Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

[Lestenio]

IN MY OPINION the SOLO game mode should be COMPLETELY SEPARATE from OPEN mode. That from my eyes is a built in working as intended exploit as is.

You should not be able to make money offline and bring it online with a pimped out attack class ship. .......

Yes solo mode, risk free for me it has been for nearly a year. I can trade and watch movies just fly around with no worries i have not once been blown up or died in solo mode unless through my own stupidity.

Your post is a bit of a puzzle really. You complain about something you seem to have been doing for a year. Yet now you have that shiny new pimped out ship, you are objecting. Just do a full reset of your commander if you feel like you have cheated yourself.

Not everyone has a goal to farm in solo then take a ship into open.

 

[ianw]

Yes solo mode, risk free for me it has been for nearly a year. I can trade and watch movies just fly around with no worries i have not once been blown up or died in solo mode unless through my own stupidity.

Funny, I've done and do exactly the same thing in open when I'm trading.

 

[Daffan]

Funny, I've done and do exactly the same thing in open when I'm trading.

Exactly , it's not the end of the world. Now imagine a proper crime system and penalties (aka UO 1997 LOL) and the risk factor would be so low it'd be like being killed INRL low.

win win all round.

 

[Lestenio]

I don't know if i have words to express my dissatisfaction with pve/solo players. Why? For forcing Fd creating those modes.

What people are these then? I bought the game in beta about a year ago. It was advertised with the 3 modes we have today.
The only people trying to force modes are the Jonny-come-lateys who want to change the game I purchased.

All the thousands of absolutely respected commanders working their way in powerplay and undermining factions taking less or NO risk in their efforts and still I hear compalints.

The only complaints you hear are open people complaining about something or another. You'll find solo players are generally happy playing the game and having fun.

Nerf this,nerf that. If a respected commander is unable to beat an npc vulture - NERF THE VULTURE!

Show me a post from a solo player crying nerf the vulture.

We could have it all...but NO.
We could have a populated galaxy, convoys, pirates, murderers and good commanders working together.
Transport ships attacked and pirates killed by the defenders. We could have total immersion, danger, risk... BUT NO!
We could have people guarding themselves, whole bunch of people keeping a trade routes safe from gankers or pirates... experience the living galaxy - BUT NO!
NO because the respected commanders are unable to accept the risk.

You have that. That's what open is. You just have to accept that you have it with players that want it.

Yes - you should stay in solo but open players should be rewarded by better trading prices, less rebuy or at least bigger bounty. I absolutely disagree with rewarding people who risk all with the same ammounts as the respected commanders who risk nothing.
There has been an implementation of player owned factions. Why do it if respected solo commanders can totally shred it's influence by working without risk and opposition in solo?

Finally we get to the crux of the matter. Greed. You want more for your style play because it will make you feel superior, not because you earn it.

 

[ianw]

Exactly , it's not the end of the world. Now imagine a proper crime system and penalties (aka UO 1997 LOL) and the risk factor would be so low it'd be like being killed INRL low.

win win all round.

Sorry don't know anything about UO or what INRL is.

 

[Sylveria]

Sorry don't know anything about UO or what INRL is.

UO = Ultima Online
INRL (or IRL) In Real Life

 

[Phosphora]

UO = Ultima Online
INRL (or IRL) In Real Life

I'm still waiting for mode switching INRL.

Cheers, Phos

 

[Phosphora]

My post got kiled by the language I used. I hope this one is satisfactory.

I don't know if i have words to express my dissatisfaction with pve/solo players. Why? For forcing Fd creating those modes. It is not 80's any more. 80's are over.
All the thousands of absolutely respected commanders working their way in powerplay and undermining factions taking less or NO risk in their efforts and still I hear compalints.
Nerf this,nerf that. If a respected commander is unable to beat an npc vulture - NERF THE VULTURE!
We could have it all...but NO.
We could have a populated galaxy, convoys, pirates, murderers and good commanders working together.
Transport ships attacked and pirates killed by the defenders. We could have total immersion, danger, risk... BUT NO!
We could have people guarding themselves, whole bunch of people keeping a trade routes safe from gankers or pirates... experience the living galaxy - BUT NO!
NO because the respected commanders are unable to accept the risk.

It's nothing to do with risk. I personally find solo more interesting than open, as I have a higher degree of control over how I play. In solo I am never ganked, I never have to work out if another player is trustworthy, I never become the plaything of someone with much faster reflexes, I never have to put up with other people's attempts to force me to play in a particular way. I don't find blockades exciting, I don't enjoy PvP at all, and I don't want to play according to someone else's schedule.

