Modes [Suggestion] How to incentivise open play and make it relevant

[Lateralus]

Rewarding open play to make it relevant : The open 'Token'

The Problem with Mode Equality

The debate between open players and solo/private group players has raged-on constantly since before Elite: Dangerous actually released - with the former asking that open play be made the priority by Frontier to give the MMO side of the game some importance, and the latter demanding that their chosen modes be treated no differently so they are not effectively 'penalised' for choosing not to play in open.

Between the two sharp ends of the argument, there is a fairly large percentage of players who's question is; 'why should I play in open if there is no reward?'.. If the player in question is not a PvP combat player, bounty hunter or pirate - then this is an excellent question, why should they? There is no profit or loot bonuses, so they are taking a huge risk for seemingly no reason.

Currently, the non-combat players who do choose to brave the perils of open play do so because they either enjoy the risk and unpredictable nature of player encounters, or they simply enjoy interacting with other players generally. But the vast majority non-combat players of course will stick to the safer waters of solo, or PvE focused private groups such as Mobius. For these reasons, mode equality can result in several undesirable side-effects;

• The vast majority of players in open will be combat players, this gives the ED the preception that it is a 'gankfest'.. non-combat players will be scared off by 10 FDLs skulking around a CG system.
• The trader - pirate - bounty hunter ecosystem cannot work well, because the vast majority of traders are in solo/PG
• Large PvE factions are able to attack smaller factions BGS from the safety of a private group or solo without any risk. There is literally nothing the smaller group can do to resist.
• There is no need for strategic play (defence wings, evasion or stealth) because the player can just switch modes at any time without enduring any loss.
• Oppertunities for interesting, emergent gameplay are lost because there is a path of least resistance open to all players, anywhere at all times

These issues mean that the MMO side of Elite can feel pretty stagnant and pointless... so it descends into players flying around ganking because that's all that's left after all the meaning has been filtered out by the equality of the mode system. Nothing in open is exclusive or ultimately matters, so it turns into a boredom-induced slaughter.

Despite Frontier's commitment to the notion that 'all modes are equal', anyone who's flown through a CG system in open will tell you - they're actually far from equal. Only the reward is.


Potential Solution : The Open Token

Bonus to Open Profits

Spoiler

To give open play a bit of relevance, I propose that every item acquired in open play; whether it be cargo, bounty vouchers, combat bonds, data packages, missions or anything else that can be redeemed for profit - comes with a bonus token that generates a 25% (or similar) profit reward when redeemed (cargo is sold, vouchers/data redeemed, missions completed). This token would be lost if the player switches to solo or private group while they have the cargo or have unredeemed vouchers/missions. The result would be many more players in open and at the same time would discourage 'mission board-flipping' because that would also wipe the bonus.

The token would be entirely a programmatical concept, but would be represented on the UI in some way.

Token Requirement for BGS Manipulation Against Player Factions

Spoiler

With squadrons on the way, I think the problem of solo & private group players stomping rival factions to dust via the BGS needs to be addressed.. The open token could be used to make attacking rival player factions an exclusively open activity (as it should be - solo & private groups should be for the use of players who aren't interested in conflict with other players).

How it could work is that the BGS would require the open token for player actions to affect a system where a player faction is present (both positively & negatively). This would bring the MMO side of the game alive, because player factions could no longer quietly destroy a rivals influence from a private group - they would have to risk attack in open to do it. There would finally be a concept of defending your home system from BGS attack without having to counter-grind (which if you're a PvP group is not really desirable or viable if your group is much smaller than the attacker). PvP would be given a purpose, because it would be an excellent way for smaller groups to defend themselves from larger groups (small skillful PvP groups could resist large PvE groups very effectively).

The defending group would also get visibiity of who is attacking them (increasing inter-faction drama/intrigue), because at the moment this is very hard to figure out.

EDIT: To clarify, I'd suggest that the token requirement only apply to the attacking faction, it is perfectly reasonable to be able to defend your system from a private group or solo.

