Well given the "Open" advocates seem to be focusing on the PvP aspects (isn't it more exciting getting interdicted by a player? It's not fair that someone can come PvP having got their creds in safe mode... I want more targets. etc).
No one has yet made a positive and compelling case for Open as an improvement on a PvE group *without focusing on the PvP elements*. Until that is done, PvE'ers will form their views based on experience of other games and continue to be open play averse. It may be that in 6 months time Open will settle down to be a generally positive (if violent) environment. It may alternatively attract a crowd of griefers and pew-pew specialists. The state of Open in 6 months time will likely determine the degree of separation in the community for the long term.
Well I could tell you the "Solo/Group" advocates seem to be focusing on the PvP aspects too. As for the Open advocates, they also think about:
- Playing with other people, because it's an online game, and that's what online games are about. Telling someone "I don't want to play with you" is quite possibly the most insulting thing you can do in an online game, even worse than griefing.
- The impossibility of merging solo activities with group activities, because there's something about a "solo" activity in an "online game" not being right in the first place.
- Creating a strong community that cares for its members, and can thus actively fight griefing and make the game better for everyone. As it stands, solo and group players live in fear of being griefed and ruin their online experience by their avoidance of others, and open players are in an empty world that most people avoid, and that in time will turn into a griefing/ganking mode because there is no sense of community. A weak community succumbs to the worst extremes, and that's something no one wants; a community being split has never, ever been beneficial to any game.
- Learning from 30 years of multiplayer games, that taught us a community needs a healthy balance of all roles, and that includes PvP. Don't think everyone that wants to play in open wants to actually participate in PvP activities, most simply realize this balance is needed, and as such, there are plenty PvE enthusiasts who want PvPers around them. This strong debate is enough to have us gather around here, why couldn't it be so in-game?
- How Elite: Dangerous isn't such a special snowflake that will somehow achieve what other games failed to do by doing the exact same thing that led to this failure. A man in a video game once told me this is insanity.
Right now, it seems many just look at Open play from a distance, waiting for it to become bad, only to say "told you so!", rather than intervene and try to make it good. Just remember that if it's bad, you'll be party responsible for it. It could become a great mode for everyone, but it'll take some effort, from everyone.
But most anti-PvP zealots don't understand that a game subjects you to rules, nor that multiplayer comes with compromises, and they reject both simply because it doesn't put them in control. This breaks the entire nature of multiplayer and has far more negative aspect for the majority than any amount of griefing.
Then I could tell you that no one has yet made a positive and compelling case for Solo and Group play as an improvement on the multiplayer nature of the game *without focusing on the PvP elements*. I mean, it seems to be the whole justification of it: avoiding PvP and "griefing", and I find it hilarious that anyone would even think about avoiding it:
- When PvP and PvE are so similar.
- When PvP comes with such heavy consequences designed specifically to please anti-PvP crowds aswell as fully integrate PvP as a part of the game.
- When the sandbox nature of the game actively prevents most griefing possibilities.
- When players can't even find each other in open play among the 400 billion stars.
- When player encounters can result in many more things than a fight, such as a friendly chat or a cooperation.
It's like you're scared of accidentally pricking yourself with a needle in a haystack that might not even be there. Yet this, this right here, seems to be the entire justification for the existence of Solo and Group play. If you have more reasons, feel free to contribute to my hilarity.
Because as of now, "PvP-hate" threads still stand right next to "Where is everyone?" threads, and only people playing in groups seem to have suffered from this thing known as "griefing", when those in open play laugh at its very existence, and if anything, are amazed by any attempt at it because of how rare it is.
Which leads to think that it's the degree of separation of the community that will determine the state of the most "open" game mode. That's valid for Elite: Dangerous, as much as it is for any other online game.
Solo and group players not only put the whole community at risk, they're also the cause of their own fears. And then, they end up being worse than those they wish to avoid, refusing to play with them, and thinking someone can be held accountable for doing bad things in a video game. They do and think the exact opposite of what they should be doing, and turning what is a simple thing into an overly complex problem.
Why is it so hard to all play together?
). Sure some will jump back and forth but not in such huge player numbers that it will be even noticed by anyone because they could just as easily have been 300ly away for the last week (who knows).
