My personal experience differs from the OP's
Full disclosure: I'm broadly an explorer and enjoy finding my own way. I have participated in a BGS and powerplay. I dont actively engage in much combat but I have bounty hunted and done some combat missions. I now mostly fly in solo/PG.
If I am flying around doing regular stuff then being attacked because i'm on the other side in a BGS contest is 'one of those things'... mostly.
The issue for me has two interconnected elements
1) Motive - every action begins with a motivation. A reason why somebody wants to do something. In my first examples they do it because we are on opposite sides. I signed up to pick a side on the BGS. Even if I am pirated the pirate is motivated by an immersion reason - He wants my cargo, and I put myself in a place where he can get it. However with players the motivation can be outside of immersion. Random acts of violence that serve no purpose other than to 'ruin my day' and 'because I can.'
2) Risks and consequences - every choice to do something is a balance of risks and consequences. Societies exist because we all understand and except the risks and consequences of our actions. "eat your greens or you can't have dessert" to "if you kill someone you will lose your freedom." When I fly into a system on BGS business I accept the risk that I may be attacked. I also accept therefore that the consequences of me losing might be a loss of cargo or a rebuy. I use those consequences to make my choice. The same is true for someone attacking me. However the risk of an engineered anaconda or corvette being brought down by my ASP, Type6, Dolphin or Cobra is pretty negligible. So the likelihood of my attacker losing something is small. Likewise the loss is small. 5% of ship value is pretty negligible. So the attacker has great freedom in his choices.
So in reality he isn't playing the same risk and consequence game I am. Oddly his gains are not high either. What does he get for killing me? 1 kill (irrelevant if he's already combat elite), fun, personal satisfaction. (see motive above). In my experience, a player confident enough in his skills and ship to interdict you is going to be better than most NPCs. Significantly better. He is choosing to make the attack in most cases will choose to do so when he thinks his consequences will be lowest.
The balancing act to these risks and consequences in our society is the judicial system. It provides a risk of capture and significant consequences if the rules of that society are broken. "no dessert" is a serious consequence when you are 6, jail is a serious consequence when you are 36. However all game worlds struggle to implement a judicial system (C&P in elite) that balances the risk/consequence to reduce/eliminate unwanted actions whilst balancing the fun element for those that want to follow a criminal career path.
The reality is that game designers have to balance two utterly opposing views - both of whom are their customers and paid the same for the game. It's impossible to solve in a way that satisfies everyone.
(my personal view is C&P is too soft in high security systems and too strong in low ones. Make highly populated and high security systems near impossible to be abd guy in but make low security systems genuinely dangerous with a real frontier feel. Ship rebuy should be much harder as a deterrent - loss of modules, data mats etc. (same as exploration data) ... anyway I digress)
I have absolutely no argument with those who want to a criminal style of game play. I can imagine its a lot of fun. But isn't the point of being a criminal to be involved in high risk activities and... not get caught? Isn't evading the law, living on the edge of society, fearing the policeman knocking on your door part of that gameplay. Holing up in an anarchy outpost and dominating the local space, building reputation as a master scumbag and making everyone scared to enter your system? Not, hanging around in high security busy systems playing whack-a-mole as ships come out of wake fighting the police, rebuying your ship, paying off a fine and coming back the following day to do it all again? Your fun should not equal dozens of other players pain in the .
So back to answering the OP's question - does NPC/PC matter?
Yes and No.
No, because most people are simply decent human beings that enjoy playing computer games and shooting people. I get shot because we are on competing sides of a conflict or have differing in-game objectives then that's all part of the game I cchoose to play. But some of the players are also sad griefing little bunnies that needed more hugs when they were younger.
NPC's only ever have in-game motivation. Players can have motivation which is just 'i want to screw you up and i have nothing to lose'. NPC's will 'do their job' and kill you or demand cargo and then be on their way. They don't have the ability to show up and attack over nd over again because the grief gets them off.
