General Remove private Lobby and single Player

[Tikanderoga]

Also don't forget that the PS, Xbox and PC players share the same galaxy.

So Just because one cannot see anyone on PC, be it for private or solo, doesn't mean someone in open Xbox or PS isn't doing what wants to be stopped by removing the solo/PG groups.

 

[varonica]

Offer triple-credit rewards for anyone who plays in OPEN mode and OPEN will explode with new players overnight, players who would happily accept massively increased risk for a chance at massively increased reward. What does it cost FDev? Dots?

I play in Open almost exclusively, you don't see many other players out in the black. The only real danger for explorers is some want to spread their data around to a certain faction which means flying around a lot. Some players do it by keep a hardened ship in some remote location and swapping to it, however you could just swap to solo entering the bubble, dock, swap to open, sell data, swap to solo, fly to next port, swap to open, sell data.

Personally I think you are wrong, all payers already get plenty of money, and taking the extreme case of an explorer risking losing say a billion credits or the potetnial to get 3b credits why bother? Really I have everything I want already, FC where I can dock and sell my data in complete safety, a fleet of ships, it makes no difference, credits are pretty much valueless in an economy with nothing to spend them on!

 

[Misty_Dark]

I play in Open almost exclusively, you don't see many other players out in the black. The only real danger for explorers is some want to spread their data around to a certain faction which means flying around a lot. Some players do it by keep a hardened ship in some remote location and swapping to it, however you could just swap to solo entering the bubble, dock, swap to open, sell data, swap to solo, fly to next port, swap to open, sell data.

Personally I think you are wrong, all payers already get plenty of money, and taking the extreme case of an explorer risking losing say a billion credits or the potetnial to get 3b credits why bother? Really I have everything I want already, FC where I can dock and sell my data in complete safety, a fleet of ships, it makes no difference, credits are pretty much valueless in an economy with nothing to spend them on!

So let me get this crystal clear here.
You already play mostly in Open when out exploring, and you sell you data on your Fleet Carrier, that I guess moves along your path, so it is never that far away.

And with this suggestion, you would simply make 3 times the credits you do today, and the increased risk is virtually zero out there?
And if by some off shot that a player decides to track down your carrier, wait for you to come and dock and takes this opportunity to destroy you, then you would have a billion+ in exploration data, as you have already sold most of it before...so what would you loose 50 million? more? less?

So what kind of ganker, flies thousands of LY, for the hope to catch an explorer docking on his FC? Sounds like alot of work for one kill. and that assuming ganker is online when you come to dock, and play in the same continent as you, or the match making will not really instance you, and of course, be on the SAME platform... and if you jump the carrier to you, and then just dock when it arrives, the then ganker have to chase it down, unless you allowed the ganker to land on your FC, at which point the ganker would just tag along, and we are back at the being online at the same time..


Yeah, sounds like the premise for the 3 times pay for the extra danger in Open are not very well thought through.

 

[DemiserofD]

So let me get this crystal clear here.
You already play mostly in Open when out exploring, and you sell you data on your Fleet Carrier, that I guess moves along your path, so it is never that far away.

And with this suggestion, you would simply make 3 times the credits you do today, and the increased risk is virtually zero out there?
And if by some off shot that a player decides to track down your carrier, wait for you to come and dock and takes this opportunity to destroy you, then you would have a billion+ in exploration data, as you have already sold most of it before...so what would you loose 50 million? more? less?

So what kind of ganker, flies thousands of LY, for the hope to catch an explorer docking on his FC? Sounds like alot of work for one kill. and that assuming ganker is online when you come to dock, and play in the same continent as you, or the match making will not really instance you, and of course, be on the SAME platform... and if you jump the carrier to you, and then just dock when it arrives, the then ganker have to chase it down, unless you allowed the ganker to land on your FC, at which point the ganker would just tag along, and we are back at the being online at the same time..


Yeah, sounds like the premise for the 3 times pay for the extra danger in Open are not very well thought through.

Offer triple-credit rewards for anyone who plays in OPEN mode and OPEN will explode with new players overnight, players who would happily accept massively increased risk for a chance at massively increased reward. What does it cost FDev? Dots?

I play in Open almost exclusively, you don't see many other players out in the black. The only real danger for explorers is some want to spread their data around to a certain faction which means flying around a lot. Some players do it by keep a hardened ship in some remote location and swapping to it, however you could just swap to solo entering the bubble, dock, swap to open, sell data, swap to solo, fly to next port, swap to open, sell data.

