Indirect PvP is quite different from direct PvP - the fundamental difference being that one is not instanced with one's opponents (who may not even be on the same platform) - and, given that the galaxy state is shared between all three platforms, there are players that can choose to oppose who can never be instanced with, regardless of game mode.
That's my point, it also favor a certain playstyle.
The typical opposition will be held out via indirect measures.
Rendering your operations useless is griefing none the less.
I am pretty sure players enjoy it the same way as seeing the rebuy screen.
A contention of "huge" risk is worthy of some discussion - given that some ship builds ensure that a player faces very little risk, even from other players.
Would you mind sharing that build with me?
If everyone is a justified target then there'll likely be more players playing in Solo and Private Groups - which would seem to be contrary to Frontier's rather clear aim of encouraging players into Open.
True additions, rather than simply appropriating existing, paid for, pan-modal content (or upcoming content reasonably expected to be pan-modal), would be a great addition. Limiting existing content to Open, not so much. Arguably, as Beyond is free to players who own Horizons, it's already "paid for" too.
Justified is not the same as reasonable.
It's not justified to attack a hauler, yet it's reasonable as he was unwilling to drop his cargo.
Without good reasons for attacks the most prominent example of attacks are griefers, which already is close to the example I used.
So I wasn't proposing for everyone to become a justified target.
I was claiming that without good reasons to attack anyone is a reasonable target to those looking for PvP.
What conflict types have been assumed to be attached to the, as yet unknown, Squadron / Carrier implementation?
Conflict, that is possible across platforms and modes, is by definition indirect - that's the type that Frontier have made impossible to opt out of in their game. With direct PvP being optional, it follows that direct PvP conflicts are optional for those who may wish (or not) to participate in them.
Whether player attack on a Carrier has much of an effect is, as yet, unknown.
Those that demand that conflict be made meaningful through limiting it to Open have provided enough saline reserves over the last five years to last the game out.
I can imagine plenty.
One example would be that a xenophile squadron doesn't like the xenophobe efforts of another.
Those aren't trivial anymore, as they are impactful on how the storyline develops.
True you can't opt out of indirect PvP and you can't stop an indirect attack.
Conflicts aren't made meaningful by limiting them to open. I haven't said or demanded that.
A conflict is by itself already meaningful as it's an image of contrary interests.
Interests inherit meaning, therefore the result of two contrary interests is also meaningful.
I said it requires to be open because you need an option to stop the attack, through either diplomacy, combat or whatever.
True whatever Squadrons will bring is unknown, but there is a saying that clever people avoid problems instead of fixing them.
No assets are locked to a single game mode.
But does that make it fair to attack an undefended target?