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 : ... 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 ... : last (16)

Author Topic

Vaneshi SnowCrash
Posted - 2009.03.11 03:25:00 - [241]
 

I think it was FanFest 2007 that the subject of crews came up as part of WIS. I seem to remember that the general idea was 'yes, ships have crew'. However the CCP person at the time pointed out that the game is about you, demigod of space, not the very mortal spuds who don't have even an escape pod.

Eisbrecker
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2009.03.11 14:37:00 - [242]
 

I totally agree with having crews in ships.

And I think you've got a good start on the crew implimentation here....but

A.) I don't think there should be too much thought put into the crews. In otherwords don't make them too specialized.

B.) The only bonus from crews should be for longevity. The longer you are able to keep the same crew (i.e. you don't get your ship blown up) a small bonus to your ship's basic abilities should be seen. Or maybe you could choose a larger bonus to a single ability (i.e. shield hp, armor hp, capacitor...etc).

Ultimately, I think crews is one part of a major overhaul for EVE that needs to address emmersion of the player in the game world.

Step 1.) Tweak ship designs and allow for a "cut-away" viewer to see the insides of your ship or allow for a first person view of the inside of the ship as it's captain.

Step 2.) Add crews and AI for crews, nothing special you can make them like sims characters or something just make it a little more realistic, if I check out my ship I want to see the crew bustling about. Plus there's possibility for cool effects like red alert sirens going off when in combat...or maybe a harsh red light when your cloaked like the klingons in Star Trek...so many possibility here.

Step 3.) Improved ship effects. Personally I'd like to see thrusters moving and adjusting. Gun turrets more realistic with recoil and mechanical sound effects. Hulls that breach...pieces flying off and trails of debris behind a ship.

I can just imagine how cool this game would be with that stuff implimented.

And as a side note, because anytime someone says something like this there are 50 people that reply saying how the servers can't handle this and it's too hard to do that....I don't care how they do it, that's not my problem. This is what I pay them for.

Krystal Flores
Amarr
Missions Mining and Mayhem
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2009.03.21 17:25:00 - [243]
 

I agree with the crew idea, even if it is only like a x% bonus to every x number of a crew in your cargo.

blacksquirrel
Posted - 2009.03.25 03:01:00 - [244]
 

would be nice.... id say just have it so there are skills that barley affect things say adding 1% increase to x,y,z, systems then say they would add to chances to critical hits etc. Could also be things to buy like crew training on POS's or buying better officers etc.

Amalina Jerone
Posted - 2009.03.26 14:24:00 - [245]
 

I’ve been thinking about this for a while and this could be a nice new angle for the game, but it has to give the game something it doesn’t have already or it’s simply another way of getting those last few %ages out of what you already have (and there’s already a fantastically elegant skill system in place that does this). So please bare with me whilst I go through my thoughts.

-

All ships in the EVE universe have crews. However, unlike research and production, there are no game mechanics that currently allow for these assistants to have an impact in the game. What are needed are crew units, but more specifically team leaders / specialists that can motivate those crews, for ship wide operations, into performing better.
The number of allowable ‘Team Leaders’ would be based on crew size (and thus ship size) and the Leadership skills of the Captain (our friendly neighbourhood capsuleers).

In the system I envisage there would be two new Leadership skills:

Team Leader (Prerequisite: Leadership IV – Rank 5) – This Skill allows command of Team Leaders. Grants the Pilot the ability to command a new Team Leader per skill level, Up to a maximum of 5 Team Leaders.

[Team Type] Crew Management (Prerequisites: Leadership IV & [Team Type] V – Rank 8) - This Skill allows command of a Crew of [Team Type]. Grants the Pilot the ability to command a Crew of [Team Type] up to the level of the skill. Up to a maximum of Level 5.