Personally I think you are wrong, all payers already get plenty of money, and taking the extreme case of an explorer risking losing say a billion credits or the potetnial to get 3b credits why bother? Really I have everything I want already, FC where I can dock and sell my data in complete safety, a fleet of ships, it makes no difference, credits are pretty much valueless in an economy with nothing to spend them on!

The problem with offering increased rewards for Open play is that Open simply isn't dangerous enough to justify it. You can travel to 99.9% of inhabited systems in Open and never see even the faintest hint of another player, and even when you do, most of them just ignore you to do their respective tasks.

If you truly wanted to compensate people for the additional challenge of Open, you'd be looking at something like a 1% increase to income. This obviously isn't enough for any sort of serious change. The problem is you need to reward players for actual DANGER, which only comes when they actually get attacked. But if you reward people for getting attacked, you open the door wide open to exploiting the mechanic.

The best you can hope for is a PVP league with ELO ratings and weekly or monthly rewards. That's the only way you can actually get players to engage with one another in a setting reliant on p2p connections. Beyond that, all you can really do is make Open appealing enough and safe enough for players to want to play there, and then make being attacked entertaining enough people are willing to allow it to proceed rather than just menu logging.

1. Make higher security systems safe enough players can play in them in Open in relative safety.
2. Add features that makes Open more welcoming, like ways to find friendly players more easily, and better wing missions.
3. Make lower security systems rewarding enough people want to go to them.
4. Make piracy more viable than ganking, encouraging theft rather than outright murder.

Do that and you'll likely see a marked uptick in players interacting in Open. You'll never be able to force ALL players into Open, but you can open the door wide to those with even the slightest inclination towards doing it voluntarily.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

The problem with offering increased rewards for Open play is that Open simply isn't dangerous enough to justify it. You can travel to 99.9% of inhabited systems in Open and never see even the faintest hint of another player, and even when you do, most of them just ignore you to do their respective tasks.

If you truly wanted to compensate people for the additional challenge of Open, you'd be looking at something like a 1% increase to income. This obviously isn't enough for any sort of serious change. The problem is you need to reward players for actual DANGER, which only comes when they actually get attacked. But if you reward people for getting attacked, you open the door wide open to exploiting the mechanic.

The best you can hope for is a PVP league with ELO ratings and weekly or monthly rewards. That's the only way you can actually get players to engage with one another in a setting reliant on p2p connections. Beyond that, all you can really do is make Open appealing enough and safe enough for players to want to play there, and then make being attacked entertaining enough people are willing to allow it to proceed rather than just menu logging.

1. Make higher security systems safe enough players can play in them in Open in relative safety.
2. Add features that makes Open more welcoming, like ways to find friendly players more easily, and better wing missions.
3. Make lower security systems rewarding enough people want to go to them.
4. Make piracy more viable than ganking, encouraging theft rather than outright murder.

Do that and you'll likely see a marked uptick in players interacting in Open. You'll never be able to force ALL players into Open, but you can open the door wide to those with even the slightest inclination towards doing it voluntarily.

1) Which won't attract most people who play in PG/solo anyway. They already get a better experience in PG/solo
2) Will also improve PG, no incentive to fly in open.
3) Improves all game modes, no incentive to switch to open
4) Won't stop gankers ganking. Gankers don't gank because piracy isn't profitable. They gank because they enjoy it.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

The way to test OP's hypothesis would be for FD to create an open only server for a few months parallel to the existing game. Like they do with alphas/betas.

Then see how popular it is. See how long it is before people complain that there is hardly anyone playing it and there are no targets to kill and how empty the whole game feels.

 

[varonica]

So what kind of ganker, flies thousands of LY, for the hope to catch an explorer docking on his FC? Sounds like alot of work for one kill.

Ask distant worlds, or people who have been ganked at Beagle Point.

The entire point being.......which you seem to have missed entirely, that increasing the payout by 3x makes no different to most long term players, they already have all the money they need or want and can play solo/open/pg however and whenever they want. The only players it will affect are new players seeking to max profit, players who haven't engineered their ships to the max and have a small bank account, who stand to lose everything after a few ganks because most new players don't understand the concept "never fly without a rebuy". They aren't magically going to all pop out of solo into open!

What you would basically do with this idea is drive away all the new players because they will play in open and get destroyed over and over again by experienced and uber armed PvP'ers while they ship goods around trying to get enough money to buy a T7 or Python. Increasing the payout in Open 3x won't bring players who already play in solo to Open because there are others reasons than money why most players play in solo.

I personally couldn't care less, but the point of my post is that after 5 years I am in a position to not care one way or the other, I have my FC, my fleet of ships, all engineered for exploration, not a single weapon among them or in storage, I can go open, solo, pg and getting 1/3rd of the payout for being in solo isn't a big issue, or getting 3x the payout for being in open. All I need, and all I have accumulated since the FC dropped, is enough to refuel after each trip, and I do that by exploring.

Money isn't the driver and incentive you seem to think it is!

 

[Robert Maynard]

So what kind of ganker, flies thousands of LY, for the hope to catch an explorer docking on his FC?

PvP - Distant Ganks 2 Week 1 Update

Hi all, Just wanted to share the week 1 progress from the Distant Ganks 2 Expedition. Attached is the updated dashboard with progress through 11am UTC. Highlights: Total kills since expedition launch: 1,715. Averaging nearly 156 kills a day, we are making a considerable dent in our "Road to...

forums.frontier.co.uk

The leaderboard of kills that was published caused a bit of a stir on the forums - because it could be used as a proto-blocklist - and some players didn't react well when they realised this, calling the block feature an exploit that must be removed (spoiler: it wasn't).

One good thing came about after Distant Ganks II - Private Group management was improved to session kick a player if they were playing in the Private Group at the time their membership of the Private Group was rescinded (which stopped PG killing sprees going on as long as the transgressor wanted them to).

 

[Robert Maynard]

Well, design it for all modes equally then. That encompasses a lot of the suggestions that have been made in here .

What we have is designed for all modes equally - it doesn't require PvP though.

Or if that's not possible, then giving some exclusive content to all modes seems at least equitable, and frees the devs from that constraint, allowing them to produce some stuff that might rise above the bland catch-alls. Pan-modal stuff seems like an economy of effort, but actually is difficult and constraining to do well (exhibit A, powerplay). Some mode-tailored content might actually be no more difficult to produce for three modes, and give a lot of player satisfaction (noting that all players could also use all of it by selecting the respective mode). At the same time, the existing shared content, one of the things that gives the sense of the shared universe, would be preserved.

The game modes are simply settings on the matchmaking filter, e.g. match with: no players (Solo); players playing in the same Private Group; players who selected Open. There's no rational reason to limit access to particular content to Solo or Private Groups (as the vast majority of the galaxy is identical in all three game modes) - nor is there a compelling reason to limit access to content that requires PvP (if such were introduced) to Open only.

 

[Aeorath]

As the title says: Remove private Lobby and single Player. Why? Because right now people are having influences on the galaxy and you can't stop them from having it. Best examples are Community events and Powerplay. My power was expanding into a system and I sat there for over an hour and couldn't find one player, yet the undermining bar goes higher and higher because people are hiding in single Player or private Lobby. This shouldn't be the case, if enemys are undermining a system, we should be able to fight back the undermining (maybe even add Powerplay missions?). Same goes for Community events.

The upside of this would be, that people are getting more encourage and/or forced to interact more with the community, play together and/or thinks twice before they engaging into enemy Powerplay territory or Communty events, having influence while they can't hide in private Lobby or single Player anymore. It would help to make the overall game expierence more realistic; forcing people to equip theier ships more realistic and not going on full cargo racks only. Plus games are much more fun with peoples and achieving things together. No one likes to play or fly alone all day.

The only downside of it, it would give griefers and gankers a bigger play field and newer players an even harder time to get used to the game. But as I always say to developer: The focus should not be on players, who are playing a game for two weeks, leave and never coming back. We simply should not focus on those players for obvious reasons. For griefer/gankers there should be counter measures, for example, that the FSD-Interdictor does not work in systems, where Ingenieurs are placed and/or the security forces are increased (maybe by a lot).

If you want PvP, go play CQC-Arena then!
I do. I've unlocked all achievements and my current rank is "Champion".

But I want to explore and do cargo missions!
You can do this in Open.

But I don't want to get griefed or ganked!
The chances that you find players in this big *** galaxy is super low, as long as you avoid hotspots like Community events, Powerplay systems, etc.. I play in Open for most of the time. Tip: If you find someone out there, send him a wing invite. Is he accepting it, everything is fine. If not and he flys straight to you, you should be becareful. Here is a link to some more tips: LINK. One time I randomly found someone at the Guardian site and I send him an invite. It ended up, that he joined my wing, we did the Guardians together and he gave me some tips about how to get the Guardian blueprints. Remember: Not everyone is your enemy.

You are a griefer/ganker and only want to kill weaker players!
I don't like them either and I am not one of them. I bought this game last year so I don't have the biggest or strongest ships yet. I am all for fair PvP play and realistic piracy, when there is a reason for it.

I have no friends to play with!
Use the ingame chat, ask people you randomly find, join a squadron, (on Xbox) open a multiplayer-post, just generally interact more with the community. They don't need to stay to be your friends, sometimes all it takes is just to play with some peoples together, who have the same goal as you.

Maybe there should be crossplay between different platforms (Xbox, PC, etc.) for population boost, if this isn't the case yet.

I hope this get some attention. This game is designed to be an open multiplayer game and it should treated as such one.
Feel free to add more ideas to make Open play more enjoyable for everyone.

Edit: Man, so many people are upset about getting pulled out of theier comfort zone. If these modes really exist since release (playing since 2020), maybe it's really to late to change this, I don't know. But what definitely should be changed, is the fact that people, who play in private or solo should not have influence on such things as Powerplay, Community events, etc., this should only be doable in Open. As someone mentioned, you fight most of the time against "invisible" players (not including timezones), which you all have to admit, is just simply lame and bad game design.

Edit 2: Man, so many people who are afraid of that they could meet a griefer in over 400 billion star systems, smh. How high are the chances, especially while exploring more of the empty areas of the galaxy? People act like it's the end of the world, when they die and lose cargo or exploration data.

This post is all about YOU.

Do you care what I want in this game? Most likely not. Should I care about what YOU want in this game? Definitely not. When you will learn to treat this game as a community of players, be they what they might (miners, explorers, BGS and community events oriented, traders) come back and tell us about it.

Until then, take care!

 

[DemiserofD]

1) Which won't attract most people who play in PG/solo anyway. They already get a better experience in PG/solo

I disagree. Many people, myself included, play in solo or PGs specifically because I don't want to deal with the tiny(but never zero) chance that I'll get randomly killed by someone on a power trip. PGs are great for playing with people you already know, but terrible for meeting new people.

But offer me safety from that possibility, but the ability to meet and engage with other players randomly? That's exactly the sort of content I would absolutely play in Open for. And if I'm having a good enough time doing that, and something prompted me to leave the safety of high-sec and venture into low-sec or anarchy, I'd at least consider it.

4) Won't stop gankers ganking. Gankers don't gank because piracy isn't profitable. They gank because they enjoy it.

The proposal wasn't to buff piracy; it was to make piracy more viable than ganking. That's a much more complicated suggestion. For example, by making Notoriety much more difficult to remove and having greater consequences, you could heavily discourage people from killing others without a reason. At the same time, make piracy much more viable, most likely by increasing the value of Rare Goods 10x-20x, so player pirates have something worth stealing.

 

[Rubbernuke]

What we have is designed for all modes equally - it doesn't require PvP though.

At the minute you have features like Powerplay that need some way to actually have some form of challenge.

You can argue that conceptually now Powerplay in Open requires Open because its the only time the feature on paper actually approaches its conceit of a bubble wide power struggle with groups of players moving around enacting plans. You can certainly move cargo and merits about in other modes, but only doing it in Open can be considered conceptually 'complete' because you have a very real chance of being terminally stopped by an uncertain foe.

FD really need to change the PvE of Powerplay to approach that- it is possible, but it will take effort. Open is an imperfect shortcut to that.

The game modes are simply settings on the matchmaking filter, e.g. match with: no players (Solo); players playing in the same Private Group; players who selected Open. There's no rational reason to limit access to particular content to Solo or Private Groups (as the vast majority of the galaxy is identical in all three game modes) - nor is there a compelling reason to limit access to content that requires PvP (if such were introduced) to Open only.

A feature like Powerplay would be a compelling enough reason in my view to at least have some of it PvP based, or that the expectation of it happening.

 

[DemiserofD]

At the minute you have features like Powerplay that need some way to actually have some form of challenge.

You can argue that conceptually now Powerplay in Open requires Open because its the only time the feature on paper actually approaches its conceit of a bubble wide power struggle with groups of players moving around enacting plans. You can certainly move cargo and merits about in other modes, but only doing it in Open can be considered conceptually 'complete' because you have a very real chance of being terminally stopped by an uncertain foe.

FD really need to change the PvE of Powerplay to approach that- it is possible, but it will take effort. Open is an imperfect shortcut to that.


