Do NPC crew still die for good if your ship is destroyed?

[Winterwalker]

l honestly can't justify having SLF on board or ever hiring an NPC as all they do is die in a CZ or HAZ RES while stealing my exp and credits. The thought of training one in the current NPC crew setup is insanity as they offer so little help for the price they seem like a joke.

I think as Devari said, you wouldn't trust your NPC with mothership in the situation. If you want to fly a fighter in that scenario you're better off in multicrew? SLF is good stuff as (glass cannon) external gun though and as of course, if the fighter's destroyed NPC isn't.

The logic of NPC's seems pretty bang on to me because what we don't have is any other real consequence of a destroyed ship. OK a rebuy and some time but you can totally plan ahead for that. With no ironman perma-death hard coded in apart from trained NPC's, I feel a good balance between 'worth training' by how much cheaper they are in hiring and the fact that their experience costs more than endgame rebuy credits do. Those are quite easily recouped, NPC training isn't. 'The grief is real'

 

[kofeyh]

To the extent that Elite is heavily based on "immersion" over actual gameplay content, they really are supposed to be more than a simple gameplay mechanism. They are supposed to provide the immersion of "hiring" a crew, even "training" a crew. That's why the crew have voices and "personalities", otherwise there's no need for any of that to exist in-game.

Are you sure? I tend to believe people have put far more thought into this than the developer has; they just wanted to offer a way to leverage fighters with crew that have a life expectancy and they added some value to that by getting some voice acting done. I reckon frontier did a really good job of the crew mechanic, actually.

But, they're hired guns. NPCs that live and die by what we do. That does carry some consequences; wether that's particularly desired or not. Wanting to make more of it than it is, is fine? But that's what they are.

I specifically purchased a second account so I could have my SLF pilot "sit" in the cockpit next to my CMDR. In fact many players have requested that our SLF crew have this option automatically without needing to use multicrew as a workaround, again for the same immersion-related reasons I mentioned above.

And as I have said; rework and so forth, sure? But you're talking about a fundamentally different purpose for crew, versus the original designed intent. Which is to either man the fighter, or the parent ship. Conflating preference for 'intent' is pretty common, doesn't mean that's accurate. Honestly the rest of your post is a diatribe on how hired crew are actually companions; which they are not. They are hired crew. With a life expectancy one is reasonably responsible for whilst they are under our employ.

If you want actual companions, go ask Frontier for that. I have no quarrel with such a request because why would I? But being highly inventive about the raison d'être of hired crew, whom can expire, and aren't a drop in replacement for companions, doesn't suddenly magically make it so.

Just ask Frontier - can we please consider having an actual in-game companion that can sit in the hot seat and join us on adventures. Sandy may say "no" or he may well be quite into the idea. Try asking. That, friend, is infinitely more constructive than trying to force a mechanic to achieve a completely different set of goals, purely out of a desire to short circuit consequences because they're not convenient.

Fly safe! o7

 

[Devari]

The logic of NPC's seems pretty bang on to me because what we don't have is any other real consequence of a destroyed ship. OK a rebuy and some time but you can totally plan ahead for that. With no ironman perma-death hard coded in apart from trained NPC's, I feel a good balance between 'worth training' by how much cheaper they are in hiring and the fact that their experience costs more than endgame rebuy credits do. Those are quite easily recouped, NPC training isn't. 'The grief is real'

The flaw here is that players simply don't use SLF pilots, because the cost of using them and losing them is far too steep. They take up to 10% of income (even when doing literally nothing), they take half of your combat experience (even after they reach Elite rank), they require at least 12 hours of grind to become useful (Dangerous rank) and they die instantly when your ship is destroyed. All for what, the equivalent of another class 3 hardpoint worth of damage? They are really a terrible game mechanism. The only reason I have one is for immersion, and I've actually trained a second pilot for use in order to keep my first pilot "safe" since I don't want to lose them in combat. So far my two pilots, which are now Deadly rank, have been eating 18% of my profits which has been over 1.5 billion credits so far. Really they are literally the worst deal in the entire game when you look at income lost, combat experience lost, time to train them and risk of losing them. Really if FD didn't do such a good job with the voices to ensure a certain amount of immersion they would basically be a useless game mechanism when you look at what they offer compared to what they cost.

