Alright I'm gonna do some writing analysis here and then get back onto topic.
So in one of your posts here in this thread, just before the drama started.
You said this, I'm gonna pull some relevant word choices here that demonstrate what people are talking about when they say you do this thing where you start out going hard, and then try and walk it back and call it exactly the same.
Just gonna go through and highlight with italics words that come off as confrontational in bold, or demeaning of groups of players in italics. with the reasoning in brackets.
There is a subset of archetypes (techies, mechanics, doctors, and to an extent deckers) that attract players with a certain attitude(Sounds disparaging, like you're saying they are less than for this certain attitude) - namely that they should be able to(Directly saying something for someone) take on a passive role that will feed them chores and RP.(The use of the words chores and feed here indicate's a vocal disdain.)
I think a lot of ideas that have been presented on this topic either
1) Devalue the investments of active, successful characters by introducing risks or upkeep costs to vehicles which are already some of the most expensive things in the game
2) Create an additional reliance on player characters in service roles without those characters having done anything to earn it( a good way to avoid this sounding demeaning would be to couch it in a feeling descriptor. As to say that these people don't earn it, denies the reality of the RP they do. Saying you feel they haven't earned it however, means that it's not a statement of fact but instead what you are feeling.)
#2 in particular can be really irritating.(Explicit statement of irritation. Tends to draw peoples own feelings up.) Characters in these passive roles frequently get pulled into the network of one faction or another and can become unusable to everyone else. Anyone who's had to wait for an NPC cyberdoc because the two PC docs in their sector are either untrustworthy or inactive knows that this is less than ideal.(This whole statement also comes off as a bit elitist. It's essentially stating, "If you've experienced this, you'd know, " rather than explaining a way to solve the problem, it's not a constructive critique)
More interesting ideas I think would focus on creating longer-term aspirations for these characters and ways for them to use their skills that go beyond creating maintenance chores.(Once again chores. Bad word choice.) Collecting the parts to build stuff from the ground up, more meaningful interactions with vehicles that would make things like aluminum panels or bulletproof windows attractive, that kinda thing.
Now I'm going to do the same to your recent post.
Now that that's out of the way...(Sarcastic quip can enflame tensions)
The difference I'm talking about between passive RP and active RP is whether you are creating work for others or whether work is being created for you by game systems. Any role in the game has some element of the latter. If you're a doctor, people come in for treatment. If you work at a bar, people come in and order drinks. That's all fine and can open the door to plenty of RP, but it rarely creates RP.
Sitting around waiting for someone to crash so you can fix their car is passive. This is a fine thing to do and nobody should hassle you for it, but I think everyone would have more fun with suggestions that gave car owners and mechanics positive things to be proactive about, rather than negative things they need to do chores to fix.
Thus my vote for better positive incentives for souped up cars. If I could bash out a window and drag someone from their car or shoot them through the windshield, they'd probably be really excited to get bulletproof glass installed and they'd love their mechanic for doing it. If mechanics could fine-tune parts and if performance was more granular, that'd also be dandy. The stuff I was downvoting was like, automatic wear and tear just to force people to visit mechanics more often.
You had one line that felt like you were confronting people to me. And the rest was stated respectfully and in a non-confrontational way.
To call it the same done is, externally, disingenuous but if you cannot see the difference when contrasting these two posts, I may have some reading material to suggest for you, if I can find it again.
I'd boil it down to a simple maxim, but ultimately, introspection about this kinda stuff as you are actively writing, IS harder than looking at after the fact... Hindsight is 20:20 after all. And I'm the last person to claim any kind of moral or philosophical superiority in this type of stuff. It takes me an amount of effort and two or three rewrites of almost every sentence as I'm writing it. Careful consideration, and sometimes speaking the sentence out to try and get if it will be considered poorly.
That being said I'm going to return to the topic at hand as I've belabored politely explaining this point enough.
I think proactivity is a good thing. And that riding motorcycles in general should be harder than driving cars in general. I don't know if that's the case or not now though. So I could be bitching about nothing. I also think there should be a "smart car" equivalent that costs about as much as a lower tier bike... Maybe as much as the second most expensive one. Just to kind of... Get cars to have an equal low tier option to bikes. I know mono's exist, so maybe adjusting their price down a little bit might allow more of them to be seen? I dunno.