Idea - Allow an NPC to turn the FSS into an ADS

Old Duck

Old Duck
Azirphaeli said:
you don't get first discover bonus or tagged name since you didn't find it,
Click to expand...

Who get's credit for the iPhone? Steve Jobs. Who actually invented, designed, and assembled the iPhone? NPCs. I've lost count how many things I've done that the "boss" ended up getting credit for - that's just how the world works. And I doubt Christopher Columbus (I know, bad example) was in the Crow's Nest when America came into view.

In other words, as Captain (CMDR) of my ship, the one funding my expedition, you bet I should get credit for anything my crew does under my watch. If my NPC wants first-discovery credit, he can buy his own ship and go out exploring :p
 
Last edited:

Ian Skippy

Ian Skippy
Azirphaeli said:
Alright, i support this so long as it follows the rules of the game. FSS cannot be used while moving so you gotta be stopped. The NPC does the work, cannot scan blocked bodies, you don't get first discover bonus or tagged name since you didn't find it, and you get trade dividends levels of credits for turning in the data. Further, you cannot scan to claim anythign the NPC already did.
Click to expand...

If I park my Corvette, carrying 1t of gold, in a hi-res, deploy my NPC in the SLF and activate my turrents before I go grab a pizza, who gets the bounties? :)
 

Chaparral

Chaparral
I do think npc and multicrew explorer assistants should be a thing.

The point Sluet is making makes sense as well.

A "buff" to the tuning mechanic might be a nice compromise, where the presence of an NPC explorer or multicrew partner causes a color coded halo, or limited tuning band for each unscanned body, thus accelerating the process without eliminating the process entirely.
 

Riverside

Riverside
sleutelbos said:
Because we are discussing game design, and "leave me alone, I do what I want!" isnt an argument. If a new thargoid thing is rumoured and people race to find it, you having a godmode-cheat-NPC auto-finding stuff instantly effects everyone else.

Which is why game design in a multiplayer context is more complex than just yelling "gimme what I want!", whether you acknowledge it or not. And it is why proposals have a better change of being considered by FD if you can look beyond your own interests.

It is why things drewcarnegie wants are more likely to happen, as he isnt asking for an advantage over others, compared to other ideas. Whether you like it or not, anything you want that gives you an advantage over the current system is problematic.
Click to expand...

This is not a competitive game element. In PvP there is a need for balance. In BGS faction manipulation there is a need for balance. There is no competitive balance in exploration or discovery, you just go & do your thing & congratulate the people that are first to discover a thing or place.

I mean sure there are bitter people who are frustrated that someone else got there first, years ago but that's on them, not the game or the first discoverer.
 

WR3ND

WR3ND
I'd prefer a black body honk module type signal interpretation computer to buy and put in my now empty size one slots.

No need for an NPC. I imagine a bot could sort the mini-game pretty easily. I don't want that though, just black bodies to explore in first-person. :)
 
Last edited:

Ziggy Stardust

Ziggy Stardust
Your idea doesn't work. It gives me a completely scanned system. Not the ADS.

By the way: I find this an odd sentiment for someone who told me: explorers who like exploring systems will love the FSS.

I guess True Explorers hire an NPC to explore for them.
 
Last edited:

kpmop

K
Ziggy Stardust said:
Your idea doesn't work. It gives me a completely scanned system. Not the ADS.
Click to expand...
This. Plus, also, to be fair (for same interdiction risk etc), you'd need to come to 0 throttle for your NPC crew to scan the system and it shouldn't be instant (even for elite ranked NPCs) because it takes anyone time to move between the blobs.

I'm all for having NPC crew in the chairs, or having planets show up as (unexplored) targets in the nav panel so they can be manually scanned (as per old method), but the OP's idea is OP. ;)
 

WR3ND

WR3ND
kpmop said:
... Plus, also, to be fair (for same interdiction risk etc), you'd need to come to 0 throttle...
Click to expand...

I can only imagine this wasn't an intentional game design choice in the first place, but rather to make more sense with the relatively static FSS and DSS views.

Anyone just entering a system for whatever reason is at a reasonable risk of getting interdicted* (no one being out in the black anyway not withstanding); no need to make it silly by requiring explorers to park in supercruise. [blah] Never mind that I don't go exploring to park my ships anyway.

*And if not, then it's the interdiction mechanics that need refining, in my opinion.
 
Last edited:

Ian Skippy

Ian Skippy
Riverside said:
This is not a competitive game element.
Click to expand...

To you. For many, it definitely is competitive. Especially as the game literally registers the name of the first person to find it. You can personally not care, but the game is set up to encourage people to care.
 

Ian Skippy

Ian Skippy
WR3ND said:
I can only imagine this wasn't an intentional game design choice in the first place, but rather to make more sense with the relatively static FSS and DSS views.
Click to expand...

At 30km/sec you already have planets drift over your screen at times. Good luck scanning them when they move literally thousand times faster. ;)
 

WR3ND

WR3ND
sleutelbos said:
To you. For many, it definitely is competitive. Especially as the game literally registers the name of the first person to find it. You can personally not care, but the game is set up to encourage people to care.
Click to expand...

Competition is optional, and makes sense for some things, like tourist type spots. I wouldn't say it's encouraged though. There are some 399 billion or so systems out there for the taking.
 

Old Duck

Old Duck
It seems many people have zero interest / ability to compromise, which is likely why these threads go round and round and round forever. I'm not just saying that based on this thread, not even based on threads about this subject, but from my various interactions with this forum over a variety of topics for the last 1.5 years. That's fine, I'm learning to "state my view" and move on, but I can definitely see why Frontier makes their decisions and stick to them. If anything, this stubbornness will likely ensure that the exploration tools remain exactly as they are, which is okay by me.

On that note, moving on!
 

da_wae

da_wae
Old Duck said:
Disclaimer - I won't be "defending" my idea, as it's just that, an idea (and I'm taking a break from debating, as it's exhausting after awhile). But I am watching this thread with interest.

If nothing else, perhaps someone at Frontier will see it and think, "Hmmmm, that's a good idea, let's fix what the OP got wrong and implement our version in a future update." Who knows!
Click to expand...

Nice memes:

1. Post idea on public forum
2. Publicly declare "not gonna defend my own idea, post at will"
3. [haha]
4. /thread
 

IndigoWyrd

IndigoWyrd
I support the idea of NPC Crew. This was a part of the original crew concept - a robotic crew. Why not have an NPC Gunner, or a second NPC fighter pilot? If a human multi-crew can deploy both a human AND an NPC fighter, there’s no reasonable reason not to be able to deploy two NPC fighters - from ships that can carry dual bay fighters of course.

And the NPC Gunner, granted it’s really no different than turrets operating themselves anyways - it just puts a body in a seat, so why not? We don’t even need the bonus pip when using NPC’s.
 
Last edited:

da_wae

da_wae
sleutelbos said:
It is polite to not defend your own proposal, but explain it well in the OP and leave it to the community.
Click to expand...

Polite? More like "hit and run" trolling.

Unless you're willing to stick around and defend your idea, how can we really tell the difference between concern trolls and actual genuine ideas?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom