Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

[ianw]

I'm sure we can all cherry pick situations where a CMDR is in open and nothing bad happened to him, thus we can claim that Open is not risky at all.

In other news, I just ate, so world hunger is a myth.

I gave several very common examples of no risk for traders and one with no risk for pirates. To suggest that open is always more risky so it's needs something special is demonstrably false.

My point is that risk is not related to mode but to the situation and relative ship types, loadouts, player numbers and relative skill levels.

And you come back with some nonsense about world hunger?

 

[Robert Maynard]

I completely understand your point of view. But it is, IMO, a "sacrifice" that must be done.

Others, however, do not agree with your opinion that a "sacrifice" requires to be made.

If you allow freely switching back and forth , how do you keep the PVP server balanced? It wouldn't be much different from right now, with the same problems.

Regardless of mode switching, how would you keep Open balanced? That's an issue in and of itself that is unrelated to mode switching.

A player farming in his shieldless tradeship in PVE / Solo, then switching to PVP / open in his maxed out combat ship... this is a balance issue.

Where a player gets their credits is not important - what they do with them is. Players can sit in a station all day in Open acting as a Wing beacon for their Wing-mates trading - and receive 5% of each of their profits at that station for doing nothing at all. A player in Solo requires to earn each credit all by themselves - no risk reduction by playing in a Wing.

But switching also kills the "community" on the PVP server. What I mean is that, realistically, since switching is allowed, 100% of your encounter in pvp would be against people that want to fight (because people that would be "friendly" are logically in solo / pve, doing their own thing).

This bit is fascinating - it seems (correct me if my interpretation is incorrect, please) that you are saying that the Open community relies on non-consensual PvP. Why is being able to force a PvE player into a PvP engagement so important to your definition of "community"?

If there is no reason to do PVE in the PVP server, then that server might as well be dead.

There is no "PvP" server - what we have is Open - it is the only Open access multi-player mode that we have where players can meet other random players - however the actions of some players (who, it would seem, require to disrupt the game for others to enjoy the game themselves) may discourage players from playing in Open. Thankfully for those affected players, Frontier have (from the very start in the first publication of their stated game design in the Kickstarter pitch) offered them the freedom of choice to play away from those players.

Thats the thing, "more risky" is not subjective. Its a fact. Open has all the basic risk of solo, with an added twist ; you can get jumped by a wing of pirate in open, and get killed. The fact that this thing is POSSIBLE, is all that matters. Its a simple as (1+1) > 1

This is a flaw in the original design of the game, and should be adressed, or at least acknowledged by frontier.

Open indeed has all the basic risk of Solo - it is populated by the same NPCs after all. However, Open has the addition of any player that wants to play in it. Open is, as others have said, *huge*. It is not easy to find a player who does not want to be found. NPCs will always vastly outnumber players in the galaxy. Even if every single player who has a game account were to play at the same time then less than 0.001% of the systems in the game would have any players in them.

A player can get jumped by a Wing of pirates in any game mode - however the Wing could only be composed of players in two of the three game modes. Similarly, a player can be in the Wing in Open jumping a lone trade ship - not much risk for the players in the Wing there. Open allows risk mitigation by force of numbers, i.e. being in a Wing. Solo does not.

In your opinion it is a flaw - other opinions vary.

This debate has been going on right from the start when some players realised that their preferred play-style may be compromised by the freedoms afforded to all players by the core game features. In those two and a half years, Frontier has not removed any of these core game features, i.e. three game modes; single shared galaxy state; the ability to switch game mode on a session by session basis. Frontier have also, repeatedly, said that all game modes are equal and valid and have resisted calls to incentivise a single mode / penalise the other modes.

 

[Mouse]

I won't be on today... it is getting closer to the hour...

May your discussions be fruitful and those who are polarized on each side can set aside their differences today

 

[Vorxian]

Its called risk vs reward. I'll do this step-by-step.

Rewards are currently the same, both in open and solo. But when you take PC out of the equation and only have to worry about NPCs, it allows you to maximize income per hour. Going shieldless on your trade run to maximise profit is a popular example. That's not something you'd want to do in open, but its fine to do it in solo.

So...what do we have?

Open ; Higher risk // Equal or less rewards. You think thats balanced?

But you know what? That's not even my problem with Open. I dont mind getting less money in open, because it is more fun.
Like I said before, its the switch from solo/open that bothers me. Thats not balanced.

I'm not singling you our or anything JuicyFruits, more the argument being made.

So it's a trade off, and perception.