I have no problem at all with people looking for what you describe, that's what open is for. I don't believe open should be the only group, and I don't believe people should be stopped from switching. People may want different things from the game on different days? Hard day at work? Relax in solo/group. Day off? Have a blast in open.

Cheers, Phos.

 

[Faded Glory]

[snip]

The two biggest things that killed Open was the crime system and save-swapping, one of these made sure Open was a nightmare to play in and the other made it so open is almost useless.

Imagine if the crime-system was actually legit(good) and you couldn't undermine in Solo. You'd have proper escort wings of traders/privateers/bounty hunters, proper power-play PvP events and faction wars where you would fight other wings and factions, not gank traders/noobs. People wouldn't feel griefed or annoyed because they aren't being targeted 24/7.

CZ's and RES would be filled with players, teaming up and dogfighting cooperatively or against each other (Faction v Faction). But instead, you've got PVP bads ganking people left-right and center because of the crime system being too lenient and everyone else undermining in Solo.

Then people wonder why people combat log or never play Open.

You are correct that the crime system in ED is severely lacking in consequences. While I think what you are suggesting as an outcome of stiffening or fixing that would be wonderful for players who imagine a teeming galaxy of cooperative gameplay, I'm not sure it would be the outcome, mainly due to the technical limitations of the networking architecture that FD use.

Mode / save swapping is not really the issue, although I can see why it's easy to blame it. The problem with people who mode swap to avoid consequences are the people... To imagine that if they couldn't do that, they would suddenly become the upstanding members of an Open community is IMO a bit of a fantasy. They would either stop playing, depriving the Open community of content, or they would find real exploits to avoid the consequences.

[snip]
Furthermore, solo is a problem to open. Oh wow they are fortifying in solo - still cant see them. Private group is the EXACT same problem as solo, so i have no idea why you made that example.

Another instance is a fair problem, but having a chance of seeing someone is better than NEVER SEEING AT ALL.

Lastly, Solo is a problem for another entirely different reason as well - It can be used as a weapon. You see a threat? log off to solo and run. The timer is only 15s and it's ezpez no risk. The instancing again, is a problem - but nothing to the degree that these other systems don't already provide. lots of people used solo to get right on top of hutton and avoid the bounty hunters in SC and then gank people on the station.

If you have a problem with 'not being able to see people' because they are in a different mode (whether they are working for or against you) now, then I honestly feel that just having a chance of seeing them will not be better for you (or the wider PvP community). It wouldn't stop the complaining, so removing or nerfing Solo wouldn't solve anything.

As I said above, the people who log off and go Solo when they see a threat, I don't reckon you'd want to play with them in a fully Open world either, because you consider them to be cheats. Obviously I cannot speak for you, but I would not wish to play with someone with that attitude, I'd be trying to block them (if I was into playing online with others).

You are imagining a game where everybody wants to engage in PvP, consensual or otherwise, where they choose to fly amongst others, doing whatever it is they feel like, and using others as 'protection' against those playing the bad guy. I think the problem with that is that not everyone wants to play online with others, it's a limited audience, and those that want to play the game this way are already doing it. Changing this game to be the one you envisage is probably not really possible, and more importantly, doesn't seem to be the game that FD envisage.

If PvP is so important to you, and it's fine that it is, forget what everyone else is doing, stop letting it ruin the game for you, organize yourself with other like minded CMDRs and play the game the way you want to. You might even have fun...

 

[Roybe]

Exactly , it's not the end of the world. Now imagine a proper crime system and penalties (aka UO 1997 LOL) and the risk factor would be so low it'd be like being killed INRL low.

win win all round.

But the devs have already stated they want crime to be common within the game. There is a balancing act to do...and the devs have their metrics to watch to see how the balance is between crime and punishment...and it seems they are currently happy with the levels..

Oh and for those recent folks that are discussing the timer on logout...there is a thread dealing with this specific issue here:


https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=184441

 

[askavir]

I'm a 100% open mode player myself, but it puzzles me as other open players feel somewhat entitled to solo / group players having to accept the open players in their game.

Gaming time is leisure time. And each people decides how they want to spend their leisure time. And if solo players don't want the open players (including myself) inside their leisure time, they certainly are completely entitled to it. At work, we have to put up with everyone else. In our homes, playing videogames, we don't if we don't want to. End of story.

