NPC Crew/AI Gunners for POBs

ethantokes · May 4, 2025

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.

Tyr · May 4, 2025

Unintended Consequences and potential for abuse.

ethantokes · May 4, 2025

Tyr said:
Unintended Consequences and potential for abuse.

Timer where gunners stop firing if you don't move for 5 minutes could solve most of the potential for abuse beyond outright cheating and having a bot fly you around.

Unintended consequences, well, things like this do require testing afterall.

GawlSansSper · May 4, 2025

Not worth the time or effort for the limited use it'd see. Dev time should not be wasted on such narrow ideas.

ethantokes · May 4, 2025

GawlSansSper said:
Not worth the time or effort for the limited use it'd see. Dev time should not be wasted on such narrow ideas.

Limited use? Every single pilot would suddenly be able to fly a POB solo. That would not see limited use. This I do disagree with heavily.

jcan0918 · May 4, 2025

Do ppl only think about themselves when writing these sort of PV's?
The potential to abuse this to AFK farm all day is all over it , not only that but once you open the pandora box for npc helpers , you open it for everything else
Hard Down vote !

ethantokes · May 4, 2025

jcan0918 said:
Do ppl only think about themselves when writing these sort of PV's?
The potential to abuse this to AFK farm all day is all over it , not only that but once you open the pandora box for npc helpers , you open it for everything else
Hard Down vote !

Gunners could stop firing after 5 minutes of not moving, problem solved, and no, I am not only thinking about myself. I have a guild full of pilots and we go out together often.

jcan0918 · May 4, 2025

ethantokes said:
Gunners could stop firing after 5 minutes of not moving, problem solved, and no, I am not only thinking about myself. I have a guild full of pilots and we go out together often.

So by your own account , you have a guild full of pilots and go out together often ......but you still want npc gunners ? ........................ok that sounds logical

Maxal · May 4, 2025

1. In every game I know of, having the computer aim and shoot for you is known as an aim-bot. It is considered cheating in every other game, so I don't see how you have come up with a version that is beneficial to the game rather than detrimental.
2. I can think of a number of ways to use this afk farm parts and credits.
3. Using aim-bots in turrets take away the competition between players in pvp and have you competing against programming.
4. They are MULTI-PLAYER ships and you want to use them as a single player. This is completely ruins thier purpose and the way they have been balanced. You need multiple people to crew them and that's why they are stronger ships. Getting those stronger benefits for one person is inherently OP.

Your justification and motivation listed for this PV is just plain wrong. 3-4 people in a POB make a formidable ship as it is in game now. You need to work on finding a crew rather than changing game mechanics.

Modota · May 4, 2025

Terrible idea with room for abuse and unintended gameplay. No reason to allow a single player to pilot a fully operational pob with NPC gunners. Defeats the purpose of the POB entirely. There are many many chassis available currently for solo pilots that are outstanding performers in pvp and pve. This PV seems self serving and not beneficial to the server.

Modota · May 4, 2025

ethantokes said:
Gunners could stop firing after 5 minutes of not moving, problem solved, and no, I am not only thinking about myself. I have a guild full of pilots and we go out together often.

Then you should have no problem with being able to get a fully crewed POB up.

ethantokes · May 4, 2025

Modota said:
Then you should have no problem with being able to get a fully crewed POB up.

I don't. I go out often in fully crewed POBs and that was not the sole purpose of this idea.

Yeah it's fine guys. I thought it sounded very fun personally, but clearly the community is not a fan. Just close down the PV and it can be done with. I think it could totally be balanced to be an okay feature without breaking things, but arguing for it against this many people is not in my interest. There are systems and limitations that could have been put on the feature to keep it from being oppressive is all I am saying.

