open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Ship Crews (They're Here, They're Real, get Over it)
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 ... : last (16)

Author Topic

Daugar Draaken
Posted - 2009.06.30 16:19:00 - [271]
 

I agree that the "pod" story was since the get go contrived as well as artificial. The pod backstory, put otherwise, is a lame excuse. It has some realism, when considering high-G manouvers and the brutal energies involved in war between interstellar spaceships. But don't exactly confuse Eve with unbridled realism as would you confuse Paris Hilton with being a real flesh and blood human. Eve is a story. It's a fun game. It is a challenge. It is something you do because many things in the real world suck. It is that simple. CCP can dispell or adjust the pod myth in a heartbeat. They can order concept art of crews in acceleration benches in semi-pod like contraptions. I can make an art piece of precisely that in a week, if I feel a pressing urgency. You can alter backstories, and yah, even ****** George does it.

But - CCP has an edge - the game as is is currently *very* close to the socalled transhuman zeitgeist. Google that if you don't know what it is - transhumanism. Eve works with downloaded skills, and very cleverly so I might add (to hell with level-based RPGs!) and implants and even uploading and clones. The current setting is very amenable to real world developments we will see in the next 10-20 years. Eve Online is with the times. It is not likely to be falsified by real world developments for quite a few years (the old star trek became silly in less than 20 years, with the whole interface/monitor issue). That means CCP can create lots of backstories and rationales and explanations and visualisation tools in the next few years. Crew commands can be by means of matrix reloaded type virtual interface stations, operating at a virtual speed of hundred times objective speed, or faster. You are still thinking in terms of guys running through corridors, weaving and bobbing as enemy ship explosions go off midships, crewman dousing fires with fire extinghuishers at control panels that just exploded in a shower of special effects fireworks?

A 10 kiloton nuclear explosive can be manufactured in a device smaller than a soccer ball. A ship can hold armaments in the range of thousands of those. One blast within a kilometer will seriously fry a solid metal brick, and that is just a vanilla 1950s 10 kiloton nuke. Throw in a little antimatter and we are talking altered plate tectonics. The entire ship is an anarchronism, a paradoy, a story device. Good news is that it will take a long time before eve online users realize that.

> 7: ...So lets test your mortality, shall we?
> If i want to fly into the sun in the name of science, fine. I'll just > insure my ship, sign up for a good clone, and watch as my skin boils > away in bemused contemplation. My crew on the other hand, might
> reroute power from the navigation systems, or worse from the pod life > control systems. A crew should have the ability to advise or
> influence a captain's decisions. How are you going to stop a mutiny? > Flush the corridors? speaking of which...

No. For any demented leader who charged into a volcano there were a thousand imbecile soldiers trying to keep up, screaming "for god and country". We aren't exactly a smart species. Plus, crews can be slaves. Or robots. Or card carrying death-defying scientologists. Or 1 year old biodroid replicants (A whole ship full of well-trained late adolescence and highly acrobatic daryll hannahs, now if CCP published some backstory art of THAT!) with neural jacks. Any number of rationales will do. Better still, any crashing ship may in fact produce a literal swarm of escaping pods, despite of player wishes (and whether or not he has a non-"cult of dedicated koresh worshipping" crew. Come my children, into the light, into the light.

> 8: Living on a hulk sucks veldspar.
> Make it realistic. How are you going to fit crew's quarters, storage > for food, water, commodities, bodily waste, etc on a hulk full of
> kernite? Some ships aren't built for crew.

(tbc)

Daugar Draaken
Posted - 2009.06.30 16:20:00 - [272]
 

I beg to disagree. Soviet crews of over 50 last 2 years, including food, eminities, ****, sleeping and working, as well as keeping the place spotless if somewhat malodorious in a sub smaller than a frigate. And the desperate idiots that actually fought knifefights to get onto the old galleons faced far worse.

> 9: Population boom.
> Sure, a titan can carry a fleet in it's hangar. What about crew?
> Sorta stems to reason a large ship should have a large crew. Then
> what? should the bonuses stack? Should a big ship be able to carry a
> massive crew capable of large bonuses? How would you balance that?