I'm going to go straight for real life here and say this.

I work for an investment organisation in London, I have a basic salary, bonuses and commission based pay schemes. IF I WANTED TO I could work through say the TSE (Tokyo) exchange day, then, work through the LSE day, then I could work through the NYSE then I could switch back to TSE, I could work like donkey 24/7, and potentially make a fair few numbers on my account balance.

Do I ? NO.

I have a young daughter start school this week, and she is more important to me than anything else this world has to offer. I'm not a material person, infact I'm quite happy to admit that I drive around in a 1996 Vauxhall Astra... Why? because i like it, it was my late fathers, and it has more sentimental value to me than any vehicle going.

How does all this translate to ED, well, SOLO might be a trade off between having fun with friends, or going about a task that quickly and effectively accumulates credit vs perceptions of 'reward'. I think Rob M said before, it's not what mode you get the credits that matters. I do not need a third party telling me how I should / should not earn credits in game, nor do I expect anyone in real life to dictate to me how many hours I work. I know inward, myself how much time I want to spend with my family or at work, and any day of the week time with family is more important TO ME than work. Work is essential to maintain a standard of living, yet it is not the most important thing.

THE MOST IMPORTANT THING is what makes YOU happy. Do not look at someone else and either try to force a change in their way of living to suit YOUR desires, but more over, approach the situation with a more subtle philosophy, try to encourage them to 'try' something new, maybe they like it maybe they don't, that's for them to decide. The important fact is for them to try, and for you to accept their decision. FORCING folks into OPEN is bad for everyone. Folks will moan about them, they will moan at folks, they'll moan at ED crews for forcing unappealing gameplay, they'll generate bad karma around the game, and that is BAD for everyone. Let people play ED the way that generates the most fun, and best experience as possible on balance. OPEN is not the mechanism to force so you have more defenseless PvEers to bully and pick on. Wait for CQC, and pit yourself against like minded individuals, it's win win, right?

I urge everyone to read something I was taught as as child, and I have taught the same to my daughter.

https://www.storyarts.org/library/aesops/stories/north.html

Think about it.

 

[Tryst]

Downloaded the game again last night to see what changes might have been made to Solo play that might improve gameplay.

After a few mishaps due to forgetting the keys, I got out and started a hauling run in my Python. Got to Vequess and headed for Agnews Folly.

Interdicted 4 TIMES! Just trying to get to the station, 3 of those times by authorities wanting to scan my ship in a system whose authorities I was friendly to.
Third time I got interdicted was by a group of 3 ships, 2 of which were Cobras and one other Python, all Mostly Harmless.
Figured that the shields are no more useful than a paper bag, despite hardly being hit much, my shields went down within seconds.
Found out the Python is no longer a viable combat ship because it's agility has been nerfed to death and then some so I couldn't really get in position to fire back.
Noticed that canopy strength hasn't really improved, almost lost my canopy in the first couple of volleys from the lead ship.
Took me almost an hour to fly from the sun to the station due to being interdicted so often.
Found out the economy is still screwed and making a profit as a trader is pretty near pointless.

Game over, logged out and deleted the game again. Seems ED is even less solo friendly than it was before.

 

[Scudmungus]

Exactly this. When people realize there's no consequence- chaos ensues. Guess what we've got now in Open?

Mi gat to be quick wid dis..

Regardin 'Dem nah gaurds' - dis nah de point mi tink. Dem students adopted role. Seemin, som also 'loosin demselves in de role'. Role provid certain amount of annonymity (Mi nah mi, mi gaurd! Dis nah real mi // Mi nah bad man! Mi pirate! Dis nah mi! Dis nah real!) an possibilty of avoidin accountability (mi nah bad! System bad! Mi just followin de bossman's rules!).

Addin pressure, stress (gat to keep dem 'prinsoners' inline, gat to do job else yuh fail! Yuh lose! ) an powa and BAM: Wi gat some nasty tings goin on!

Me seein som people playing games, like som dem students. Den also loosin demselves widdin role. Bein in hostile environment. Under pressure. System fah avoidin accountability. Anonymity.


Wat mi gat fram aal dis is: virtual environments an systems gat de powa to encourage behaviors an directly manipulate people widdin dem - like 'real world' environments. Dem designin dese systems, dese environements - dese games - gat ta do some serious tinking:

Wat mi makin? Wat behaviors mi gonna encourage? Wat affect dis gonna hav on dem engagin wid dese systems/environments? Mi gonna encourage som? Reward som? Nah? Maybi?