I disagree with most of what has been said, but I am exhausted explaining it(talked about it much further on discord). If the players don't want it and don't agree with me, that is more than fine, and the purpose of this forum.

ethantokes · May 4, 2025

Maxal said:
1. In every game I know of, having the computer aim and shoot for you is known as an aim-bot. It is considered cheating in every other game, so I don't see how you have come up with a version that is beneficial to the game rather than detrimental.
2. I can think of a number of ways to use this afk farm parts and credits.
3. Using aim-bots in turrets take away the competition between players in pvp and have you competing against programming.
4. They are MULTI-PLAYER ships and you want to use them as a single player. This is completely ruins thier purpose and the way they have been balanced. You need multiple people to crew them and that's why they are stronger ships. Getting those stronger benefits for one person is inherently OP.

Your justification and motivation listed for this PV is just plain wrong. 3-4 people in a POB make a formidable ship as it is in game now. You need to work on finding a crew rather than changing game mechanics.

I just have to say, with the limitations I have mentioned, there is 0 way this could be used to farm afk, but I respect your right to not read those reasons. Ideally I would never want this to be possible and systems would be put in place to avoid that. I specifically stated I wanted them to be comparable in a fight while using this feature to a heavy fighter. I get it though, risking breaking the game is not good, I can just see a world where it wouldn't be much of a risk, and if I implemented this in my own game, I would do so at the start with it being CLEARLY bad and then buffing it from there to avoid just that.

savacc · May 4, 2025

Posting to downvote

Rinna · May 4, 2025

It would be far, far too easy to abuse this, and it would circumvent the intended purpose (as I understand it) of POB ships. I have to downvote.

Trayus · May 4, 2025

Firstly i will say this post solves a non problem i've ran gunship and pob sorties sometimes 2 ships at a time for both pvp and pve many times without having massive issues in finding crew. It just makes it easier to saturate the skies with them which is not supporting skilled gameplay for pilots or crew.

Furthermore i see a complete lack of understanding of the game, it's balance and mechanics in your post even dualboxed POB's in sufficient numbers are a nightmare when it comes to loadganking this makes it even more powerful. I think you should play more and get more experience in the game before making suggestions that would turn the meta over it's head.

Pob's are balanced around their personnel investment taking away the ability to bring 3-4 ships into the fight instead of just the one bigger more powerful one. Making it possible to run 4 pob's in place of one fully crewed one is a massive advantage to whichever side wants to employ it as a tactic.

Accuracy is not the main problem here it's having functional guns that might hit combined with saturation fire from multiple craft coupled with the missiles those POB's can carry even if we exclude gunboats. If we include gunboats then it's 6-8 gunboats running unopposed instead of 6-8 fighters.

For PVE play it's providing players with a nearly invulnerable ship they can fly with just moving the mouse slightly to one side and leaving it be at 70% throttle and employing a rubber band or some tape if they are using a stick. It will 100% be abused. Restorations stance on unattended gameplay is clear.

I'm not even going to touch up on the technical difficulties of such an implementation or the dev time that it would take that could go into more worthwhile endeavours.

ethantokes · May 5, 2025

Trayus said:
Firstly i will say this post solves a non problem i've ran gunship and pob sorties sometimes 2 ships at a time for both pvp and pve many times without having massive issues in finding crew. It just makes it easier to saturate the skies with them which is not supporting skilled gameplay for pilots or crew.

Furthermore i see a complete lack of understanding of the game, it's balance and mechanics in your post even dualboxed POB's in sufficient numbers are a nightmare when it comes to loadganking this makes it even more powerful. I think you should play more and get more experience in the game before making suggestions that would turn the meta over it's head.

Pob's are balanced around their personnel investment taking away the ability to bring 3-4 ships into the fight instead of just the one bigger more powerful one. Making it possible to run 4 pob's in place of one fully crewed one is a massive advantage to whichever side wants to employ it as a tactic.

Accuracy is not the main problem here it's having functional guns that might hit combined with saturation fire from multiple craft coupled with the missiles those POB's can carry even if we exclude gunboats. If we include gunboats then it's 6-8 gunboats running unopposed instead of 6-8 fighters.