*clearly* you would end up having two game features - a graph in the screen depicting crew death rate, incapacity (heavy wounds) and fatigue, as well as a new category of "on board equipment", that being crew as well as the resources and skills they possess. The player who isn't in to all that gay bull**** should be happy to just select "pretty tough bastards" for his crew and be done with it. That is plop, plop, plop, four icons with a graphic strongly suggestive of Duke Nukem into the ship installation menu, can only be altered when in port. Simple as that. More enterprising gamers might implement specialized mining crews, xenobiologists, improvisation experts, suicide commandos, extra skilled, fighter crews, religious propagandists (affecting enemy vessel morale!), assassins, highly skilled morale boosting arcturian *****s ("yah but yours was male!"), especially reinforced bulkheads, morale boosting drugs, fanaticism, etc. Capacity for oddness is well in the range of current ship specialization interface (one, two, three special features, that's it)
Thats seperate from the chart on the screen that depicts how roughed up the crew is.

> finally,
> 10: But these boots are made for walkin...
> Ambulation. we get crews, someone somewhere is going to ask for
> ambulation on ships and whine "If we can walk on stations, why can't > we interact with our crew?" simple reason. You want to model, map and > animate every working part, every crewmember, every enterable place
> on your ship?
> I thought not. A crew's eye view of you ganking a titan would be
> awesomeblasters, but time consuming. maybe in a few years.
> Nice idea, but needs a massive amount of work for this cheesewheel to > get rolling.

I *empathically* agree that a consequent prying open of this chinese box will be a *****, even for the likes of CCP. But even at that, there are three answers that might soothe any concerns (a) increased marketability, (c) synergy, (d) standardized components, (e) competition and (f) customer expectations.
Eve doesnt lend itseld to piracy in the old, a blaste in one hand and a bucknife in the other. That is not something anyone should expect here. I know many do, they imagine themselves racing through corridors with a photonic scimitar (rightclick object for legal disclaimer) and a blaster but that is not gona happen.

(tbc)

Daugar Draaken
Posted - 2009.06.30 16:21:00 - [273]
 

(a) CCP needs to make money. Eve is running pretty well and stable, and is still growing. Clients who played it, do in fact return, even (as in my case) with considerable trepidation. That is pretty damn good news for you, because it means you might actually be playing eve ten years from now, having fun, albeit with an eve you'd scarcely recognize. Graphics stand to expand exponentially. Your display tool in 2019 may be something else than a flat monitor. Your interface may in fact be a device you dont have a proper noun for, and be far easier to use than anything in existence today. It *may* feel like "minority report" or it may be something entire else. It might be one big program, or it might be six entirely different games stitched back to back into a MMORPG chimera (and you might be paying a different amount of money for each seperate game). Whatever the case, the eve as it exists today won't get any subscribers after, ohh 2014. No way. It will die. Many here might not give a damn - as soon as they see something better they'll leave for a sprightlier, fresh, buxom wench and leave old eve tied to a tree to slowly die. I prefer that existing franchise remain vital, grow, evolve, challenge the status quo, renew themselves, do stupid things, learn, to smart things - and prosper. I have seen things (and signed NDA's) that would blow your socks off. There are games and MMORPGS in stealth that are inconceivable in todays words, expectations or wildest dreams. Eve has a strong brand name and the owners of that brand name will do their damndest best to keep that alive.

(b,c) Two things that do wildly different things but are related have a synegy effect greater than their parts. Say, what if CCP surprised everyone and threw in the marketplace a strategy game, only unlockable to high end users with, say, a billion ISK in the bank (or immediately, if you pay for it). The game involves not shp combat - but the cultivation of an entity in Eve - say, a corporation. Or mercenaries, Or a freaky cult. Or a trading block. Or vigilantes. Or a radical political group. Or a rogue (not "rouge") cyborg cult breaking all the laws. Or pirates. Or drug peddlers. Mutants. Or jovian spies. Or a bank. Or the surviving corporate interests of IBM. Or anything you cared imagine. This entity is active, somewhere in eve, maybe on a starbase you know and love, or maybe somewhere in an apparently derelict space station the size (and comtamination levels) of Jersey. And this game incorporates "in role" (consistent, persistent) goals, abilities (a cult has different abilities than a corporate mercenary group). It might work through several facades. SURE, many current eve players won't see the merit, but many would. Better still, it would take an hour every day out of the time allotment of high end OCD PK gamers in eve - and it would be a unique way to generate plots. This organization might hire low end players to clean up the drone infestation mess left behind by another powerbroker. If programmed well, this device might generate plots and interactivity that no amount of GMs, codemonkeys and writers would be able to generate. Think about it. Eve is ideally suited for it, and I might argue, needs it.
I have seen the sordid guts of game design, and trust me, it aint pretty. This is a very fast moving, high talent, high turnover industry. And this field stands to expand like tenfold in the next decade.