 

[Devari]

Are you sure? I tend to believe people have put far more thought into this than the developer has; they just wanted to offer a way to leverage fighters with crew that have a life expectancy. They're hired guns. Making more of it than it is, is fine? But that's what they are.

If that is all they are, they are a terrible and useless game mechanic. They are nowhere near worth the cost of significant profit loss (10% even when not active), combat experience loss (50% when active), training time (12 hours minimum for Dangerous rank), instant death and other comparable options for ship internals (more SCBs/MRPs/HRPs). They only provide the equivalent of a class 3 hardpoint dps which is not worth all of those tradeoffs. I really doubt that anyone would use them if they didn't have voices and add to the immersion of "hiring" a crew member and "commanding" a wingman in combat.

And as I have said; rework and so forth, sure? But you're talking about a fundamentally different purpose for crew, versus the original designed intent. Which is to either man the fighter, or the parent ship. Conflating preference for 'intent' is pretty common, doesn't mean that's accurate. Honestly the rest of your post is a diatribe on how hired crew are actually companions; which they are not. They are hired crew. With a life expectancy one is reasonably responsible for whilst they are under our employ.

Like I said above, if that is all they are, then FD has designed a literally useless game mechanic for what it offers in combat. If they are intended to be "disposable" then FD has completely missed the mark. Spending upwards of 12 hours training a crew member should not be disposable, or should at least provide a serious combat advantage for that investment of time and credits. Really they only add significantly to my gaming experience in terms of immersion, and secondarily in terms of some limited combat effectiveness, but really if they had no pictures, no voices and didn't offer any immersion I wouldn't use them at all. They are really not very good as a gameplay mechanic at all.

If you want actual companions, go ask Frontier for that. But being highly inventive about the raison d'être of hired crew, whom can expire, and aren't a drop in replacement for companions, doesn't suddenly magically make it so.

Well considering that players have been asking for a way to rescue our SLF pilots on a regular basis on the forums since 2.2 launched I would suggest here that most players view them at least partially from an immersion perspective, and not simply a poorly designed game mechanic. Players have criticized their excessive credit cost, their lack of effectiveness in many situations and so on but by far the most common complaint is that we can't rescue them. That tells me that they play at least some sort of "immersion" role for many players who consider them an important part of their character's "story" in Elite.

 

[kofeyh]

If that is all they are, they are a terrible and useless game mechanic.

Think you're going off on a huge tangent here, to be fair.

Like I said above, if that is all they are, then FD has designed a literally useless game mechanic for what it offers in combat. If they are intended to be "disposable" then FD has completely missed the mark.

They are crew that can expire; that is not the same as making them disposable. The difference, is the responsibility and actions of the employer; ie you. I'm not really sure what you are arguing here, to be fair.

Well considering that players have been asking for a way to rescue our SLF pilots on a regular basis on the forums since 2.2 launched I would suggest here that most players view them at least partially from an immersion perspective, and not simply a poorly designed game mechanic.

That the Official Frontier Forums are highly allergic to consequences and have been since I registered an account (2013) is pretty well established, to be fair. Whilst you might believe "everyone" is being super immersive about crew, I'd go with several years of example of commanders being more interested in convenient outcomes, and as little consequence as humanly possible (unless it's punishing other people).

Crew are cheap to hire. They draw a wage from our income. Like actual normal employees, they can expire. They aren't companions though and if you want an actual companion then they should be designed for that purpose. Not be be an employee that is at risk of a workplace accident, which is super inconvenient to the employer so let's just make them unkillable slaves instead.

Yes, it's a game; but if you want to argue for immersion and suspension of disbelief, then a magic employee who is actually a slave and can't die probably wouldn't be my personal go to example. That it stings a bit to lose an employee, is probably more damning of just how little consequence now exists for commanders, to be fair. So much for reality and immersion.

I'd rather the developer actually design something to achieve that companion goal, than demand they make my employed space dude an undead super-hero because that's more convenient to my personal narrative.

