A manifesto on crewability

[Ciggofwar]

This going back to the 2004(ish) era.

When SWG launched JTL there was lots of groups going out to battle to get there ace pilot, in POB ship's. As a gunner was also a great way to gain XP to level up for the next tier relative quickly, they also had a paid crew or paying others to mine from the mining ship as a new player was a great way to fund your self.
Galactic conquest had some great moded versions of space and ground assaults based from the battlefield series one of the best was Hoth with the AT-AT's had a side door that also acted as a shooting platform had seating and ropes to get in and out, It walk and moved that was really cool had tons of fire power and had various roles which to play from, had the tow cables on the snow speeders shot from the gunners position in the rear, every one had a role to play with lots of utilities and toys to play with.
In space they had the boarding of Corillian Corvette, they had the Death Star run and sized to realism with turbo turret cannons, was a little funny from the X-wing, as you had to free-fall towards the base of the death star in the start to begin the run.
They also had a fleet battle, piloting the main capital titan size ships and flying fighters right from the hanger, operating the turrets. sending crews over to take out the enemy team. They had quite a few various scenario's from the movies in there, with various roles to pick from to support your team.

In my opinion much better than the crap your getting today of trying to spoon your wallet for the pay to win crap games as sugar coated games of the past being that this 2015.

This what I adore about Starmade is making your own version or design, of what you want in your own space, a massive expansive of space to play in.

 

[ResonKinetic]

manual control over the entirety of a ship's functions should be optional via the captain's chair (or one of several captain's chairs that give players control over a ship), while a crew can manage individual ship functions from individual stations (with CHAIRS), thus allowing relatively smart NPCs (for automated navigation to long-distance locations or things like that) or experienced players to devote their attention to evasive movement and combat with surrounding enemies.

 

[Snk]

This going back to the 2004(ish) era.

When SWG launched JTL there was lots of groups going out to battle to get there ace pilot, in POB ship's. As a gunner was also a great way to gain XP to level up for the next tier relative quickly, they also had a paid crew or paying others to mine from the mining ship as a new player was a great way to fund your self.
Galactic conquest had some great moded versions of space and ground assaults based from the battlefield series one of the best was Hoth with the AT-AT's had a side door that also acted as a shooting platform had seating and ropes to get in and out, It walk and moved that was really cool had tons of fire power and had various roles which to play from, had the tow cables on the snow speeders shot from the gunners position in the rear, every one had a role to play with lots of utilities and toys to play with.
In space they had the boarding of Corillian Corvette, they had the Death Star run and sized to realism with turbo turret cannons, was a little funny from the X-wing, as you had to free-fall towards the base of the death star in the start to begin the run.
They also had a fleet battle, piloting the main capital titan size ships and flying fighters right from the hanger, operating the turrets. sending crews over to take out the enemy team. They had quite a few various scenario's from the movies in there, with various roles to pick from to support your team.

In my opinion much better than the crap your getting today of trying to spoon your wallet for the pay to win crap games as sugar coated games of the past being that this 2015.

This what I adore about Starmade is making your own version or design, of what you want in your own space, a massive expansive of space to play in.

The only game I play from that era is Battlefield 1942. They all sound like great games, I should play them sometime.

 

[incorruptable]

I have one major problem with the idea of crewability as presented. This game isn't purely multiplayer. Some people might not be playing on servers and might still just be playing on Sandbox mode/single player. The developers have to design around both and not make the game require pure multiplayer to be fully playable or to be the best experience. Then you have to deal with how some players might want to be lone wolf like people. They don't want to deal with others on such a level of cooperation, and this basically punishes them if they choose to use AI crew to boost their ship (as in this, players give a better boost). The idea is sound, but there's already this bonus to having players manning a turret. Better accuracy, target prioritization is better by players, etc. Right now, the way I see the idea is that it over complicates a game that is already both simple and complex.

 

[ltmauve]

Some people might not be playing on servers and might still just be playing on Sandbox mode/single player

All the systems released in the past few updates have seperate configs. Someone playing on singleplayer would be able to adjust the crewing config to make it work for them.