If a player faction controls a system, then only open play actions would affect the BGS there. However when squadrons arrive, members of the controlling faction should be able to affect the BGS in their system from private or solo. If they are not members of the faction, their activities would only affect that system in open play. This would mean that groups who wish to destroy the influence of a controlling player faction would have to do so from open... leaving them vulnerable to pvp patrols (they have to travel through the system to hand in their cargo/data/bounties, and the open token would make switching modes while they are on route a no-go - otherwise their actions would be ineffective).

Manifest Scanner Upgrade

Spoiler

As players would now be trying to defend their system from BGS attack, there should be a way for players to discover what missions other players are running (to see if they are working against their faction/squadron). I think that the manifest scanner should be upgraded so that it shows not only cargo & passengers, but also shows active missions the target is running, and for who.

This would provide a method for squadron members to identify incidents of BGS manipulation by other player factions/squadrons/powers and would make open play very interesting.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

There is no profit or loot bonuses, so they are taking a huge risk for seemingly no reason.

Well... 'huge' is a relative term. At CGs and the other 2-3 super-hot systems, perhaps. In most of the galaxy - even in most of inhabited space - the difference between Open and Solo can be fairly theoretical.

And as you point out - being able to see other players is a reason, even if it's not one which gives direct credit score bonuses.

[*] The vast majority of players in open will be combat players, this gives the ED the preception that it is a 'gankfest'.. non-combat players will be scared off by 10 FDLs skulking around a CG system.

That is certainly perceived by some and it probably is true at CGs, but my experience is that the player ships I see in Open
- almost certainly don't have an interdictor
- mostly aren't fully armed
- certainly aren't flying anything that would concern my trade Python

[*] The trader - pirate - bounty hunter ecosystem cannot work well, because the vast majority of traders are in solo/PG

I think the issues with that ecosystem are a lot deeper and basically boil down to the whole economic and social model not having made sense for piracy in Elite I and only having got worse since. Broadly: I don't think there's a stable steady-state in which both pirates and traders can make money (except for the degenerate "no pirates") only considering those two roles, and adding bounty hunters to the mix only makes it worse. Fixing that would at the very least require a complete rewrite of both the combat characteristics of all ships (probably the whole outfitting model...) and the trade profits, as well as the legal system.

(I can go into a lot more detail on this if you want)

[*] Large PvE factions are able to attack smaller factions BGS from the safety of a private group or solo without any risk. There is literally nothing the smaller group can do to resist.

True, but in most cases PvP is relatively inefficient even in Open. Opportunistic work if you happen to see someone; shooting returning explorers ... everything else the size (and BGS skill) of the group will have far more effect.

And, of course, if a group based on a different one of the platforms is after you, Open or not you still can't see them.

[*] There is no need for strategic play (defence wings, evasion or stealth) because the player can just switch modes at any time without enduring any loss.

Given the lack of dangerous players in 99.99% of systems in Open, I think this is more an issue with the NPCs (and, again, the combat model) than with the players.

 

[CMDR RubberStig]

Absolutely not. I can see you have put considerable thought into your post, and I appreciate that fact.

As someone who plays mostly in solo, occasionally in Mobius, and never in Open I can tell you it is because I almost never want the company of other players. I have to deal with the general public all day in my job, and as such, most of the time in my down time, the last thing I want to do is socialise. Griefers are not even a consideration for me.

I know from my experiences in other game communities, that I am in the minority. That means I resent like fury being disadvantaged because I prefer to play alone - but I acknowledge I am playing a mullti-player game so I expect there are some aspects will not not be able and/or willing to participate in so some disadvantage is expected, unavoidable and my own fault. As it is, any contribution I make to the BGS is bound to be minor - dare I say insignificant, so changing how Open verses Solo/Private Groups seems to me to be over kill, and possibly unnecessary.

Sorry if I misinterpreted your meanings.

 

[Chrystoph]

[*] Large PvE factions are able to attack smaller factions BGS from the safety of a private group or solo without any risk. There is literally nothing the smaller group can do to resist.