I get the impression you are trying to convert my thinking; which ignores that I've said more than once now that approaching frontier to actually achieve a more workable outcome vis-a-vis a companion seems reasonable. Forcing changes to NPC crew to try and achieve the same thing seems like a fantastic way to both not achieve that at all and almost certainly destroy NPC crew mechanics in the process.

 

[Winterwalker]

The only reason I have one is for immersion, and I've actually trained a second pilot for use in order to keep my first pilot "safe" since I don't want to lose them in combat.

Totally good for immersion I keep three on my books, reason being I only (ever) hire harmless pilots.

You kind of prove my point though, as at least part of the idea has to be to make ships less disposable. If you have more investment, in pilot then perhaps then you enter combat with an attitude other than 'couldn't care less whether your ship is destroyed', a new one is only two rebuy clicks away. How immersive is that really?

NPC loss is not <your Cmdr> equivalent .. to broken bones and damaged reputation?

 

[Devari]

Think you're going off on a huge tangent here, to be fair.

Not really, I'm addressing the issue that you raised about treating them simply as "hired guns" rather than a "follower". If they are simply a "hired gun" then they are sort of terrible at their job for what they cost us. It's like paying an intern $200k per year to get you coffee, it's just not worth it no matter how good the coffee is or how quickly they get it for you. My two pilots have cost me 750 million credits each so far, plus 24 hours each to train them to Deadly rank, and I can tell you they have not done anywhere near that amount of work or value. I would have fired them long ago if it wasn't for immersion reasons and wanting to actually get some "work" out of them for what I've invested so far.

They are crew that can expire; that is not the same as making them disposable. The difference, is the responsibility and actions of the employer; ie you. I'm not really sure what you are arguing here, to be fair.

I'm saying that they are not a worthwhile game mechanic if not for immersion aspects. If they were robot drones, much like our limpets, do you think anyone would use an SLF if it was simply a "class 3 remote hardpoint controller"? They would be literally the worst combat option in the game and taking nothing instead of an SLF would be considered a far better use of internal space than taking something that costs 10% of your profits, 50% of your combat experience and 12 hours of your time to add another class 3 hardpoint worth of occasional dps.

That the Official Frontier Forums are highly allergic to consequences and have been since I registered an account (2013) is pretty well established, to be fair. Whilst you might believe "everyone" is being super immersive about crew, I'd go with several years of example of commanders being more interested in convenient outcomes, and as little consequence as humanly possible (unless it's punishing other people).

I would agree to a certain extent that there is some risk aversion among casual players or those who don't think the game should have any consequences, i.e., someone who intentionally flies without rebuy and then complains about losing their ship. That is their own fault and I have no sympathy for that. Still, there are many ways to lose your ship that aren't really your fault, or at least are not reliably preventable, and in those cases losing your SLF pilot is a steep price to pay.

Crew are cheap to hire. They draw a wage from our income. They aren't companions though and if you want an actual companion then they should be designed for that purpose. Not be be an employee that is at risk of a workplace accident, which is inconvenient to the employer.

I'd rather the developer actually design something to achieve that, than demand they make my employed space dude an undead super-hero because that's more convenient to my personal narrative.

Again, you see them as a disposable class 3 hardpoint, I see them as something designed primarily for immersion. If we are going to view them purely form a game mechanic perspective however they are an absolutely terrible gameplay option and nowhere near worth their costs.

 

[kofeyh]

Not really, I'm addressing the issue that you raised about treating them simply as "hired guns" rather than a "follower".

Because that's what they are. Hired crew. Going around in circles, doesn't change that.

I'm saying that they are not a worthwhile game mechanic if not for immersion aspects.

I'm suggesting that rather than assume a mechanic should do something it clearly doesn't, or that one's own opinion is somehow global, perhaps asking for that might be more productive, instead.

Again, you see them as a disposable class 3 hardpoint, I see them as something designed primarily for immersion.

Your words, m8. Not mine. I quite value my employee, actually, and I will probably be a bit disappointed in myself if I get them killed. Whether that's because I put them in harms way to save my own skin, or because I played in open, knowing full well that's a license to be potentially shot at, then that's still on me.