NPC's (through game design) tend to be set as a reasonable challenge against your current ability. PC's tend to target fights they can win so as the 'defender' you are more than likely going to be at a significant disadvantage. For the attacking PC there is very little in the way of risk and consequence.
----------
As an aside the funniest conversation I have had with an aggressive griefer went something like this..
He waited around in the system I was working BGS in on and off for days after that. So i flew solo.
However my personal worst experience and the one that pushed me almost solely into Solo was dropping into Open just so i could take pictures with a fellow explorer at Sag A* after a couple of months of exploration and having an Elite anaconda arrive and destroy two completely unarmed vessels because "exploration is for losers - go learn how to fly." (Mixed with many expletives). I lost several hundred million credits of exploration data and dozens of first tagged, and his view was 'Its boring flying back, i'll just suicide'. So my loss - several hundred million and 2 months playtime. His gain... ? personal satisfaction....?
Interestingly Exploration data is the ONLY asset other than credits and cargo which you can lose permanently. Even credits your loss is limited to 5% of ship value and cargo is limited to your ship hold. Every other asset is replaced on re-buy. If you fly cargo then even on a long range mission you probably have it in your hold for an hour, so a loss of a shipment is annoying but kind of replaceable (even if it means you fail one mission). But a long exploration might have weeks and months of valuable data.
So the most vulnerable game asset is the one that tends to take the greatest investment of time to find, isn't replaceable, can't be traded in regularly and yet is sought by those least able to protect it. yet those who regularly put their ships into high risk environments like combat get a safety net that limits any loss to just 5% of value ...
That's when you'll find this explorer getting salty at getting griefed. Hence Solo.
EDITED TO ADD : For completenes I should add that a crew member is another asset you can lose permanently. However you can replace them at most stations and the credit sums are relatively small, although the time spent training them up is lost.
Full disclosure: I'm broadly an explorer and enjoy finding my own way. I have participated in a BGS and powerplay. I dont actively engage in much combat but I have bounty hunted and done some combat missions. I now mostly fly in solo/PG.
If I am flying around doing regular stuff then being attacked because i'm on the other side in a BGS contest is 'one of those things'... mostly.
The issue for me has two interconnected elements
1) Motive - every action begins with a motivation. A reason why somebody wants to do something. In my first examples they do it because we are on opposite sides. I signed up to pick a side on the BGS. Even if I am pirated the pirate is motivated by an immersion reason - He wants my cargo, and I put myself in a place where he can get it. However with players the motivation can be outside of immersion. Random acts of violence that serve no purpose other than to 'ruin my day' and 'because I can.'
2) Risks and consequences - every choice to do something is a balance of risks and consequences. Societies exist because we all understand and except the risks and consequences of our actions. "eat your greens or you can't have dessert" to "if you kill someone you will lose your freedom." When I fly into a system on BGS business I accept the risk that I may be attacked. I also accept therefore that the consequences of me losing might be a loss of cargo or a rebuy. I use those consequences to make my choice. The same is true for someone attacking me. However the risk of an engineered anaconda or corvette being brought down by my ASP, Type6, Dolphin or Cobra is pretty negligible. So the likelihood of my attacker losing something is small. Likewise the loss is small. 5% of ship value is pretty negligible. So the attacker has great freedom in his choices.
So in reality he isn't playing the same risk and consequence game I am. Oddly his gains are not high either. What does he get for killing me? 1 kill (irrelevant if he's already combat elite), fun, personal satisfaction. (see motive above). In my experience, a player confident enough in his skills and ship to interdict you is going to be better than most NPCs. Significantly better. He is choosing to make the attack in most cases will choose to do so when he thinks his consequences will be lowest.
The balancing act to these risks and consequences in our society is the judicial system. It provides a risk of capture and significant consequences if the rules of that society are broken. "no dessert" is a serious consequence when you are 6, jail is a serious consequence when you are 36. However all game worlds struggle to implement a judicial system (C&P in elite) that balances the risk/consequence to reduce/eliminate unwanted actions whilst balancing the fun element for those that want to follow a criminal career path.
