I get what you're saying, but with that being said, I think the risks can be mitigated more than what people might otherwise be aware of just going about playing the game for what it has to offer. Not always completely though, and for me at least, the frivolous rebuy gameplay isn't worth it, so I do what I can. It's a bit of a tangent though, and I don't mean to take away from the thread. As you may have noted, I agree with the sentiment regarding NPCs anyway. It does seem like a bit of a double standard, even to me. That's the main point I was trying to get across.
Cheers.
The known risks in Elite can certainly be mitigated to some extent, for example, when I train my SLF pilots I do so in a HighRES and not a CZ because the CZ spawns are much less predictable. However if you want to use the SLF pilots for all types of combat, including CZ, you need to accept that certain risks can only be reduced to a certain extent. You really have no control over whether you'll experience a "lopsided" CZ spawn where suddenly waves of enemies surround you without anyone else to target, and with swarms of railgun Eagles that can take down a ship very quickly. Since I don't want to lose my SLF pilot from routine training I try to minimize the risks whenever possible but that means I'm intentionally avoiding certain types of combat.
That's the core issue here, this means that I'll be reluctant to take my SLF pilot to a CZ at all. For the Krait, which is currently my main ship, an SLF isn't mandatory and is probably equivalent to another class 3 hardpoint. It's certainly a significant part of the Krait's offensive abilities but it's not so important that the ship absolutely needs to have an SLF to be viable in combat. However if I'm not using an SLF then a major benefit of flying the Krait is lost, it's really one of the ship's best features. Effectively the only way to avoid certain risks associated with an SLF pilot is to literally not play the game. That's my issue here, if the risk/reward ratio is so imbalanced to the point that an SLF pilot is a massive investment in time and credits compared to the firepower it adds to your ship, then FD has gotten that part of game balance wrong. Can I still take that risk? Sure, but it's not a good "deal" at all in terms of what I'm getting for risking a pilot that requires a 24 hour grind (at Deadly) to train. For FD to set up a massive grind and then include such a harsh penalty for actually taking your SLF pilot into combat is a little absurd, given that the entire point of the SLF pilot is to take them with you into risky combat situations.
Incidentally there are real-world examples of this type of issue where the risk/benefit ratio becomes imbalanced to the point that an intended combat role isn't worthwhie. The best military example is probably the Mi-24 helicopter gunship which was designed as a hybrid assault/transport helicopter. In theory it sounded like a good idea to be able to carry a heavy weapons load, heavy armor and 8 troops into a combat zone. In practice however it didn't work out well because the troop compartment wasn't heavily armored like the cockpit was and the troops were a major distraction for the pilot who had to constantly consider how to best protect them. In practice the Mi-24 couldn't be used anywhere near as aggressively as intended in the assault transport role because the risk/benefit ratio for having troops carried by the assault helicopters directly wasn't worthwhile for what it added. Eventually they started carrying the troops in dedicated troop transports that such as the Mi-17 that were less heavily armed and armored but could focus entirely on the troop transport role after the heavily-armed Mi-24s cleared the landing area. The cargo space of the Mi-24 was instead used to carry additional ammunition for missiles/rockets which could be reloaded in the field, along with a door gunner who could provide suppressive fire using a door-mounted machinegun and cover the Mi-24's flanks. Effectively what sounded like a good idea on paper was just not useful because the risk to the carried troops wasn't proportional to the benefit of combining both roles.
That is basically what FD has given us with the current version of the SLF game mechanics. It sounds like a good idea in theory but the risk for brining a highly-trained SLF pilot into combat is just not worthwhile for the benefit it provides. Unfortunately unlike the Mi-24 we don't have any other alternatives if we decide not use the SLFs. The Mi-24 could carry other useful payloads but we don't necessarily have another "better" use for the SLF bay because it is a core feature on many ships that is part of their expected offensive capabilities. We can't replace the bay with another class 3 hardpoint and maintain the ship's overall offensive capability, we just lose the dps if we don't bring an SLF. I don't think that the design goal for the SLF pilots was to have such a high "cost" associated with them because really they are nowhere near a proper risk/benefit ratio right now.