The forums love to obviate responsibility and just claim it's everyone else's fault. Nope. I hired the guy. I elected to bring them on board. I elected to do what I did, that one day might get them killed. I like that the game makes me think about that. I also like that there are consequences. As it was designed, as it was described and just as Frontier delivered.

If my dude could not die, then he would become that disposable hardpoint. Because of course he would. Because he'd be an endlessly exploitable resource with no consequences attached. I don't know how immersive that is, to be fair. I find it difficult to RP some sort of attachment to a hardpoint?

If we are going to view them purely form a game mechanic perspective however they are an absolutely terrible gameplay option and nowhere near worth their costs.

Personally I think Frontier did rather well to achieve what they did. I can respect a thing, even if I don't particularly agree with all of it's aspects. But then, I understand it's a crew mechanic, not a companion mechanic. I understand the point of it. To offer me potential; with associated risk. Not to be the Elite version of 'Dogmeat' or 'Aela the Huntress'.

If I wanted a companion? I'd ask frontier for it. Not force the entire game to rotate around my person because I would rather it did. This is not a healthy way to engage with any game, let alone Elite. Again; I have no quarrel with wanting a more engaging crew experience? But there's a constructive way to achieve that. I'd recommend that.

 

[Devari]

Totally good for immersion I keep three on my books, reason being I only (ever) hire harmless pilots.

You kind of prove my point though, as at least part of the idea has to be to make ships less disposable. If you have more investment, in pilot then perhaps then you enter combat with an attitude other than 'couldn't care less whether your ship is destroyed', a new one is only two rebuy clicks away. How immersive is that really?

NPC loss is not <your Cmdr> equivalent .. to broken bones and damaged reputation?

There is definitely an effect on having my SLF pilot active, I take far less risks, I don't boost out of stations, and so on. The issue is, I also don't play all aspects of the game with them either. I don't bring them for CZ combat (too easy to pull excessive aggro), I don't carry them around when running missions (too easy to get ganked/trolled) and I don't carry them into unfamiliar situations (too easy to misjudge the risks). I play exclusively in Open and so I assume that I could be griefed/trolled or run into some sort of bug or exploit that causes ship destruction for reasons that are beyond my control.

In fact I got involved in Thargoid hunting recently, dropping into NHSS, and thought it would be a good idea to bring an SLF pilot to possibly level them up form Deadly. I had read that Thargoid scouts were treated as "Elite" ranked NPCs so it sounded like a better way to gain combat experience than a typical RES. The issue here is that I hadn't fought Thargoids before and wasn't entirely sure what to expect. The first few test I had no pilot with me and thought I could handle scouts just fine. Then when I brought one of my pilots to level them I got hit by several corrosive missiles and my hull was dropping fairly rapidly. I had read about spiking my heat above 160% to decontaiminate the hull but decided instead to head back to the station and lost almost half my hull before I returned. I easily could have lost my ship and therefore my SLF pilot from that if I wasn't paying attention. At that point I decided to put my pilot inactive until I learned more about the Thargoid abilities. That was a good idea because another NHSS I entered was a Threat 7 and fortunately I didn't bring my SLF pilot because I was ambushed by some sort of Thargoid interceptor that instantly disabled my ship. This was despite having a Guardian Module reinforcement package equipped which, apparently, only protects against some specific Thargoid lightning attack and not their other means of shutdown. That ended with the loss of my ship and a 8 million rebuy for my Krait but at least I didn't lose my SLF pilot, but again, I intentionally didn't take them into that encounter because I didn't know what I was getting into and couldn't judge the risk. Most situations in the game, especially new content, are too "risky" to take an SLF pilot with you that you have invested any amount of time into. I don't think this was really FD's intention for the game mechanic, because the cost is so steep that we literally don't use our pilots. There need to be some sort of balance between irreplaceably losing your pilot and having a suitable cost associated with using them and I think the cost at this point just discourages their use for most types of gameplay.

 

[V'larr]

Wait; you can't claim "NPC targets exist to be targets" and then pivot to state your own NPC target (which it is when it engages on your behalf) is somehow immune to the same supposed "they exist to be destroyed".

