"I never said it would impede packet analysis, however I believe seeing only one packet coming and going would be much easier to analyse than a bunch of them. Simple logic."
Laugh, yes you did not write"impede", and I didn't quote you doing so, and you now write, it's "simple logic" analysis of just a single packet is "much easier".
Well, one definition of "impede" is "retard". For example, I might say walking through mud may impede your progress, i.e. more difficult or not as easy? So, I don't think the word "impede" is way off the mark.
As to your it's "simple logic" examination of having only a single is "much easier", well, okay, we might also say beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If only having one packet to examine makes it easier, for you, that's fine! Learning the basics lays the foundation for follow-up learning.
I'll note, likely as you learn the contents of a packet, you may want to see a series of related packets, to see how packet contents change. When you really learn more about packets, you may then discover what a series of related packets show us is often more important than the contents of any one packet. There are good reasons why ping defaults to sending multiple packets. (Don't misunderstand, there's nothing wrong with you only wanting to receive a single packet, for analysis, but, soon [?], you should learn to work with receiving multiple packets.)
Hopefully, from @Martin L post, you now know how to have ping, in PT, send the number of packets you desire.
Similarly, besides learning how to vary the number of packets ping sends, you should learn about ping's many other options, which can be very useful for network trouble shooting, with or without packet captures.