(tbc)

Daugar Draaken
Posted - 2009.06.30 16:21:00 - [274]
 

(def) you can easily add features to Eve that are repeated standardized components, like wall-17c with ornament-8a, colorscheme-5 ending into bulkhead hatch 8c. These can all be pretty standard maya generated objects, prerendered, textured and scripted. I can churn these out one a day, easy. Eve designers should be able to magic them into giant halls with cargo containers, shopping avenues, rusty backstation ghettos, security stations. The first iterations of the same would be predictable and repetitive and feel constrained. If CCP is smart enough to pay freelancers to make these things for them, with fair quality control, within a few years you would have enough component parts to re-create large parts of any station, in any region of space, on par with any contemporary game (say, dead space). Standardization and proceduralization allows for very fast accumulation of game components and very compelling gameplay. Plus all the home-working featurette designers you pay to make spacestation bulkhead doors, endles crates, crates, crates and garbage compactors will also be playing (and paying for) eve. And grateful for he 10%/month discount!

(e) Eve attracts a weird bunch. I present evidence to the jury:
* http://commonsensegamer.com/?p=1371
* http://www.tentonhammer.com/node/65475

But don't think for a second this won't be excelled, either in Eve, or in a game "you just *have* to try later thisw year". And it will not ever stop. In fact, I predict the alzheimer rates a generation from now to be appreciably lower because all these old people in the old people homes will be munching down their applie juice quick because they have to mine some ice, dammit. Gaming will be several times bigger than TV, cinema, **** and music combined, in the 2020s. You all will see things before 2029 that if you saw (experienced) them now in 2009 you would need sedating and possibly hospitalization.

Anyone here should realize they might be in it for the long haul - and I bet that very cautiously, CCP is contemplating these questions and issues years before they were a spark in my subconscious, and are planning for them - but it is virgin territory for CCP too, and they are cautious, cautious, cautious.

Marcus Gideon
Gallente
Federal Defense Operations
Posted - 2009.06.30 16:24:00 - [275]
 

9 pages... tl;dr

Has anyone mentioned EVE Chronicles: Hands of a Killer yet?

Quote:
Four months later, Daren Athaksis was confirmed as one of six-thousand three-hundred and fourteen reported casualties resulting from the destruction of the Apocalypse-class battleship "Dam-Imud." His post was filled within three days. His family was not notified.


I think this idea of Crew with their own stats is just a pain waiting to happen.

Keeping track of each member, their XP, their skills, etc. Then having to delete all these values when the ship they inhabit gets popped. Because there's no reason why the crew would be expected to survive. Pods are reinforced. And even when they fail, the Capsuleer just wakes up in a new clone.

IF there even were such a thing as escape pods for the rest of the crew... they'd just get rounded up as loot for the victor.


The mere notion of tangible crew is just an attempt at getting Rigs on top of Rigs. There's more than enough variety in EVE already, we don't need mechanics for even MORE min/maxing.


Herzog Wolfhammer
Gallente
Sigma Special Tactics Group
Posted - 2009.07.14 05:12:00 - [276]
 

I recall an old video game circa 1991 in which you sailed old fighting ships. Schooners, frigates, galleons, etc.

You controlled the ship and needed to keep track of the wind, and there was real "math physics" behind the cannon fire.

Anyway, the more you played with the same ship and crew, the better the crew got, and the better your ship was.