You're still entirely mistaken about what a crewmember is.

A crewmember is not a disposable target that exists for the sole sake of giving you (or your enemies) something to shoot at.

This isn't even apples to oranges, this goes beyond that; this is more like you associating an apple with a rock.

An apple is to be savored, enjoyed, and can be used in the creation of many kinds of foods and even might sprout into a beautiful tree.

A rock is...well...a rock. It's there, and you can go and crush as many of them as you like, and there'll still be more rocks that all look the same and offer you no nutritional value whatsoever.

Take a wild guess whether your crewmember is supposed to be the apple or the rock in this analogy.

Neither are normal AI; they are the remainder of humanity mate. They are an analog for the rest of humanity. Not just an exploitable resource. This is the double standard.

Nope, this is incorrect too. The "remainder of humanity" are not the fish in the barrels we see flying clearly dime-a-dozen spaceships around RES's like so many angry vultures competing for scraps in an abandoned empty backyard lot.

The "remainder of humanity" are the inhabitants of the space stations we service, the inhabitants of the planets the stations orbit (most of which we cannot access currently) that pay us to go and cull these lowlife mobs every now and then, lest they get a bit of debris on their pretty orbital station windows.

You want me to believe that the NPCs we shoot at are supposed to have consequence to them, then you can start making the individual combat encounters we have with them more meaningful and not requiring us to kill them by the *tens of thousands* just to progress. And not have them strangely only inhabit mining extraction sites where security ship presence is also abnormally higher than any other location in space (or the odd compromised nav beacon here or there).

Lemme ask you: are you willing to take a crew NPC and train it up to Elite and let another player destroy it a full ten thousand times for the sake of your argument here? I mean, either way, you're either a loon or you're wrong about your premise here.

I really am not overly concerned how you want to justify that it's cool to wax like 900 irrelevant NPCs then have one special snowflake on board to be fair; I just find it amusing to watch the contortions required.

The only amusing contortion here is the expression on my face that occurs by the gross misconception you have about a crewmember that you can grow with, create a story with, and treat as a part of your space family...versus an irrelevant, disposable consumable with little more than a proc-gen'd face for a personality and that bears extravagant cost to you in terms of both XP and credits to the point that most sane people *will* treat it as nothing more as irrelevant and disposable consumable regardless of whatever personality you might add to it in the future; and to top the steaming pile off with a crown jewel of a turd, if you ever get blown up even just ONCE with it around, all your investment is gone, kaput, lost forever with no means of getting your lost time in the game back at all.

There's a part of me that earnestly refuses to believe you're actually arguing with me about this.

 

[Riverside]

So three schools of thought then:

1) All NPCs are cannon fodder (current state of the game, I sit in this camp)
2) No NPCs should be cannon fodder, all are simulated lives
3) Normal NPCs are cannon fodder, NPC crew should be companions, imbued with special powers.

 

[Frenotx]

It gives more consequence to ship destruction, which is compensated for by being less likely to get destroyed because your NPC buddy is helping you. I understand people disagree but the logic is there

This is already generally handled with rebuy costs. Bigger, badder, expensive ships are less likely to die, but have a bigger rebuy if they do. Meanwhile, if you die in a lowly keelback with a well-trained NPC pilot (still extremely possible because it's still just a keelback and has to survive 2 minutes on its own if the fighter goes down), the loss is wildly more punishing (considering wages paid, combat experience lost, and time spent training them) than dying in a blinged-out top-end ship without a trained NPC pilot.

What do you think is more likely to die: a maxed-out keelback with a well-trained NPC, or a maxed-out big 3 (/4/whatever) with no NPC pilot? Want to keep things consistent? Make NPCs cause an increased rebuy based on their ship level (call it hazard pay), and have them survive.

 

[Riverside]

This is already generally handled with rebuy costs.

How do rebuy costs make you less likely to die?

Comparing a Keelback + NPC pilot with another ship doesn't usefully add to the argument imo. The Keelback is better armed with an SLF than a Keelback without, the SLF shifts the pros & cons around. Personally If I were flying a ship like the Keelback and were attacked I'd not deploy the SLF as anything other than a distraction while I made my escape. I don't own a Keelback btw, it's not a ship I have a use for (ie not 'Open friendly' enough for me).