For [Team Type] Crew Management the available Team Types are:
Drones (+1% per level to: Damage, ROF & Critical Hit Chance)
Electronics (+2% per level to: Max CPU & Signature Radius Reduction)
Engineering (+2% per level to Shield HP, Max Capacitor & Powergrid Output)
Gunnery (+1% per level to: Turret Damage & Critical Hit Chance)
Mechanic (+2% per level to: Armor HP, Hull HP & All Repair Unit Cycle Time)
Mining (+1% per level to: Mining Yield & Mining Unit Cycle Time)
Missiles (+1% per level to: Missile Damage, ROF & Critical Hit Chance)
Navigation (+2% per level to: Ship Agility & Warp Speed)
Survey (+2% per level to: Scanner Cycle Time & Scan Range)

And the Core [Team Type] skill has to be Lvl V in order to begin this training. (i.e. Mechanic V must be trained before [Mechanic] Crew Management can be trained)

And one new Social Skill:

Wage Negotiation (Prerequisites: Leadership V & Social IV – Rank 6) – Skill at Crew Wage Negotiations. 5% reduction, per level, to Crew Wages.

-

Each ship type in the new system would have a number of ‘Crew Berths’, similar to ‘Upgrade Hardpoints’ for rigs. These are based on ship hull type as shown below:

1 Berth – Frig / Destroyer / Industrial
2 Berth – Cruiser / Battlecruiser / Transport / Barge
3 Berth – Battleship / Exhumer / Cap Industrial / Jump Freighter
4 Berth – Dread / Standard Carrier
5 Berth – Cap Carrier / Titan

No ship can have more than one Team Leader for each Team Type (this is a fairly obvious rule).

-

Team Leaders would then be available using a system similar to ‘Insurance’. Each pilot could ‘fit’ his ship Berth allocation with a Team Leader of the required level, for a twelve week period (exactly the same as insurance) each costing ISK-100k/Lvl (to the maximum Lvl allowable by the Pilot’s skill) for the duration of their contract. Not only would this mean that there would be another level of variance to ship setup, but there would be another level of monetary sink in the universe (something that is long since overdue).
Placing a crew unit into an already ‘filled’ Berth, is the equivalent of ‘Sacking’ the Team Lead and no money is returned to the pilot. Crew Units also cannot be transferred from ship to ship (same system as rigs).

-

This is not a fully specced enhancement, more a working principal on which such a system maight be implemented. The variance there is in the EVE universe the more unique all the characters become.

That is my ramble over. I’ve tried to make this a viable option, adding something that other enhancements have yet to make (and probably failing miserably). You are now fully fitted and ready to gank the living hell out of my proposal…
Rolling Eyes

Lianari Estrosa
Posted - 2009.03.29 04:08:00 - [246]
 

Edited by: Lianari Estrosa on 29/03/2009 04:09:51
This idea would be awesome, but ONLY if done right. Amalina Jerone pretty much worded it perfectly, but 'till CCP can get it right, they should at least open up a spot in the ships to add those soldiers and dancers and the like. It would be more 'realistic' because come on, if your flying a battleship, your not going to be doing it alone. But a Frigate, I could see flying by yourself :/

tatsudoshi I
Gallente
The Venus Project - Zeitgeist Movement
Posted - 2009.03.31 06:59:00 - [247]
 

Well I like the idea. I think it would fit well with EVE.

Armored Phoenix
Gallente
Phoenix Stellar Mining Industries
Posted - 2009.04.01 22:44:00 - [248]
 

Edited by: Armored Phoenix on 01/04/2009 22:50:52
Edited by: Armored Phoenix on 01/04/2009 22:49:09
Edited by: Armored Phoenix on 01/04/2009 22:47:18
Originally by: Trading Plaices
Originally by: Tonto Auri
Many times downed idea.

Wrong, crew numbers are actually specified in the Item database. Unsure if it is a legacy of when the game was developed but they are there. To check the numbers download the latest evemon and check the statistics for the ships, the number of crew is listed in there somewhere. I'm at work at the moment but iirc a frigate has 1, cruiser 100ish, battleship 1000 and up into the 10000's for a titan. Unsure if its relevant.