Introducing crews would be a good "cost/risk/consequence factor" to EVE. Getting ships constantly blown up would mean always having a "green" crew, keeping a ship for a long time means a better crew, and having a penchant for losing ships means you get a lower quality of crew whenever you staff a new ship.

Everybody loves a winner!

It would also add a bit more edge to high-sec missions, and the need to avoid such fail-fittings and eliminate poor playing habits.

Crews on pirate ships might actaully create a need to purchase the familiar consumer good: spirits. Crew would create an actual need for those goods, rather than the usual mongering and hauling of them. ISK spent on those goods to keep crews supplied and happy would be consumed, reducing the amount of ISK in existence which causes inflation in the game and breaks the economy. Higher level missions are and ISK creation engine that is not grounded on any commodity or production value in the economy, so an ISK sink of having to supply a crew may balance this.

And that time in station spent there means shore leave, and a more efficient and rested crew, which would add to the hostility of Wormhole space (at least before you get that POS up) and the consequences of being out there too long.


Rawbin Hood
Gallente
Center for Advanced Studies
Posted - 2009.07.28 07:40:00 - [277]
 

Edited by: Rawbin Hood on 28/07/2009 07:42:26
Edited by: Rawbin Hood on 28/07/2009 07:41:43
not sure if this has been said, but...
why not just add a tiny, wee little smidgit of a bonus on to the trade goods section -

Tourists .001% hull resistance per
Military .001% rate of fire per, add small arms with it get .001% damage per
Live stock -.001% agility +.001% speed (methane) jk Shocked
Slaves .001% to repair shield hull armour
Elite Slaves .0011% ''
Free Slaves .002% ''
Dancers negative all around for a distracted crew or bonus to all members in hull cause they be happy
Slave hounds additional .0002% + slave bonus
and soo on

and just carry them in your cargoQuestion

Jacob Holland
Gallente
Weyland-Vulcan Industries
Posted - 2009.07.28 08:07:00 - [278]
 

Crews are unbelievably easy to come by.
Anything which is easy to come by should be of little value.
I would be against having anything greater than perhaps a 1% bonus to any particular stat due to a crew, they are afterall, unimportant, a low value commodity.
I would leave skills like Thermodynamics to cover the "Mr Scott" factor.

Mephiston Lucius
Minmatar
Crimson Angels
Posted - 2009.07.28 08:33:00 - [279]
 

crews would be very good idea / implantation to game..
iffffffff /a big one/ ccp developers not lazy ppl (they make a patch for solving bugs than makign another patch for solving the issues first patch cause... sigh.. ) - or ccp hire more "brillant" developers.. which is unlikely..
heh.. they cant even make real their own promises let alone making this kind of new ideas addin to game..

Thanendar
Posted - 2009.07.31 07:30:00 - [280]
 

OMG

/make it so!

DustinTheWind1
Posted - 2009.07.31 18:29:00 - [281]
 

Hmm to me it seems instead of a crew it would be an artificial intelligence running your ship. That artificial intelligence could gain or lose experience and possibly even be upgrade. I mean it already tracks your opponents for you and runs nano bots ect.

In my opinion the artificial intelligence would interface with you and feed off of your skills as a pilot and make you the captain of your ship in a superhuman sort of way.

Dryson Bennington
Posted - 2009.07.31 20:03:00 - [282]
 

Quote:
recall an old video game circa 1991 in which you sailed old fighting ships. Schooners, frigates, galleons, etc.

You controlled the ship and needed to keep track of the wind, and there was real "math physics" behind the cannon fire.

Anyway, the more you played with the same ship and crew, the better the crew got, and the better your ship was.

Introducing crews would be a good "cost/risk/consequence factor" to EVE. Getting ships constantly blown up would mean always having a "green" crew, keeping a ship for a long time means a better crew, and having a penchant for losing ships means you get a lower quality of crew whenever you staff a new ship.

Everybody loves a winner!

It would also add a bit more edge to high-sec missions, and the need to avoid such fail-fittings and eliminate poor playing habits.

