These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Ship Crew

Author
CMDR Gir
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1 - 2013-04-28 23:54:19 UTC
I was thinking...we all know ships have crews. We all know they get vaporized when your ships goes kablamo. My suggestion is that there is more realism with ship crews. They should cost isk, they should have bonuses. Taking it a little further, they should have a chance to try and escape with you, when you die.

Maybe if you are a jerk, and kill people a lot, and die a lot, ship crews are more reluctant to help.

Eve is the exact opposite of the old saying "A captain goes down with the ship." In Eve, it's "A captain is the first to get to the only escape pod and GTFO."
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#2 - 2013-04-28 23:58:42 UTC
Why should it be harder to fit my ships?
Friggz
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#3 - 2013-04-29 00:07:32 UTC
I'm not sure what crews add that isn't already taken care of with what we already have.

We already have to fit highs, lows, mids, rigs, and drones. Is adding what amounts to even more slots really a good idea?
Rovinia
Exotic Dancers Union
Hatakani Trade Winds Combine
#4 - 2013-04-29 00:14:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Rovinia
Danika Princip wrote:
Why should it be harder to fit my ships?


With that mindset we wouldn't have much things like Rigs or a whole bunch of modules we finally liked... Blink

I like the idea, even if it's not new. Had to be developed carefully regarding ballancing, but it would offer much to the eve universe.

Like:

- Crews could train up over time (Start with 1%, end up with 5% --> only examples)
- Academys (On planets, to boost PI a bit)
- Could be bought or sold on the (labor)market
- New professions and skills
- ...
CMDR Gir
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#5 - 2013-04-29 00:24:18 UTC
Rovinia wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
Why should it be harder to fit my ships?


With that mindset we wouldn't have much things like Rigs or a whole bunch of modules we finally liked... Blink

I like the idea, even if it's not new. Had to be developed carefully regarding ballancing, but it would offer much to the eve universe.

Like:

- Crews could train up over time (Start with 1%, end up with 5%)
- Academys
- Could be bought or sold on the (labor)market
- New professions and skills
- ...


This sounds cool, I worry we already have a lot of customization options, it's already difficult to make sure you have the right set of implants, drugs, rigs, ammo to come out on top of a fight, I worrying adding more elements would cloud that even more. To many, it would be nice to have more options, to others, it's already too much. Let the debate begin.

But it would add some realism to the game. We now have a feeling of life on planets with Dust, it would be nice to know I'm not piloting a giant battleship alone.



Che Biko
Alexylva Paradox
#6 - 2013-04-29 00:24:51 UTC
If this is made it should (initially) be like this in my opinion:

Should be simple to use, like one slot, one "item", ships with no crew in them are automaticaly filled with crew upon undock etc.
Crew delivers a small bonus, depending on "experience" of the crew. Crews gain experience as you use your ship.
If your ship is destroyed, your crew is destroyed or loses experience (partial crew loss)and ends up in a can.
Crew can be traded.

Other than the bonus, it's mostly for bragging rights.
Stan Smith
State War Academy
Caldari State
#7 - 2013-04-29 01:00:45 UTC
Perhaps crews can be used to make ship functions perform more efficiently (ex: an engineering crew increases cap recharge or shield capacity etc). These crews get better over time to give you that little edge we need in battle

☻/ /▌ / \ This is Bob, post him into your forum sig and help him conquer the forums.

Rovinia
Exotic Dancers Union
Hatakani Trade Winds Combine
#8 - 2013-04-29 01:08:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Rovinia
Che Biko wrote:
If this is made it should (initially) be like this in my opinion:

Should be simple to use, like one slot, one "item", ships with no crew in them are automaticaly filled with crew upon undock etc.
Crew delivers a small bonus, depending on "experience" of the crew. Crews gain experience as you use your ship.
If your ship is destroyed, your crew is destroyed or loses experience (partial crew loss)and ends up in a can.
Crew can be traded.

Other than the bonus, it's mostly for bragging rights.


In it's most simple form, you could just add another bar (like cpu / powergrid) that starts at "0". If you now "inject" more experienced crews (which you can train / buy on the market), that bar fills up to a certain level (2/3 of max.). The last 1/3 could be only achived by "leveling" up in some mather. Killing players for these who do pvp, via mission for the missionrunners or also bought in the market (LP stores could offer "officers" or something).