I just looked at the Kestrel frigate in EveMon and it lists a MaxPassengers of 6. The Viator transport has a MaxPassengers of 120. So obviously ships can, and probably do, have additional crew members besides the capsuleer. I think this is an interesting idea, and I agree with the OP that some type of "crew module" would be a nice addition and add to the RP opportunities in the game.

As a note, the Gallente titan, Erebus, lists MaxPassengers as 1,500. Smile

Just checked the Proteus strategic cruiser in EveMon, and it lists MaxPassengers of 670, so ship crews are not a leftover from a previous build of Eve Online. This is a T3 ship from Apocrypha.

Tortonax Troodont
Posted - 2009.04.01 23:04:00 - [249]
 

I definitely think ships' crews should be represented in-game somehow. It would be a very cool addition.

Todd Jaeger
Pandemonium.
Posted - 2009.04.02 01:27:00 - [250]
 

Wow its funny....I thought all day about how it would be a good isk sink to somehow have to pay for ship crews...and I come to this forum and its been talked about for 2 years Shocked

CrestoftheStars
Caldari
Recreation Of The World
Posted - 2009.04.02 01:54:00 - [251]
 

no.

but would like the old "crew" back under info :P

Tagami Wasp
Caldari
Sarz'na Khumatari
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2009.05.16 22:34:00 - [252]
 

Yes, Team Leader style.

eliminator2
Gallente
Vindicated Blast.
Posted - 2009.05.17 07:12:00 - [253]
 

crew idea sux

ShadowDraqon
The Quantum Company
Independent Faction
Posted - 2009.05.17 11:11:00 - [254]
 

Originally by: CrestoftheStars
no.

but would like the old "crew" back under info :P
This. Please, this.

Also, don't you DARE post a reply in this thread anymore until you read This masterpiece of a chronicle. It's about a capsuleer talking to one of his crewmembers regarding an "incident", and has a lot of info on the topic here.
I'm surprised no one linked this earlier.

Tsual
Minmatar
Posted - 2009.05.19 16:50:00 - [255]
 

Originally by: ShadowDraqon
Originally by: CrestoftheStars
no.

but would like the old "crew" back under info :P
This. Please, this.

Also, don't you DARE post a reply in this thread anymore until you read This masterpiece of a chronicle. It's about a capsuleer talking to one of his crewmembers regarding an "incident", and has a lot of info on the topic here.
I'm surprised no one linked this earlier.


Still crew would offer a nice possibility to introduce kameira/marine/mpac station warfare for conquering stations/FW plexes as possible alternative to simply shooting them down. (ground warfare as soon as planetary interaction get introduced)

Eclorc
Posted - 2009.05.19 18:28:00 - [256]
 

IMO the ideas in this thread would add far more to the game than ambulation ever could.

Crew skill over time, experience points, keep ship / crew alive and gain experience, more efficient ship, better repair skills, etc etc. For CCP programming side of things it's really only an additional skewing factor to multiply in?



Amarr Colt
Posted - 2009.05.19 19:32:00 - [257]
 

The Idea itself sounds good!Cool

Dai Connie
Posted - 2009.05.22 12:39:00 - [258]
 

I think before we introduce crews and stuff, we should address the current issues with eve, not add extra stuff that could potentially cause more problems. I think we need to fix fleet combat in order to make this work because now fleet combat is a tacticless blob fight where ships get instant vaporized when primaried. It doesnt matter what you throw on your ships, (and in this thread whos crewing it) but more about how many people you can bring into the fight. If ships are soo prone to being killed off like this, no one will spend money on crews because they dont want to waste their isk on stuff that wont save their ass in a fleet fight. I think that personalizing ships is pointless in this day and age because its not really about what you fit in your ship, more about brining a bigger gang than your opponents. This day and age, most people will simply gate camp you and blow ur ship up, so you need to always fight in a group.

I relaly like the crew idea alot, but i feel that for it to actually work for all players in eve and not just the hardcore roleplayers, there should be other problems that should be addressed in the eve mechanics before adding radically new content that would MOST definately be bugged and require fixing later down the line.