Crews on pirate ships might actaully create a need to purchase the familiar consumer good: spirits. Crew would create an actual need for those goods, rather than the usual mongering and hauling of them. ISK spent on those goods to keep crews supplied and happy would be consumed, reducing the amount of ISK in existence which causes inflation in the game and breaks the economy. Higher level missions are and ISK creation engine that is not grounded on any commodity or production value in the economy, so an ISK sink of having to supply a crew may balance this.

And that time in station spent there means shore leave, and a more efficient and rested crew, which would add to the hostility of Wormhole space (at least before you get that POS up) and the consequences of being out there too long.



I forget the name of the handheld game, but it was similar to what you are suggesting, you would have to "feed" your crew in order to keep their moral up, if their morale was at a certain level you would get bonus' to various partions of your ship, if the moral was low then they might actually muntiny and cause damage to the ship. In order for this to happen there would need to be another bay added for cosumable goods as well as other goods. I think what would be needed is a ingame feature that is sorta like the game Civilization. You have four advisor's that tell you what your crew needs and their overall moral. You then add items that your crew needs to keep their morale at a level high enough to keep your ship functioning properly. Over time certain members of the crew are promoted via a random generator. When they are promoted they would then add various boosters to morale that would then add more bonus' to the ships performance overall.

Heril
Caldari
Posted - 2009.07.31 21:01:00 - [283]
 

Okay, I want to give how I've come to view it lately.

For some time, I've considered that character skill points included what would be skill of "the crew", or specifically, your ability to automatically attract crew members with certain skills.

I say leave it alone.

Stradien
Gallente
Aliastra
Posted - 2009.08.06 20:05:00 - [284]
 

BUMP!

/signed

/vote

darkmancer
Posted - 2009.08.06 21:01:00 - [285]
 

Ship crews is one of those things - nice idea, but tedious and pointless in game.

Corozan Aspinall
Perkone
Posted - 2009.08.06 21:19:00 - [286]
 

So does anyone else have unpleasant flashbacks to Frontier, sitting around at Sirocco station for 5 hrs on fast forward waiting, hoping, praying for someone to become available to crew your Panther Clipper?

Crew 'anxiety', a whole new plethora of sadism. Wut!

Stradien
Gallente
Aliastra
Posted - 2009.08.07 00:09:00 - [287]
 

More ideas on crews (this thread is too long to read so if I'm repeating someone... sorry).

How about making crews AUGMENT your abilities. Example:

Say I'm a newb and I want to pilot a Carrier. It's going to take me millions and millions and months and months of time to get the necessary skills to do it from a capsule. BUT, what if I trained my skills up quite a ways and hired a specialty crew to augment my skillset. For example: I may not be big on the Science track but you need Science V to be able to pilot a Carrier. So I hire a crew of scientists rated as Science V to get my skills filled out to meet the total pre-requisites of the Carrier class ships.

You could even make the Crew a "damage item". If the crew is killed or wounded during combat it knocks the skill down below required levels and you can't use the Warp Drive anymore.

Thanks!
Stradien

Ezevector
Posted - 2009.08.07 23:44:00 - [288]
 

Here's one potential idea (feel free to flog me if it's been posted before).

Associate crew with skills, as some have suggested, and make them mutually exclusive with the player's skills, but otherwise give them the full effects.

Meaning, if you have gunnery 5, there's no point to hiring a gunner. On the other hand, if your salvaging skill sucks and you want to use a Salvager II, you can hire a professional salvager who has a salvaging of 5.

You could require that players pay crew a regular salary, so that having the skill yourself is more cost-efficient, but you still have the option.

That gives crew a unique place in the game. They allow you to mount modules you might not otherwise be able to on a ship-per-ship and crew-per-crew basis, and allows you to increase your effectiveness in certain areas in exchange for a constant (but not enormous) ISK cost.

