These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Graphics , no cockpit ...ok so.....what about windows and crew?

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kaerakh
Obscure Joke Implied
#81 - 2015-01-14 11:52:36 UTC
ISD Ezwal wrote:
CCP Darwin wrote:
Tusker Crazinski wrote:
for the same reason you don't put windows on a submarine.


You don't put windows on a submarine because the pressures the submarine has to withstand are far greater than what a spacecraft has to sustain. Also, because deep under the ocean there's no light.

Maybe not technically a submarine, but a Bathyscaphe does have at least one window. Diving depth: +/- 11 km.
The same goes for the more recent Deepsea Challenger.


While interesting, the designed purpose of such vessels does not include the rigors of combat. If I recall correctly, military submarines rely exceedingly so on topographical undersea maps and planned navigational movement to understand their surroundings. This would be due to the fact that you can't really pop out and look where you're going due to the lack of light at those depths and the lack of external aides for navigation. I also feel criminally negligent in having not mentioned that military submarines are also designed with materials and shape to reduce the effectiveness of enemy sonar systems, but that's not entirely relevant.

Basically, the expressly designed purpose of those vessels and the purpose of the windows are quite different from most of the EVE ship line up. (Considering there are ships other than combat craft in EVE)

Schrodinger's Hot Dropper

The Fate of Forum Alts

Guaranteed Success
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
#82 - 2015-01-14 12:11:45 UTC
CCP Darwin wrote:
Tusker Crazinski wrote:
and windows.... why would you ever put windows on a spaceship?


Imagine you were building a real spaceship: What kind of monster would you need to be NOT to add windows?

A monster that doesn't want to die.

Structural weakness and all...

EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#83 - 2015-01-14 12:27:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Corraidhin Farsaidh
Kaerakh wrote:
...

The fact is the more human components between the capsule and the ship, the higher the chance for something to go wrong. This defeats the entire purpose of the capsule. The capsule is designed to replace the need for officers and the command structure. This reduces the latency between a command and the implementation to merely thinking about it. I would be fairly confident to say that ammunition is handled by an automated process considering the size of the ammunition on larger weapon systems. Saying Joe Bob lifts my ammo into a gun WWII style is completely ridiculous.



Crew are minimized but still required. Whilst bob doesn't lift the ammo to the gun he does maintain the ammo loading systems to maximum efficiency. If it slowed down or stopped in a firefight you'd really want to know what bob was doing about it.

In terms of suspending disbelief as an argument that can just as easily be applied to ships having ultra tough windows that are as strong as (or integrated into) the surrounding armour system.

I still maintain that the core of the vessel is the armoured section anyway. Those areas not vital to combat are placed on the outside of the vital areas to minimize the amount of armour required to cover the important bits. the crew can live inside their battle stations if the outer hull gets wrecked but will struggle a tad if the armour hull is comprimized. the windows on the outside would therefore have absolutely no impact on the structural integrity of the ship. In fact the thin outer hull could conceivably help defeat enemy shots incoming by decapping/triggering their fuzes (or the equivalent dependant on ammo being used) before they impact the inner armour hull.

As an aside: Who'd have thought that a discussion about windows on ships would have gained so much attention from CCP/ISD members :D

I rest my case that windows are obviously important on Eve ships.
Velicitia
XS Tech
#84 - 2015-01-14 12:40:40 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
And when it's Caldari Citizen 217893405039534969 keeping your ammo loading...



Dunno who this "Caldari Citizen 217893405039534969" is ... but Charlie is great.

As for the windows and everything else --> remember that T1 vessels are retrofits of old military vessels (e.g. the Domi is from the Gallente/Caldari War).

T2 vessels are retrofits of T1, such that more of the crew stuff is removed. Still built from the same initial plans (e.g. Thorax -> Phobos), but with more focus on capsuleer-control (so less crew stuff, etc).

T3 vessels are (currently) the only vessels built entirely around the concept of the capsule. However, since designers are mortal men, these vessels may still include "creature comforts" (e.g. windows), even though there is zero crew aboard during spaceflight.

