferences are as valid as anyone else's!
true ... then why do you ALSO, at least SOMEtimes, play in open play?
NO. WHEN playing in open play, you are ALSO, in the realm of diplomats, traders, agents... etc.
no denying it... come on!
that's not an absolute/blank-cheque accusation... its moreso trying to get you to RELATE the past of ED ...
with its potential future.
advocate what im suggesting , and BOTH PvP , but also interesting/divers/just-different-when-comabt's-seeming-repedative BGS interesting stuff , will BOTH, have room, in ED.
well, im getting ahead of myself...
i mean suggestions LIKE these...
do not continue to pressure FD only for combat play - the BGS / open play, is not a background picture, for your muscle-man posings, for a Mr universe competiton!
it is a PvE , MMO!!
vE AI ... NPCs...
the more you forget that, and end up like yet-another INARA wing with unrealistic ambitions , the more repedative and boring , it will become...
like types of prey ... how much fun, is shooting a cow? or beating up a disabled guy? it prooves nothing.
the more dynamic an environment we intereact in, the more interesting or challenging , trying to understand forces that thwart your efforts, were you someone who does focus on combat...
will become!
you'd still be good at what you are... but IN what ... AT what... would be less monotomous... less repedative.
my criticisms of that kind of player, are not unjustified, i am trying to relate how to not WASTE , their awareness of how important miltary power should be, in the game, at the same time as suggesting we are too SEPERATED, from our IMPACTS.
it does seem like an odd arguemnt tho, doesnt it? saying we SHOULD have little impact via what im suggesting , but at the same time saying combat/group PvP , etc , SHOULD, have more?
well not really.
the point of the simultaneous MODE, of play ... has its own rewards.
its not in the same context , not in the same... sport on sports day, at a school sports day ... you're playing one thing ... other people are playing something else.
people advocating more intresting ways of interacting with it, rather than being able to add red stripes to your craft...
are not neccessarily ONLY trying to down-trod you all...
i was, of Dark Syndicate players ... but that is because of the PARTICULAR choice they've made.
there are plenty of combat-focused players that would THRIVE, not be forced to fit in, to something more responsive, to super-rich delivery-boys , soto speak.
therein lies a kind of metaphor for the problem, as i see it - we have too much customization/freedoms, compared to AI - after engineer mods, regular NPC system defenders / agents, etc, have become shooting-gallery targets.
where's your sense of a challenge , combat-focused types?
imagine two otherwise identically generated NPC agents ;
one a Kump-crew in the middle of the Delaine territories ,
the other a Patreus agent , safely under everyone else , out in the middle of nowhere doing his thing.
now imagine a new dynamic that would logically neccessitate since in being in the middle of nowhere, the Patreus one, simply has an AFM
now, imagine, a similarly proprionate, or, appropriate dynamic, changing INSTEAD of equipment,..
the BEHAVIOUR, of the kumo crew agent, WERE he in the middle of Delaine territory , COMPARED to if he were out in the edges of Delaine space...
NOW ... imagine ANOTHER dynamic ... this one affecting the behaviour of sysA , to a Kumo crew agent in their not-under-their-exploitation-radius ... when, or not-when , in a system with military economy.
NOW, imagine ANOTHER dynamic, that combines the same, were the patrues also outside empire exploitation, also an intruder...
where a local IMbalance, of faction TYPES ... causes a higher priority for one factional behaviour over another.
sayyyyy, security - a ordinary business faction NEEDs more.
what would be different?
would multi-conditional combinations, like that , not make the combat side, of PvE , a hell of a lot MORE interesting / rewarding , when you intelligently spot particular oppertunities?
hell yea!
so if you apply the same logic backwards... what is missing ... what is yet-completed...
it becomes quite obvious, that we WANT ... to be more in the BGS.
but can't.
------------------
the way that people have had to IMAGINE ... what they would be able to do in terms of their IMPACT , because of the limited WAYS in which we interact with the BGS ... is clearly na indication of how FD/ED is lacking , in recognising this, despite all the fantastic game-engine efforts, and ongoing commitment to the PP/multi-player play...
the restriction, to LESS of an impact, tho, could be a neccessity were something like what im suggesting, needing to be weaned on ... introduced SLOWLY...
that is not to say, that we would be restricted / constricted forever...
its just to say, that ACCEPTING some minimally fleshed-out VERSION, of what im saying...
would not be a betrayal of player-IMPACT.
it would be a precaution , so as to not imbalance.