This is rather a Straw Man given that it avoids direct comparison of the size of the competing groups, ignores things like time zones, and, as pointed out above, platforms. In effect, you are using a false premise to rationalize your desire for human targets.

[*] Opportunities for interesting, emergent gameplay are lost because there is a path of least resistance open to all players, anywhere at all times

Another Straw Man argument because it ignores the fact that PGs can have interaction. It also implies that only the groups such as the Code can provide "emergent gameplay". Finally, given the known nature of most people that use the phrase, it is another rationalization of the desire for human targets.

Given the human penchant for euphemism, this entire proposal simplifies down to a desire to encourage more people into Open so that the player and his associates can have more non-NPC targets of whatever nature.

 

[Lateralus]

This is rather a Straw Man given that it avoids direct comparison of the size of the competing groups, ignores things like time zones, and, as pointed out above, platforms. In effect, you are using a false premise to rationalize your desire for human targets.

Another Straw Man argument because it ignores the fact that PGs can have interaction. It also implies that only the groups such as the Code can provide "emergent gameplay". Finally, given the known nature of most people that use the phrase, it is another rationalization of the desire for human targets.

Given the human penchant for euphemism, this entire proposal simplifies down to a desire to encourage more people into Open so that the player and his associates can have more non-NPC targets of whatever nature.

What's wrong with wanting player-targets? It's 1000x more interesting than fighting NPC's, wanting the PvP side of this game to have a purpose is not a bad thing. They're going to have to change something in that regard if they want squadrons to mean anything... because right now, unless your a huge player faction with hundreds of members, it's pretty much a waste of time because your faction's influence will get crushed from a place you cannot touch.

And what's this about straw-mans? You link your post to a definition of the term but don't seem to understand what it means. It doesn't mean an incorrect statement or idea, it means attacking an argument someone did not present... which you appear to be doing.

 

[John Tenzer]

I don't play in Open anymore, because my empty cargo hold non-wanted ship was sniped one time too many by griefers without a warning or a challenge transmitted.

I don't mind being hunted by a mercenary, in combat zones or when flying for an opposing power, shot down by a bounty hunter when wanted, or robbed by a pirate when transporting goods, if that is done with a proper approach, conduct or an ingame reason... and consequence for the aggressor when he's attaking and killing unprovoked, too.

But if it's just for the pleasure of destruction and ing of a fellow player, then the griefer has to look for someone else to play with him.

It is just not worth my time (in rebuys) to deal with that nonsense.

So, I moved to Mobius. And there I have my pool of - what 20k? - players I can join for wings, meet amassed in CGs or just have a chat with. I don't feel deserted.

I haven't missed Open ever since.

 

[MBaldelli]

What's wrong with wanting player-targets? It's 1000x more interesting than fighting NPC's, wanting the PvP side of this game to have a purpose is not a bad thing. They're going to have to change something in that regard if they want squadrons to mean anything... because right now, unless your a huge player faction with hundreds of members, it's pretty much a waste of time because your faction's influence will get crushed from a place you cannot touch.

And what's this about straw-mans? You link your post to a definition of the term but don't seem to understand what it means. It doesn't mean an incorrect statement or idea, it means attacking an argument someone did not present... which you appear to be doing.

What's wrong with it? Nothing. It's your opinion and you are entitled to it. However like @Chrystoph I'm finding the method to proving its worth to entice players back to Open Play be both misconstrued as well as disingenuous. I also agree with @Chrystoph that the method you're trying to suggest it's betterment in incentivizing the return with more credits to be a nothing more than bait, as it doesn't address a problem that Frontier and the Devs have said flat out they don't want to curtail: Griefing.

The fact is, no matter the rules, you cannot make misbehaving players behave. Even if Frontier would take a more hardline approach to the griefing that goes on in the game, if they attempt to ban them in an effort to use them as an example, all the player will do it come back under a different name and different e-mail to grief players as well as bully people that reported them for tie banning. Banning the license will only cause the potential for cloning or cracking the licensing codes to do the same thing.