Dai Connie
Posted - 2009.05.22 13:11:00 - [259]
 

also. my 2 cents about crew:

I think that they should be kept to a REALLY small size. like 10 on a BS , 5 on cruiser. They should be treated like rig slots in a way but the way you train them and keep them will obviously be different cause they should be allowed to be part of your pod. A little complicated to explain. Having a small crew can add a level of roleplaying where u can be attatched to your crew and stuff rather than just thinking of your crew as resources to micromanage.

Overall. More crew selection to choose from, but less slots to fit them in so you can customize your crew.
Look at the movie Eve Online: Clear Skies. Those guys piloted a freaken tempest BS with only 3 people. I want something like that, small and minimal crew but they can make a difference in your ship.

sizes: something like this

frigs: 1
destroyer: 2
Cruisers: 4
BS: 8
Capital: 16
Titan: 20

YOu can even NAME your crew! to keep track of which crew member does what.

K1RTH G3RS3N
Haunted House
Posted - 2009.05.29 12:00:00 - [260]
 

very awesome - myself and housemates were talking about how cool this would be for an idea and then i found this thread Surprised lets hope it happens imo.

James Baylor
Posted - 2009.06.03 23:43:00 - [261]
 

I think that, since ships obviously have crew, the crew should by a part of the game in some way. Currently, there's no way to know that there are actually crew members on ships except for some of the chronicles. I think that, at least, a ship should have a set number of crew members, which is displayed as an attribute (as it apparently once was), and when a ship is starting to light on fire, escape pods should be visible flying away from the ship, even if they serve no purpose. Something in game that displays the fact that we indeed have crew--hundreds on larger ships--would be nice.

Helel Lightbringer
Aliastra
Posted - 2009.06.08 05:12:00 - [262]
 

/signed!

Crews would definitely improve the immersion factor of Eve. The bonus could be slight.

Uronksur Suth
Posted - 2009.06.11 03:58:00 - [263]
 

I realize that implementation would be a nightmare but I support this because it would add depth to the game.

If/when walking in stations is implemented would be a good time I think. Next would be walking in ships, and that would be a logical point to introduce NPC crew. You would have a standard crew, maybe with the option to hire specialists to serve as a gunner (improved accuracy), a navigation officer (improved ship velocity, faster autopilot, an autopilot which warps to within 0 meters of gate instead of 10km out) an engineering chief (cheaper repairs, less chance of heat damage from overloading racks) and so on. You could pay to send them to school to upgrade abilities.

It would be interesting for pirates, they could train crews in combat, and maybe if CCP implemented modules for it, instead of just blowing your ship up, they could attempt to board the ship and simply loot your cargo and enslave your crew. Makes a lot more sense.

When docked in a station, when Walking in Stations is implemented, you could choose to grant the crew shore leave, which could improve morale or maybe you don't have to pay them, or have it happen automatically when docked for more then 12 hours or so. When you want to launch, you have to call the crew back to the ship. The larger the crew, the more time it takes for everyone to get back. This would actually make smaller ships, Frigates, Cruisers, Destroyers and such, more viable as fast response craft because if your corps station in 0.0 is suddenly attacked you can actually get into the fight faster. The longer its been since you've played (or left the station) the longer it takes, since crew are likely to be drunk/asleep/scattered everywhere on the huge station/whatever. This creates an incentive for people to actually play, rather then simply setting a skill to train and logging out for a week.

I'm not sure how this could be implemented for ships that can't dock like Titans, maybe upon logging in, when they appear in space, they are non-operational for 1-10 minutes depending on how long its been since you last played. The idea being you enter space but you sit there dead while your crew is waking up and running to their stations. It would give caps, supercaps and Titans a window of vulnerability. Their pilots would have to be intelligent about choosing a place to park and log off, and would prevent the absurdity of being able to scramble something as massive as a Titan within 30 seconds of a surprise attack.