For PVE play it's providing players with a nearly invulnerable ship they can fly with just moving the mouse slightly to one side and leaving it be at 70% throttle and employing a rubber band or some tape if they are using a stick. It will 100% be abused. Restorations stance on unattended gameplay is clear.

I'm not even going to touch up on the technical difficulties of such an implementation or the dev time that it would take that could go into more worthwhile endeavours.

I made the post in response to receiving support for the idea from aconite, I clearly moved too quickly posting this. A complete lack of understanding of the game is just rude. Not true at all even if I am not a pro. The one constructive thing this post has done for me is point out just how toxic the space community can be as I have received a ton of underhanded comments after making this PV, as well as the fact that the anti afk measures would probably take too much time to implement to make this a viable thing to move forward on, but I maintain that they COULD be implemented properly. Also, I have CLEARLY stated that I do not want this feature to be some OP win button and that engaging with it should make you weaker to compensate for the convenience.

6-8 gunboats running unopposed? Anyone in a fighter is gonna get insta popped if they fly in to a ball of 6-8 gunboats, AI gunners or not. If the limitations I mentioned were on these gunboats, they wouldn't do as much damage and would only have 2 guns each btw. 6-8 fighters should be able to defeat them with the balance I was talking about. For example, if this were a thing, I think your gunner positions should be much easier to defeat, perhaps taking damage through your shields. A system COULD be put in place that makes your guns not fire when in the vicinity of multiple others using AI gunners that are SF. You are glossing over the things I said in this thread about limitations on the system like damage, accuracy, number of guns and potential further debuffs, but I think they COULD curb the strength of the feature enough to make it balanced. I specifically said it should be defeatable by a fighter who is skilled. Multiple inputs being necessary to stop the afk timer would solve the problem of afk 100%(if you don't throttle up, down AND move the mouse every 5 minutes, the guns won't fire). Aconite also specifically said that he had thought of a way to implement it, I can link you to the post in discord. I am sure it could also not allow guns to fire if you had another character on your account in the vicinity in space. Though if anything, this has shown the anti abuse measures would require lots of development time which would make it more difficult and likely not worth putting in, so at this point, I'd go as far as to say I agree it shouldn't be in game.

To be clear, I am long past trying to get this implemented, I see the vehement opposition and seeing that is the purpose of PVs, its fine with me. My other PV about architect getting some attention considering it is basically an entirely stagnant profession is far more important anyway, yet ironically mostly ignored. What bothers me is that clearly 0% of the post was read and an instant "NO" and keyboard warrioring ensued for quite a few people(I got a lot more response on discord than here, as well as a few PMs in game). I don't want unattended gameplay and I obviously thought about that fact when making this. Anti-afking measures are a given with ANY new feature. I am quite certain for example, that if this game had no multicrew craft and they were being suggested here for the first time, the high skill pvp community would throw an equal fit out of fear of the same things, even with the gunners seats being manned by players. The fact is that changes scare the living hell out of people.

As I said, I received positive support for the idea from a dev and multiple other people prior to making the post, the only time I got push back was once posted. Underhanded remarks about myself aren't necessary. I may not be a pro or whatever, but I HAVE enjoyed swg since I was 12 and I am 32, I have more experience than many and multiple days a week in game I take new players on tours through the game showing them the ropes. Being new to Restoration server doesn't negate that experience. I am not claiming to be extremely knowledgeable, a lot of my information has been forgotten over the years and I didn't spend the entirety of that time in game, but still. I have a difference of opinion, but of course you are welcome to think it is wrong. People could just say, nah I don't want this and move on, or explain their thinking and move on, but making it personal is frankly rude and multiple people have done so.