 

[Frenotx]

How do rebuy costs make you less likely to die?

Comparing a Keelback + NPC pilot with another ship doesn't usefully add to the argument. The Keelback is better armed with an SLF than a Keelback without, the SLF shifts the pros & cons around. Personally If I were flying a ship like the Keelback and were attacked I'd not deploy the SLF as anything other than a distraction while I made my escape. I don't own a Keelback btw, it's not a ship I have a use for (ie not 'Open friendly' enough for me).

Higher rebuy costs generally correspond with bigger badder ships, or at least more upgraded. Take a cobra, for instance. Slapping A-rated drives and upgraded bulkheads on it makes it more likely to survive, but raises the rebuy cost.

I agree that an NPC pilot makes you less likely to die, but the risk of having one (considerable time, money, and combat experience spent training them) is NOWHERE NEAR commensurate with how much they improve your chances of survival. Upgrading from that keelback to a pimped-out anaconda raises you chances of survival FAR more than adding a trained-up NPC to your keelback would, yet the penalty for dying in that far-less-likely-to-die conda is LESS than dying in the keelback with a trained-up NPC.

 

[Riverside]

Higher rebuy costs generally correspond with bigger badder ships, or at least more upgraded. Take a cobra, for instance. Slapping A-rated drives and upgraded bulkheads on it makes it more likely to survive, but raises the rebuy cost.

I agree that an NPC pilot makes you less likely to die, but the risk of having one (considerable time, money, and combat experience spent training them) is NOWHERE NEAR commensurate with how much they improve your chances of survival. Upgrading from that keelback to a pimped-out anaconda raises you chances of survival FAR more than adding a trained-up NPC to your keelback would, yet the penalty for dying in that far-less-likely-to-die conda is LESS than dying in the keelback with a trained-up NPC.

Okay your point on the rebuy cost is fair enough I guess, and looking at it from that perspective training up an NPC pilot is broadly analogous to engineering a module, which of course does survive rebuy.

The post you responded to is from early in the thread & one where I clarify a point rather than hold a strong view. I'd be more interested in your opinion on the recent post quoted below:

So three schools of thought then:

1) All NPCs are cannon fodder (current state of the game, I sit in this camp)
2) No NPCs should be cannon fodder, all are simulated lives
3) Normal NPCs are cannon fodder, NPC crew should be companions, imbued with special powers.

 

[Frenotx]

So three schools of thought then:

1) All NPCs are cannon fodder (current state of the game, I sit in this camp)
2) No NPCs should be cannon fodder, all are simulated lives
3) Normal NPCs are cannon fodder, NPC crew should be companions, imbued with special powers.

I don't think NPCs should ever be cannon fodder. This isn't Eve: online, where the players are functionally immortal gods- in elite, the players are just regular people. Slaughtering endless streams of NPC "pirates" really hurts the believability of the world. I'd much prefer if NPCs acted more like people going about their business trying to make it in the world, just as players are; it would make the world feel more real and alive.

 

[Riverside]

I don't think NPCs should ever be cannon fodder. This isn't Eve: online, where the players are functionally immortal gods- in elite, the players are just regular people. Slaughtering endless streams of NPC "pirates" really hurts the believability of the world. I'd much prefer if NPCs acted more like people going about their business trying to make it in the world, just as players are; it would make the world feel more real and alive.

Your response is as I expected & so your stance on this is consistent with your desire for more challenging NPC opponents. This would increase your chances of hull loss, but reduce the penalty for doing so.

While I respect the reasoning behind this viewpoint, this seems to be a path towards making the game have less consequence, not more. Swings & roundabouts of course, the parts of the game you enjoy would be better for you.

I believe the designers intent was that having an Elite NPC crew would be a rare & precious thing that was/is intended to be self limiting. The more time the player puts into ranking them up, the more useful they become, and the more the loss of them would be felt. This preserves the dilemma. They are very expensive, so as to avoid making them the default choice (ie the meta). In terms of firepower they may be, but they are balanced by their cost & potential for loss.