People gonna be people. Do people tings. Mi nah know wah mek som do dis an dat. Wat mi do tink dough - enviromental factors gat de powa to manipulate people. Fah betta. Fah worse.

Mi tinkin of Monday mornin rush hour an aal dem people, sittin in dem cars, wid no face, unda pressure, stress.. an wat it doin to people!

 

[The Wallet Inspector]

Others, however, do not agree with your opinion that a "sacrifice" requires to be made.



Regardless of mode switching, how would you keep Open balanced? That's an issue in and of itself that is unrelated to mode switching.



Where a player gets their credits is not important - what they do with them is. Players can sit in a station all day in Open acting as a Wing beacon for their Wing-mates trading - and receive 5% of each of their profits at that station for doing nothing at all. A player in Solo requires to earn each credit all by themselves - no risk reduction by playing in a Wing.



This bit is fascinating - it seems (correct me if my interpretation is incorrect, please) that you are saying that the Open community relies on non-consensual PvP. Why is being able to force a PvE player into a PvP engagement so important to your definition of "community"?



There is no "PvP" server - what we have is Open - it is the only Open access multi-player mode that we have where players can meet other random players - however the actions of some players (who, it would seem, require to disrupt the game for others to enjoy the game themselves) may discourage players from playing in Open. Thankfully for those affected players, Frontier have (from the very start in the first publication of their stated game design in the Kickstarter pitch) offered them the freedom of choice to play away from those players.



Open indeed has all the basic risk of Solo - it is populated by the same NPCs after all. However, Open has the addition of any player that wants to play in it. Open is, as others have said, *huge*. It is not easy to find a player who does not want to be found. NPCs will always vastly outnumber players in the galaxy. Even if every single player who has a game account were to play at the same time then less than 0.001% of the systems in the game would have any players in them.

A player can get jumped by a Wing of pirates in any game mode - however the Wing could only be composed of players in two of the three game modes. Similarly, a player can be in the Wing in Open jumping a lone trade ship - not much risk for the players in the Wing there. Open allows risk mitigation by force of numbers, i.e. being in a Wing. Solo does not.

In your opinion it is a flaw - other opinions vary.

This debate has been going on right from the start when some players realised that their preferred play-style may be compromised by the freedoms afforded to all players by the core game features. In those two and a half years, Frontier has not removed any of these core game features, i.e. three game modes; single shared galaxy state; the ability to switch game mode on a session by session basis. Frontier have also, repeatedly, said that all game modes are equal and valid and have resisted calls to incentivise a single mode / penalise the other modes.

"Frontier have also, repeatedly, said that all game modes are equal and valid and have resisted calls to incentivise a single mode / penalise the other modes"

I can assume this is the reason they refused to make killing a player in Open any different from killing an NPc, no extra consequences ingame, just the same fines and criminal record you would get. Proof they consider the modes equally valid. I see no reason to further penalise players who enjoy the Open galaxy as it is. I agree with this statement, though I disagree with your view regarding "disrupting" the game. I see it as Opposition (legitimate), and was pleased to see Micheal Brookes refer to them in the same way. Again though, this is just an opinion, I know others disagree. As for risk, I can only say it is my personal experience that Open is riskier, but that all depends on your playstyle and where you are in the galaxy. It is also worth remembering that sometimes in Open, I am not the one in the 3 man wing, but the one in the lone trade ship, but as I stated before, I have yet to meet an NPC wing I could not evade or destroy, I cannot say the same for a Player Wing. This is the main reason I play in Open, otherwise I fear I may never face much risk (by my own personal standards).

- - - Updated - - -

Downloaded the game again last night to see what changes might have been made to Solo play that might improve gameplay.

After a few mishaps due to forgetting the keys, I got out and started a hauling run in my Python. Got to Vequess and headed for Agnews Folly.

Interdicted 4 TIMES! Just trying to get to the station, 3 of those times by authorities wanting to scan my ship in a system whose authorities I was friendly to.
Third time I got interdicted was by a group of 3 ships, 2 of which were Cobras and one other Python, all Mostly Harmless.
Figured that the shields are no more useful than a paper bag, despite hardly being hit much, my shields went down within seconds.
Found out the Python is no longer a viable combat ship because it's agility has been nerfed to death and then some so I couldn't really get in position to fire back.
Noticed that canopy strength hasn't really improved, almost lost my canopy in the first couple of volleys from the lead ship.
Took me almost an hour to fly from the sun to the station due to being interdicted so often.
Found out the economy is still screwed and making a profit as a trader is pretty near pointless.