To wrap this up, nothing about the skies are saturated. A 5v5 occurred the other day and discord spoke of it like the coming of christ. The fact is that Restoration has 200 people online for most of the day and a fraction of that engage with space. I fundamentally disagree with most of the arguments against this, just like I disagree that fuel is bad idea. I think the space community is very very torn on what they want, as like I said, I DID receive support before posting this. I always test the waters with any idea before suggesting it. All of this said, I am 100% fine with it not being a thing. It was just a suggestion, not a demand and PVs exist to discuss this stuff, but unfortunately they frequently devolve into toxicity(I get you only made 1 comment, but I have been receiving quite a bit of insulting remarks.) The one thing I really agree with is that after discussing it, the dev time to implement anti afk measures would probably make this not worth the effort, as there is much more important stuff that needs to happen, hell, even simple things like group arrows haven't been fixed. I would prefer the firespray to get looked at than this.

Sorry for the TLDR; As I said above, the post can be closed.

Tyr · May 5, 2025

ethantokes said:
I made the post in response to receiving support for the idea from aconite, I clearly moved too quickly posting this. A complete lack of understanding of the game is just rude. Not true at all even if I am not a pro. The one constructive thing this post has done for me is point out just how toxic the space community can be as I have received a ton of underhanded comments after making this PV, as well as the fact that the anti afk measures would probably take too much time to implement to make this a viable thing to move forward on, but I maintain that they COULD be implemented properly. Also, I have CLEARLY stated that I do not want this feature to be some OP win button and that engaging with it should make you weaker to compensate for the convenience.

6-8 gunboats running unopposed? Anyone in a fighter is gonna get insta popped if they fly in to a ball of 6-8 gunboats, AI gunners or not. If the limitations I mentioned were on these gunboats, they wouldn't do as much damage and would only have 2 guns each btw. 6-8 fighters should be able to defeat them with the balance I was talking about. For example, if this were a thing, I think your gunner positions should be much easier to defeat, perhaps taking damage through your shields. A system COULD be put in place that makes your guns not fire when in the vicinity of multiple others using AI gunners that are SF. You are glossing over the things I said in this thread about limitations on the system like damage, accuracy, number of guns and potential further debuffs, but I think they COULD curb the strength of the feature enough to make it balanced. I specifically said it should be defeatable by a fighter who is skilled. Multiple inputs being necessary to stop the afk timer would solve the problem of afk 100%(if you don't throttle up, down AND move the mouse every 5 minutes, the guns won't fire). Aconite also specifically said that he had thought of a way to implement it, I can link you to the post in discord. I am sure it could also not allow guns to fire if you had another character on your account in the vicinity in space. Though if anything, this has shown the anti abuse measures would require lots of development time which would make it more difficult and likely not worth putting in, so at this point, I'd go as far as to say I agree it shouldn't be in game.

To be clear, I am long past trying to get this implemented, I see the vehement opposition and seeing that is the purpose of PVs, its fine with me. My other PV about architect getting some attention considering it is basically an entirely stagnant profession is far more important anyway, yet ironically mostly ignored. What bothers me is that clearly 0% of the post was read and an instant "NO" and keyboard warrioring ensued for quite a few people(I got a lot more response on discord than here, as well as a few PMs in game). I don't want unattended gameplay and I obviously thought about that fact when making this. Anti-afking measures are a given with ANY new feature. I am quite certain for example, that if this game had no multicrew craft and they were being suggested here for the first time, the high skill pvp community would throw an equal fit out of fear of the same things, even with the gunners seats being manned by players. The fact is that changes scare the living hell out of people.

As I said, I received positive support for the idea from a dev and multiple other people prior to making the post, the only time I got push back was once posted. Underhanded remarks about myself aren't necessary. I may not be a pro or whatever, but I HAVE enjoyed swg since I was 12 and I am 32, I have more experience than many and multiple days a week in game I take new players on tours through the game showing them the ropes. Being new to Restoration server doesn't negate that experience. I am not claiming to be extremely knowledgeable, a lot of my information has been forgotten over the years and I didn't spend the entirety of that time in game, but still. I have a difference of opinion, but of course you are welcome to think it is wrong. People could just say, nah I don't want this and move on, or explain their thinking and move on, but making it personal is frankly rude and multiple people have done so.