A feature like Powerplay would be a compelling enough reason in my view to at least have some of it PvP based, or that the expectation of it happening.

I still hold that pve powerplay without player interaction is largely meaningless. If Powerplay is truly to be a pvp mode, it needs to have player interaction on every level, even on how the NPCs behave, where they attack and defend.

This is a big part of why I think Powers should be able to deploy Fleets of capital ships. There's a big difference between universal AI spawns, and players intentionally deciding to deploy a fleet to a certain system to shut down enemy activity there.

As long as there is intentional and strategic player thought involved, I like the idea.

 

[Robert Maynard]

At the minute you have features like Powerplay that need some way to actually have some form of challenge.

.... and I support buffing the challenge (and ship outfitting) of Powerplay NPCs to a degree.

You can argue that conceptually now Powerplay in Open requires Open because its the only time the feature on paper actually approaches its conceit of a bubble wide power struggle with groups of players moving around enacting plans. You can certainly move cargo and merits about in other modes, but only doing it in Open can be considered conceptually 'complete' because you have a very real chance of being terminally stopped by an uncertain foe.

Of course Powerplay in Open requires Open. The feature does not, however, require any player to engage in PvP for it to be considered "complete" in a game where PvP is an optional extra.

FD really need to change the PvE of Powerplay to approach that- it is possible, but it will take effort. Open is an imperfect shortcut to that.

Imperfect indeed.

A feature like Powerplay would be a compelling enough reason in my view to at least have some of it PvP based, or that the expectation of it happening.

There's a big difference between a proposal for some of Powerplay to be PvP based and for the feature to be PvP-gated to Open or for players who engage in it in Solo and Private Groups to be penalised for doing so.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Of course Powerplay in Open requires Open. The feature does not, however, require any player to engage in PvP for it to be considered "complete" in a game where PvP is an optional extra.

Well it does if the NPCs don't actually fight back (or provide some resistance) in some way as you traverse the powers territories. Open gives the chance of other players who are equal or better than you to outwit, solo provides nothing on that scale using the framework we have now.

There's a big difference between a proposal for some of Powerplay to be PvP based and for the feature to be PvP-gated to Open or for players who engage in it in Solo and Private Groups to be penalised for doing so.

Well I suggested one way of achieving that goal, and thats split roles for modes.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I still hold that pve powerplay without player interaction is largely meaningless. If Powerplay is truly to be a pvp mode, it needs to have player interaction on every level, even on how the NPCs behave, where they attack and defend.

This is a big part of why I think Powers should be able to deploy Fleets of capital ships. There's a big difference between universal AI spawns, and players intentionally deciding to deploy a fleet to a certain system to shut down enemy activity there.

As long as there is intentional and strategic player thought involved, I like the idea.

That certainly would be cool.

One random thought I had was that we have timed NPC 'raids' on powers capitals to provide some form of obstacle (like old school lockdowns).

In fact, I might add that to my newest BGS hybrid idea- maybe by dropping certain cargo / data you have an option / extra to trigger an attack of some sort on a rivals territory.

 

[Alaska Sædelære]

You can travel to 99.9% of inhabited systems in Open and never see even the faintest hint of another player, and even when you do, most of them just ignore you to do their respective tasks.

The problem with this argument is that you don't know what they will do until it's too late. If you don't prepare yourself for battle, you are at the mercy of those who do. The rationale for taking protective measures against losing your assets is not the probability of a loss-incurring incident, but whether the loss can be recovered or not, same as the rationale for buying insurance in the real world. Hence it is rational to be very anal-retentive about things like exploration data. Or with the same logic: It is mostly a nuisance if your computer is stolen, but a major disaster if you had a lot of data on it you hadn't backed up. Therefore you'll be careful to travel safe routes when you need to carry it around.

The problem with the entire 99%-free-space argument is that the significance of this space is not evenly distributed. Pvp'ers concentrate at places where others are led to coagulate as well, by missions, lore or anything which gains attraction throughout the community. You don't have a 99% chance of -not- meeting a ganker at Jameson's Memorial, for example. They never acknowledge that when making the argument, and herein lies the hypocrisy. It is also very transparent and the rest ain't buying it no matter how often it is repeated. It just sounds dumber every time.

On top of this the audacity of "you can play anywhere except where I choose to be", to challenge that you have to submit to their game and this is what they want. You don't get anything out of it even if you won a fight, if this is not what you normally draw your satisfaction from. Introducing or increasing a reward for doing so would therefore entice at most a small number of players. There are deeper motivations players chose their role in a game or VR which offers different paths. The leopard doesn't change its spots. And there are those throwing their arms toward heaven screaming out their powerlessness to change that. I find the spectacle hilarious, really.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

At the minute you have features like Powerplay that need some way to actually have some form of challenge.

