Return to “Polls”

Should the player be able to serve as a crew member aboard an NPC vessel?

Yes
Total votes: 28 (32%)
No
Total votes: 59 (67%)
Other (please specify)
Total votes: 1 (1%)
Total votes: 88
Post

Re: Crew Mechanics Parity

#2
managing things aboard ships
(energy management, supply duty on board of an carrier, trade assignements aboard a trade stations)
can be fun if they are deeply implemented.

but things that are barely worth an IC to manage
(fire control of single turrets, managing reactor output)
or things that need to be abstracted away because of the scope of the game
(research for example)
should not be implemented for the player.
i confess that turret control is a bit of an edge case here, but at least i dont want to sit in an NPC freighter in secure areas manning an turret
Post

Re: Crew Mechanics Parity

#8
I just don't know how well that would work out if the player, for example, was a gunner on a ship. Okay...so you sit in your spot or watch the ship in a 3rd person view as it goes from Point A to Point B. Unless the game spawns pirates all of the time to be targets for you, I think it would be so boring I would cry. You would have no control over what you do.

Now, if this was LT 2.0 (or years in the future) where our player can wander through the ship interior as a tiny little speck in the universe, I think it would be awesome. You could have your own quarters on a ship with other NPCs, and then there might be random encounters (maybe in the procedural universe, there are pirates who are looking for a quick buck). Alarms would flash, you could be anywhere on the ship and have to race to your station. You could man a turret to defend the ship and possibly have to repel enemies trying to board the ship. If you fail to defend the ship, you might be captured as a slave for pirates, be ransomed by a 'friend' (or someone who you will owe a lot of money to), or even be...DEAD. Right now, I don't think LT would be able to make being even less than a pilot as fun IMO. There are no ship or station interiors to give you something else to do or look at if you are not piloting the ship as well.

Now, I haven't read the other topic that brought up this poll, so I might have rehashed the same things or completely missed a huge argument that makes all of my arguments null and void. So...my apologies.

Random squirrel :squirrel:

EDIT - Glanced over it quickly.

"I think being crew should be as fun as being the pilot, and if that can't be accomplished, crew should not exist."

^That. Pilot can: Fly around a procedural universe, shoot things, trade, build, etc. A crew member doesn't own his own ship...therefore, technically if he didn't have his own ship he couldn't do anything on his own...which the game basically hinges on the fact that you can go wherever you want, do whatever you want, however you want...without you being hindered by not having your own ship to control.

If you voluntarily want to not fly your own ship...well...fuck...I don't what you would be doing then.
Image "Everyone needs to have their avatar's edited to have afros." -Charley Deallus
Post

Re: Crew Mechanics Parity

#9
While I can see the appeal of something like this, I don't care for something like this in LT.

As well, for some reason the idea reminds me a little too much of Battlecruiser 3000AD.
Image
Early Spring - 1055: Well, I made it to Boatmurdered, and my initial impressions can be set forth in three words: What. The. F*ck.
Post

Re: Crew Mechanics Parity

#11
cross-posting from here because there its getting kinda off-topic
Cornflakes_91 wrote:
Neandertal wrote:IMHO Player = NPC ≠ Crew

There should be a distinct difference between the Captain(Player/NPC) and the rest of the crew.
why?
McDuff wrote:Because fun, and because computation costs.
i kinda agree with computational costs, but i think that NPC's can be toned down to very little computational costs when they are used as crew.

i dont agree with fun, as with enough abstraction tools they become nothing more than numbers if i decide them to be nothing more than numbers.

to illustrate that:
when i only have a few NPC's as crew or wingman i'd like them to be somebody, not just abstract numbers with some tag in front
so that i have gann pace from the free systems alliance with stats [blabla] sitting in my back turret.

when i get more employees i simply "zoom out" and view them only by general filtered criterias
so that i only see people with engineering above 20 when im searching for chief engineers for my flotilla.

when im managing lots and lots of NPC's i simply zoom further out and do see only numbers
20 chief engineers [2000cr/hr]
200 engineers [1500cr/hr]
etc..
and just define crew assignement patterns for ship classes,
by using something like gazz' Joint Node TOE's implemented it would come for free to include crew management
Post

Re: Crew Mechanics Parity

#12
I want to say yes. That would be an interesting game: start as a lowly ensign and work your way up to flag rank.

But I think the answer must be no unless "crew mechanics" will be more detailed than 1 NPC/robot ship commander + N simulated crew.

I'd actually like it to be more in-depth than that. I just don't want to get my hopes up on that score with so many other features that need to be programmed and tested....
Post

Re: Crew Mechanics Parity

#15
Cornflakes_91 wrote:
Behemoth wrote:Let me refer to the dev log, where crew was announced. It clearly says NPC = Crew.
Thereby: Player = NPC, NPC = Crew, so Player = Crew.
altough it does not state: "i will force this principle even through the deepest circles of the hell of no-fun to adhere to the player=npc"
Firts NPC mean Non-Player-Character and I don't think it should be taken to literally.

My feeling it the the Player is a Captain and NPC (as being used in this forum) is also a Captain. Crew needs to be distinct and I don't see them as being the same as the Player Captain = NPC Captain.

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

cron