either fuel usage, speed, wear&tear on components, or some combination thereof. For example, say that the 'condition' of your components affects your efficiency when using QT. However, one thought I had specifically for the engineer was that the 'tuning and optimisation' element could have a significant impact, without needing things to 'break'. I'm not sure that things should be 'breaking down' often. I personally would choose to add a mechanic to prevent the big warships (Polaris, Idris, Javelin) from being soloed effectively even with NPCs, which I think will be bad for balance, but it would have to be pretty gamified - like one real person is needed for every 15 NPCs or something, which would then make multiple people the most efficient solution, but that would certainly be controversial. 2 ships solo with NPC crew will always beat 1 with 2 people, unless the NPCs are incredibly inefficient. I am concerned that given the ability to hire NPCs to fill all the positions, and as you point out that randoms might be worse than no players at all, that except for groups of friends that want to do it for fun, most power gamers and orgs will decide to solo the biggest ships they can letting NPCs handle everything else. I also think it means that many of those NPCs won't be replaceable by players even if you wanted to, as they will be doing "busy work" at terminals and stations, and essentially be acting as living components that keep everything running and lower efficiency if the are killed just like damaging the system.
PULSAR LOST COLONY INSPECTION STATION PLUS
It fits well with the minimum crew requirements (bridge crew plus half turrets). While it's now old info, I haven't seen or heard anything that contradicts it. I always like to quote something CR said to a group of us at a bar citizen event a few years ago - that they were looking at 5 to 7 real people in important positions to crew an Idris, with the rest being NPCs. This would not only create different game play for different people, but keep the smaller ships relevant. In other words, if you are in the mood for a more casual, laid back evening, take the Aurora out for a spin rather than the Idris, or a Hull B instead of a Hull E. Smaller ships can attract much less, creating a different experience. I think one of the clever ways they could allow us to tweak encounter rate is with the risk vs reward system - larger ships, those with valuable cargo, and so on, should attract more attention (both PvE and PvP counter missions) by their very presence. Not sure if you can please either of those groups. Like you said in the flow section - everyone has different tolerances, from those will be instantly bored if they aren't experiencing constant anxiety, to those that want to be left alone for 15 minutes with no interruptions at all. I'm not even sure I can say how much or little of all that I want until we get it in game and I can see how it feels. Interdiction and discoveries generated by their probability volumes that can lead to required or optional stops or side quests. Optional sub components that can be replaced for a boost. Repairs that need to be made as your ship breaks down. It sounds like they are going for a few loops: The part about downtime and the balance of stuff to do versus too much to do will be an important thing for CIG to get to right. Haven't played SOT, though I've heard about it being a good example of multi-crew, so I was glad to have it described it more detail. Interesting article which raised some good points.
0 kommentar(er)
