A perfect example of using a game mode to reduce the risks and still get paid the same rewards.
Yes it is.
But if you care to actually *analyse* the situation, you would probably find a conclusion that you probably don't want to be found.
It's called Cause and Effect.
For illustration's sake, let's use starting conditions that there is a Trade CG in a high security system that no real person could ever "disagree" with, like bringing medical or survival aid to an independent system in outbreak or famine.
Effect 1: Many flock to the CG bringing cargo, mostly in Open. Not just for the profit promised for delivering said cargo, but also because this is a worthwhile Cause to get behind.
Effect 2: A few "pirates" turn up due to the promise of cargo-rich space-lanes.
Cause: How has the game handled serial interdictions and piracy in "High Security" for a long time? It doesn't really keep the space-lanes clear of "pirates".
Effect 3: Constant "piracy" in a High Security system where a galaxy-wide CG appeal is taking place. (Which is an interesting notion in itself. I call it a perversion of the Galaxy. High Security often relatively unsafe space, Anarchy almost always safe space.)
Cause: How successful is piracy? (Debatable). How easy is piracy? (Hard). Is there a balance between deterrence and profit for the pirate? (arguably - it isn't easy, but then again the consequences are fairly trivial). Are there players who hide behind the label of pirate, just to be a Murder-Hobo? (Absolutely Yes). Is there balance between trader ship loss to those who perpetrate destruction? (Absolutely Not).
Effect 4: With an imbalance between destruction (In a High Security system hosting a Galaxy-wide request) and meaningful consequences for murder (whether it be "Pirate" or "Murder-hobo") it is an obvious effect that targeted CMDRs will pursue other routes. Not at first, but simply as a *direct result* of game coding allied to human exploitation of game code. I didn't start out as a Solo player, nor a Mobius player, but I did migrate as a direct consequence of the subverted and perverted galaxy. Open wasn't fun and I'm not willing to invest my leisure time into an activity that isn't fun.
In consequence - what we have now is a direct Cause and Effect chain of events, partly induced by the game coding, but more particularly directly created through exploitation of the rules: mostly by murder-hobo; bu also partly by "Pirate with no self discipline".
It is interesting to note, however, that some players still frequent Open as traders, etc. And here's where my definition of the word "reward" differs dramatically from how you used it above.
That player plays Open for equal "profit". Equal in-game Credits. But that player also plays Open for other "reward". That player clearly finds the Open environment more appealing. For whatever reason that might be. It doesn't matter if you don't quantify the actual reason for each player that does this, the real core of the matter is that this group of players are clearly taking some intangible out-of-game "reward". So the Open mode has players still there. Those players are "catered for" in terms of the fun or "reward" they get out of playing in Open. How rich is that "reward", I don't really care to know, but it is there, nonetheless.
Still, knowing that nugget of valuable information, all I can see from some players is trying to draw more players into Open via some kind of coercion (BGS *only* works in Open. CGs *only* in Open.) or some feeble extra reward system (Extra bonus available for doing said BGS or said CG in Open.)
This is tackling the symptom of the Cause and Effect chain.
Surely, surely to all that is holy, surely it would be better to tackle the Cause, not the Symptom.
I think FD are trying new ways to tackle the Cause, and for that I congratulate them. They could try a bit more on making Piracy more playable, but *WARNING* this needs to be done at the same time as limiting murder-hoboism in Open or offsetting it to Anarchy state systems (so it isn't still a Perversion of the Galaxy). Only then do you stand a chance of both *keeping total game population* AND *swelling the proportion that play in Open*.
The aim is clearly to do both. Not one at the expense of the other.
It truly is amazing what can be told by some basic analysis.
Yours Aye
Mark H