Sorry for the length of the post, but I've thought about this a lot myself, and like games that involve micromanaging and detail, and I would rather CCP focus on stuff like this which makes the current universe more realistic then things like WH space, T3 tech and the epic arc. It would introduce a steeper learning curve, probably frustrate 90% of the player base and generally make the game more difficult, but I think it'd be really fun. I dislike how we can play a game involving enormous space ships and some people still think capsuleers are the sole operators. Rolling Eyes

Anyways, there's at least one chronicle on capsuleer/crew interaction. While I'd be annoyed if this happened to me, It'd be great if the game was this in depth.

Its called "All These Lives are Fit to Ruin"

http://www.eveonline.com/background/potw/default.asp?cid=20-04-09


/crazed fantasizing

Beta Aurigae
Posted - 2009.06.14 18:39:00 - [264]
 

Crew - CREW? Look, we are literal Gods - we are totally immortal. Permanantly sealed within our self-contained pods with their integral warp drives, even jump clones should we wish to buy them, we are FAR above such mundane mortals! When I loose my ship with it's complement of 100 400 1000 (I don't actually know how many nor care) crew, that is no more than loosing a few spanners.
What you are suggesting is that the game should involve US, the elite of the elite, with every nut, screw and solder joint of our ships. Rediculous. I know I am far above that! I am integral to my ship. When it blows up I feel it. But should I even consider the crew? I think not. They are the bits and pieces of human debris needed to keep me, the heart and soul of the ship alive. Nothing more!

Daugar Draaken
Posted - 2009.06.30 16:13:00 - [265]
 

Edited by: Daugar Draaken on 30/06/2009 16:14:24
A few pages (and years!) back I wrote a post on crews her(http://users.utu.fi/sipesa/eve/?a=topic&threadID=493711&page=6) and the topic still seems to thrive with pro and con people making bold statements. I still remain dedicated to the idea. Let me summarize my current views, referring to my earlier post from jan 2008, and add a few things.

(1) I remain swayed that a fourth 'designator' under shield, armor and structure is sensible. Crew can refer to automated systems, robots,
slave androids, borg-like collectives, jovial lads in uniforms
(http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b50/WrongEra/Vintage/CIMG4643.jpg) or ultra-cinematic 40K-esque (http://www.arrakis.co.uk/jpg/dune_pa_cap_02.jpg). I don't know what kind of designers are creating Eve, and what their stylistic preferences are, but I for one sure as hell would like seeing factional crew iconographed by small, evocative icons. There are obviously standard crews (bald monastic zealots for Amarr, bright trekkie uniforms for the gallente, over-utilitarian stormtrooper black for caldari (very 'xe'!) and tribal exuberance for Minmatar. These can be depicted in very entertaining 250x250px icons showing style dress and crew should range from factional to vanilla, from roughneck to dandy. A default crew at frigate levels should consist of a handful of people 10-25 for frigate - plus, while crew only start dying well after shields and armor are decaying, the last remainders of a crew should very hard hard to dispose off. At cruiser levels and above crews should become more and more iconographic and have face. They should generate missions. They should come with backstories as well as preferences ("zealot caldari crews operate with distinct penalties when you attack caldari vessels") and weaknesses ("attacking the sociopathic cannibal corpse-looting cyborg pirates, my crew started to decrease in ability because they were terrified"). Use the right crew for the right job.
Implementation of a crew counter should come with an overhaul of the highly overdue interface because face it, it is kinda shabby, if not a disgrace. Even better, organize display data in the eve client in the most vanilla fashion (four factional interfaces?) and allow playes to make their own game skins and preferential interaction designs. Finally, yes some weapons should hit crews hard, but these would only start showing up after we start scratching the hull (example; "warriors" by Larry Niven).

