I'm not sure what a meaningful reason, or grander mechanic would be. The makers of this game have biased it towards the 'shoot 'em in the face' crowd, and the bias got even worse with their brilliant so-called engineering mechanism. I cannot build a ship that will hold off a ship (or wing of ships) that is purposely built to blow my ship up before I can run. The makers intentionally made available 'extra features' to make it easier to kill a player's ship, regardless of how it is built. And then there is the tracking and interdiction features of the game.
As I said, this game is intentionally biased towards those who just want to blow up other people's ships. I'm not interested in spending the time to grind out the pp or guardian extras to maybe have a ship that can survive one of these great encounters. That is not how I want to spend my game time.
I see this game as I do most games I play: A way to disengage from real life and enjoy myself for a bit. Different people want different things from their gameplay.
I don't begrudge you wanting PvP in-game to make it more interesting for you. My understanding is that is what open is for.
Just don't expect me to want to jump into open and be your meaningful gameplay.
I completely agree with your comment about game direction toward pew pew. I have taken some issue with Elite's direction. However, my criticisms are not directed at changing the overall scope of the game. I want to see them enhance current designs to make the game more meaningful for current players. Unfortunately, a lot of what I would like to see would NOT make the game more marketable or give it broader appeal and that is something devs have to consider financially. That having been said, I think there ARE ways to incorporate open world PvP in a way that does not make players feel victimized, but rather excited or thrilled by the dangers of the galaxy.
First, I agree that pirating needs to be disincentivized (is that a word?). If you are pirating, you should not be able to also participate in other features. Being an outlaw should come with a heavy price and the only reason you should do it is because you're a dirty criminal who doesn't care about the law. As it stands, you can pirate away and be the worst kind of griefer, then run a couple systems over and abuse Robigo for hundreds of millions of credits before returning to your life of crime. This is because the BGS is not fine-tuned. Every system is essentially its own world unless you're pledged to a power and other powers are hostile to you. Being a pirate should make you universally an outcast. You should live outside the bubble in ramshackle pirate havens with others of your ilk (who are also fine with preying upon you if you're weaker). Elite allows for very casual PvP. It feels very broad and unrefined, like many aspects of the game. I think making it more niche (in fact, making every aspect of the game more specialized and niche) would draw people to it who were willing to engage at that deeper level because that is the gameplay they enjoy.
I also agree that grinding for equipment that makes your ship better should be story-driven, not "go to planet X and perform this nonsensical routine to receive profits". I did the activity for an FSD booster, but I didn't enjoy it so I won't be getting the other stuff any time soon. I also don't see a compelling reason to kill Thargoids right now.
As an aside, this is the same reason I support the new exploration mechanic that makes it less appealing to jonkers. It becomes more appealing to people who want to get involved in deeper, specialized gameplay.
I hope that makes sense.
You should be careful trying to speak for everyone. Players loose their ships to npcs every day.
Your assertion that there is no challenge, i am sure, applies to quite a few players but not everyone.
Meaningful PvP is a lofty idea, the question is how do you intend to define meaningful to a large diverse playerbase?
Right now the risk to a PvP meta ship against anything other than a PvP meta ship does not exist. The traders etc at best could hope to escape which still poses no risk to the PvP meta ship.
To be a meaningful encounter that should change.
For instance a killer ship should essentially be a glass cannon, where a defensive built ship should not have the ability to much (if any) damage.
Ships with long jump range should be slower than their counterparts (the engine is modified for range so is probably huge and leaves little room for a standard engine or something like that)
Supper fast ships should have some restriction in maneuverability great in straight lines but a pain in the curves type scenario.
The thing is nobody wants to give up their edge, which makes the modes a great thing.
Where it falls down is the spoiled people who shout others are using an easy button or cheating or exploiting them because they are obviously the superior gamers.
Thankfully those types (while they may be the most vocal) are not the majority of players.
Rather than trying to get players who may have no wish to interact with you why not let them be?
Why do some players have this fixation on getting everyone to play with them in open?
I don't mean to speak on behalf of anyone but myself. However, I do think it is evidenced by the fact that I have a nigh invincible corvette (in PvE) and I am neither a great pilot nor have I gamed the system.
You'll never be able to please everyone and I have no interest in making career powergamers happy. Anyone who wants to hardcore min/max PvP should be in CQC, not interdicting sidewinders in Lave.
For players who want this to be a single player game for all intents and purposes, they CAN have the ability to avoid me or conflict within the same game mode as everyone else. Mining in safe RES zones poses no threat, exploring largely poses no threat unless you're livestreaming your location, and there are be ship options for people to avoid hostile interactions (chaff, shield boosters, drop a heatsink, FSD mods, etc). I kind of file people who want to play Elite as a single player game in with people who demand we all be subjected to their PvP interests. Both seem like vocal fringe groups and want a game that isn't properly compatible with both their interest. I think the overall game suffers when we build it to those lowest common denominators (that's why I referenced the downfall of WoW). Again, the devs have to make financial decisions regarding the appeal of their game so I am trying to work with that in mind.
I don't want to force everyone into open. I want to make open meaningful for everyone, regardless of their playstyle (within reason). I have no issue with a single player variant for the game, but I don't think it should affect mechanics like the BGS or PowerPlay for ALL players. That doesn't make sense to me. If the devs continue to build the game around the idea of players passively interacting with one another, we'll end up with a bland game like No Man's Sky where we might as well all just appear as points of light to each other.