I too would like to have a more inhabbited galaxy, and more players around, more cooperation and more conflict in a manner that made sense and was enjoyable by everyone. But I don't get to decide how others choose to play the game. Its not my decision to make.

If my fellow open mode players didn't want to send other people away to solo or groups, they should have though of that BEFORE constantly ganking defenceless traders, or explorers returning from weeks or months trips. Or before playing station entrance bumper cars, or flooding comms with "lulz" and "skillzzz" and "LMAO" and other forms of teen idiocy, etc etc.

The problem with MMOs is that they're full of people. All kinds of people. And that includes some jerks. At work, we have to put up with jerks. In traffic, we have to put up with jerks. In store queues, we have to put up with jerks. In public transportation, we have to put up with jerks. At our own home, we don't. If solo / group players don't want to put up with jerks, its they're choice to make and good for them.

We could talk all day about "thrill" or "risk", or "challenge"" etc etc. But some people live boring lives or have boring jobs and seek for a fix of thrill in videogames. Other people have demanding, high intensity and thrilling jobs, and maybe they prefer a more relaxed gaming experience at the end of their day. Everyone who purchased the game has a right to decide how they want to play it, if it comes within the games rules.

If open mode players don't want people to play in solo or groups to make for a more lively and inhabited galaxy where everyone is together, start by not putting so much constant effort in giving them reasons to leave. And keep in mind that they are completely entitled to choosing whether to have YOU or ME in THEIR leisure time.

 

[Sylveria]

I'm a 100% open mode player myself, but it puzzles me as other open players feel somewhat entitled to solo / group players having to accept the open players in their game.

Gaming time is leisure time. And each people decides how they want to spend their leisure time. And if solo players don't want the open players (including myself) inside their leisure time, they certainly are completely entitled to it. At work, we have to put up with everyone else. In our homes, playing videogames, we don't if we don't want to. End of story.

I too would like to have a more inhabbited galaxy, and more players around, more cooperation and more conflict in a manner that made sense and was enjoyable by everyone. But I don't get to decide how others choose to play the game. Its not my decision to make.

If my fellow open mode players didn't want to send other people away to solo or groups, they should have though of that BEFORE constantly ganking defenceless traders, or explorers returning from weeks or months trips. Or before playing station entrance bumper cars, or flooding comms with "lulz" and "skillzzz" and "LMAO" and other forms of teen idiocy, etc etc.

The problem with MMOs is that they're full of people. All kinds of people. And that includes some jerks. At work, we have to put up with jerks. In traffic, we have to put up with jerks. In store queues, we have to put up with jerks. In public transportation, we have to put up with jerks. At our own home, we don't. If solo / group players don't want to put up with jerks, its they're choice to make and good for them.

We could talk all day about "thrill" or "risk", or "challenge"" etc etc. But some people live boring lives or have boring jobs and seek for a fix of thrill in videogames. Other people have demanding, high intensity and thrilling jobs, and maybe they prefer a more relaxed gaming experience at the end of their day. Everyone who purchased the game has a right to decide how they want to play it, if it comes within the games rules.

If open mode players don't want people to play in solo or groups to make for a more lively and inhabited galaxy where everyone is togheter, start by not putting so much constant effort in giving them reasons to leave. And keep in mind that they are completely entitled to choosing whether to have YOU or ME in THEIR leisure time.

Awesome post. Repped.

TL;DR for those who went to the "Zoolander School for Kids Who Can't Read Good" It means you don't get to decide for everyone else and start taking responsibility for your own actions.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

I'm a 100% open mode player myself, but it puzzles me as other open players feel somewhat entitled to solo / group players having to accept the open players in their game.

Gaming time is leisure time. And each people decides how they want to spend their leisure time. And if solo players don't want the open players (including myself) inside their leisure time, they certainly are completely entitled to it. At work, we have to put up with everyone else. In our homes, playing videogames, we don't if we don't want to. End of story.

I too would like to have a more inhabbited galaxy, and more players around, more cooperation and more conflict in a manner that made sense and was enjoyable by everyone. But I don't get to decide how others choose to play the game. Its not my decision to make.

If my fellow open mode players didn't want to send other people away to solo or groups, they should have though of that BEFORE constantly ganking defenceless traders, or explorers returning from weeks or months trips. Or before playing station entrance bumper cars, or flooding comms with "lulz" and "skillzzz" and "LMAO" and other forms of teen idiocy, etc etc.