Perhaps most importantly, it would also allow for greater player freedom and experimentation in professions that normally isn't feasible; you could, for example, hire a 5th level Industrialist, a 5th-level Astrogeologist and a 5-th level Miner so you could try out a mining barge before wasting two months of training on it. The drawback, of course, would be that half of your profits would be going towards paying their salaries (5th level crew in high level skills would presumably cost more). In fact, the distinction between normal crew and officers could be whether they are capable of filling prerequisites for ships and/or modules or whether they just give the associated skill bonus. In any case, this gives players more gameplay options, which is a good thing. It doesn't give any significant advantage to macroers or farmers (since they're going to train en masse straight to the skills they plan to use anyway), and it would help give newer characters a bit more potential to compete with older ones without removing the advantages of having an older character. (An older character wouldn't need crew to do things for them, so they could do more things at once and do them all cheaper.)

Ezevector
Posted - 2009.08.07 23:46:00 - [289]
 

Originally by: Stradien
More ideas on crews (this thread is too long to read so if I'm repeating someone... sorry).


That's just what I was thinking!

*flogs himself*

Krystal Flores
Amarr
Missions Mining and Mayhem
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2009.08.31 23:35:00 - [290]
 

crew= yes
this idea would be very nice

Davelantor
Caldari
The Resistance Movement
Posted - 2009.09.02 10:21:00 - [291]
 

i like the idea, the crew will add extra value to a ship and make it more anoying to loose ... there could be that the balance of fight can also be shifted towards the ship with more experienced crew, a crew that knows the ship more than the other guys ship with a newly recruited crew. but also crew experiance could be based on ship model, like, a crew that has been working on a moa would not be able to use some of its skills when transfered into a nighthawk, etc. ... crew that requests missions could also be fun thing to do.. or somekind of crew based storyline mission that rewards player with a special crew members, there can be crew quarters that you can just drag and drop crew like cargo space. higher ranged officers will take extra crew space :P ..

Gad'ui
Posted - 2009.09.03 07:42:00 - [292]
 

I like the officer ideas, make officers available for hire with a large fee to buy them in the first place.

Officers give small bonuses to your crew, hell, give them names, bios and crap too so people almost get attached to them.

Of course when your amarr space your crews are much cheaper and don't require pay, but their quality is horrible and they smell.

Xiphoid Darkness
Caldari
Myrmidon Mining Industries
Scalar Federation
Posted - 2009.09.07 06:56:00 - [293]
 

eve is beautifull because its most detailed mmorpg.
crews? why not. it will add more detail and more strategy.
/signed

Naj Ymoch
Posted - 2009.09.07 07:58:00 - [294]
 

Edited by: Naj Ymoch on 07/09/2009 08:12:32
Originally by: Cygnet Lythanea
Ok, now that I got that out of hte way, here's my idea:

Ships crews use a special slot, like rigs.


That's really all you had to say.

/signed

EDIT:
Of course, it would be especially important that these crew members actually gain experience while actively working with the pilot. It would make sense that they'd need to be more than just another 'module'. Also, to lower galactic unemployment rates, allow crews to perish just as a ship's modules perish upon taking damage to the structure/hull. Of course, humans are more fragile than tritanium alloys, so casualties would be unavoidable (but profitable to the universe as a whole?).

Davelantor
Caldari
The Resistance Movement
Posted - 2009.09.16 16:27:00 - [295]
 

sweet idea, would make eve a better place
can finnaly make a difference on the fact between a old ship with experianced crew and a new ship with a rookie crew ... meaning more dangerous to loose ... and it would finnaly bring sence to some of the eve chronicles ..

/all up for the crew idea :D

DMac88
Caldari
Posted - 2009.09.22 00:28:00 - [296]
 

I like this idea and have too thought of it myself, I envisioned a much simpler systems, as said in the original post crews could work similarly to the fitting system and the idea of them gaining experience is great too, they could also be traded on the market like any item, obviously with more experienced crew members fetching higher prices.

as for what the crews would actually do for you; keep it simple. similarly to rigs and other modules let crews provide you with % increases in different areas.

Bojo Prinz
Posted - 2009.09.22 01:57:00 - [297]
 

As an old frontier elite pilot: crew is cool.

/signed.