To wrap this up, nothing about the skies are saturated. A 5v5 occurred the other day and discord spoke of it like the coming of christ. The fact is that Restoration has 200 people online for most of the day and a fraction of that engage with space. I fundamentally disagree with most of the arguments against this, just like I disagree that fuel is bad idea. I think the space community is very very torn on what they want, as like I said, I DID receive support before posting this. I always test the waters with any idea before suggesting it. All of this said, I am 100% fine with it not being a thing. It was just a suggestion, not a demand and PVs exist to discuss this stuff, but unfortunately they frequently devolve into toxicity(I get you only made 1 comment, but I have been receiving quite a bit of insulting remarks.) The one thing I really agree with is that after discussing it, the dev time to implement anti afk measures would probably make this not worth the effort, as there is much more important stuff that needs to happen, hell, even simple things like group arrows haven't been fixed. I would prefer the firespray to get looked at than this.

Sorry for the TLDR; As I said above, the post can be closed.

Wow what a book. You say folks did not read or don't read the PV but you are as guilty by ignoring the feed back given here and in Discord. You ignored advice and if someone disagrees you assign motive(s) with no real knowledge. You also made this PV on impulse and for reasons not to benefit the community but because as you said you want to fly your YT solo. I am sorry you did not or do not understand the difference from someone saying that would be fun/cool/neat/etc idea to jumping in and thinking that it means go. With few exceptions I did not here or in Discord see folks attacking but rather explaining the game dynamics and unintended consequences and possible abuse scenarios. Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they are attacking you. If you really had followed the prefered procedure for a PV and tried to get it Senator Sponsored you would not be here. It is clear you do care or the book you just posted would not have occurred. Also another tip you can ignore if you wish. Posting book length responses on here and Discord along with posting a ton of responses does not help your case, it makes it worse. Short and to the point often gets the prize on here. It is clear you do not fully understanbd the game dynamics in some areas but so what? No one knows all of it, not even the devs. That is why you go for feedback first and not get offended if your idea tanks. Most ideas tank and it is not because people hate change.

ethantokes · May 5, 2025

Tyr said:
Wow what a book. You say folks did not read or don't read the PV but you are as guilty by ignoring the feed back given here and in Discord. You ignored advice and if someone disagrees you assign motive(s) with no real knowledge. You also made this PV on impulse and for reasons not to benefit the community but because as you said you want to fly your YT solo. I am sorry you did not or do not understand the difference from someone saying that would be fun/cool/neat/etc idea to jumping in and thinking that it means go. With few exceptions I did not here or in Discord see folks attacking but rather explaining the game dynamics and unintended consequences and possible abuse scenarios. Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they are attacking you. If you really had followed the prefered procedure for a PV and tried to get it Senator Sponsored you would not be here. It is clear you do care or the book you just posted would not have occurred. Also another tip you can ignore if you wish. Posting book length responses on here and Discord along with posting a ton of responses does not help your case, it makes it worse. Short and to the point often gets the prize on here. It is clear you do not fully understanbd the game dynamics in some areas but so what? No one knows all of it, not even the devs. That is why you go for feedback first and not get offended if your idea tanks. Most ideas tank and it is not because people hate change.

I literally did not. I said I agreed it isn't a good idea(specifically because of the amount of anti-abuse/afk measure that would have to be implemented for it to work), but okay. :] What I care about is people being unnecessarily condescending.

Tyr · May 5, 2025

ethantokes said:
I literally did not. I said I agreed it isn't a good idea(specifically because of the amount of anti-abuse/afk measure that would have to be implemented for it to work), but okay. :] What I care about is people being unnecessarily condescending.

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