The problem with MMOs is that they're full of people. All kinds of people. And that includes some jerks. At work, we have to put up with jerks. In traffic, we have to put up with jerks. In store queues, we have to put up with jerks. In public transportation, we have to put up with jerks. At our own home, we don't. If solo / group players don't want to put up with jerks, its they're choice to make and good for them.

We could talk all day about "thrill" or "risk", or "challenge"" etc etc. But some people live boring lives or have boring jobs and seek for a fix of thrill in videogames. Other people have demanding, high intensity and thrilling jobs, and maybe they prefer a more relaxed gaming experience at the end of their day. Everyone who purchased the game has a right to decide how they want to play it, if it comes within the games rules.

If open mode players don't want people to play in solo or groups to make for a more lively and inhabited galaxy where everyone is together, start by not putting so much constant effort in giving them reasons to leave. And keep in mind that they are completely entitled to choosing whether to have YOU or ME in THEIR leisure time.

I wish we could end the topic on that post.

 

[Daffan]

As I said above, the people who log off and go Solo when they see a threat, I don't reckon you'd want to play with them in a fully Open world either, because you consider them to be cheats. Obviously I cannot speak for you, but I would not wish to play with someone with that attitude, I'd be trying to block them (if I was into playing online with others).

You are imagining a game where everybody wants to engage in PvP, consensual or otherwise, where they choose to fly amongst others, doing whatever it is they feel like, and using others as 'protection' against those playing the bad guy. I think the problem with that is that not everyone wants to play online with others, it's a limited audience, and those that want to play the game this way are already doing it. Changing this game to be the one you envisage is probably not really possible, and more importantly, doesn't seem to be the game that FD envisage.

There is one key thing you are missing.

The people who like solo will play solo, nothing will change if save swapping is removed for them. Private groups could even be incorporated with the solo system... like Mobious and other stuff.

The people who want to make a difference and have a sandbox will play open. Because they want player interaction, they WANT that unscripted gameplay. People are begging Frontier for tier 2 NPC's, REAL PEOPLE ARE TIER 3! .

Solo has ONE good purpose, letting people relax on days they don't want to play open,

But so many nefarious features (10+ easily). Like Undermining (Yay NPC grind solo), making power-play irrelevant (Wow who can grind the most in solo), making PvP irrelevant (why kill people in my area when I can grind in solo and achieve more), making escorts irrelevant (4 traders in Solo please), making bounty hunting irrelevant (Wow he's getting away while solo, see: Hutton CG), making wing PvP irrelevant (Why bother outside of pre-arranged), making finding people in CZ or RES for friendship or combat almost impossible (Let's just play solo because = efficiency)

And people will do it too even if they hate it (grind in solo) because humans love path of least resistance.

Furthermore, the log off timer can be extended and combat logging can be crunched on - you dont negatively develop a game because the fact that an exploit exists, you squish the exploit.

 

[Jockey79]

There is one key thing you are missing.

Actually it is you who is missing something.

Frontier Developments designed this system the way they wanted it.
People paid for the game to be made using that system.

More people have since bought the game, because of that advertised system.

Are you going to refund everyone should it get changed?

 

[Sylveria]

Actually it is you who is missing something.

Frontier Developments designed this system the way they wanted it.
People paid for the game to be made using that system.

More people have since bought the game, because of that advertised system.

Are you going to refund everyone should it get changed?

SNAP!

 

[Bomba Luigi]

The people who want to make a difference and have a sandbox will play open. Because they want player interaction, they WANT that unscripted gameplay. People are begging Frontier for tier 2 NPC's, REAL PEOPLE ARE TIER 3! .

... or they play group, where they can also get player interaction and all that. Open really isn't all that special.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

I'm still waiting for mode switching INRL.

Cheers, Phos

Hopefully it will come right after law and order falls apart and the police allow people to ram the donut delivery boy to death right outside the police station with zero consequence thus stopping them getting their deliveries.

But whilst we have a semi decent law and order IRL I am happy living in open

 

[Mouse]

That's why i said fix the crime system... If there is penalty to your actions, half the noobs that gank people will stop because it's too much commitment. In Ultima Online if you killed too many people you went red and could never enter a town for ages, it was a real commitment to go red and a penalty. Half the people that kill traders now are cowards who log off to solo and run away as soon as a real threat emerges.