(2) Assume not all worlds in the Eve Universe are paradise. Right now the game doesn't address these issues very well in-game, except in the most vague of references. If you assume some of these worlds have an overpopulation problem you immediately can assume that some worlds will actually kiss your behind if you take on their slavishly grateful crews. Nevertheless, lost crews cost ya in money. I don't know about crew fatigue, but it might be an issue. Maybe there are three types of damage to crews, depicted in three red colors, i.e. fatigue or morale loss (orange, regenerates fast), heavy wounds (red, doesn't regenerate unless complex medical facilities are present) and deep red (killed, only recuperates by taking on fresh crew). When implementing that, certain types of enemy ships, weapons, experiences, prejudices or combinations between those might deplete crew morale faster than normal. Again, this should not be an extreme factor with anything under cruisers, but I don't mind it becoming somewhat of a hassle with the biggest vessels. Better - if at high levels the vagueries of crew become a cost sink, this would certainly balance the game to a significant extent. Additionally - food consumption, wages, upkeep, shoreleave, reserve crew in cargo (stasis tanks?) like ammo.

(tbc)

Daugar Draaken
Posted - 2009.06.30 16:15:00 - [266]
 

(continued)

(3) Backstories - crew as story elements, having preferences, skills or unique tricks. You might invest to train (or buy) crews like people trade sports cards. This can be literal (slavery, and all the required infrastructure to sustain slavery, or just trade in robotics), or metaphorical (transfers). Some crews might have occasional odd side effects (crew x always has shoreleave problems at gallente ports and you either pay off the law or it takes *longer* to leave station). Players who have a preference for pressing buttons and treating the world like a giant computer program (you know the type) should be able to get standard crews and be over with it - other crews should be either three out of five (a) overspecialized (b) expensive to aquire, (c) expensive to upkeep, (d) can only be found in out of the way places and (e) quirky. And the odder ones dont need to always be the stale archetypes such as trekkian spandex clad extras, or yet another flotilla of R2D2s - also consider replicants, clones, cyborgs, uplifted animals, nanoid swarm hives, uility fog, microformlets, biodroids, very odd trained pets from some weird planet (mote in gods eye?) and any subtle shade inbetween. Hell, I'd like seeing boxes in the ship menu (four stripes) that allow implementation of *specialized* crew in the vessel. You'd have to plan ahead when doing that, because some of those crews you can hire are *damn* excentric.

In the latter case, NEVER implement game features in these crews that prove dead or alive dilemmas - that will make players simply stop using them. But - when you move in system A, maybe your special crew unit has a religious vision, and presto, you have a mission to check it out. Better still, specialized crews might unlock not just a mass of characterization, but mission chains as well. "captain we have picked up a *very* odd distress beacon in the empty system in our -Y"...

(tbc)

Daugar Draaken
Posted - 2009.06.30 16:16:00 - [267]
 

(continued)

(4) I stepped away from the idea of boarding actions - in the current eve paradigm it would take too long, would be too easy to exploit. But I would like off-ship missions. Science officers. This would be a nice way to deal with the somewhat out of control pirate problem in eve - maybe you can retrieve a lot more loot if you incapacitate a vessel, and then send in a boarding party - alas, that action takes a while, all the time the pirate just has to sit there as a sitting duck biting his nails.

(4b) Specialized vessels. Augmenting vessels. Launch bays. "manned drone" fighters. Wild weasel vessels. Launch bays for deployables. Suicidal hunters. Radar vessels. deployable ruffneck mining crews (you drop em, they keep mining that special ore in 0 rated systems, but damn they make such a racket in the radio band - they are visible halfway across the system!) All that is a factor in the real world and it could evoke powerful imagery and appeal in the game. There is a HUGE potential to move away from the somewhat "constrictive" perspective of "one player, one vessel" to "one player, a hierarchy of complexity below him, interwoven with the universe".

(5) I stay dedicated to making Eve bigger, conceptually. I know that many current players don't like this, but that should not be a secondary consideration for CCP. CCP has a problem with attrition, even though its probably less than with WoW. Or is it? Many people try Eve and quit. So CCP has been betting on "an addicted, fanatical player base", of people with "a very narrow style of play". I am saying that with the most charitable of intent, even though it doesn't take me ten minutes on chat to hear a socially inept 15 year old use the word gay ten times - maybe it would be prudent for CCP to cautiously try and tackle missions that extend the conceptual horizon of its participants beyond the weapon interface. I don't know what kind of stuff happens at higher levels, but I do not have reason to expect it'll be more of what I have seen so far, just lots moar of it. That is not good business planning for long term game viability. Wow won't last, we all know that. At some point, a game like wow will crash in userbase, because people will have seen it, start protesting and complaining, and before you know it the game's cred has collapsed and blizzard is running onetenth its servers for a few remaining die-hards, late third world adopters or confused noobs. Eve has the capacity to bypass this by adding well-balanced game features that appeal to a somewhat bigger audience than the game does right now. Maybe even female gamers, who know?