The bottom line is while you think the suggestion is a good one, and you might even get people to +1 you in this suggestion, you're going to find more people coming out of the woodwork to tell you, they're not coming out of solo or private group settings so you can have more meat to hunt for...

 

[[VR] Frank_G]

To quote myself from another thread...

Even participating in scientific events in Open is a bad experience... clumsy pilots pressing the nose of their Anacondas into dig sites instead of bringing a ship with decent view, trigger happy SRV drivers jump on ancient ruins or crushing Thargoid eggs, before firing aimlessly at structures, people trying to squeeze fighters into alien bases because they are bored and have nothing better to do and then a bunch of da lulz-boyz comes along and shoots at the explorers. Actually, i don´t care for the in game money i would lose, but i prefer a decent immersive experience. I enjoy exploring those incredible sites Frontier gave us, in a Private Group together with some good friends i know from RL or the forums. I really don´t need the chaos, i want immersive gameplay with a touch of RPG (not the rocket propelled thing) and i can´t have that in Open.

I stay in my Private Group. It is always > open < to friends

How would you OP, solve this problem? Why should i switch to open, if this is not attended to?
And why should i be left out of the reward, because i like to play different?

 

[Chrystoph]

What's wrong with wanting player-targets?

Really, after a presentation like you deliver, you're going to try to play dumb? The most obvious point is that most of the people you want to entice don't want to BE targets, hence the reason they exclude you from their game play.

It's 1000x more interesting than fighting NPC's, wanting the PvP side of this game to have a purpose is not a bad thing.

The fallacy here is that you don't want PvP because versus includes a sense of competition in the definition of the word, and you have already agreed that you are not looking for competition, you are looking for targets. What you want is PaP where the "A" stands for against. Again, the people you want "encouraged" into Open have avoided it specifically because they don't want to be your content at their expense.

And what's this about straw-mans? You link your post to a definition of the term but don't seem to understand what it means. It doesn't mean an incorrect statement or idea, it means attacking an argument someone did not present... which you appear to be doing.

Ah, my apologies, you are correct. I had just gotten up and hadn't any caffeine in my system yet. I offer you Cherry Picking in its place, as you are trying to lead people to a false position by only offering one element of the argument as if it were a totality.

 

[varonica]

The entire argument boils down to another "you must be my content" rant, sorry but it does.

I always play in open, I almost never see other players, because my content happens to be thousand of light years away from the bubble, in the peace and quiet of the big black! You don't need to entice me into open because I am already there, but you could drive me away by trying to make me your content, and if the game was changed in such a way that forced me to be your content I would simply stop playing, as would, I think, a lot of other players. The game is designed to take into account a number of different play styles, kindly stop trying to shoehorn everyone into yours!

 

[Robert Maynard]

The debate regarding every player, regardless of game mode, affecting and experiencing the same shared galaxy state has been going on for as long as some backers realised that other players would not require to be potential targets for them to still enjoy playing the game.

Frontier continued developing the game with freedom of player choice (with regard to whether they want to play among other players and, if so, which ones) at its core. The fact that Wings, PowerPlay and Multi-Crew were all implemented for more than one game mode would rather suggest that Frontier's stance on the topic has not changed.

.... and players in Solo and Private Groups are just as entitled to play the BGS / Factions / etc. as players in Open - the single shared galaxy state made that rather clear from the outset.

 

[Ca$hback]

Oh, the sanctimony and hatred associated with the assumptions of personality based on entertainment preferences and the convoluted language that attempts to veil it. The spirit of what you say can count as much as what you say so don't be surprised if you insult a lot of people by not hiding your feelings better. Gotta get that barb in and show everyone how smart I am. If the forums validate you, you got a good deal.

I think both sides have points and I know where I stand but the whole thing is a mess where they keep wagging the dog. They may fix a lot of things about this game over the years but without separating the BGS for Open and Solo/PG there can only be one real way to play and one sucker's way to play. Fine if you play just for fun but when you're competing you go with the more sure thing.