 

[Snk]

I have one major problem with the idea of crewability as presented. This game isn't purely multiplayer. Some people might not be playing on servers and might still just be playing on Sandbox mode/single player. The developers have to design around both and not make the game require pure multiplayer to be fully playable or to be the best experience. Then you have to deal with how some players might want to be lone wolf like people. They don't want to deal with others on such a level of cooperation, and this basically punishes them if they choose to use AI crew to boost their ship (as in this, players give a better boost). The idea is sound, but there's already this bonus to having players manning a turret. Better accuracy, target prioritization is better by players, etc. Right now, the way I see the idea is that it over complicates a game that is already both simple and complex.

As Itmauve said above, you can adjust the config files for it.


However, crewability wouldn't punish you. Current ship builds as of now wouldn't be effected. And a player's boost depends on their skill, so an AI might just beat them. And AI produce a bonus at a flat rate, while a player's would differ depending on his skill levels. The greatest advantage of players is that they are most likely cheaper. And the bonus to players having man a turret is true, but it only works for combat and salvage ships, and only provides something to do when there is combat. Something like having one person control the firing angles of various turrets would be nice - for example, a gunnery officer would be in charge of three turrets, and he could adjust the angle that a turret aims in front of a ship. Using your logic, players shouldn't be able to enter turrets because it puts others at a disadvantage.

Your point that the game shouldn't be harder for someone that doesn't want to take the time to hire crew or build an interior is moot. Someone who takes the time to build an interior and hire and interact with players should get a small bonus, but not enough to easily dominate another vessel. Being a lone wolf should still be viable, but at a disadvantage. Also, this "lone wolf" would benefit from crewability also. He could manage the ship's systems by himself, if he was skilled enough.

It may over complicate the game, and introduce a learning curve. That really isn't a bad thing, though - learning curves make the game a little harder and satisfying. If it was integrated nicely, crewability wouldn't be it's own thing - just another part of the game, like weapon computers or reactors. The tutorial would tell you that if you place an interface computer and link it to a salvage computer, it would display an image of the salvage beam's interior and deposit nanites in certain places to gain a small bonus or whatever. It'd also tell that you could hire an AI to do this for you, and you could go to a university on this planet to learn more about micromanaging your ship. That is really what it is. ((Not micromanaging as in fuel, but as in influencing the smaller parts of your vessel)). It's like saying that reactors shouldn't have separate power designs because it puts new players who don't know that linear reactors produce more energy at a disadvantage.

 

[incorruptable]

As Itmauve said above, you can adjust the config files for it.


However, crewability wouldn't punish you. Current ship builds as of now wouldn't be effected. And a player's boost depends on their skill, so an AI might just beat them. And AI produce a bonus at a flat rate, while a player's would differ depending on his skill levels. The greatest advantage of players is that they are most likely cheaper. And the bonus to players having man a turret is true, but it only works for combat and salvage ships, and only provides something to do when there is combat. Something like having one person control the firing angles of various turrets would be nice - for example, a gunnery officer would be in charge of three turrets, and he could adjust the angle that a turret aims in front of a ship. Using your logic, players shouldn't be able to enter turrets because it puts others at a disadvantage.

If a portion of the config was devoted to adjustment/disabling of these values, then that solves on issue. You bring up me pointing out that my logic says a player shouldn't be able to enter turrets. You are incorrect in your statement. I pointed out that crewed ships already have that advantage. Players in a turret have an advantage over a bobby AI turret. They can track an enemy better and account for more, choose a different target than the one they were firing on at that time to react to changing circumstances, etc.

Your point that the game shouldn't be harder for someone that doesn't want to take the time to hire crew or build an interior is moot. Someone who takes the time to build an interior and hire and interact with players should get a small bonus, but not enough to easily dominate another vessel. Being a lone wolf should still be viable, but at a disadvantage. Also, this "lone wolf" would benefit from crewability also. He could manage the ship's systems by himself, if he was skilled enough.

Being a lone wolf already contains a disadvantage. One man on his own can't get the same resources as easily as someone who is working with players. In what I said, I actually stated that a lone wolf doesn't want to work with PEOPLE, and stated that AI would likely be used instead. From what I'd read, being a lone wolf wouldn't be as viable this way, because other factors aren't fully accounted for. If the lone wolf could benefit from crewability as well, by managing the ship's systems by himself, then that's no longer crewability. That becomes system management. The entire idea, therefore, boils down to adding system management to the game which could be done by a crew or by one person on their own.