Game over, logged out and deleted the game again. Seems ED is even less solo friendly than it was before.

I don't follow your logic here. The game is indeed difficult at the very start, but that has little bearing on whether it is Solo friendly. It has more to do with game difficulty at that career stage. Also, traders can make tens of millions an hour in some cases. I have heard some players claim they can have a python in a week (though I am skeptical, it was a long time since I was in a start ship).

 

[Scudmungus]

I see it as Opposition (legitimate), and was pleased to see Micheal Brookes refer to them in the same way.

Opposition providin challenge! Conflict! Makin fah gud stories. Fun!

Monstas dough? Dem just wantin to hurt people first, usin game as tool, as weapon?

Nah

Challenge bein to provide systems an environments fah competition, wid nah de monstas.

Don Mikey wantin oppostion. Truth.

Mi tink he nah wantin monstas. Nobody like dem. Som may tink dem 'monsta'. HA!

Real monstas nah somtim yuh wanna eva be meetin.

 

[The Wallet Inspector]

I would just like to remind the community here that some people have different opinions, and that does not make them infants or entitled. I wish we could discuss this in a reasonable manner, but why so many insults?

 

[Stigbob]

But you know what? That's not even my problem with Open. I dont mind getting less money in open, because it is more fun.
Like I said before, its the switch from solo/open that bothers me. Thats not balanced.

I usually play a mix of solo/open/mobius depending what mood I'm in. But I just moved house to a secluded cottage in the middle of nowhere, it's idyllic forest/mountain/country views wildlife (and not much else). I got "broadband" installed after a month of BT messing around and due to my distance from the nearest telephone exchange (6 miles) my connection speed is now somewhere in the region of 0.18 mbps.

I can play solo (usually), but the other modes are rubber-banding like crazy (as though my connection speed is really awful). So I'm stuck in solo until the planned fibre optic upgrade in 3 months.

Long story short my connection speed has just dropped to dial-up range as a result of real life, if I was locked into open every time I played I'd wreck everyone's experience in my instance. Mode switching has saved the day.

 

[ianw]

"Frontier have also, repeatedly, said that all game modes are equal and valid and have resisted calls to incentivise a single mode / penalise the other modes"

I can assume this is the reason they refused to make killing a player in Open any different from killing an NPc, no extra consequences ingame, just the same fines and criminal record you would get. Proof they consider the modes equally valid. I see no reason to further penalise players who enjoy the Open galaxy as it is. I agree with this statement, though I disagree with your view regarding "disrupting" the game. I see it as Opposition (legitimate), and was pleased to see Micheal Brookes refer to them in the same way. Again though, this is just an opinion, I know others disagree. As for risk, I can only say it is my personal experience that Open is riskier, but that all depends on your playstyle and where you are in the galaxy. It is also worth remembering that sometimes in Open, I am not the one in the 3 man wing, but the one in the lone trade ship, but as I stated before, I have yet to meet an NPC wing I could not evade or destroy, I cannot say the same for a Player Wing. This is the main reason I play in Open, otherwise I fear I may never face much risk (by my own personal standards).

I think many of us would be satisfied with an acknowledgement that risk is different for each person according to all kinds of criteria.

For example I may have trouble with defeating a wing of AI - haven't tried lately to be honest - but when I'm in my Anaconda evading a player wing after interdiction without damage is utterly trivial.

Trying to fight them would be pointless unless they were all noobs in starter ships.

Its the open = more risky all the time = fact = needs a bonus argument that makes no sense to me and is demonstrably untrue.

 

[The Wallet Inspector]

I think many of us would be satisfied with an acknowledgement that risk is different for each person according to all kinds of criteria.

For example I may have trouble with defeating a wing of AI - haven't tried lately to be honest - but when I'm in my Anaconda evading a player wing after interdiction without damage is utterly trivial.

Trying to fight them would be pointless unless they were all noobs in starter ships.

Its the open = more risky all the time = fact = needs a bonus argument that makes no sense to me and is demonstrably untrue.

Yeah I don't think it needs bonuses, the only thing I was ever really in favor of is more competitions or tournaments, just for fun! I changed my mind on the issue of making PvP more rewarding directly (as it already is in other ways, imo). It is best to keep the modes almost as identical as possible, so switching is not penalised. But for the same reason I am not sure PK should be penalised any more than it already is, in the spirit of equal game modes. Also Open is not more risky ALL the time imo, just depending on certain factors.