But i think they should get destroyed with the ship. That would ensure a steady demand and increase the feeling of loss when they blow up "your" ship.

Or just adapting the "Rig" system.
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#9 - 2013-04-29 01:13:43 UTC
Rovinia wrote:
.Or just adapting the "Rig" system.

This would be the best option IMO. Adding yet another system that has to be balanced relative to other systems and/or for the sake of adding it always rubs me wrong.
Aglais
Ice-Storm
#10 - 2013-04-29 01:36:01 UTC
Um... No?

This sounds like an utterly pointless ISK sink that will be completely mandatory for PvP, and make it even more expensive than it already is to lose like twelve ships in a week (or a day, if you suck/are unlucky). Not to mention the fact that having a crew in addition to a capsuleer kind of removes the sense of power from the latter.
Luc Chastot
#11 - 2013-04-29 01:36:05 UTC
The only evidence of ship crews I'd like to see is escape pods leaving ships when they explode. I want to destroy wealth, not lives.

Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot.

sabre906
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#12 - 2013-04-29 01:49:11 UTC
Exact same arguments were levied against rigs. See? This is why we can't have nice things.Roll
Steve Spooner
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#13 - 2013-04-29 01:50:37 UTC
Considering how guns and shields and major functions are all computerized and automated or otherwise delegated to the pod pilot the crew is there to do what manual work is required for things to function, not to improve upon them.
Xavier Thorm
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#14 - 2013-04-29 02:28:55 UTC
I have mixed feelings, from a lore perspective, about ship crews having a noticeable effect on the performance of my ship. Being an immortal, superhuman entity, I'm not sure if I believe it really matters how highly trained or not my crew is.
sabre906
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#15 - 2013-04-29 02:38:19 UTC  |  Edited by: sabre906
Xavier Thorm wrote:
I have mixed feelings, from a lore perspective, about ship crews having a noticeable effect on the performance of my ship. Being an immortal, superhuman entity, I'm not sure if I believe it really matters how highly trained or not my crew is.


According to lore, little to no effect on frigs, huge effects on caps. It scales with size. Also more effects on Minmatar, less on Gallante.

Not that we should go that way. Lore makes for bad game mechanics.
Stan Smith
State War Academy
Caldari State
#16 - 2013-04-29 02:59:09 UTC
Steve Spooner wrote:
Considering how guns and shields and major functions are all computerized and automated or otherwise delegated to the pod pilot the crew is there to do what manual work is required for things to function, not to improve upon them.


Or have the mechanic who's always trying to improve things. "Hey captain, i found that if i do xxx to the coolent injectors, i can increase flow rate which will let you run the reactor at a higher level safely" and or find ways to lower the effects of heat damage

☻/ /▌ / \ This is Bob, post him into your forum sig and help him conquer the forums.

Luke Hammarskjold
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#17 - 2013-04-29 04:06:47 UTC
"A captain is the first to get to the only escape pod and GTFO."

Hahahaha :D
Felsusguy
Panopticon Engineering
#18 - 2013-04-29 05:53:29 UTC
Luke Hammarskjold wrote:
"A captain is the first to get to the only escape pod and GTFO."

Hahahaha :D

We don't need escape pods. We spend most of our time in a mobile pod anyway.

The Caldari put business before pleasure. The Gallente put business in pleasure.

Alticus C Bear
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#19 - 2013-04-29 07:16:09 UTC
This idea keeps coming up and will always keep coming up.

Firstly they would be an interesting PI production commodity.

The could be introduced with no real game mechanics change by making them a base material requirement in the construction of ships/starbases this at least gets them in the game.

I do not like the idea of ship crews as rig/module type options that provide further bonuses. It potentially game balance and adds further cost to PVP.

If they were to have a game impact I could perhaps see them as a skill gap closer.

Instead of adding a generic bonus they could improve a skill level by one or perhaps more levels.

Example

Engineering crew could increase energy grid upgrades, energy management, energy systems operation and engineering by one level.

Gallente Frigate Crew could improve That skill by one level, perhaps even include small hybrid turret.

This allows newer players to supplement their skills closing the gap to vets at a cost while providing no advantage to all level 5 skill players therefore not affecting game balance.

To ensure the requirement to still Train skills these would provide the bonus only and not be a substitute for the requirement of module usage or ship usage.

No crews for advanced skill specialisations or T2 ship skills either.