The place to start would be to change the activities required from mainly being hauling from A to B, which is hardly a challenging activity in itself. If you're not opposed its not challenge at all. If you are opposed then either its incredibly one sided if you're not kitted for being attacked or its a cakewalk if you are.

Make the activities themselves challenging, regardless of whether other players are around or not might be a better starting point. Timezones, platforms, size of play area, instancing, all conspire against people getting challenging gameplay from Powerplay, even in some sort of open only utopia.

Powerplay missions for merits might be one solution.

 

[Rochester]

Forcing one form of play over another is not logical, as in its current state the game allows all participants to play how they want to.

Additional incentive will not encourage players to join one format over another, when that incentive is only fiscal, because the primary valuable resource within game is not credits but actually time.

Those who play different formats do so not out of fear, but so as to utilise approved game mechanisms to preserve their most valuable commodity; time.

Time is valuable because credits are easy to acquire and there are no real obstacles to progress except loss of time, due to enforcement of time investment eg ‘grind’.

Within this environment the only risks in game are those which the player cannot perceive, namely anti-social behaviour which directly exploits this environment.

‘When children are given a chance to engage freely in adventurous play they quickly learn to assess their own skills and match them to the demands of the environment.’ - ‘creating an environment that is overly safe creates a different kind of danger’ - ‘hazards are invisible risks that children can't see’ - ‘they cannot risk-assess them. Thus, protecting children from hazards is the responsibility of adults’- The role of risk in play and learning.

If players want to attract others to open, then additional game elements need to be added which will encourage anti-social elements to be more social, or to provide all players with something more interesting to do, other than prey on other players who’s primarily weakness is loss of time investment.

Currently such risk is unbalanced in game, and FD have applied an appropriate fix which allows all types of players to engage with each other whilst allowing FD not to have to create more complex mechanisms.

If the game was to move to one format of play then the risk would need to effect all players who would experience an appropriate level of loss, but this loss ought not to be loss of time but loss of other in game resources, which restrict such exploration.

Every action would need an equal and opposite reaction.

 

[DemiserofD]

The problem with this argument is that you don't know what they will do until it's too late. If you don't prepare yourself for battle, you are at the mercy of those who do. The rationale for taking protective measures against losing your assets is not the probability of a loss-incurring incident, but whether the loss can be recovered or not, same as the rationale for buying insurance in the real world. Hence it is rational to be very anal-retentive about things like exploration data. Or with the same logic: It is mostly a nuisance if your computer is stolen, but a major disaster if you had a lot of data on it you hadn't backed up. Therefore you'll be careful to travel safe routes when you need to carry it around.

The problem with the entire 99%-free-space argument is that the significance of this space is not evenly distributed. Pvp'ers concentrate at places where others are led to coagulate as well, by missions, lore or anything which gains attraction throughout the community. You don't have a 99% chance of -not- meeting a ganker at Jameson's Memorial, for example. They never acknowledge that when making the argument, and herein lies the hypocrisy. It is also very transparent and the rest ain't buying it no matter how often it is repeated. It just sounds dumber every time.

On top of this the audacity of "you can play anywhere except where I choose to be", to challenge that you have to submit to their game and this is what they want. You don't get anything out of it even if you won a fight, if this is not what you normally draw your satisfaction from. Introducing or increasing a reward for doing so would therefore entice at most a small number of players. There are deeper motivations players chose their role in a game or VR which offers different paths. The leopard doesn't change its spots. And there are those throwing their arms toward heaven screaming out their powerlessness to change that. I find the spectacle hilarious, really.

I'm sorry, but that's just not true. You're arguing that players would sacrifice efficiency just in case of encountering that 0.1%. But that's absolutely not true, and in fact, that would be a bad investment on their their behalf. The BEST choice for these players is to play completely normally, ignoring the danger completely, and eat the rebuy if anything goes wrong. Ultimately, with a 3x bonus like some have proposed, you'd still be making far more than you could possibly hope for in solo. The best choice would be to just menu log whenever you get interdicted.

To me, the enjoyment of Open comes from the most basic nature of Open; meeting other players in an open environment. The problem is that some of those players aren't very nice. That's why the most important thing to get more players into Open isn't rewards, it's a better crime and punishment system.