After 2 years I'm still reading threads debating the pros and cons of open v solo. Most often the debate focuses around ganking and griefing. Why? It's so frustrating to read the same thing over and over with the same complaint.
Because there is, still, a fundamental misunderstanding of ability versus motive, in Elite Dangerous. The developer has a mode, Open, where players are free to engage each other, at will, with zero reason. There
are sanctions, if this is not done in a
legal fashion, but the disconnect is that a moral imperative exists. It doesn't. Commander A requires zero in-game reason for engaging Commander B.
Because Frontier were naive and assumed they absolutely had solved the co-existence issue no other developer has ever solved with a unified universe. Not one. Virtually every developer has eventually had to split player-combat versus pure PVE only. That belief they had it covered at all? Or that it didn't matter? is patently
moronic foolish with the benefit of hindsight. Frontiers presumption was just that; and it's been born out to be a very unfortunate decision that now locks them into narrow options. I don't doubt if they had a chance for a do-over, there would be a split BGS; I think that much is clear, even if it meant Braben didn't get his way.
Please don't misunderstand my statement here. I am not being mean spirited. Frontier had a choice; combined or split. There was endless pressure to make solo/ open "the same". The first time the forums demanded something they had no way to comprehend, and certainly not the last. They chose combined, despite endless example that that was likely to create serious balance and activity issues, for the life of the game. It is unlikely they would now split (the BGS from) open and solo/ pg. They could? But ostensibly this would be quite different to what was sold and may fundimentally break the back of the game. It's hard to know.
And, five years on, that split is increasingly unlikely I think. Which is what makes the "they are coming fer mah solo!!!1" fears and threads all the more amusing.
This is why they are looking at shifting where Powerplay occurs; because it encourages direct engagement, that people endlessly protest; ergo moving it to a logical location and decoupling some of the PVE aspects to ensure there are more reasons for structured engagement without needlessly dragging people into conflict. Frontier created moral decision points for commanders to address. This should never be confused for possible actions or a requirement for enforced outcomes.
Whether something is morally questionable, does not preclude it's existence as a decision for players. That's the disconnect. The fundamental belief that Frontier should forcibly choose for all commanders. I've never agreed with that. Neither, really, has the developer. It's part of the experience. You can elect to not be a part of that, but there should be an expectation of a changed experience as a consequence.
Frontier have given people choice; you don't get to argue if that's acceptable or not. It just is. Powerplay being moved to open, actually addresses some of that, in fact. And I hope that proceeds. Because Frontier need to get a better definition around player combat, and that is a good start. There is a serious issue with how player-combat occurs. I think it's a heck of a lot more constructive to
support Frontier in resolving some of that, rather than being an endless bloody barrier to change purely because it's change, rather than recognising that PVE and PVP have their place and should darn well work better across both.
Frontier have difficult choices ahead; it'd be amazing if people actually supported them in achieving those. Even if they aren't ideal. Improving the experience, is a virtually global request. It's about time they get it done.
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}