It may over complicate the game, and introduce a learning curve. That really isn't a bad thing, though - learning curves make the game a little harder and satisfying. If it was integrated nicely, crewability wouldn't be it's own thing - just another part of the game, like weapon computers or reactors. The tutorial would tell you that if you place an interface computer and link it to a salvage computer, it would display an image of the salvage beam's interior and deposit nanites in certain places to gain a small bonus or whatever. It'd also tell that you could hire an AI to do this for you, and you could go to a university on this planet to learn more about micromanaging your ship. That is really what it is. ((Not micromanaging as in fuel, but as in influencing the smaller parts of your vessel)). It's like saying that reactors shouldn't have separate power designs because it puts new players who don't know that linear reactors produce more energy at a disadvantage.

Learning Curves aren't a bad thing if done right. If a learning curve is too high, however, that can make players quit very fast. If it's too low, it's basically like those phone app games.

Of course crewability wouldn't be it's own thing if it got added. What I'm contesting is the idea of trying to create ships that more or less only work at top performance if the player spends credits on AI or has a large amount of people already there to assist them.

University? When the hell did a "university" become part of this conversation?

Reactors are no where near as complex as the idea you're suggesting. the GUI for this would likely look like the old style of weapon configurations, which, to my understanding, was removed because a flat rate was better. For those who don't remember, this old GUI had 3 sliders that affected damage, range, and firing speed. If you had the sliders of say an Anti-Matter Cannon go all damage, you'd have extremely slow reload and extremely short range. If you gave it all to range, you'd be dealing miniscule damage with slow reload, etc. The suggestion boils down to bringing that back with a complex twist. So the learning curve isn't a problem. It's just the overcomplication and the fact that this idea was once already around but controlled purely by the ship core or by the weapons computer, just for weapons only. For shields, this would bring it back to being one block, most likely, where the recharge and strength are determined by those balancing sliders, or the two would stay separate with a single controlling block that more or less drains the amount of efficiency from one and gives it to the other.

Now, here's something that would make this very unbalanced. Shield recharge rate. If a shield has an extremely high recharge rate at the base most rate, the ship basically becomes invincible. Nothing pierces shields to my understanding unless the shield hits 0/#####. If you increase the shield's recharge rate to be extremely high compared to the shield's total capacity, (assuming that when you're in combat, you get 8% recharge rate). Say you 20,000 recharge at 8% generally. You increase that to be say... 30%. You'd be recharging at a rate of 75,000. Your shields capacity might be lower, but the recharge more than makes up for it. Against almost any ship that doesn't have a high Alpha, then you are more or less fighting an invincible ship. Add in the ship having a full ion compliment to that shield, you won't do anything. The damage will be regenerated instantly. Of course, weapon modulation would counteract this or ion weapons would, but as stated before, that style of modulation was done once before and removed.

 

[Snk]

If a portion of the config was devoted to adjustment/disabling of these values, then that solves on issue. You bring up me pointing out that my logic says a player shouldn't be able to enter turrets. You are incorrect in your statement. I pointed out that crewed ships already have that advantage. Players in a turret have an advantage over a bobby AI turret. They can track an enemy better and account for more, choose a different target than the one they were firing on at that time to react to changing circumstances, etc.

What you were saying is that people who didn't want to cooperate with other players shouldn't be at a disadvantage. Seeing as people who have more people in their turrets are at a advantage, using your own logic then players should not enter turrets.

Being a lone wolf already contains a disadvantage. One man on his own can't get the same resources as easily as someone who is working with players. In what I said, I actually stated that a lone wolf doesn't want to work with PEOPLE, and stated that AI would likely be used instead. From what I'd read, being a lone wolf wouldn't be as viable this way, because other factors aren't fully accounted for. If the lone wolf could benefit from crewability as well, by managing the ship's systems by himself, then that's no longer crewability. That becomes system management. The entire idea, therefore, boils down to adding system management to the game which could be done by a crew or by one person on their own.

Crewability, is, essentially, system management. It means allowing people to directly access and edit a ship. The whole point isn't just so you can have more than one person on a ship, no. That's definitely a big portion of it, but the main reasons are that:
A.) It that it allows players something to do when they are not mining, fighting, trading, or building
B.) It puts more skill in combat - makes things kind of like chess. You'd do something to your guns, they'd do something to their shields to counter act, etc.
C.) Aesthetics. Makes a need for interiors
D.) Breathes life into the universe. AI running around and doing stuff makes everything much more...satisfying.
E.) Completely whole new way to play the game

A lone wolf wouldn't be at any more of a disadvantage then he already is. Also, if we're speaking in context of a RP server, then the lone wolf probably wouldn't have AI on his ship. It would put him at an disadvantage, yes, but he could do everything a normal crew would do themselves, which would breathe more life into being a loner, as there's more things to do while you're alone and create the feel that you are alone. The biggest disadvantage is that he wouldn't be able to get that small bonus from managing his systems.