The reality is that game designers have to balance two utterly opposing views - both of whom are their customers and paid the same for the game. It's impossible to solve in a way that satisfies everyone.
(my personal view is C&P is too soft in high security systems and too strong in low ones. Make highly populated and high security systems near impossible to be abd guy in but make low security systems genuinely dangerous with a real frontier feel. Ship rebuy should be much harder as a deterrent - loss of modules, data mats etc. (same as exploration data) ... anyway I digress)
I have absolutely no argument with those who want to a criminal style of game play. I can imagine its a lot of fun. But isn't the point of being a criminal to be involved in high risk activities and... not get caught? Isn't evading the law, living on the edge of society, fearing the policeman knocking on your door part of that gameplay. Holing up in an anarchy outpost and dominating the local space, building reputation as a master scumbag and making everyone scared to enter your system? Not, hanging around in high security busy systems playing whack-a-mole as ships come out of wake fighting the police, rebuying your ship, paying off a fine and coming back the following day to do it all again? Your fun should not equal dozens of other players pain in the .
So back to answering the OP's question - does NPC/PC matter?
Yes and No.
No, because most people are simply decent human beings that enjoy playing computer games and shooting people. I get shot because we are on competing sides of a conflict or have differing in-game objectives then that's all part of the game I cchoose to play. But some of the players are also sad griefing little bunnies that needed more hugs when they were younger.
NPC's only ever have in-game motivation. Players can have motivation which is just 'i want to screw you up and i have nothing to lose'. NPC's will 'do their job' and kill you or demand cargo and then be on their way. They don't have the ability to show up and attack over nd over again because the grief gets them off.
NPC's (through game design) tend to be set as a reasonable challenge against your current ability. PC's tend to target fights they can win so as the 'defender' you are more than likely going to be at a significant disadvantage. For the attacking PC there is very little in the way of risk and consequence.
----------
As an aside the funniest conversation I have had with an aggressive griefer went something like this..
- ME (flying a type 6) "Hi, did you enjoy those 2 minutes of shooting fish in a barrel?"
- HIM (flying a conda) "Don't give me that . This ship cost me a billion credits, that's 50m every rebuy. Do you understand how many of you (insert personal insult here) I have to kill to make enough money to get a rebuy?"
- ME "Do you get killed often?"
- HIM "Never - I'm far too good a pilot Elite see... not like you Mostly Harmless hahaha."
- ME "So, you are killing people to get funds to cover a rebuy you don't need because you are not at risk of losing?"
- HIM "expletive, expletive, something about getting good, expletive"
He waited around in the system I was working BGS in on and off for days after that. So i flew solo.
However my personal worst experience and the one that pushed me almost solely into Solo was dropping into Open just so i could take pictures with a fellow explorer at Sag A* after a couple of months of exploration and having an Elite anaconda arrive and destroy two completely unarmed vessels because "exploration is for losers - go learn how to fly." (Mixed with many expletives). I lost several hundred million credits of exploration data and dozens of first tagged, and his view was 'Its boring flying back, i'll just suicide'. So my loss - several hundred million and 2 months playtime. His gain... ? personal satisfaction....?
Interestingly Exploration data is the ONLY asset other than credits and cargo which you can lose permanently. Even credits your loss is limited to 5% of ship value and cargo is limited to your ship hold. Every other asset is replaced on re-buy. If you fly cargo then even on a long range mission you probably have it in your hold for an hour, so a loss of a shipment is annoying but kind of replaceable (even if it means you fail one mission). But a long exploration might have weeks and months of valuable data.
So the most vulnerable game asset is the one that tends to take the greatest investment of time to find, isn't replaceable, can't be traded in regularly and yet is sought by those least able to protect it. yet those who regularly put their ships into high risk environments like combat get a safety net that limits any loss to just 5% of value ...
That's when you'll find this explorer getting salty at getting griefed. Hence Solo.
EDITED TO ADD : For completenes I should add that a crew member is another asset you can lose permanently. However you can replace them at most stations and the credit sums are relatively small, although the time spent training them up is lost.
Last edited:
