Player Features and Ideas Discussion

As a person who has had much trouble in EVE, i long for a way to make it more accessable, without breaking the established system. Truly, EVE is appealing and interesting because of how it is now. I do not want this to be broken.

My idea is a way to add a new way to play EVE, one that is neither more effective than the current mode, but enabling for those who seek a more personal, singular adventure in the EVE universe, whilst still being able to interact and be a part of the larger galactic sandbox.

Basically, my idea is a 'Crew mode', seperate from the Capsuleer. This 'mode', for lack of a better term, would be a type of skill based hardcore mode, following the lines of Minecrafts hardcore mode. But instead of being alone, you'd have to form a crew of mortal, non capsuleers to follow you. Each crew member controls a ship system or area of ship systems and contributes to the running of the ship as a whole. For frigates, you'd need maybe 2-3 people, cruisers 5-10, battleships potentially much more. THe numbers are irrelevant right now, but for balancing purposes, it would be immensely important.

Basically, these 'crewed' ships would be potentially more effective and versatile than their capsuleer controlled counterparts, both because they are finely controlled by multiple individuals rather than automated systems and because the crews personal skills are relied upon rather than a capsuleers injected skills. The ships themselves would also be a huge investment, costing the same as a normal capsuleer's ship, but since these are mortal people, the act of gaining the wealth that capsuleers use would be a great trial. The value of ISK for a mortal would be immensely higher than that for a capsuleer (basically, its harder and more risky for them to make money, therefore they cannot make AS much or as quickly, so the act of saving up for, say, a cruiser, would be akin to a single capsuleer saving up for a battleship by only doing level 1 missions.)

Since these ships lack the computers needed to automate all the systems, they would HAVE to be crewed by a minimal number of actual people, as well as those systems being replaced by crew quarters and also freeing up CPU and powergrid for use by the remaining ships ystems. You could run on a skeleton crew, but you won't be able to use weapons at the same time as you maneuver, or modulate the shields at the same time as you manage the sensors. Each crew member could do any particular role, assuming they had practice and personal skill in this area, and one person could fly the ship from point A to point B, but be completely screwed if things came to a fight or anything outside of simple navigation. But similarly, a fully crewed ship can emulate the effectiveness of a ship fully fitted with modules by directly controlling the ships systems on a finer level than capsuleers are able to (IE A capsuleer is the conscious part of our brain, where as the ship's systems are the autonomous parts. In a crewed ship, it would be like having access to all functionality.)

For example, a caldari ship would have minimal or no in-built armor repair systems, but it would have the ability to control and modulate the shield systems. You wouldn't be able to transfer 100% em resistance, but you can still boost the shields recharge rate and capacity by drawing power from powergrid (which would, of course, be supplying power to all other systems, including capacitor recharge, engines, weapons), such as capsuleers do with power relays and flux coils, or drop resistance in explosives to boost them in EM with the use of capacitor and powergrid/cpu.

Basically the modules would be done away with completely, and you'd be able to use your own wit to achieve similar effects. Though this would need to be limited to a degree so as not to overcome a specialized tank on a capsuleer ship, or to completely counter a single weapon damage type, but it would put a single ship on par with multiple Capsuleer ships, so as to make the risk of engaging in combat more reasonable for the Crew, if they choose to fight. A single capsuleer ship could down a Crewed ship if the match up was equal, but only if the capsuleeer was especially skilled (both in SP and tactics) and the Crew were not, but it would still be a hard fight for the capsuleer.

Other things, such as armor and mobility modules would be replaced by actual modifcations to the ship itself, that would take more time and money than simply buying and swapping in a different module, but would have a much greater degree of customization. Mods like this would take hours and a sizeable percentage of the cost of the ship to accomplish and can't be changed back without the same cost in time and ISK. Changes could range from dropping armor plating for less ship mass and greater agility, or changing engines (taking the place of afterburners/MWDs) for greater output potential, but with increased mass.