(tbc)

Daugar Draaken
Posted - 2009.06.30 16:16:00 - [268]
 

(continued)

6- zero gravity - essential for off-board missions.

Resonding to Hitachi Morimoto

1:It's gonna cost you...
High ranked crews would cost a premium, even if you can't sell them. (Contacts, contracts.) farmers would turn to crew farming, then sell the resulting crew.

And this is bad, why? Allow people to play a role in a game that suits them. If players have the capacity or urge to make nonexisting money in an imaginary game doing stuff they'd never contemplate doing at an accountants office, power to them. Just make sure the profits of such endeavors are not out of bound with generated profits in other niches in the game. Allow vanilla crews that are barely a difference from existing game mechanics (or slowly change the rules, citing gradual societal, demographic and economic shifts in the greater universe - "damn crews are expensive since the plague") and allow people to take on specialised at a cost of time, money or hassle.

> 2: A bad aftertaste.
> Due to their use and subsequent loss once a ship dies, the use of
> ships crew (If forced) would keep many more people out of 0.0 for
> fear of losing their high end crew.

Or revive them at a local clone farm. Or unthaw his reserves in the cargo hold. Or visit a local station to ask "how much for those droids?". The question for CCP here obviously is - what kind of game increases customer adoption, dedication, reactivation and satisfaction (ADRS) . CCP should make choices in implementing these features that make business sense. Imagine how many clients CCP have lost because a new player got his new cruiser pirated to mush by some sociopathically bored player who, after the obligatory pod kill, comments over chat "if you can't handle a pod kill, for my entertainment, then **** off and go play another game. Loser". CCP must keep the more extreme elements busy without boring them. Imagine all those NPC family members turning hypermotivated fanatic ship crews "because of the damn scum pirates that killed grandpaw".

Likewise, crews are something else than just a plugin chrome box somewhere on the hull of the vessel. They should have appartments and family on a station. Maybe players can own facilities on existing stations other than a logo and cargo directory? Maybe players could bring up simple 3D schematics of existing stations (or moons. Or planets) and invest in real estate there, generating a steady trickle of revenues. But more on that in a second -

(tbc)

Daugar Draaken
Posted - 2009.06.30 16:17:00 - [269]
 

> 3: Damm greenhorns make me sick.
> if for instance, a war between two corps causes a lot of crew loss on > one side but little on the other, (A landslide victory) then the
> losers lost more than ships: they lost bonuses. this gives the
> winners a clear advantage over the losers as their crew gains
> experience, where the losers need to retrain theirs. It works in
> real life, but in a game it leads to unbalanced gameplay.

Or it would create die-hard fanatics on the losing side willing to serve on the vessels of the losing party for food and boarding. CCP can talk this feature up, down, left or right in implementing crews, and if they do, they will choose the context that makes players pay revenues (ADRS). Right now the only game in town eve clients have access to is basicly a complex problemsolving puzzle game that allows you to feel satisfied when it comes to NPCs and gloat when it comes to PCs. Personally, if I lose 4 ships in one week, I will simply lose interest in Eve and return a year later. Oh I love eve, even if on a purely intellectual level, but a game that thrives on a significant portion of its clients being career a'holes? That is not a firm business plan, except for keeping genetic a'holes from the streets, IRL. *Maybe* Eve
Online *is* the reason for the decrease in socer related hooliganism the last few years, who knows?

