I appreciate that you show interest in my intentions and i gladly give you an answer to your question.
I repeat myself and keep on repeating because my "opponents" in this discussion give me the feeling that they don't understand or even undermine my arguments with little twists intentionally.
I think in all honesty (if you followed my arguments) some of them are reasonable- from an encouraged multiplayer point of view. And i have assumed that with specific rules that might be created we all might take benefit of it.
If the proper rules are set to stop excessive and unreasonable attacks with some kind of safety net and at the same time encouraging mechanics are implemented to give open a try, to realize that not all people out there just want the meaningless pewpew, we might come to common ground where the Soloists might see the benefits (generated by more immersion, etc) of not excluding others. A "world" where the trader can trade in peace and the new guy can start putting his feet out of the first system without being eaten alive. Sure there still would remain incidents that not everyone might like. But those would be reduced in a proper manner and fit in the lore of this game. I, and i really hope the majority of the remaining people in open, don't want cannon-fodder, or get stimulated by killing blindfolded helpless players.
I would love to see a healthy society generated by the community, where you greet those that you know and welcome those that are new.
I would love to continue my explanation but i am running out of time. But i do hope that my answer satisfies you and my intentions become reasonable.
You assume all players, or most of them, would enjoy the same thing. I doubt it. Like I said before, I'm never again going to open myself to non-consensual PvP for as long as I live, and while I'm kinda extreme in this I doubt I'm alone.
And if you think that I'm going to silently accept Open receiving any kind of extrinsic advantage in order to lure into it the players that currently prefer other modes, you are sorely mistaken. Though I doubt Frontier would ever give Open an outright advantage for another reason, the way the game's networking works; the player base has already shown a willingness to bend the rules when combat logging became widespread, giving Open advantages would likely result in something similar happening, this time with players in Open but with connections to other players blocked so as to not be bothered by them.
It would be cool if all the con's would just stop defending their argumentation just because of current conditions.
Based on the game that was promised, the game we paid for, and the features that for many of us were fundamental in convincing us to even start playing, you mean?
This should be a constructive discussion to- what could be if.
For a future, different game, sure.
For any game that is already being sold, though, what was promised should always be taken into account, and makes a perfectly valid argument against any change that undermines promised features. Well, unless the devs are prepared to offer unconditional, full refunds to all the players unhappy with breaking the old promises — I've seen indie studios to this in the past for games still in Alpha/Beta, even MMOs — but for an already released game with over half a million copies sold this seems unlikely in the extreme.
And, in any case, drastic changes tend to only be worthwhile in a serious crisis, like what happened in the first launch of Final Fantasy XIV. They might attract new players and please some of the unhappy ones, but they greatly damage the company's credibility and can easily drive away part of the players that are currently enjoying the game, even if the changes are successful.
(Also, it worked with Final Fantasy XIV because Square was willing to stop charging the subscription, acknowledge that they failed catastrophically, return the game to development, and rewrite it from the ground up to account for the changes the players were demanding; the game that was re-launched two years later was a basically different game, from many of the concepts down to the very game engine, that just happened to share many of the assets of the old FF XIV.)
Do i really give you the feeling that i want to harm you with my ideas? I mean really, without twisting details or trying to read between the lines?!
When someone purchased the game exactly because of the freedom to change modes at will and choose who we play with, all of that without taking any penalty or restriction just because of that choice, then any idea to restrict either the modes or the act of switching between them is harmful to that person, an attempt to take away from them the game they paid for. Intentionally so, I would add; proposals such as yours seem aimed at making Solo and Group modes worse in order to get players that prefer those modes to give Open a try.
Open, Solo, and Group, right now — and as advertised ever since the game's multiplayer was first described, over two years ago — are merely different settings of the matchmaking algorithm, with no difference besides who you can meet. This, plus allowing players to freely switch like they can do nowadays, is the baseline of what I would consider acceptable. I do agree that there are some issues with how the modes are played, but they should
not be solved by giving penalties or bonuses to specific modes.