Furthermore, solo is a problem to open. Oh wow they are fortifying in solo - still cant see them. Private group is the EXACT same problem as solo, so i have no idea why you made that example.

Another instance is a fair problem, but having a chance of seeing someone is better than NEVER SEEING AT ALL.

Lastly, Solo is a problem for another entirely different reason as well - It can be used as a weapon. You see a threat? log off to solo and run. The timer is only 15s and it's ezpez no risk. The instancing again, is a problem - but nothing to the degree that these other systems don't already provide. lots of people used solo to get right on top of hutton and avoid the bounty hunters in SC and then gank people on the station.

There is one key thing you are missing.

The people who like solo will play solo, nothing will change if save swapping is removed for them. Private groups could even be incorporated with the solo system... like Mobious and other stuff.

The people who want to make a difference and have a sandbox will play open. Because they want player interaction, they WANT that unscripted gameplay. People are begging Frontier for tier 2 NPC's, REAL PEOPLE ARE TIER 3! .

Solo has ONE good purpose, letting people relax on days they don't want to play open,

But so many nefarious features (10+ easily). Like Undermining (Yay NPC grind solo), making power-play irrelevant (Wow who can grind the most in solo), making PvP irrelevant (why kill people in my area when I can grind in solo and achieve more), making escorts irrelevant (4 traders in Solo please), making bounty hunting irrelevant (Wow he's getting away while solo, see: Hutton CG), making wing PvP irrelevant (Why bother outside of pre-arranged), making finding people in CZ or RES for friendship or combat almost impossible (Let's just play solo because = efficiency)

And people will do it too even if they hate it (grind in solo) because humans love path of least resistance.

Furthermore, the log off timer can be extended and combat logging can be crunched on - you dont negatively develop a game because the fact that an exploit exists, you squish the exploit.

I agree with the crime system, that is why I said I made comments on how to fix it earlier in this thread. I was in UO for the PKers, I was even in UO when they banned people bringing pets out because someone released a dragon in the middle of town and it killed everyone including the guards. Every time the rules are altered to fix something someone will look for another way to abuse the system. Your issue with solo is not with solo, it is with those that claim "legitimate gameplay" and use solo to avoid PVP so that they can come back and gank.

PP is a PVE/Solo gameplay it was made for solo to be able to do so there is no exploit in undermining, fortifying and it becoming irelevant.. it can't be since that is why it was made.. PP is in no way a PVP thing, it is shadow play available in every mode.

As for the rest.. you seem to really miss the point of open, open is there to offer a type of gameplay, if people don't want that type of gameplay for certain actions, they don't go there.. there are traders in open, there are escorts in open, they are people who want to be there. Nothing in solo is "safe" you can still get killed.

Now you mention PVP.. but you dont' seem to realize that if people want pvp they will pvp, you are confusing those who want pvp and will do pvp and those who's only goal is to destroy, to gank and to grief. They don't want PVP they want domination. .. it is funny how some of them will wax elegantly about "risk" yet they will engage in none themselves. Their "PVP" is you being their target as they use overwhelming force to ensure their survival.

People have legitimate reasons for going into open, solo, and group. You want to impede those reasons to combat the Quasi PVPers, which I can see why, but there needs to be another way .. maybe.. something like if you are into open, go to solo and then jump back into open and immediately attack someone your ship blows up or your weapons overload and you can't attack anythign until you get repaired.. and if you go into solo and come back to open they will do it again.

Look for was to curb the abusers, not to drastically alter the system and hose everyone who uses the modes legitimately.

And read what Askavir wrote...

I'm a 100% open mode player myself, but it puzzles me as other open players feel somewhat entitled to solo / group players having to accept the open players in their game.

Gaming time is leisure time. And each people decides how they want to spend their leisure time. And if solo players don't want the open players (including myself) inside their leisure time, they certainly are completely entitled to it. At work, we have to put up with everyone else. In our homes, playing videogames, we don't if we don't want to. End of story.

I too would like to have a more inhabbited galaxy, and more players around, more cooperation and more conflict in a manner that made sense and was enjoyable by everyone. But I don't get to decide how others choose to play the game. Its not my decision to make.

If my fellow open mode players didn't want to send other people away to solo or groups, they should have though of that BEFORE constantly ganking defenceless traders, or explorers returning from weeks or months trips. Or before playing station entrance bumper cars, or flooding comms with "lulz" and "skillzzz" and "LMAO" and other forms of teen idiocy, etc etc.