I could go on with ideas for the ship balancing, but that would only be half of the idea:

The main caveat would be the Crew. Unlike Capsuleers and dust marines, these Crew would be mortal human beings, who would be permanently dead if their ship is lost. This will mean while these Crews are capable of great feats of combat and industry, their death would mean you would need to start over completely from the beginning. This is where the balance comes into play, where one fully crewed ship would be worth 2-4 capsuleer ships combined, depending on the ship class and the skill of the crew/capsuleers involved, but taking one out would mean the permanent end of that crew and the liquidation of all their combined assets. Sure, you could make your own crew again, but you'd have to claw your way back to the level you were before.

This idea comes about because, within the four nations, capsuleers are seen as above mere mortal, beyond human.

But what if mortals want to challenge gods?

That part is maybe more of my personal fantasy coming into play, and not the balanced game designer I wish to be.

And no, hardpoints would remain. Of course your ship would still have the same fitting limitations as capsuleer ships do. Maybe a bit more PG and CPU, since the same parts in a crewed ship aren't being used to automate many of the ships systems, but you'd still have to operate the ship within its standard operating limitations.

Sorry, posts are limited and I had hoped you'd be able to intuit these details on your own. I honestly thought it would be self evident that weapons would be the same.

I wasn't referring only to weapons. I was referring to all modules.

The typical workaround for limited posts is to reserve multiple sequential posts and then use them as necessary.

And as i described if you read it, the lack of modules would be made up for by direct, limited control of the subsystems in question.

IE Think of in star wars when they say, "Full power to the front shields." Or "Divert power from the drives to the rear weapons batteries." Instead of using modules to affect the ships performance, at least where mid slots are concerned, you have a person actually doing the leg work involved in putting these modifications into effect, thereby allowing a single ship to be more of a 'jack of all trades.'

The balancing factor here would then be that you can never be as good as a capsuleer ship since you aren't actually modifying the hardware (the only way to get viable results in a system), you're just moving numbers around.

I also mentioned armor and ship movement modules as well.

Please, try to understand and read all that i said before attacking me.

I'm not sure anyone is attacking anyone in this thread.

You did say that one of these crewed ships would be worth 3-5 capsuleer ships and that the removal of all the computer systems automating things would be what makes them better than capsuleer ships. You then go on to say in a later post that the crewed ships would be balanced by never being better than a capsuleer ship. Please do pick one and only one, then stick with it.

Also, nobody's mad at anyone. This is Features & Ideas; we see so much brainless crap, obvious "make my game more powerful but screw over my enemies", incessant pointless whining and utter abomination pass through here every day that some of us tend to become a bit blunt. Except for people like me, who were always blunt to begin with.

I'd also like to take this moment to agree entirely with what Tchulen said above me. Despite the insane carrying-on of other madmen in other threads, this does not mean he's my alt. Please don't ask.

That's iterative design. I realized, from you words actually, that having these ships be more powerful wouldn't fit into the lore of the EVE universe. My original reason for think that they would stems from how i perceive a 'realistic' starship's systems to be.

Basically, when you devote resources to and rely upon automated systems, a great deal of finer control is lost. Take an Automatiic car compare to a manual: IN an automatic, you need not worry about shifting, but you create a more complicated mechanical system which requires greater upkeep and you lose fine control over which gear you're in. In a manual car, you can shift and use the lower gears for breaking, get more acceleration/torque out of lower gears before shift and (though this isn't a benefit, its just funny) you can stall the car. You also get a much simpler mechanism that requires less upkeep because the parts of the system that are require for the automation are instead handled by the person.

This is how i imagined capsuleer ships compared to crewed ships, originally. That perception is wrong and i changed my ideas to reflect that new understanding.

Though, really, its just stated, not really supported by in game mechanics. We have very limited control of ships in EVE and the NPC ships, supposedly manned by crews, are on such a lower level that you'd think they were very basic AIs (which is what the game actually uses).

My perception was based on literal gameplay mechanics, not lore. Hence my mistake.


ALSO, i had this same post in the wrong section, in which several people attacked me for this idea being , in there words, moronic, stupid and that I should quit the game now if this is how i think it should be.

Which, in my opening statement, i mention that i would never seek to destroy or change the basic concept and ideals that EVE represents, nor the nature of the game as a sandbox.

Go figure... First post of my own ideas and i put it up in front of EVE's version of Mos Eisley