Illustration: engineering. Engineering is incentivized by promising better modules. Not because of the game mechanics attached to engineers. Players are urged to do specific activities they don't want to do in order to progress in the game.
I see the same mechanism for modes, albeit less pronounced. Players at the moment have their individual preference. This can be a dedication to one mode, or choosing a mode that suits them on the day. Players make this decision each time they log on. If you start putting more rewards into one mode, players will now also choose based on that reward. They will not follow their preferred play style, but engage in one they would rather not. Frontier states: we want to promote player interaction in both cooperative and adversarial ways. Which in itself is fine. But do you want to promote that against the wishes of the particular player who would for instance rather not play in and adversarial way? I think we all agree that the outcome we're looking for is: player plays in the promoted mode, likes what he sees and continues to play there out of his or her own accord. I don't think any of us would like to see players being goaded into a mode which wouldn't be the first choice, just because it's the mode that got a reward.
Lets imagine the Elephant in the Room gets a 25% bonus on all kinds of stuff. Players that are working the BGS before in a friendly environment, they like hanging out with their mates, like carving a little empire out for themselves, group up to fight NPCs, that sort of thing. Now a skilled PvP group decides on barging in on their territory. Because they are a skilled PvP group, the risks of Open are relatively small to them. The risk of the players with little skill and desire to play PvP is much greater. In effect becoming a might makes right kind of deal. You either git gud at PvP, or sucks to be you. I'm sure PvP groups are nodding when they read this. Yeah, that's the way it should be. We should be able to dictate terms, because we can beat you in a fight. Which reminds me of a quote from Braben where he specifically stated he didn't want those kind of practices in his game.
Even Frontier seems to need the reminder again and again, not everyone plays this game because of the Player vs Player combat in it. Some shun combat altogether. By forcing them to participate in a mode where they, by definition when they chose that mode, have to engage in an activity they would rather not participate in, they will feel dejected by the game. If they stay in their preferred mode and find that the rewards in the other mode makes it very difficult for them to do what they enjoyed doing, they will feel dejected by it.
Let players decide for themselves. Instead of incentivize, advertize. Show players why they want to go to that mode out of their own volition. Don't tell them what they like or should like. That's not up to you. That's up to the human being that spent money to play your game.
I see the same mechanism for modes, albeit less pronounced. Players at the moment have their individual preference. This can be a dedication to one mode, or choosing a mode that suits them on the day. Players make this decision each time they log on. If you start putting more rewards into one mode, players will now also choose based on that reward. They will not follow their preferred play style, but engage in one they would rather not. Frontier states: we want to promote player interaction in both cooperative and adversarial ways. Which in itself is fine. But do you want to promote that against the wishes of the particular player who would for instance rather not play in and adversarial way? I think we all agree that the outcome we're looking for is: player plays in the promoted mode, likes what he sees and continues to play there out of his or her own accord. I don't think any of us would like to see players being goaded into a mode which wouldn't be the first choice, just because it's the mode that got a reward.
Lets imagine the Elephant in the Room gets a 25% bonus on all kinds of stuff. Players that are working the BGS before in a friendly environment, they like hanging out with their mates, like carving a little empire out for themselves, group up to fight NPCs, that sort of thing. Now a skilled PvP group decides on barging in on their territory. Because they are a skilled PvP group, the risks of Open are relatively small to them. The risk of the players with little skill and desire to play PvP is much greater. In effect becoming a might makes right kind of deal. You either git gud at PvP, or sucks to be you. I'm sure PvP groups are nodding when they read this. Yeah, that's the way it should be. We should be able to dictate terms, because we can beat you in a fight. Which reminds me of a quote from Braben where he specifically stated he didn't want those kind of practices in his game.
Even Frontier seems to need the reminder again and again, not everyone plays this game because of the Player vs Player combat in it. Some shun combat altogether. By forcing them to participate in a mode where they, by definition when they chose that mode, have to engage in an activity they would rather not participate in, they will feel dejected by the game. If they stay in their preferred mode and find that the rewards in the other mode makes it very difficult for them to do what they enjoyed doing, they will feel dejected by it.
Let players decide for themselves. Instead of incentivize, advertize. Show players why they want to go to that mode out of their own volition. Don't tell them what they like or should like. That's not up to you. That's up to the human being that spent money to play your game.
of course the result may please some, but there is a reason the open/solo divide is by far the single most controversial topic on this forum. it is basically a solo game where players can meet if they so wish (and are lucky). which is a stance as valid as any other but calling this a multiplayer universe requires quite a leap of imagination. note i said multiplayer, not pvp.