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
Maria Dragoon
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#85 - 2015-01-14 12:46:16 UTC
Maximus Aerelius wrote:
Just to throw this out there for the "Crew size" folks:

EVElopedia wrote:


Marauders

Crew

Marauders are often more cramped than their basic counterparts due to the interior space devoted to Bastion operations. The crew of a Marauder is typically a little less than that of other battleships, ranging from a little over a hundred essential personnel to nearly a thousand crew members and their families. This is usually dependent on the nature and location of deployment. However, due to Marauders being especially utilized for lengthy tours of duty, the latter is more common. Despite the risks, a space faring family can etch out a rigid but reasonable life aboard a Marauder, having access to basic services and commodities, employment opportunities for menial tasks, living quarters only marginally smaller than on some stations, and in the event of a Marauder's armor and shields being neutralized, priority to escape pods which launch long before the danger of a catastrophic hull breach.[5]

A more significant difference between the crew complement of a Marauder and that of other battleship class starships is the distribution of crew members in the gunnery and engineering sections. A Marauder's dual-hardpoint weapon systems utilize advanced automation, which means only a handful of seasoned and skilled gunnery personnel are needed to monitor the dual-hardpoint subsystems and oversee their operation. This makes a large, dedicated gunnery crew unnecessary. Due to the presence of the Bastion system, a Marauder generally possesses an enhanced engineering contingent that carefully monitor the flow of power. Alongside these crew members are assorted groups of technicians, mechanics, and wreckage retrieval specialists that are essential to the self sufficiency of a Marauder. They are able to make use of most salvage recovered whether it be to to perform repairs, enhance ship systems, replenish supplies or even for use in trade.

Generally, the experience and service records of crew assigned to Marauders vary greatly; the one exception of course being the gunnery and engineering crew. Nevertheless, serving aboard a Marauder is usually considered a prestigious opportunity, and as such any inexperienced or rookie crew members assigned to the core ship systems tend to be either naturally skillful or intellectually superior to their peers.


Link: Marauders (lore)
You fought the lore and the lore won Lol




Speaking of cherry picking the lore, I felt like putting this here: Crews for both "npc" and eggers

Life is really simple, but we insist on making it complicated. Confucius

"A man who talks to people who aren't real is crazy. A man who talks to people who aren't real and writes down what they say is an author."
Tusker Crazinski
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#86 - 2015-01-14 13:05:42 UTC
ISD Ezwal wrote:
CCP Darwin wrote:
Tusker Crazinski wrote:
for the same reason you don't put windows on a submarine.


You don't put windows on a submarine because the pressures the submarine has to withstand are far greater than what a spacecraft has to sustain. Also, because deep under the ocean there's no light.

Maybe not technically a submarine, but a Bathyscaphe does have at least one window. Diving depth: +/- 11 km.
The same goes for the more recent Deepsea Challenger.


Just pointing out the challenger crew nearly died because of that window.
Tusker Crazinski
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#87 - 2015-01-14 13:58:05 UTC
Alright I actually feel like being constructive to the thread, instead of knocking over sci-fi missteps and criticizing our space program.

One- Stations; a little detail that would make them seemed more lived in. would be small tugs moving ships, freight containers and things of the such. some stations do this to a small extent. Instead of being enveloped in a docking dome.

the sound (lol) of welders, grinders, building ships maintaining the station or fixing burnt hulls.

Two- sound effects of thing breaking in your ship as you take hull damage
Kaerakh
Obscure Joke Implied
#88 - 2015-01-14 20:58:35 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Kaerakh wrote:
...

The fact is the more human components between the capsule and the ship, the higher the chance for something to go wrong. This defeats the entire purpose of the capsule. The capsule is designed to replace the need for officers and the command structure. This reduces the latency between a command and the implementation to merely thinking about it. I would be fairly confident to say that ammunition is handled by an automated process considering the size of the ammunition on larger weapon systems. Saying Joe Bob lifts my ammo into a gun WWII style is completely ridiculous.



Crew are minimized but still required. Whilst bob doesn't lift the ammo to the gun he does maintain the ammo loading systems to maximum efficiency. If it slowed down or stopped in a firefight you'd really want to know what bob was doing about it.

In terms of suspending disbelief as an argument that can just as easily be applied to ships having ultra tough windows that are as strong as (or integrated into) the surrounding armour system.

I still maintain that the core of the vessel is the armoured section anyway. Those areas not vital to combat are placed on the outside of the vital areas to minimize the amount of armour required to cover the important bits. the crew can live inside their battle stations if the outer hull gets wrecked but will struggle a tad if the armour hull is comprimized. the windows on the outside would therefore have absolutely no impact on the structural integrity of the ship. In fact the thin outer hull could conceivably help defeat enemy shots incoming by decapping/triggering their fuzes (or the equivalent dependant on ammo being used) before they impact the inner armour hull.