"I think many of us would be satisfied with an acknowledgement that risk is different for each person according to all kinds of criteria."

Yes I agree, and I have stated as such. This is why I disagree with the claim it is objectively no harder has been "debunked" in any way, it is a personal subjective thing.

 

[Marra Morgan]

Its the open = more risky all the time = fact = needs a bonus argument that makes no sense to me and is demonstrably untrue.

Makes no sense to me either.

Like Arcadius, I prefer to play in Open because I find the risk exciting - I'm usually very vulnerable in a shieldless unarmed Cobra or a T-6 with an Archon Delaine (i.e. shoot me) tag. Going about my business and succeeding against the odds - that in itself is the reward of Open play for me!

When I choose to play in Solo, I don't get that excitement, but I don't have to be constantly looking over my shoulder for hollow squares and triangles either.

It all balances out, which is why I'm happy with the game-modes just as they are

 

[The Wallet Inspector]

Real monstas nah somtim yuh wanna eva be meetin.

Indeed, though I do not consider people playing the bad guy in this game as "real monsters". I used to play a game called Rust, the most hardcore PvP thing ever. Perhaps I have been desensitized to what loss really means in a game after that (sorry for the offtopic). Not comparing the two games though.

 

[ianw]

Yeah I don't think it needs bonuses, the only thing I was ever really in favor of is more competitions or tournaments, just for fun! I changed my mind on the issue of making PvP more rewarding directly (as it already is in other ways, imo). It is best to keep the modes almost as identical as possible, so switching is not penalised. But for the same reason I am not sure PK should be penalised any more than it already is, in the spirit of equal game modes. Also Open is not more risky ALL the time imo, just depending on certain factors.

"I think many of us would be satisfied with an acknowledgement that risk is different for each person according to all kinds of criteria."

Yes I agree, and I have stated as such. This is why I disagree with the claim it is objectively no harder has been "debunked" in any way, it is a personal subjective thing.

The PKing thing is where it goes wrong for many people it seems.

Piracy is legit but there were a lot of ideas that weren't implemented - I think it still needs a lot of work. I also think there should be a much greater punishment for random PKing - i.e. no piracy, no bounty, PP or CG reason.

The issue with random PKing is that it requires a victim - and often the victim is unwilling. FD appear to be okay with this as they show no indication of a willingness or ability to deal with it anymore than they do with combat logging.

For me it makes no sense that a pilot in the federation can keep blowing ships up without any hit to their insurance - you'd think the insurance company would take a very dim view of someone that regularly costs them millions.

And stations would probably take a dim view of people that keep blowing their customers up.

I think there should be much more serious consequences for being the "bad" guy/gal. But obviously the bad guys/gals that thrive on weaker targets of opportunity - who are often unwilling victims - would disagree, I understand that.

And to be fair - I should acknowledge that some people enjoy playing victim. I'm not too fussed either way but I don't find it fun gameplay when you have no chance of doing anything other than running - which is easy in the right ship but still no fun for me.

 

[Iain L]

Its the open = more risky all the time = fact = needs a bonus argument that makes no sense to me and is demonstrably untrue.

Have to agree here. There are times that Open is more risky, as seen this week with players acting in a "pirate-like" way where no NPC pirate would. And that's OK. But I've had more times where a passing bounty hunter has pulled my backside out of the fire when I got too greedy in a RES and took on a wing of pirates I couldn't handle.

 

[The Wallet Inspector]

The PKing thing is where it goes wrong for many people it seems.

Piracy is legit but there were a lot of ideas that weren't implemented - I think it still needs a lot of work. I also think there should be a much greater punishment for random PKing - i.e. no piracy, no bounty, PP or CG reason.

The issue with random PKing is that it requires a victim - and often the victim is unwilling. FD appear to be okay with this as they show no indication of a willingness or ability to deal with it anymore than they do with combat logging.

For me it makes no sense that a pilot in the federation can keep blowing ships up without any hit to their insurance - you'd think the insurance company would take a very dim view of someone that regularly costs them millions.

And stations would probably take a dim view of people that keep blowing their customers up.

I think there should be much more serious consequences for being the "bad" guy/gal. But obviously the bad guys/gals that thrive on weaker targets of opportunity - who are often unwilling victims - would disagree, I understand that.

And to be fair - I should acknowledge that some people enjoy playing victim. I'm not too fussed either way but I don't find it fun gameplay when you have no chance of doing anything other than running - which is easy in the right ship but still no fun for me.