But if you want to make a game offer a wider venue, Eve will obviously need to evolve features that go far beyond the current gameplay. Eventually eve will have to tackle with new interfaces, new gameplay, new interaction models, AI, world, asteroids, new resource management menus, new in-game investment models, OTHER than the next shader or graphic codec. This is unavoidable - eve can (and probably will) last well into the 2020s (and wow won't!) because of a sound and sensible business strategy, so far (ADRS) but that won't last. There will be competitors. There will be new game paradigms. There will be a tide of spoiled consumers. There will be new SF novels pushing the boundaries of what is credible SF.

It is so typical that loads of people in Eve don't see the merits of ambulation in the game. I seriously think that even still exists in 2022 it might very well be that by then 25% of the game is ship to ship combat, traveling and missions, whereas 75% is what is incrementiallya and iteratively derived from precisely that ambulation. And no, that isn't "gay". Things change, even if many people appear to be genetically predisposed to not see or appreciate it. Tastes change. People in 1995 has vastly different expectations of society and the world and life as they do now. I wouldn't mind seeing four games emerge, fully adjacent and complimentary to eve - a first person adventure game, a resource management and building game, and a factional resource management strategy game. It can be done, it will enrich the franchise and it will create bigger revenues for CCP when such things are implemented well - and timely.

(tbc)

Daugar Draaken
Posted - 2009.06.30 16:18:00 - [270]
 

> 4: Here's my pink slip, ya douche.
> what would happen if a player's time runs out? do the crews stay with > them? Do they leave? Insurance times out, why shouldn't crew? Kinda
> puts the whole idea of salary and crew commodities to question,
> doesn't it?

The idea that a world is persistent and has aspects that escape the imaginations of some shouldn't be a reason to surrender to boardgame superficiality and simplicity. If the Eve Online franchise expands, grows (improves) to include more aspects of realism, as well as creates enhanced modes of entertainment, it survives in the current markets. If it doesn't it won't, in the long haul.

That may be a crude statement such as saying to a very simple person "but I want my chevvy apple green" and me saying "in the future, there won't be any chevvies, GM will be bankrupt". Its cruel, like taking a talking kermit doll from a pigtailed girl and throwing it in a wood chipper, but alas.

> 5: You sunk my battleship!!!
> Ahh, my biggest fear. Rats come, you get popped, you get ransomed.
> What happens to your crew? Do they pop out in a can? Are the eligable
> for ransom too, despite the inability to carry them? How would you
> carry your ransomed crew home? would they want to be with you after
> you leave rather quickly in a pod?

Rather, look at the upside - a ship gets blasted and out pop *twenty* pods. Try and destroy all of those! - which one holds the player? Why hasn't eve incorporated "dummy pods" yet? Nevertheless, these are excellent points. Gods give me a game where ransoming is an option - your avi can always be said to have exploded when they tried welding open the pod - Randoming crew? Absolutely, great idea, and replacing the troops with fresh meat, in-game war crimes tribunals, vectored NPC vigilante factions that exist solely to hunt down frequent PKillers in select regions, paying those off at high expenses, etc are all considerations that lead us to study the real world histories, naval battles, logistics, mutiny, shanghajing, defection, insurance, fanaticism, and many more. If it worked for ****** George Lucas, it will doubly well for CCP, people who are proven to have an imagination. You want a list of plot devices?

> 6: But i am not immortal...
> The whole reason a ship has a pod pilot is to join the bridge of
> immortality and efficency. If a ship has a crew, this bridge is
> effectively severed. A crew can't operate with each member in a pod,
> nor can they effectively carry out their duties (engineers in
> particular) in a pod. Not only that, but a pod captain has to relay
> orders to other crew members to get them carried out. there is a
> lagtime inbetween those orders and their execution. that lagtime can
> kill in battle. For the sake of reality, there should be a lagtime
> before the bonuses are effective. A crew doesn't run 24/7. The
> bonuses should only be active in a relevant situation. (battle
> stations!) Plus, why risk thousands when you can risk one seemingly
> immortal pilot? the choice seems obvious.

(tbc)


Pages: first : previous : ... 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 ... : 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