If there is no downside to having NPC crew (ie no cost plus they survive rebuy) clearly everyone would use them.
If there is some cost, some will choose not to use them, others will.
If the cost it too high, few will use them, most will not.

Where that balance lies is debatable, but I believe they are OP & therefore should be balanced by a pretty severe cost. When I come up against them they increase the threat significantly compared to the same scenario without the NPC SLF pilot, assuming the mothership cannot easily be destroyed.

 

[V'larr]

3) Normal NPCs are cannon fodder, NPC crew should be companions, imbued with special powers.

If by "special powers" you mean being consistent with all other forms of penalty and loss we're faced with, and established rules for player revival after defeat, then yes.

__

Your response is as I expected & so your stance on this is consistent with your desire for more challenging NPC opponents. This would increase your chances of hull loss, but reduce the penalty for doing so.

While I respect the reasoning behind this viewpoint, this seems to be a path towards making the game have less consequence, not more. Swings & roundabouts of course, the parts of the game you enjoy would be better for you.

As I keep repeating, there is any number of ways to increase 'consequence' in this game without focusing on keeping this permadeath baloney.

I believe the designers intent was that having an Elite NPC crew would be a rare & precious thing that was/is intended to be self limiting. The more time the player puts into ranking them up, the more useful they become, and the more the loss of them would be felt. This preserves the dilemma. They are very expensive, so as to avoid making them the default choice (ie the meta). In terms of firepower they may be, but they are balanced by their cost & potential for loss.

And why did they not apply this logic to anything else in the game prior or since, huh?

It's not fun, that's why.

If there is no downside to having NPC crew (ie no cost plus they survive rebuy) clearly everyone would use them.

Yeah. That's a good thing.

What the heck is the point of having this content in the game and having ships specifically capable of using this thing if you're not trying to let everybody embrace using them??? Why on earth would you want to punish people for using them to the point of causing people not to use this feature? Isn't that being just a WEE bit too antagonistic towards your players?

There is no problem, whatsoever, with everybody using NPC crew if their ship has the capability.

Any balance concerns can and should be addressed by directly tweaking the appropriate variables where SLF or distributor stuff are concerned. Justifying them being OP by pointing at the extravagant risk/cost is proving precisely why this is such a big problem in multiple regards.

 

[Red Fox Four]

I'll be blunt.

This is an incredibly idiotic feature.

Your crewmen are sitting in a chair identical to yours, right next to you.

Somehow you magically eject while they don't.

Logic? There is none.

Crew is already eating a relatively large portion of your income just from their percentage based payment.

Having to reduce your profits by 5% to 15% over a long period of time while training your crew and then lose them because <insert any number of ways you can die including various bugs outside of your own control> is just ridiculous.

It's just one more flawed design choice by FDEV which gets called out by players, who in turn are assailed by the fanboys in various ways, while FDEV sits back, ignores it and rolls on with "updates ice graphics" dev-streams.

If I come across as jaded and cynical that's because I've become jaded and cynical.

 

[Sylveria]

There is no problem, whatsoever, with everybody using NPC crew if their ship has the capability.

Any balance concerns can and should be addressed by directly tweaking the appropriate variables where SLF or distributor stuff are concerned. Justifying them being OP by pointing at the extravagant risk/cost is proving precisely why this is such a big problem in multiple regards.

I completely agree here.

My belief is that NPC crew gets shouted down by players who simply want more inter-player interaction- and nothing more.

SWTOR has long been criticized time and time again for the exact same reason- because "sidekicks" were available to the "solo" player and those who sought more multiplayer interaction couldn't stand the fact that others weren't forced to rely on them for help or assistance, instead of seeing the benefit it provided to everyone including themselves.

I'm not at all a fan of purposely gimping players to force multiplayer interaction in general- especially in a game that has always been marketed, sold and released as BOTH a Single Player and Multiplayer game. This game was never meant to be "only" multiplayer- and no matter how many times people insist that it should be, it's not going to change that.

It's quite simple- for those who don't wish to use NPC crew, don't. If you want to group up with your buddies instead... by all means do so- but countering that NPC crews should exist solely on your personal preferences is utter crap.