BUT ALSO , in terms of efficent implementations ,
how as programmers , FD would be able to TWEAK it , without it being too impactful, when having bugs, etc.
keeping it to a NUMBERS game, or , MOSTLY, a numbers game,..
would be a bit like commodites.
the technical aspects are interesting, quite a lot of diversity and tech to learn about...
but where is the impact of our actions?
the constriction is needed, but clearly the desire for IMPACT, is still there.
that's an UN-TAPPED well of appeal, from my perspective... not an abandoned part of play that people truly "dont want".
i think your perceptions, are distorted by the rush and satisfactions of combat-play.
clever BGS play, is not of the SAME KIND , of satisfactions , or rush, or team-play success comraderie...
that doesnt mean people dont want it, it just means its less ... epic, less, of victory and glory and whatnot.
rrrrrrphhhh. moot point.
the OPEN PLAY ... not championships ... play ,.. would still be more interesting, EVEN WHEN STAYING combat focused...
since what you would be being ASKED to do in role play, would again be becoming more diverse.
================
so that's BOTH something for both types of players in this criticsm...
but ALSO, increasing role-play diversity at the same time.
*thumbs up*
LIKE that... if only a few good idea dynamics , not controlled, but realistically , did AS MUCH as you COULD do, when things SHOULD be out of your control, often, in fact!
then that's ALSO A BELEIVEABLE, DEFENDABLE, reason, to constrict , how much we can do with them.
it allows for imagination/role play , while not alowing too much impact, but in making what impact we DO have, more in PROPORTION ... both ABLE, to be impactful WHEN, we deserve it when we cooperate...
but punishing, when we do not.
====================
====================
as it should be, were you to really goto the effort and get it right the first time.
if you left it as another customization / red-stripes to go faster 'feature' , it would have a very LIMITED lifetime of interest/attraction , and would probably end up more effort than it would be worth.
like how there are currently limits on how much you can do with your crew members.
if you added too many new things, you would end up doing a lot of re-programming for us, FD... but how much would it really add to the game, in terms of IMPACT ?
phhhhhhhhhhhht.
you dont ADD to a MMO, or a RP or open-world-RP game's interesting envrinoment/interactions , by adding customizations.
you know that, FD - no need to pretend that you would LOSE customers focused of craft-changes.
give them a challenge, by engineered NPC/AI, (assuming they have horizons! eek! ) ... and then make the responses ORGANISED people, would have ... in proportion!
it is a general reality, that pirates and the like, do not GET much, from remote places, but SHOULD, be unable , to do well, in places where the cost of crushing them, is divided by more , a burdern handled by more, more easily.
------------------
LIKE that... players assets when SEEMINGLY impactful , will ONLY have an impact in remote places.
in that sense, the FUTILITY of ignoring high population, will remain, and those who go with it, will get what THEY deserve, too.
there would become a DIVERSITY, of combining assets AND play ;
In remote places, few could try to maintain the effect of their investment, more easily.
But in high pop places, the RIGHT CHOICE ... of a asset , could be an interesting way to TRY, to make money, but potentially at risk of compedators, or competition forces, etc
it would not be TOO EASY ... if you made sure your DIFFICULTIES , and random events, etc , KEPT PACE, with how we impacted on the game.
======================
that would dynamically affect both behaviours, AND leave a limit on how much it would impact on the local systems (both could fail, but higher gain would come at higher risk) - yours would be a minor player, especially in large systems will billions...
and in systems, deliberately gone to because of low population...
you should probably DESERVE, more of an impact, since you're taken more of a risk.
(higher impact, is also AT higher risk, tho of a GROSSer lower gain, but proprtionally higher proportion, compred to something in a high-pop [ you would get what you deserve, in other words, AS LONG AS there were enough realisms to not make it too easy - with a minimum of numbers-game-like restricted options/impacts , remote places would not be needing to not-be-too-easy , since players-impacts SHOULD be propotionately high - remote places would take-care-of-themselves soto speak, subject to bugs/game-exploitations ] ... the extra effort for high-pop , would be a needed-step in actually adding this to the game, but it would not leave exploitations open, at least not without EFFORT on the part of the players, to give their business a unfair advantage (allowing that, but ONLY with time-sacrifice - difficulties COME BACK, after you think you've ended them) )
===================
===================
===================
it is generally true, that setting up something that will be able to SELL ... in a compedative enough market ... somewhere with a high pop...
will be at LEAST able to compete, even if losing to some compedator.
that's LOW risk, though it seems intimidating by perception of competition.
setting up some remote mining operation with expensive security, in a piracy-prone system, with long distance transit on your exports...
high, high ,high...
so then, you should DESERVE more of an impact.
----------------------------
we, nor FD, should not be afraid of that ... in TIME , BGS fluctuations, especially as they get more complex as FD adds things ... should EASILY grow over just about anything (most) players organise.
-----------------------------
so another way of saying that, is to say... players individually will be less than a drop in a bucket... so who cares?
and non-individually, in a group, they SHOULD, have, an impact.
it would add another way of interacting with the game, add FLEXIBILITY, and REWARD players for their initiative, if they SPOT DEFICIENCIES OF PRODUCTION ... in places.
or other things, too - deficiencies of humanities ... of security...
setting up your own security company!
wow!
complex in terms of the AI...
but how could FD minimise how much to have to program?
hmmmmmmm...
OK, sure, that level of complexity would be too much to do quickly and easily.
