I don’t think continuing on the tracks of the definition of NPCs is going to derail this thread any more than it already is.
No, these posts are about asking you to stop applying your interpretations to everyone else. The common definitions of an NPC is not consistent with your usage. It’s OK for you to hold a different interpretation of NPC, but it’s not OK to derail a thread by forcing your interpretation on everyone else. 100 posts could have been avoided with ‘I consider NPC to cover all actions taken by the computer sans immediately preceding playing input, so I would consider this an NPC mechanic. In that context, X and Y apply. Within that context, what are your arguments?’
Definitions with different interpretations based on context? Heresy!
A definition is set in stone and is either right or wrong, everyone knows that.
2 Likes
Which is off-topic, thus derailing
then you have to prove it.
YOU are not the reference of what is “common”
But doing that, YOU are the done derailing the thread while asking not to do so.
No, a definition with different interpretation in the same context : it is ambiguous and need to be fixed in the context, else it leads to absurd arguments.
calling a tomato a potato is helpful in a discussion because ?
No, you can’t change the definitions in order to make them fit your argument. Because then anybody can change definitions as they see fit and literally definitions and terms are useless.
Wikipedia - Non-Player Character:
A non-player character (NPC ) is any character in a game which is not controlled by a player.
Wikipedia - Character:
In fiction, a character (sometimes known as a fictional character ) is a person or other being in a narrative (such as a novel, play, television series, film, or video game).
A structure is by no definition a person or being.
Don’t care for Wikipedia?
The Free Dictionary, Techopedia, TV Tropes, and Dictionary.com agree with Wikipedia on what a non-player character is.
Definition of character from Oxford Languages:
- a person in a novel, play, or movie.
From Merriam-Webster:
- a. one of the persons of a drama or novel
d. PERSON, INDIVIDUAL
Cambridge Dictionary:
B1: a person represented in a movie, play, or story:
C2: a person, especially when you are describing a particular quality that they have
1 Like
This is exactly what you did. You changed ‘character’ to apply to objects, not people.
An NPC faction is a group of non-player characters. A PC corporation is a group of players’ characters.
An NPC ship is a ship piloted by a non-player character. A PC ship is a ship piloted by a player’s character.
An NPC station is an asset owned by a non-player character. A PC structure is an asset owned by a player’s character.
1 Like
THEN concord (and its drones) is not a NPC either by this definition, WHICH is exactly what I started by pointing out ; rats are not NPC either by this definition, and actually the only NPC in space are the agents.
But since in Eve people consider that rats ARE NPCs, then you need to use the OTHER definition :
A game character is a person or any other entity acting in a game.
And here to make rats or concord be considered as NPC, then you need to accept “any entity acting” as a definition of “player” in a video game.
Funnily enough, the definition that YOU use are not actually correct, but the definition that I used are not only correct but also the only one correct. Just like I wrote at the beginning. And for the reason I explained at the beginning.
Don’t like wikipedia ?
Then
the aggregate of features and traits that form the individual nature of some person or thing.
Video games
See also: Video game bot, Mob (gaming), and Boss (video gaming)
The term non-player character is also used in video games to describe entities not under the direct control of a player.
emphasis are mine.
So no, a video game character is not the same thing as a fiction character.
No, I do not need to accept that. I don’t see why ‘any entity acting’ should be seen as character just because I see ships as characters.
In EVE, players are represented by ships. As such, ships are the ‘characters’ in this game and non-player ships such as CONCORD or pirate ships are therefore the non-player characters in this game.
That does not necessarily mean that other objects in space, like stations, are also automatically considered characters.
When we refer to ships as antropomorphic ‘characters’, it would be strange to see the housing of those characters as characters too, don’t you think?
Unless you want to use that definition in the context of this discussion, so that we all know that we are talking about the same thing.
But one definition does not automatically follow from another. Definitions are made and used by people within a context. And definitions can change during a discussion.
If people simply all use their own different definitions ‘because this dictionary says this and I interpret it like such and such’, then you can have endless useless discussions as this thread has shown.
Player owned structures are NPC. 
All I got from all of this is some players feel like they are being taunted because the ship didn’t dock up and instead tethered.
Because the other definition, that consider only “person”, are wrong. That’s just logic. If you consider that a definition is a list of possible interpretations, and all but one interpretation are invalid in a context, then the last one is necessarily the one to use.
no.
As such, PC are ships. That’s all.
No.
Rats are not ships, they are “entities”. Ships are only PC. A NPC can’t board a ship (for now…)
NPC structures, which are structures, are also NPC. example diamond sotiyo is a structure just as your sotiyo is a structure ; fobs are structures just as your citadels. The main difference is that your sotiyo needs to be manned to neutralize someone, though it does not to point aggressors. So your Sotiyo is an NPC that can be partially controlled.
Exactly, as I wrote already several times but you are still forgetting it, to be a character in a video game you need to take actions.
Stations, which don’t take actions, are not character.
Veldspar, or WH, are not character either.
Nobody does that.
no.
No, we have this because you don’t know what an NPC is and you are ignoring all the arguments I made, thus turning in circle and repeating the same things I explained you were wrong before.
They don’t exist.
Player Owned Starbases, and structures, are both NPCs, yes.
Just because you did not realize it before does not mean it’s false. As a player, you can deploy NPCs for your corporation, yes.
I’m a corp of one. So my “structure” is actually me, myself and I. I tell it what to do. Not you. Not CCP. Not Concord.
You forgot the part where I said…
Fail.
2 Likes
I did not forget, I ignored.
Must be nice to able to go through life ignoring facts.
1 Like
You finally looked in a mirror… +1
3 Likes
We have this because you are sticking to your own definition instead of listening to find common understanding.
You use definitions to tell people they are wrong, while you could talk about the definitions to see if both parties are talking about the same thing. If people are using different definitions (which happens a lot!) you can argue all you want using your own definition rather than to listen to the viewpoint of the others, but it will create a situation where people are just talking past eachother.
If your purpose in a discussion is to convince others of your view, I suggest you take a less rigid approach regarding definitions.
If your purposein a discussion is to tell people they are wrong, carry on!
Well I did, in that post.
I was not talking about equivocation.
Equivocation is an informal fallacy because of the ambiguity it creates.
When someone nances a definition by explicitly stating what their interpretation of that definition is, there is no ambiguity, but it may change the idea of that definition in context of the discussion.
However, you usually stick to your old definition instead, creating ambiguity, because now people are all using their own definition rather than talk about the same thing for the sake of the discussion.
Because the other definitions are wrong. Before you told me that “there was other definitions” ■■■■, I already had told you that “then you must admit concord is not NPC”, therefore proving that the other definitions for character are absurd.
You are trying to take turns around the fact that you were wrong. By making personal attacks.
That’s called logic : when a definition does not hold, it’s wrong to use it. Then you can also propose another definition, with adequate proof, but then if it again leads to absurd conclusion you have to admit your definition was wrong.
Which, it was.
If your purpose in a discussion is to exchange your point of view, I suggest you learn to use definitions.
Especially accepting that you were misusing the terms.
and still changing the definition during a discussion is equivocation.
My definition is right and you are wrong.
— Anderson Geten
It’s not about me, it’s about yours leading to absurd conclusion, that is concord is not an NPC or sentry towers not being NPC or diamond sotiyo not being.
It’s about you unable to accept you were wrong even when given the proof.
When your argument leads to a false conclusion, then your argument was wrong. When your whole argument is “definition X holds”, and it leads to absurd, then definition X does not hold.