 

[Sunleader]

A Guy who openly declares himself a Pirate and Player Killer makes a Suggestion to get more People into Open Mode...
Why am I not surprised.....

I wonder what he could possibly want with non Combat Players in Open Mode.......
Yeah I know I know.....



As for the Suggestion.
I disagree.

No Offense but its too late for this kind of Change. If we had wanted to make a System like that. It would have been needed to do it long ago for it to take root and work out.
If something like this was to be done now. After lots of Gigantic Communities have been Established outside of Open Game Mode. It would only result in these Communities and Players feeling Punished for not receiving the Bonuses etc that are available in Open Mode.
And would turn into one Mess of a Floralstorm.



At this Point. If you really wanted to Change the System. The only way to do it. Would be to Completely Cut off Open from the remaining Gamemodes.
Meaning that Player Character are Bound to be either Open Mode OO Solo/Private Mode.
And cannot Change this.
You can have Characters on both Modes. But they will be 100% Independent from each other.

Both would have their own Ships, their own Ranks, their Own Reputations, their own Bank Account etc etc
To make the Shift easier all Existing Players could retain their Character on both Modes.


Any of this Bonus and Benefit System is just too late now. It would only cause Problems and Negative Emotions at this Point.

 

[Borgkube]

What's wrong with wanting player-targets? It's 1000x more interesting than fighting NPC's, wanting the PvP side of this game to have a purpose is not a bad thing. They're going to have to change something in that regard if they want squadrons to mean anything... because right now, unless your a huge player faction with hundreds of members, it's pretty much a waste of time because your faction's influence will get crushed from a place you cannot touch.

And what's this about straw-mans? You link your post to a definition of the term but don't seem to understand what it means. It doesn't mean an incorrect statement or idea, it means attacking an argument someone did not present... which you appear to be doing.

What's wrong with it is that maybe I am not interested in being your target.

 

[Nyra Amarin]

Absolutely not. I can see you have put considerable thought into your post, and I appreciate that fact.

As someone who plays mostly in solo, occasionally in Mobius, and never in Open I can tell you it is because I almost never want the company of other players.

(Sorry for my english)

I can respect that.
But it is not fair for those players looking to interact others through the tools of this game. These are combat, PP, BGS and CG's.

About 3 of these:

1. CG's = Lore). For example, if a big group of players disagree that Imperium plan to build an imperial base neara Federation zone, or I don't like anti-thargoids weapons, right now, there are no ways to avoid it because of the solo mode.
There are no way to present these ideas to other players and fight for it, creating conflicts, dialogues, etc... between players (that means another ways to have fun).

2. BGS) I played BGS for a long time and playing against ghosts is frustrating. It is completely illogical and unreal to not be able of interact with people who enter in "your system", and not only because "I wanna fight", but also to patrol or organize incoming traffic of players.
For example, when someone came through open into one of our systems, we played our roles and we could asked them what were they doing. If they were delivering commodities we could kindly asked them to deliver it into an specific station.
Of course ... only 1 iof 1000 players trade in open mode. So, we could have 1000 of ships in the traffic report, go out of the station and watch the space full of NPC's

3. PP) The most affected by this. I joined a group of PP players and lasted for a month bacuse It was frustrating.
While most of players only deliver papers in the hours of greatest influx, players who are genuinely interested in PP have to counter that affluence first (which is sometimes from thousands and thousands of players) and play "extra hours" to carry their plans out later.
If PP could only be done in open, groups of PP could organized themselfs for entering into an enemy system or defending their own, thus stopping the traffic of undermining in the same hours of game (and not more hours of playing, as it is happening now)

Playing PP seriously in this game is harder than a real-life job right now because of this.

I read a lot that the PP system is "poorly designed". But the real problem is not how PP has being designed, but that what happens in private modes affect the open mode.

I understand that there are A LOT of people who do not want to meet anyone in this game. That's why I think that private and solo modes should not disappear.
BUT affecting others without consequences (with or without intention) is not fair too.

Right now people who want to play alone are not really playing alone: ​​their actions affect others, turning the solo and private modes just into a tool for affecting whoever they want with impunity, and forcing PP, BGS and Lore player to play much more hours of PvE playing that it would be really needed (and completely cancelling the combat as one more tool - the 4th one -).

From my point of view, PP and CGs should be limited to open. And all actions from players in solo and private modes should have no effect on the BGS.

I know the "I have a real life" song when people talk about "being killed".
But what those people do not understand is that PvP, BGS, Role, Lore and PP players have a real life and like this game too (but less and less as this problem is still not solved).

 

[CMDR_Elver]

The general point Laterulas is making is a good one. There should be more reward not necessarily in terms of credits but gameplay oppourtunities. There risks for a trader in OPEN are high because of the harder challenge of surviving a PvP encouter, whether it is griefing or genuine piracy. This a bit of a shame as OPEN should have something for everybody creating a viable ecosystems. Crime & Punishment is being worked on hopefully for the better which will lessen the threat of griefers and give a bit more protection to traders with good stragegies/tactics.

I play in OPEN and do a bit of trading, bit of combat, bounty hunting, just getting into piracy (PvE until I get better), don't get bother that much by pvp. Part of the fun of the game for me as a trader is the threat of being interdicted in a weaker ship and trying to escape or fight if necessary.

There should be some OPEN PvP only missions transport unique objects or transport critical messages for point to point with players trying to steal or stop. With squadrons coming that could be where it's heading.

Of course if you prefer SOLO or PRIVATE group then play that mode but don't attack people for trying to improve OPEN.

BGS might be harder to determine if OPEN v PRIVATE vSOLO should have different weightings depending on the mode. PowerPlay should be an open experience always, thought that was the point of it. Fortifying, expansion etc. should be contested by the opposition.

 

[Para Handy]

Nope - no way - not at all - leave the PGs and solo alone - stop moaning about not enough people for PvP peeps to fight ('cos that's what all these threads boil down to really).

 

[Lestenio]

I thought open already had unnecessary bonuses.
Ie sit in a wing or MC and earn unearned credits

 

[John Tenzer]

The general point Laterulas is making is a good one. There should be more reward not necessarily in terms of credits but gameplay oppourtunities. There risks for a trader in OPEN are high because of the harder challenge of surviving a PvP encouter, whether it is griefing or genuine piracy. This a bit of a shame as OPEN should have something for everybody creating a viable ecosystems. Crime & Punishment is being worked on hopefully for the better which will lessen the threat of griefers and give a bit more protection to traders with good stragegies/tactics.

I play in OPEN and do a bit of trading, bit of combat, bounty hunting, just getting into piracy (PvE until I get better), don't get bother that much by pvp. Part of the fun of the game for me as a trader is the threat of being interdicted in a weaker ship and trying to escape or fight if necessary.

There should be some OPEN PvP only missions transport unique objects or transport critical messages for point to point with players trying to steal or stop. With squadrons coming that could be where it's heading.

Of course if you prefer SOLO or PRIVATE group then play that mode but don't attack people for trying to improve OPEN.

BGS might be harder to determine if OPEN v PRIVATE vSOLO should have different weightings depending on the mode. PowerPlay should be an open experience always, thought that was the point of it. Fortifying, expansion etc. should be contested by the opposition.

His would be a good point if he himself wasn't the represantative of the main reason that caused the exodus of more peaceful players from OPEN towards Private Groups or Solo: Griefers.

I for myself would actually love to play in Open, if the interaction with my fellow players - even hostile - would be based on reason.

But as long as there's a minor but aggressive group which treats all other players simply as live targets for their enjoyment of blowing things up, seal clubbing and spoiling other players games (and hence forcing the victims to even pay the bill for the griefers having fun) only, there is no motivation to return to open.

So, griefers themselves force people out of "their" game, which is a natural protective reaction of the threatened individual to ensure "its survival". Watch National Geographics on Wildlife migration, and you'll understand the principles behind it. (Orcas vs Great White Sharks, for example).

