As a suggestion, revoked in the later discussion.
I am able to adapt to different standpoints and change my point of view accordingly
You know I consider this a civil discussion about a topic that was already discussed a lot.
It's an exchange of opinions and was posted in the suggestions forums first.
As it's not a demand.
So there is either a productive outcome or just banter.
The modes debate has been going on for so long now. All attempts to persuade / coerce / cajole / force Frontier to change their stance have failed thus far.
Changing one's viewpoint is a normal bargaining strategy in the face of opposition. That not all players agree that there is a problem that needs to be solved suggests that the position of those seeking change is not that great. Also, nothing is being offered by those seeking change.
It certainly is not perfect. There is no such thing as perfect systems, everything can be improved.
We do not need to argue any further if you do not agree on that.
Maybe perfect is too strong - however the modes certainly offer the functionality that they were included in the game design, over five years ago, to provide.
Never stated that it's a necessasity to disenfrachise players with a lack of interest in direct PvP.
Splitting the modes certainly looks like the easiest solution, but doesn't serve the premise of a shared galaxy, prime reason I agree on that not being a viable option.
The core interest was to balance the game modes, so that mentioned issues, i.e. path of least resistance, hidden bgs/pp attacks, avoidance of criminal consequences, are not an issue.
That doesn't require throwing anyone with no interest in PvP into a moshpit.
Everyone (apart from console players without premium platform access) can choose to play in all game modes - in that respect the modes are balanced. That some choose to play in a mode where combative player interaction is possible (but not guaranteed) is very much their choice.
The crux of the matter is, in my opinion, as follows:
1) direct PvP was designed to be, and remains, completely optional.
2) all players both experience and affect the single shared galaxy state.
3) due to 1) some players feel that "their" game is being influenced by "hidden" attack - when there's no guarantee that any opposition is deliberate, conducted by players on the same platform, in the same timezone, on the same continent (i.e. could they instance with the other players even if they played on the same platform at the same time?).
4) players can (dependent on relative skill, numeric superiority, ship loadout, Engineering, etc.) pose a greater hazard than NPCs.
5) players that prefer direct PvP cannot dictate the terms of engagement on any opposition.
That requires to think about a system that influences anyone, but enables different circumstances and most certainly is not perfect.
The three modes / single shared galaxy state design does this pretty well, in my opinion - for a game where direct PvP is optional.
Again not a necessity, but a hardly underdeveloped part that imho is the primary reason the most prominent example of a PvP'ler is a ganker.
We can speculate! Let's say it's possible to implement a way of having meaningful consensual PvP, FDev is only going to increase their audiance.
I haven't heard any argument stating that such a thing would be impossible, just certain scenarios of how it could be implemented are not viable.
As some players have found, they cannot dominate the game through PvP (no matter how much they might wish otherwise). That some players then resort to simply annoying other players says more about them than the game, in my opinion.
What constitutes "meaningful consensual PvP" and how would it be ensured that the disinterested weren't bothered by those that engage in it?
I think I explained the current implementation of how open works quite in detail.
I don't think I need to add anything.
Open works in exactly the same way as the other two game modes - in and of itself, Open is just a different setting on the matchmaking system, i.e. which players one can possibly meet.
How so? A player who doesn't consent to direct PvP obviously wouldn't be able to participate in a direct PvP fight, so I do not get your point.
The only consent in this game is implicit in one's choice of game mode, i.e. choose to play in a multi-player game mode and one's ship can be attacked by any player that one encounters. There is no PvP flagging in this game. So it's not a case of being able (or not) to participate in a direct PvP fight, it's more a case of being engaged in one regardless of whether one finds it to be "fun".
