NPC Crew/AI Gunners for POBs

ethantokes · 2025-05-04T00:41:42+0100

I really think that NPC gunners could be done properly without breaking balance. Giving them either an accuracy penalty, damage penalty or cost for use seems reasonable. As well as a limit to how many you can bring perhaps, to not allow larger gunships to be fully crewed. If only 2 gunner positions could be filled by NPC crew/AI gunners, that would also allow a gunship to be crewed in full by less people, which would be beneficial towards their use in the game, as crewing the entirety of a large gunship can be difficult, let alone having someone running around the interior repairing as needed. A huge fantasy in Star Wars is to pilot the Milenium Falcon and have a good ol' tail chase, this would allow Restoration to UNIQUELY offer this experience for solo players and I think it would be a very good thing for the servers suite of features.

If the NPC route is taken, there could be an entire system for improving these guys and building a relationship with them in some way in the future.

If the more basic AI gunner route is taken, it still is massively beneficial to ship variety in space.

This system would even benefit the fighters with gunner positions, as currently most people who use them just take the rear guns off and use the extra mass for more shields or weapons, etc. Finally with this system, these ships could be used as intended more often, without relying on someone who is actually willing to sit in your gun. In these fighters, I'd argue it is even LESS common for people to want to get in the gunner spot.

To be clear, a ship like a YT-1300 using this feature should be defeatable with superior skill by a fighter, I don't want this to be OP.

Keep in mind when considering this, this game does not have the population it once did, this is not my only reasoning for this feature as you have read, but still. It is my opinion this is not only sorely needed, but would add a lot of fun to the game.

ethantokes · 2025-05-05T02:08:46+0100

Tyr said:
Well just don't get discouraged. they are working on Architects stuff so Arch ideas pretty much are not getting as much attention as yuo might hope because folks know they are already on it. You get a idea find a few folks and hash it out with them and then find a few that will argue with you without being jerks about it and hash it out again and if it still hold find a Senator and hash it out and see if one of them will sponsor it. Just remember that most ideas don't get implemented on here if you look. Not because they are all bad but for a lot of different reasons and you never know maybe your idea that did not make the cut will inspire a Dev or another person to make some alteration in the future from thinking about your idea. On here too many people get attached to their suggestion and feel hurt or bad when it meets resistance . But they really shouldn't. Hang in there and keep trying. maybe just don't come on so strong with books of posts

I did get a sponsored PV for adding an image design system for ships, since currently we get stuck with less than desirable projectile styles, etc.

I am not upset about the idea not becoming a reality as I said, its just the brutal response like I am trying to destroy their beloved game or something. I want it to be good and balanced and fair and competitive just like everyone else. I love swg, particularly resto, for a reason, we all do. It isn't a hand holding, easy mode, afk, copy paste, mainstream boring ass game like the rest and I would never want to jeopardize that. I still think there is a way a feature like what I mentioned COULD work, but its become clear to me after hearing peoples thoughts that the dev time to avoid abuse WOULD be extensive. It is less that it couldn't work and more that it is more difficult to implement than I initially thought. Aconite had mentioned he thought of a way it could be done so my thoughts were positive regarding it in the beginning, but once the 4th method of abuse was mentioned I realized there was going to be trouble balancing it, even if technically possible.

Also, as for the size of my posts, I kinda think when it comes to implementing features in a game like swg, a LOT needs to be said to cover all the ground and if I feel that way about the game, imagine how I feel about shit when its made personal

But yea, overall I agree, getting upset over an idea not working out is not necessary, but neither is getting upset at people for sharing ideas.

Trayus · 2025-05-05T03:03:39+0100

ethantokes said:
I did get a sponsored PV for adding an image design system for ships, since currently we get stuck with less than desirable projectile styles, etc.

I am not upset about the idea not becoming a reality as I said, its just the brutal response like I am trying to destroy their beloved game or something. I want it to be good and balanced and fair and competitive just like everyone else. I love swg, particularly resto, for a reason, we all do. It isn't a hand holding, easy mode, afk, copy paste, mainstream boring ass game like the rest and I would never want to jeopardize that. I still think there is a way a feature like what I mentioned COULD work, but its become clear to me after hearing peoples thoughts that the dev time to avoid abuse WOULD be extensive. It is less that it couldn't work and more that it is more difficult to implement than I initially thought. Aconite had mentioned he thought of a way it could be done so my thoughts were positive regarding it in the beginning, but once the 4th method of abuse was mentioned I realized there was going to be trouble balancing it, even if technically possible.