DerStrick
Caldari
ZERO T0LERANCE
Posted - 2009.09.22 23:18:00 - [298]
 

Edited by: DerStrick on 22/09/2009 23:26:03
Edited by: DerStrick on 22/09/2009 23:19:38
As a new Player in Eve I have to say: Crew idea is great. I thought about that without any knowledge about the forum here. I saw the big and bigger ships and asked myself:"Who is going to control these ships and all the tiny windows? What a waste of power if only one person takes control." :D
I think everyone with a creative mind thought abaut that. I had a conversation with friends ingame about the amount of crews in each ship too. But in lack of knowledge about the storyline in EVE we thought it would be more than 1000s of ppl in a battleship.
In ships aren't tactical crew members at all. There are also civilian passengers, travellers, persons providing any services.
I see the topic is old and there is nothing in ingame like that crew stuff.
My suggestion is to implement the crew members as an amount (like jumpships need fuel). So every ship needs crew. With a full amount all systems run at 100% and with the time or within fights the crewmembers will decrease. So the pilot has to stop at station to buy more crewmembers (lol, amarrian would buy, the others would hire them XD ). In addition to skill affecting crews I wanna say it is quite difficult to implement this, because I don't understand how a pilot would have influence to the crew by his neural connection. so it is just an idea out of my head and I'd like to see the topic go on and hopefully to consideration of CCP to implement this.

Further Idea:
So there is a cargobay and a drone bay. Why not an extra "bay" for crews with a special dimension? and with skills you can increase the dimension of crewspace to get more members inside. Experience gain while beeing with the same pilot is a great idea too.

Did anyone talk about the limits? Where is the end? And what about the time untill someone has reached maximum amount of crews or experience with them?

Cygnet Lythanea
World Welfare Works Association
Posted - 2009.09.24 04:06:00 - [299]
 

Originally by: Marcus Gideon
The mere notion of tangible crew is just an attempt at getting Rigs on top of Rigs. There's more than enough variety in EVE already, we don't need mechanics for even MORE min/maxing.



I might point out that the idea for crews has been around vastly longer then the idea for rigs. People also screamed that the SP loss for T3 was crews-in-all-but-name.

Crews will come. The fact that this thread has rolled on as long as it has (god, I can't believe a thread I oped has gone on for getting close to three years now.) shows that players are receptive to the idea. And I think with the sort of offerings that TOR will be wielding, people might begin to expect more from EVE too. Crews and station walking might be one more way that CCP shows it can deliver.

Kallana Wren
Posted - 2009.09.29 21:59:00 - [300]
 

Imagine the panic when faced with the potential of not only losing your t3 ship, but also its elite crew.

First - Crew should be 100% optional. That way all of us micro management addicts can have our fun for a limited benefit, while the rest of the player-base can purchase ships with a generic complement of crew that require no special attention. Thinking of it as choosing not to plug implants into your clone.

Crew should definitely be limited by the size of the ship, and should be on a level no greater than implant hardwirings for the maximum grant-able bonus (3-5% on most skills, or equivalent to 1 level or less). Would also be really cool to see crew grant some of the desired bonuses that have no skills tied to them, for example a 10-20% bonus to reload timers when you have an elite gunnery crew, capping at 25% with an officer and max skilled crew. Crew could be handled like a t3 ship loss also, when you lose your ship they suffer at least 1 level of skill loss to represent casualties.

Training time for crew should be on the level of a rank 4-5 skill, with the added requirement of your being in the ship IN SPACE in order for them to train at all. Sorry, when you're docked they're on shore leave. Also might want to make crew (or crew other than covert-ops crew) not gain sp while a ship is cloaked, to prevent cloaking at a safe spot while afk in order to train crew-members.

The profit sharing idea is interesting as well, would serve as a sort of rent out your ship to that veteran prospector to get a feel for the profession. Would make the profession tutorials more engaging also, as the loot you gained would have value outside the mission track, and the prospector taking a healthy cut would encourage you to train the skills yourself.

Also, depending on how they integrate DUST and walking in stations, your crew could be your NPC escorts - watching your back on a mission or backing you up in that bar brawl. Of course if their morale is low... Well maybe they cause trouble till you improve it.

Some games have already played around with ideas similar to this, if anyone else has played Ring of Red you can see an implementation of vehicle crew in a strategy RPG - losing an elite squad really hurt, even if they WERE 100% optional.


Pages: first : previous : ... 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 ... : last (16)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only