Oh!
starts drooling open only BGS would be the ultimate
- to see all those CMDRs' attempting to hide their actions, but have to cope with passionate PMFs flying in the same galaxy (notwithstanding instancing
).
See, on the other side of the coin, to just go "Right, only actions in Open affect the BGS" would probably have us up and leave it, but for polar-opposite reasons to what you suggest.
Our group picked our home and seized systems and stations according to a plan which is underpinned by all players, no matter what mode, platform or instancing, affecting the BGS and it's states (the whole reason for the BGS, stated by FD in multiple streams). Specifically, we seized a set of stations that formed natural, profitable trade routes and other activities that are, in general, lucrative to other players. So most of the effort propping up our faction is not our own doing, but rather the contributions of a host of unseen, anonymous players who, when pursuing profit or whatever activity they saw, see our territory conveniently as a nice place to do this in. Our role is then just a lightweight one just waiting for the blocks to fall into place, and gently tapping them when they're close to.
Basically the whole intent was exploitation of as much of the passive traffic for our own benefits, because we know we're only a small group. Fight smarter, not harder. We've had whole Powers "invade" on previous occasions, and with some careful strategy, we've been able to hold them back.
That strategy would be utterly decimated by an Open-Only BGS; I hang out in our systems in Open a good deal of the time; there's never anyone around, or at least nobody I can instance with, so being destroyed by a rando player is not a concern... I cut ten years out in EVE before coming to Elite, I get a thrill from PvP. It's the loss of our entire strategy and the support of players who are invisible to us, which exploits the very purpose of the BGS that would wreck it for us.
And for me, that's always been the enjoyment of the BGS, the long-term strategising, not the short term "log on and fight".
As to powerplay, personally I would have preferred it if it was another layer that works as part of the BGS but is the more stategic version.
The biggest problem is, as I mentioned before, PP was FD's answer to players wanting "... a balanced, group vs group strategy wargame" or however you want to cut it. The BGS is
fundamentally unbalanced, so it could never support a balanced game element like FD sought from PP.