============
but again, there are things in ED, that are FAR FROM FULLY FLESHED OUT, ALREADY.
so this would be no WORSE.
it would be another one then perhaps left incomplete...
but it would add a interesting risk-taking dynamic,
AND ... be a way of getting some of the hundreds of millions/billions of credits, away from players who have exploited some of the game's imbalances / dynamics , at the same time, as adding something that would be a WAY of suporting BGS entities , that if players who DID have, a lot of money , would be somewhat guilty of NOT doing , NOT investing in , when saying they're commited to things.
the truly , honestly selfish, could go around, not spending.
but there could ALSO be an additional dynamic that reduces targeting of generous/investive (asset OWNing) , and increases targeting of players who do not.
there could also be NPC blackmail/extortion, added.
so say a super-rich Delaine player , goes around toteing his wealth, and finding oppertunities to screw with things with dirty money somewhere.
they would be infamous, and immediately targeted, if not also PERSUED, by a range of RESPONDING interest-groups/individuals - agents-special actions? investigates and counters players like this?
some places would have less, political/spending 'intertia'
(and that(dirty money) should probably be powerful, to be fair) ... other places, would have more who go BEYOND money , and react/respond, to the opposite.
GROWTH, of those, would also be logical - not neccessarily religious orders... yawwwwnnn.... but justice parties, or stability-interested groups... even a commodities group , could want relative stability enough , to try to assasinate some player who turns up and tries turning all the tables... mafias, not wanting things to change, jet-dynamic groups, wanting to be WHOME is relied on, etc
etc.
there would be able to be ways of attritionionally ... degrade and outgrow , players' impacts.
they might have a impact TEMPORARILY ... but as the BGS engine improoves , SO TOO , should that.
continuing to dominate without having to own assets, particularly ...
WOULD, remain, expensive.
but temporarily, to be fair, should probably be quite potent.
i think the problem then, would be what kind of factors, should ENCOURAGE faction-type growth?
when should security and honour and whatnot , rather than money , ALSO, encourage, some factions when not others?
a NEW FACTIONAL DYNAMIC ... splitting ... could be added , i guess.
where a faction that is large, and there are reasons why it would be wanted by locals ... might remain the same TYPE of faction... but LOCALIZE.
splinter from its home faction ... and thereby VIA this dynamic , TYPES of structurally supporting factions ... cooperative factions ... or , when it comes to bloodletting ones ... most anarchists, also ... would be able to spread , WITHOUT distance being a problem, from a CENTRAL POINT.
!!!!!!
i think if FD accepts that idea, they'll find a lot MORE of what they wouldve INTENDED ... of supportive factions spreading ... actually WILL - instead of getting limited, like a plat's roots in a pot...
if instead , they maintain the STATIC BGS ... ED will remain stale and lifeless.
players assets, would then be also stale and often pointless...
you'd get one, and then after managing one for a while, go... pfffff, what's the point ... this is almost as bad as ferrying bio-waste...
and abandon them.
==============
there needs to be INCENTIVE ... to maintain them, FD!!
if a more robust system had both incentive&punishment...
players dabbling with them, would be punished expensively ... but the AFTER-acheivement reward, would both impact on systems locally , but add a SIMULTANEOUS layer of play, INAMONGST, players doing other things.
that kind of simultaneous play, is MISSING badly, in ED.
it may well have STARTED with a limited role...
but a bit like the guy who says in this forum that's he's a duke...
players have wanted to go BEYOND the delivery-boy role.
like FRY out of futureama...
officially, he's a delivery boy... but they end up in so much more.
LIKE THAT ... continuing to fail to add more... HOW .... you interact, with the ED universe...
will add a uneccessary ball&chain when less engine/hardware obsessives , could've ended up affecting your perceptions of what the players WANT.
==================
==================
==================
we DO want, more interaction TYPEs... else we would only play the championship mode.
----------------
do not be convinced into thinking, that a huge amount of your players will leave if they do not get what they 'appear' , to want of combat-ideas and personalizations FD - conniving inconsiderates TELL game-developers that, to get what they want from you, in their PETTY comparisons.
IGNORE THEM!
see the larger scope of the game.
we do NOT, usually play only the championship.
--------------
after recognising that?
game-mode problem.
easy answer ; INITIALLY ... make them no-go-zones without a permit - that way only ppl WITHOUT a reason to damage them , will ever enter them (well, except those who deceive)
perhaps you could add a FORCED weapons-disabled / no-collision damage flag or something, to prevent it entirely, so they wont even try.
if their PURPOSE ... is a productive, BGS intended one ... then in a game that is ALREADY exploration and diverse-beyond-combat/PvP ... then it should not come as some kind of betrayal to PvPers ... to deny them the ability to harass / etc , in this MODE , of the game.
--------------------
the same could be argued as to remove solo mode entirely.
so too bad!
easy to argue - it's a bit like solo mode ... if you dont want to play in this part of the game, go elsewhere for your PvP - ED's diverse in BOTH...
etc.
easy.