The problem with MMOs is that they're full of people. All kinds of people. And that includes some jerks. At work, we have to put up with jerks. In traffic, we have to put up with jerks. In store queues, we have to put up with jerks. In public transportation, we have to put up with jerks. At our own home, we don't. If solo / group players don't want to put up with jerks, its they're choice to make and good for them.

We could talk all day about "thrill" or "risk", or "challenge"" etc etc. But some people live boring lives or have boring jobs and seek for a fix of thrill in videogames. Other people have demanding, high intensity and thrilling jobs, and maybe they prefer a more relaxed gaming experience at the end of their day. Everyone who purchased the game has a right to decide how they want to play it, if it comes within the games rules.

If open mode players don't want people to play in solo or groups to make for a more lively and inhabited galaxy where everyone is together, start by not putting so much constant effort in giving them reasons to leave. And keep in mind that they are completely entitled to choosing whether to have YOU or ME in THEIR leisure time.

 

[Khelder]

I'm a 100% open mode player myself, but it puzzles me as other open players feel somewhat entitled to solo / group players having to accept the open players in their game.
...

Very well said. This certainly well addresses one of the Solo/Open/Group complaints and I couldn't agree more.

Your issue with solo is not with solo, it is with those that claim "legitimate gameplay" and use solo to avoid PVP so that they can come back and gank.

PP is a PVE/Solo gameplay it was made for solo to be able to do so there is no exploit in undermining, fortifying and it becoming irelevant.. it can't be since that is why it was made.. PP is in no way a PVP thing, it is shadow play available in every mode.

As for the rest.. you seem to really miss the point of open, open is there to offer a type of gameplay, if people don't want that type of gameplay for certain actions, they don't go there.. there are traders in open, there are escorts in open, they are people who want to be there.

Ok. Now we have a problem. It may not be a huge problem, but it's still a problem. And I really don't see why it is so hard for people to understand.

There are elements in ED that are competitive. PP is competitive. CGs can be competitive. Some players look at general gameplay as competitive.

The different modes allow differences in gameplay. Open can generally be considered more dangerous. I'm not saying that Solo/Group aren't. It's just that you are never going to face as much threat from NPCs as you would from concerted efforts of humans. Solo/Group allows competitive goals to be accomplished without interference from human players (your opposition... or just pewpewers).

So we have different styles of gameplay (one arguably easier than the other) that affect the same overall goals. This is actually what this thread is supposedly about... that there is a problem with having different modes (with the ability to switch between them) that have the same effect on the background simulation.

...All players have an effect on the background simulation regardless of mode they play in or which platform they play on, and can switch between groups at will without penalty or change to their character's statistics... This thread is for discussing issues around the Solo, Open and Private Group modes and the different platforms... Any discussion on the modes in general, the shared galaxy state or mode-switching in that thread will end up being moved into this thread.

The responses I generally see fall into these categories:

What difference? - Some people don't seem to see the issue with the whole different-rules/same-simulation thing.

Working as intended - This one and its variants really bug me. FD has built it that way so it must be right. No. There is a case for saying "That is the way it is so we'll just have to live with it." But just because something is some way, does not necessarily make it "right" or "fair".

You can do the same thing - This is the argument that if Solo is easier to achieve certain goals, then that option is open to the Open players as well, so all good. The problem here is that it's almost the reverse of the "I don't like PvP so I want to play in Solo" thing. Open players shouldn't expect that everyone should enjoy and want to participate in that gamestyle (at least all the time) - see askavir's comment. Solo players should not have to be Open player's content. However, isn't it just as unfair to allow the actions of Solo players to affect the content of Open?

You can't say that things like PP are not a PvP thing. PvP may not be the intent. But PvP can certainly have an influence. As I understand it, if you have a group of PvPers who want to make a concerted effort to resist the PP efforts of an opposing faction, the opposition is left with three options:

1) Persist with their efforts despite the resistance. This presumably will make their efforts riskier and will potentially slow things down.
2) Decide that the risk isn't worth it and decide to go exploring or something instead.
3) Avoid the resistance altogether by switching to Solo.

Options 1 and 2 will surely have the desired effect on the outcome of the goal. But having option 3 available (while still pursuing the same goals) completely nullifies the efforts of those in Open. I don't see how that is fair.

This specific comment isn't about solutions. I don't know what the solution is or even if there can be one. I'm more inclined to think that it is something the Open players will just have to learn to live with.

But please stop suggesting that there isn't a problem, because to some there clearly is.