And yet in the end the explosion is still the same. You’re of the opinion that it’s different and I disagree. In all of your continued babbling I would say you are arguing on flawed logic. Continue to argue your point all you want, but in the end all you have is your opinion and that doesn’t make mine any different because you believe it to be flawed. The intentions don’t change the end result.
Looks to me like you're being deliberately disingenuous.
There *is* a vast difference between player and NPC attacks and either you know this to be true (and are deliberately ignoring it), or you are unaware how NPC engagements are *programmed*. Of the two options it appears to me that the 2nd is less likely, but I cannot clearly state that as a fact. Perhaps you haven't fully analysed the NPC programming...
So let's take a closer look.
1. In the majority of random hostile engagements initiated by NPCs, the NPCs display some modicum of *level matchmaking*. What do I mean by this? Well, a Mostly Harmless Cobra pilot is far less likely to be interdicted and engaged by an Elite Anaconda NPC than a Dangerous Cobra player pilot is. There is some "sportsman-like" pre-emptive programming occurring in the game code to make this happen. It appears to be on a bell curve-like distribution, where the centre of the curve is roughly equivalent to the player "skill and equipment" level.
2. "Hostiles may be sent against you" missions - there is a second level of match-making programming that supercedes item 1. above. The level of the mission has an input into the likely threat level a player will face against NPCs. Choose an Elite level black box retrieval mission and you may be interdicted by a wing of 4 mid-to-high level Vultures. It's in the programming...
Finally, and MOST IMPORTANTLY:
3. The NPC programming is designed in order that the player will have some fun. That's the *intent* of the programmer. (Might be obvious to some readers why this is the case, but clearly this is being disregarded by those that argue about "intent".) A game designer will *always* strive that his game program provides for some FUN.
Now let's look at player engagements by comparison and analyse the differences:
1. I can only say from my own experience, but I'd lay a large wager that the vast, vast, vast majority of player interdiction and random engagements follow the exact same pattern. Namely, that I have *never* been engaged by a player with a lesser combat rank than me, *and* a lesser combat ship type, *and* a lesser combat outfitting than me. Often, it is clear that they also have far superior engineering, and often they are not single CMDRs.
In direct contrast to NPC engagements, the bell curve is positioned so far out of the target player's skill and equipment level that it explicit *intention* of the interdiction player(s) is not to provide any sportsman like chance for their target. This is called *intent*. It is premeditatively intended to be as asymmetric as the hostile player or group can make it.
2. Whereas a player has a level of choice, in mission taking, about the level of resistance that they will face during that mission from NPCs, a human player adversary *intentionally* removes that choice from the player they target. See 1. just above.
Finally, the IMPORTANT part:
3. Whereas the programming intent is for a hostile NPC EVENT to provide FUN for the player being attacked, a player who initiates a hostile event against another CMDR is not doing so for the fun of their target. This can range on a sliding scale from a. my target's fun is of no concern, b. the more of an unfun event that I can make this engagement for my target, the more fun I will have myself. Notice the *intent* ranging from "neutral" to "negative" (malice) , but not having the capacity to swing into "positive" for the targeted player. Even Cari , who comes across as more of a caring type, has written in this thread that she simply doesn't care about her target.
It is therefore, as has been mentioned *several* times previously, very much about the intent of the game's programmers versus the intent of hostile players that makes such a difference to the hostile event itself.
The game programming attempts to provide an enriching experience.
Hostile players, on the other hand, attempt to provide an enriching experience for themselves, often at the direct (and intentional) expense of other players.
Yours Aye
Mark H
This is one of a whole range of reasons why some players prefer PG and Solo instead of frequenting Open.