Of course crewability wouldn't be it's own thing if it got added. What I'm contesting is the idea of trying to create ships that more or less only work at top performance if the player spends credits on AI or has a large amount of people already there to assist them.

Crewability/system management is optional, config or not. The only disadvantage not having an interior, not having a crew, or not managing your systems directly is that someone who is fighting you would be at an advantage. Current builds wouldn't/shouldn't be affected.

University? When the hell did a "university" become part of this conversation?

Oh, it was just an idea for single player. A planet that you could go to and learn stuff from AI, if the big bad learning curve seems to daunting. In any case, it isn't important to this conversation.

Reactors are no where near as complex as the idea you're suggesting. the GUI for this would likely look like the old style of weapon configurations, which, to my understanding, was removed because a flat rate was better. For those who don't remember, this old GUI had 3 sliders that affected damage, range, and firing speed. If you had the sliders of say an Anti-Matter Cannon go all damage, you'd have extremely slow reload and extremely short range. If you gave it all to range, you'd be dealing miniscule damage with slow reload, etc. The suggestion boils down to bringing that back with a complex twist. So the learning curve isn't a problem. It's just the overcomplication and the fact that this idea was once already around but controlled purely by the ship core or by the weapons computer, just for weapons only. For shields, this would bring it back to being one block, most likely, where the recharge and strength are determined by those balancing sliders, or the two would stay separate with a single controlling block that more or less drains the amount of efficiency from one and gives it to the other.

Now, here's something that would make this very unbalanced. Shield recharge rate. If a shield has an extremely high recharge rate at the base most rate, the ship basically becomes invincible. Nothing pierces shields to my understanding unless the shield hits 0/#####. If you increase the shield's recharge rate to be extremely high compared to the shield's total capacity, (assuming that when you're in combat, you get 8% recharge rate). Say you 20,000 recharge at 8% generally. You increase that to be say... 30%. You'd be recharging at a rate of 75,000. Your shields capacity might be lower, but the recharge more than makes up for it. Against almost any ship that doesn't have a high Alpha, then you are more or less fighting an invincible ship. Add in the ship having a full ion compliment to that shield, you won't do anything. The damage will be regenerated instantly. Of course, weapon modulation would counteract this or ion weapons would, but as stated before, that style of modulation was done once before and removed.

Huh, I never knew that we used to have something like this. Also, it wouldn't be unfair to do something like this to shields if you'd burn it out and your shield blocks went kabloom if you did it. (Sabotage!) But eh, I'm not here to argue specifics.

 

[PrinceLestat]

it would be my hope that you could have these "crew members" operate different systems I.E. i could tell blaster to target this entity tell missiles to focus this target and tell another set of blasters to kill the nearest nonfriendly ship or watever while i use forward weapons and fly the ship

 

[CyberTao]

Well now, I found a new thread today. Don't know what I expected, nor do I really know why I looked, but I did. I don't know if it's disappointment, dismay, or slightly depressed at the argument over something so small scale.

At any rate, a bonus of any kind is just stupid. There is no other way to put it. With what the OP suggested, it might merely just make up for the lost mass/blocks from having an interior, but really could be easily abused on a ship with 1 room that has all the access panels in that area. And no matter which way you look at it, having a second ship would easily give a greater advantage then even a generous +50% to shields (Cause a 2nd ships is +100% shields and +100% dps really).

Crew-ability best fits with having options rather then incentives, which is why I support the idea of co-pilots blocks, something you can connect weapons and even docking/turret modules to. Connecting turrets allows a shipbuilder to divide their turrets into groups, allowing better focus fire for groups of Ion weapons/broadside styled turrets/Momentum effects. Allowing weapon computers to connection would allow a ship to have more weapons in total, or divide up the groups to circumvent the +10% power cost per group nerf and of course, seperate targeting.

As for making RP builds more popular/viable/etc, that isn't something you can really do. Some people will continue to avoid RP, while others will embrace it damn the consequences, you just can not balance that to make it all work on a single server. That is why having so many servers is good, it allows for different sub-communities of building styles and play, with a customizable config to boot.