So, if you reduce the threat (by punishing or controlling the aggressor or defining zones of conflict) then you will see a natural return of the less combat oriented players into open.

One way to do that would be to restrict Player on Player aggression: (This just brainstorming incoming)

Automatically deactivate weapons in a no fire zone when a player scans another player.
Define no loitering areas/lanes in stations for any other than the authorized ship, which results in the immediate destruction of the loitering ship after a fair warning period of 10 seconds.
Pimp up response time and aggressivenes of system security (as an equivalent to a SWAT-Team), when Player on Player fights in non combat zones occur and let these Rapid Response Squads pursue the aggressor until it is destroyed.
Let the aggressor pay the insurance of the destroyed vessel.
Restrict Player vs player action to combat zones, nav points and USS-areas only, while deactivating interdictors from players when they scan other players (which is bad for pirating, I know, but yeah, thank the griefers for exploiting that angle, too), and so on.

Or ban griefing completely to another server.

Once the griefer problem is dealt with accordingly and the immersive players are put under protection nature will take it's course progressively.

As long as that isn't fixed, nothing will change.

 

[CMDR_Elver]

His would be a good point if he himself wasn't the represantative of the main reason having caused the exodus of more peaceful players from OPEN towards Private Groups or Solo: Griefers.

I for myself would actually love to play in Open, if the interaction with my fellow players - even hostile - would be based on reason.

But as long as there's a minor but aggressive group which treats all other players simply as live targets for their enjoyment of blowing things up, seal clubbing and spoiling other players games (and hence forcing the victims to even pay the bill for the griefers having fun) only, there is no motivation to return to open.

So, griefers themselves force people out of "their" game, which is a natural protective reaction of the threatened individual to ensure "its survival". Watch National Geographics on Wildlife migration, and you'll understand the principles behind it. (Orcas vs Great White Sharks, for example).

So, if you reduce the threat (by punishing or controlling the aggressor or defining zones of conflict) then you will see a natural return of the less combat oriented players into open.

One way to do that would be to restrict Player on Player aggression: (This just brainstorming incoming)

Automatically deactivate weapons in a no fire zone when a player scans another player.
Define no loitering areas/lanes in stations for any other than the authorized ship, which results in the immediate destruction of the loitering ship after a fair warning period of 10 seconds.
Pimp up response time and aggressivenes of system security (as an equivalent to a SWAT-Team), when Player on Player fights in non combat zones and let these Rapid response squads pursue the aggressor until it is destroyed.
Let the aggressor pay the insurance of the destroyed vessel.
Restrict Player vs player action to combat zones, nav points and USS-areas only, while deactivating interdictors from players when they scan other players (whic is bad for pirating, I know, but yeah, thank the griefers for exploiting that angle, too), and so on.

Or ban griefing completely to another server.

Once the griefer problem is dealt with accordingly and the immersive players are put under protection nature will take it's course progressively.

As long that isn't fixed, nothing will change.

I agree that griefing/seal clubbing is a problem that some Cmdrs just want destroy others for the laughs. This is unwanted game play for me but don't forget it is a space sim in a dark and DANGEROUS galaxy with a genuine combat element to the game. Prescriptively trying to smother PvP combat is not the way forward. Improving the crime and punishment dynamics to increase the consequences for attacks on players in the context of the game is on the way. What the OP is recognizing that there is not much intensives for traders in OPEN and BGS faction and PowerPlay are diluted.

If you want to play in OPEN then you except the risks but I think there should be a balancing out of rewards. The risk should be balanced out also having bad reputations in High security system should make it a lot more difficult to fly around interdicting at will. To the point where the tables are turned complete with this being reduced with the security levels. This is already started to happen in 2.4! Also it is very easy to play in OPEN and not run into many other players as it is massive, there are relatively few griefers to inhabited systems, let alone the whole galaxy.

If people want to play in SOLO or private group for whatever reason fine, enjoy yourself but don't knock people for wanting to improve the open experience!