Also, as for the size of my posts, I kinda think when it comes to implementing features in a game like swg, a LOT needs to be said to cover all the ground and if I feel that way about the game, imagine how I feel about shit when its made personal

But yea, overall I agree, getting upset over an idea not working out is not necessary, but neither is getting upset at people for sharing ideas.

My response was not intended to be personal nor brutal i commented on the perceived lack of understanding of the JTL meta i saw in the post and suggested expanding your understanding on the matter prior to proposing such sweeping changes. I did not insult you personally or call you names outside of saying i see in this post that you do not understand the game or the meta.

As far as going through usual channels i was the sponsor for your previous PV. I thought it was a good idea that i am in support of and i will do everything i can to promote and push it as a senator. As for this PV you did not contact me directly or ping me in senate space to get my opinion or seek my sponsorship in senate space. As far as receiving support I've gone over your conversation in discord and i saw that you got a considerable amount of negative feedback on the matter even prior to posting the PV.

I am not upset nor angry more annoyed at this point but i don't think every idea you have is bad just that this one idea you haven't considered in depth or understood my counterpoint about removing the personnel gate on a ship that has 20x shielding and armor hp compared to even the most heavily shielded fighter for PVP directly turning the meta over it's head and it's effects on pve with AFK gameplay and the measures that need to be taken for it to function in a way without being abused which you now seem to grasp.

ethantokes · 2025-05-05T04:10:55+0100

Trayus said:
My response was not intended to be personal nor brutal i commented on the perceived lack of understanding of the JTL meta i saw in the post and suggested expanding your understanding on the matter prior to proposing such sweeping changes. I did not insult you personally or call you names outside of saying i see in this post that you do not understand the game or the meta.

As far as going through usual channels i was the sponsor for your previous PV. I thought it was a good idea that i am in support of and i will do everything i can to promote and push it as a senator. As for this PV you did not contact me directly or ping me in senate space to get my opinion or seek my sponsorship in senate space. As far as receiving support I've gone over your conversation in discord and i saw that you got a considerable amount of negative feedback on the matter even prior to posting the PV.

I am not upset nor angry more annoyed at this point but i don't think every idea you have is bad just that this one idea you haven't considered in depth or understood my counterpoint about removing the personnel gate on a ship that has 20x shielding and armor hp compared to even the most heavily shielded fighter for PVP directly turning the meta over it's head and it's effects on pve with AFK gameplay and the measures that need to be taken for it to function in a way without being abused which you now seem to grasp.

Yeah I said you only said one thing, that I have I have, "a complete lack of understanding of the game, it's balance and mechanics."

I thought posting here was specifically intended to bring it to a senators eyes? I wasn't aware I was meant to get pre-approval. Seems like it would defeat the purpose of the general players posting here entirely and instead senators should just post approved ideas here themselves and then others can discuss.

A significant amount prior to posting? I am looking at my first mention of it right now, there is ONE person who sort of chuckled at the idea of AI turrets being dumb because they could still 1v1 me with them, and then I posted it. You are probably looking at the people disagreeing with my take about the RGI, not this topic, which I conceded I was wrong about after realizing its radius and exactly why I discussed it there first and did not make a PV for it.

I think with proper mass limitations/damage debuffs/accuracy debuffs/gunner number limits, it could be done, but the afk and abuse measures that would be needed WOULD be kinda extensive for sure, not impossible, but a bit too much to be reasonable when we have so much other stuff with space that needs to be fixed/added. I do think mass limitation when using ai gunners could be a huge one. Like you check it on the fitting page and it cuts your max mass in half, or whatever, but yeah I have made my point. It is all fine, I have no hard feelings about it, if anything I just didn't like the snide remarks and at this point, this forum isn't the place to discuss that anyways. Your comment was not the only reason I wrote what I did, tried to make that clear.

I think this has all been cleared up at this point. We may still disagree on if it is good for the game or w.e, but I think we have established an outcome of this PV. I wouldn't try to question more experienced players knowledge of the game compared to mine, I am not a master of space, but I don't think my post was made in some unhinged state of ignorance that some seem to feel it was. As was said above, some ideas just don't make the cut for tons of different reasons. I certainly felt educated when the different methods of abuse were mentioned, not in that I couldn't foresee abuse attempts, but in that I hadn't considered the AMOUNT of countermeasures that would need to be added alongside the feature. I am still confident they could have been made, but at great expense to the dev team's time.