Crew-ability is Teamwork, not just a Role Playing thing. Add in Yetimania's ideas for improved AI for those playing solo, and suddenly it becomes more beneficial to everyone.

 

[Snk]

Well now, I found a new thread today. Don't know what I expected, nor do I really know why I looked, but I did. I don't know if it's disappointment, dismay, or slightly depressed at the argument over something so small scale.

At any rate, a bonus of any kind is just stupid. There is no other way to put it. With what the OP suggested, it might merely just make up for the lost mass/blocks from having an interior, but really could be easily abused on a ship with 1 room that has all the access panels in that area. And no matter which way you look at it, having a second ship would easily give a greater advantage then even a generous +50% to shields (Cause a 2nd ships is +100% shields and +100% dps really).

Crew-ability best fits with having options rather then incentives, which is why I support the idea of co-pilots blocks, something you can connect weapons and even docking/turret modules to. Connecting turrets allows a shipbuilder to divide their turrets into groups, allowing better focus fire for groups of Ion weapons/broadside styled turrets/Momentum effects. Allowing weapon computers to connection would allow a ship to have more weapons in total, or divide up the groups to circumvent the +10% power cost per group nerf and of course, seperate targeting.

As for making RP builds more popular/viable/etc, that isn't something you can really do. Some people will continue to avoid RP, while others will embrace it damn the consequences, you just can not balance that to make it all work on a single server. That is why having so many servers is good, it allows for different sub-communities of building styles and play, with a customizable config to boot.

Crew-ability is Teamwork, not just a Role Playing thing. Add in Yetimania's ideas for improved AI for those playing solo, and suddenly it becomes more beneficial to everyone.

Well, someone's in a bad mood today. You don't need to be such a dick, especially not this early in the morning.

"At any rate, a bonus of any kind is just stupid. There is no other way to put it. With what the OP suggested, it might merely just make up for the lost mass/blocks from having an interior, but really could be easily abused on a ship with 1 room that has all the access panels in that area. And no matter which way you look at it, having a second ship would easily give a greater advantage then even a generous +50% to shields (Cause a 2nd ships is +100% shields and +100% dps really)."

No, it really isn't. And the idea that someone could put "All the access panels in one area" really depends on how it's implemented. I'm sure you'd need to put the computer next to an engine or a weapons computer in an area with high visibility. I still don't understand how a bonus of any kind if stupid. If the system is effective, then it would test the player's skills enough that the bonus is deserved and would be earned through proper gameplay. It is not about making up for list interiors, it's about giving interiors a justification.

"Crew-ability best fits with having options rather then incentives, which is why I support the idea of co-pilots blocks, something you can connect weapons and even docking/turret modules to. Connecting turrets allows a shipbuilder to divide their turrets into groups, allowing better focus fire for groups of Ion weapons/broadside styled turrets/Momentum effects. Allowing weapon computers to connection would allow a ship to have more weapons in total, or divide up the groups to circumvent the +10% power cost per group nerf and of course, seperate targeting."

It honestly depends on how it is implemented. Things like, I don't know, shifting the shields focus or increases the power to the thrusters or weapons for a ten second period are these "options," you are talking about. A bonus would just be something to do on long voyages when there's no combat. I'm not sure why you'd be so against crewability and then suggest a way to impliment it.

I dislike the idea of crew-ability only giving you combat based bonuses. You should be able to manage and adjust all of the ship's systems, so people like merchants have incentive to hire crew.

"As for making RP builds more popular/viable/etc, that isn't something you can really do. Some people will continue to avoid RP, while others will embrace it damn the consequences, you just can not balance that to make it all work on a single server. That is why having so many servers is good, it allows for different sub-communities of building styles and play, with a customizable config to boot."

I'm not sure where you are getting at here. The entire system should be optionable, roleplay server or no. It wouldn't be so overpowered that any ship with a couple bridge officers would easily defeat one without, but so low that no one would use it. It's just a gameplay option, like putting missiles on your ship instead of cannons.

"Crew-ability is Teamwork, not just a Role Playing thing. Add in Yetimania's ideas for improved AI for those playing solo, and suddenly it becomes more beneficial to everyone."
Yeah.... that is what I'm getting at here.

 

[CyberTao]

Bad morning? It was past midnight mate, and such a vague topic about something so interesting is a disappointment.