I made an argument earlier about killing a player who has just transported some slaves for RP reasons, am i still a griefer then? Even if I was not after goods, or cargo, I could follow him to a lawless system, intedict them, sentence them to death for their crimes against humanity (all RP) and then fly off. Am I still a griefer? The trader may think so...

"I think there should be much more serious consequences for being the "bad" guy/gal"

Then those consequences should extend to killing NPC's in the interest of all game modes being equal. Otherwise then Open players are being penalised somewhat if it is just applied to players.

"The issue with random PKing is that it requires a victim - and often the victim is unwilling. FD appear to be okay with this as they show no indication of a willingness or ability to deal with it anymore than they do with combat logging."

They do punish loggers with external means, by shadow-banning them. They do not punish people who PK. Many of the people in Open are aware though, and have a choice not to play in it. Those that are not, well I suggested they put a warning next to it to avoid any more confusion. I like Open as it is, and go in knowing I may be destroyed by players, just as I may be destroyed by NPC's in ANY mode.

- - - Updated - - -


"And to be fair - I should acknowledge that some people enjoy playing victim."


It is not about being a victim, sometimes I win the fights as well, and escape

 

[Iain L]

Then those consequences should extend to killing NPC's in the interest of all game modes being equal. Otherwise then Open players are being penalised somewhat if it is just applied to players.

Got to agree here - killing an NPC character is now, and should continue to be, no different to killing another CMDR within the game's logic, because in-universe those NPCs are pilots, too.

But I don't think most are really suggesting otherwise. Rather, that within the game at the moment crimes in "protected" space aren't treated anything like severely enough by the AI, irrespective of who they are by or against. In your example of the slave trader, many wouldn't bother waiting until the trader jumped to a lawless system, because the fine for blowing them up isn't particularly worth worrying about unless you like going back to that particular system regularly.

 

[Hawkmoon]

Just to add my 2 pennies:

I have been in open since Beta, but for the moment I am now playing solo, after being take out twice in one evening for no reason and no benefit to the Commander/s that attacked me. I had no cargo, had no bounty on me, was not aligned with a power and was not challenged. Plain and simple both times it was done just for 'fun', now I have been targeted many time and sometime destroyed but most of the time it was when I had a bounty on me or I refused to hand over cargo and I have no problem with that. But when there is no benefit in attacking another ship it breaks the game for me. I have plenty of creds to replace my ship so the risk is not a factor, it really is that to me it spoils the immersion when 2/3 ships go out of their way to attack an empty ship for which they will get not rep/creds or other reward that just does not make sense and is also why I do not play open PVE groups as there you will get a Comdr pirate attacking an NPC hauler loaded with silver and ignore the PC type 6 stuffed full of platinum. So there you are I am sticking to Solo for the time being .

 

[ianw]

I made an argument earlier about killing a player who has just transported some slaves for RP reasons, am i still a griefer then? Even if I was not after goods, or cargo, I could follow him to a lawless system, intedict them, sentence them to death for their crimes against humanity (all RP) and then fly off. Am I still a griefer? The trader may think so...

If you read my post again you'll notice I didn't use the word "griefer" - to me it's a pointless word because it means different things to different people - I said PKing. I come at it from a fun point of view as I said. That type of combat requires a victim - a lot of people don't like playing victim so I think there should be greater consequences for making someone a victim - it's a game after all and it's meant to be fun for all parties. I understand it's entirely legitimate gameplay I just don't think it's setup right. I'm not saying you're wrong it's just my opinion.

"I think there should be much more serious consequences for being the "bad" guy/gal"

Then those consequences should extend to killing NPC's in the interest of all game modes being equal. Otherwise then Open players are being penalised somewhat if it is just applied to players.

Seems reasonable to me - same set of rules.

"The issue with random PKing is that it requires a victim - and often the victim is unwilling. FD appear to be okay with this as they show no indication of a willingness or ability to deal with it anymore than they do with combat logging."

They do punish loggers with external means, by shadow-banning them. They do not punish people who PK. Many of the people in Open are aware though, and have a choice not to play in it. Those that are not, well I suggested they put a warning next to it to avoid any more confusion. I like Open as it is, and go in knowing I may be destroyed by players, just as I may be destroyed by NPC's in ANY mode.

I know they punish combat loggers with shadowplay - what I meant was they aren't able to do anything in game to control it from a technical point of view. I'm know people are aware anything can happen in open - or should be - but that isn't the same as consent. Again I'm not saying you are "wrong" I'm just stating my opinion and giving the reasons for it.