Bryce isn't wrong. You're free to imagine some aspect of the game however you like if it isn't set in stone that it has to be something else. However, it helps a lot with immersion if the actual canon itself supports how you're imagining the world to be.

That being said, my preferred way of imagining NPCs are as strong and weak AI. Strong AI are just mind-uploaded versions of what were formerly sapient organic individuals, and so will have names, personalities and communicate among themselves.

If LT is set in a time where ships can bridge the gaps between stars (or universes) in single moments, it's likely that humans and other organics would have long since abandoned their fragile, crappy biological baggage.

I love the strong weak AI split! I just thought that making Strong AI's equal humans and weak AI's equal robots would be an unnecessary limitation on the different ways people could enjoy the game. It just makes sense to me that other human NPCs can work for higher level human NPCs. That's how companies work after all. But hey maybe I'll have a robotic mining fleet when I play! I don't know, but I'd hate to not have to option of making my workers human.

ThymineC wrote:If LT is set in a time where ships can bridge the gaps between stars (or universes) in single moments, it's likely that humans and other organics would have long since abandoned their fragile, crappy biological baggage.

That's an assumption you could make, but I don't see a compelling reason to make it. Pretty much every sci-fi form of FTL is based on a physics-breaking setting conceit, so you can't really make any assumptions about how long it might have taken to achieve that tech; let alone use that as a basis to suggest that every society will decide to destructively copy their brain patterns to a computer.

Regardless, I don't think it'll matter. Not even much point in specifying whether workers are AI or just boring people unless its' adding something to the game.

It doesn't really matter if it's just a question of imagination,

I'll be imagining human crew for the workers and bosees personally, with the exception of the specific robot ships with the high initial cost Josh was talking about, I like the idea of using an army of robots and drones for my Pirate\Criminal\Muwhaha save.

But I'd prefer human crew in a big war or working for my Ultra-Mega-Corp, makes it more dramatic you know?

I guess everyone can just think what they want to think, pleases everyone then.

I'd like both, and the ability to sell, both. In a game where freedom of choice and lifestyle is encouraged, I want to be a Bounty Hunter with lack of conscience who does whatever he needs for survival, with luxuries from time to time. As for immersion, it makes some nice diversity having a mix, maybe humans for policing, patrols and running freight in dangerous sectors or periods of time, and androids for menial tasks like mining, salvage and running freight in peaceful sectors or periods of time?

Jamiee5300 wrote:It doesn't really matter if it's just a question of imagination,
[...]
I guess everyone can just think what they want to think, pleases everyone then.

It's not just a question of imagination, though. It wouldn't make sense to imagine everyone as being an android or a computer program if the game requires ships to maintain ample supplies of food, for instance.

Revoke wrote:Not even much point in specifying whether workers are AI or just boring people unless its' adding something to the game.

It is.

The distinction doesn't need to be made. Even/Because if you ship food there's no reason a drone couldn't eat for its energy source.

Katawa wrote:The distinction doesn't need to be made. Even/Because if you ship food there's no reason a drone couldn't eat for its energy source.

Sure but that doesn't seem very plausible. Digesting food is an inefficient way of keeping something powered.

ThymineC wrote:

Katawa wrote:The distinction doesn't need to be made. Even/Because if you ship food there's no reason a drone couldn't eat for its energy source.

Sure but that doesn't seem very plausible. Digesting food is an inefficient way of keeping something powered.

you could give them rum and sugar, relatively lots of energy in there to burn

ThymineC wrote:Sure but that doesn't seem very plausible. Digesting food is an inefficient way of keeping something powered.

The process doesn't need to be explicit either. It's only not plausible to you because you're imagining a robot eating scrambled eggs. It could just as easily be taking in uranium pellets. Or using the carbon content to manufacture self-repair product.

Humans, with some robots for some tasks thrown in. Due to us being humans, it's easier to sympathise with something that at least pretends to play a role of a living being. Of course, no faces is a bit problematic...on the other hand, I've seen facial features generation in a lot of games; maybe at some point in the future Josh will have a great idea to make some sort of face-generation algorithm? It doesn't have to be in HD and it doesn't have to be coloured - just a semi-transparent outline with some static will suffice (I know it was discussed before! But my faith in Josh is strong!).

Some tasks (boring ones) can be performed by drones...maybe, then we'll have the tech to make more intelligent drones...and then even more intelligent, capable of performing tasks such as trading, piloting ships and combat...and then they won't like the idea of working for us petty carbon-based lifeforms....you know where I am going here, right? If we allow transition from weak AI to strong AI via research we have all the seeds for machine uprising! Won't it be great?