The thing about anything is that it would fit in a 1 room ship. Thrusters can be placed anywhere, as can weapons, computers, shields blocks, etc. It's not hard to set up a small core room with access to all these blocks and features. I fail to see how the game could ever manage to differentiate 'rooms' on a RP ship without dictating to use what a RP ship would look like (exposed block surface still works with 1 room designs).

It therefore gives every ship the option to get the bonuses, bonuses that I don't see the point in even having. It honestly sounds like you're asking for mini-games to gain boosts, which reminds me of Puzzle Pirates' ship battle system.

I dunno, but adding a 'bonus' to stats seems like the least involved way to crew a ship. People who want to play starmade, want to play starmade, not smack a block a few hundred times or play some cheap minigame to boost someone else playing. Maybe if someone modded it so individual groups of systems can go down, and can be brought back up (Like Guns of Icarus).
Flying through space will always be flying through space, if it's too long a journey, get a jumpdrive/use a warpgate. A minigame to past the time would be nice, but should not have an effect on the ship.

Long and Short, your idea just sounds boring. People aren't working together, they are just following orders or maybe an assigned target. Hell, at it's worse you get people who aren't even paying attention to the ship at all, just doing their own thing and then leaving when they get bored or possibly even yelled at for not doing good enough. It's just an excuse for everyone to cram AI NPCs onto their ships, cause they would be throwing away a slight advantage if they didn't.

 

[Snk]

I am not sure what you are arguing. I'm not suggesting anything. I am just saying why it's important.

 

[Lidren]

B.) It puts more skill in combat - makes things kind of like chess. You'd do something to your guns, they'd do something to their shields to counter act, etc.

I just have to interject here, I already do this on the fly in combat. And I can already delegate this job to someone else, though it would work best through team speak since typing in combat is a chore.

 

[Snk]

I just have to interject here, I already do this on the fly in combat. And I can already delegate this job to someone else, though it would work best through team speak since typing in combat is a chore.

I see what you mean, I was hoping for a system that has more depth to it. This is totally an example, not suggesting an actual game mechanic, but something like this:

Your bridge commander shifts cooling fluid from the thrusters to the cannons, enabling you to fire a bit faster. In response, your opponent would shut down some shield capacitors and shift their power to the rechargers.

I realize that may not be the best example, but essentially I'd want an in-depth and enjoyable way for the two crews to match wits.

 

[DrTarDIS]

I've seen a lot of posts suggesting things like manually modulating shields to withstand certain damage types while being weak to others. Sounds like something a player crew-member could do. change damage type to frequency and do the same for weapons and it might be interesting.

It's currently possible, many peopel don't DO it though. Like you can have someone "hot swap" your cannon-cannon-ion sytem into a cannon-cannon-explosive/peircing/unlinked. filling the "engineer" role. "Divert weapons power to shields?" -> unlink the ion, so it can be activated as shield buff.(if they fix the way it interacts with activation modules, and/or allowing [R] activation of the unlinked effect.


Sorry kilo, you'll have to copy-paste if you want to direct reply. inline editing you XD

Helm: This is basically a player in the ship core, but limited to only controlling the direction and speed of the ship. mmk. I'd like to see this expanded a bit further: able to use cameras/computers that are c->v chained into this "console" would be needed.
Navigation: Sets waypoints, uses scanners, might have a larger, more robust mini-map to better provide information.good lord having a 'navigator' who could update my hud and plot jumps to avoid stars while i deal with the buz of charging warp and... I loves it
Engineering: Has direct control over the directional power of the the thrusters, so that it can be changed on the fly. Might also have some form of control regarding shield recharge. As above, this is actually currently viable...with a good computer layout and someone willing to c-v in combat for you
Weapons: Has control over all ship-mounted weapons. Press "r" on most weapons computers. too bad the camera is super glitch in this mode. You essentially have to let them pilot the core, choose the right camera for the weapon they WILL use, exit, and not use any other ship so they get the right view from the weapons computer. (defaults to your last used camera number in the last used entity, which cares NOTHING about rotations or whatnot...and rotates your view to match the computer, while centering your "firing reticule" to front-center. )
Targeting: Has control over all turret-mounted weapons. If Bobby AI is set to Player's Target, it is controlled by this position. Grouping turrets to a collective control point is...I love it man, just pure love for this. I would also like to see this kind of "collective" c->v to other "control consoles" as it's own "weapon"
Captain: An optional position that doesn't have direct control over any system, but rather coordinates the actions of the crew. I've experimented with this. [F11] cinematic view is useful for a dude sitting in a chair to call out rotations and warnings to a pilot. also works from inside a build cube...
Damage Control: Basically a build block for a ship, the player using this can be actively replacing/repairing blocks during a fight. I REALLY wish this was currently viable too, no real kitbash for this since your camera/reticule often don't place things correctly at constant or varying speeds. but either way this role kind of overlaps with the "engineering" role IMHO

Each of these positions would have its own block which can be added to a ship. They might take the form of a chair (preferred) or block that players enter like the ship core. If one of the blocks isn't placed on the ship, the function either falls back to the ship core operator or doesn't exist (like the navigator's mini-map.)

I like the sub-blocks idea, i THINK it might become more possible with the new rails /magnet docks, but we'll see..

Rolling all these "crew functions" into a single block with it's own useable weapons comps, cameras, and whatnot linked to it to help offload the CLUTTERED [T] MENU of the main core for carrier/large turreted ships would be just the cat's meow.

Speaking of positions: You missed Drone-control! That dude who kicks your chaff out the airlock at the right time! might overlap with "fighter pilot"
Edit: Also, "scanner guy" that guy who manns the 9^3 scanner system docked deep within the ship, decloaking all the pesky wasps trying to get missile lock from safety every 3-5 seconds

 

[Snk]

It's currently possible, many peopel don't DO it though. Like you can have someone "hot swap" your cannon-cannon-ion sytem into a cannon-cannon-explosive/peircing/unlinked. filling the "engineer" role. "Divert weapons power to shields?" -> unlink the ion, so it can be activated as shield buff.(if they fix the way it interacts with activation modules, and/or allowing [R] activation of the unlinked effect.


Sorry kilo, you'll have to copy-paste if you want to direct reply. inline editing you XD

I like the sub-blocks idea, i THINK it might become more possible with the new rails /magnet docks, but we'll see..

Rolling all these "crew functions" into a single block with it's own useable weapons comps, cameras, and whatnot linked to it to help offload the CLUTTERED [T] MENU of the main core for carrier/large turreted ships would be just the cat's meow.

Speaking of positions: You missed Drone-control! That dude who kicks your chaff out the airlock at the right time! might overlap with "fighter pilot"

Ooh, thanks for bumping the thread.

People can do this, yes, but having enough effects on a ship to generate fun gameplay ends up taking lots of space.

+1 to Superblock

And once the rail update comes out, drone officer will become a better idea. You could a turn the drone launcher with logic and launch stuff.

 

[Tim35252]

in any case, there would have to be some soft cap on the effects, otherwise established players with 200 NPCs could dominate a ship twice it's size. while everyone has access to NPCs, it would still be stupid to have a 500k mass ship accelerating to 200 M/s in 5 seconds because they have 200 NPCs on engineering. Also, the cap should hit the same limit regardless of size, but it takes more crew members to get the same effect on a larger ship, and actual players should be more effective than NPCs.

 

[Snk]

in any case, there would have to be some soft cap on the effects, otherwise established players with 200 NPCs could dominate a ship twice it's size. while everyone has access to NPCs, it would still be stupid to have a 500k mass ship accelerating to 200 M/s in 5 seconds because they have 200 NPCs on engineering. Also, the cap should hit the same limit regardless of size, but it takes more crew members to get the same effect on a larger ship, and actual players should be more effective than NPCs.

That seems reasonable.

 

[Honytawk]

It would be fun to be able to hire different crew types.
Engineers, could boost efficiency of shield and power.
Medics could run around and heal players/npcs
Pilots could auto-load jump drives.
Weaponeers could walk up to turrets and replace the bobby AI with a more efficient version.
Repair engineers could use their Astrobeam to repair hull damage.

And they all run around to specific blocks.
So you would be able to define rooms like medbays by placing Medical Supplies, which attracts Medics.

It would be even better if they also wore different colors of uniforms like in Star Trek.

The increase would also degrade exponentially.
The first couple NPCs would increase with like 5%.
But after 20 or so, they would only add 0.5% per NPC.
So a ship with 200 NPCs would be only marginally better than one with 100 NPC, which is only marginally better than one with 50.

If it also took amount of power/shield blocks into account then big ships would need 200 NPCs to be as efficient as a small ship with 25 NPCs.