As an aside: Who'd have thought that a discussion about windows on ships would have gained so much attention from CCP/ISD members :D

I rest my case that windows are obviously important on Eve ships.



Sigh, I doubt you'll even try to read this, but until you do it's not worth my time.

Schrodinger's Hot Dropper

The Fate of Forum Alts

Guaranteed Success
eug3nio Anninen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#89 - 2015-01-15 09:18:50 UTC
Tusker Crazinski wrote:
Alright I actually feel like being constructive to the thread, instead of knocking over sci-fi missteps and criticizing our space program.

One- Stations; a little detail that would make them seemed more lived in. would be small tugs moving ships, freight containers and things of the such. some stations do this to a small extent. Instead of being enveloped in a docking dome.

the sound (lol) of welders, grinders, building ships maintaining the station or fixing burnt hulls.

Two- sound effects of thing breaking in your ship as you take hull damage





o my god ...finally one who's getting it!

e**ug3n[u]i**o[/u]
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#90 - 2015-01-15 10:01:39 UTC
Kaerakh wrote:



Sigh, I doubt you'll even try to read this, but until you do it's not worth my time.



Where is the burden of proof required? How can I possibly prove or disprove that imaginary ships can or cannot have windows capable of surviving massive firepower in much the same way as the rest of the ship? It is all imaginary and requires suspension of belief to a massive degree (what with it being a game and all) therefore since the models have windows that is all the proof required that in the Eve universe technology is sufficiently advanced to allow them.

Oh, and all of the more recent RL battleships followed the 'All or Nothing' armour plan, there is no reason why this would not apply to our imaginary space battleships for all the same design reasons. I really didn't find that proof to be any burden at all if I'm honest :D

Suspend belief and let people have windows if they want them.
Xavos Shihari
Perkone
Caldari State
#91 - 2015-01-15 11:24:13 UTC
I've personally always had a problem with not just the lack of NPC activity around major trade hubs (especially Jita), but the fact that major trade hubs (especially Jita) aren't any grander in scale then even the quietest of stations in New Eden.

Historically, as silk road trade towns attracted and taxed more trade (as the brokers most certainly do to us :P) the towns themselves would get more money to spend on infrastructure and size to accommodate even more trade.
With how busy stations like Jita 4-4 are both in-game and in the lore, even if the station started off the same size as any other of its type it would have been built upon to accommodate more ships more traders and more customers.

I would like in addition to animated NPC industrial and advertising activity, for stations like Jita 4-4 to have unique models that represent through size and complexity the importance they play on the local capsuleer and NPC economies.

When a new player first sees this critical centre for trade he's heard so much about, he should be awe stricken, not disappointed to see another copy of that particular type of Caldari station.
Debora Tsung
Perkone
Caldari State
#92 - 2015-01-15 11:55:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Debora Tsung
eug3nio Anninen wrote:
Tusker Crazinski wrote:
Alright I actually feel like being constructive to the thread, instead of knocking over sci-fi missteps and criticizing our space program.

One- Stations; a little detail that would make them seemed more lived in. would be small tugs moving ships, freight containers and things of the such. some stations do this to a small extent. Instead of being enveloped in a docking dome.

the sound (lol) of welders, grinders, building ships maintaining the station or fixing burnt hulls.

Two- sound effects of thing breaking in your ship as you take hull damage





o my god ...finally one who's getting it!

You should have used this thread then...

Lifeless World

EDIT:

Or this thread: Rethinking asteroid belts as actual belts, in lieu with today's emphasis on scanning

Stupidity should be a bannable offense.

Fighting back is more fun than not.

Sticky: AFK Cloaking Thread It's not pretty, but it's there.
Tusker Crazinski
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#93 - 2015-01-15 13:47:20 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:


As an aside: Who'd have thought that a discussion about windows on ships would have gained so much attention from CCP/ISD members :D


windows are serious business

Quote:

I rest my case that windows are obviously important on Eve ships.


as are head lamps Blink
Kaerakh
Obscure Joke Implied
#94 - 2015-01-15 14:08:00 UTC
Debora Tsung wrote:
eug3nio Anninen wrote:
Tusker Crazinski wrote:
Alright I actually feel like being constructive to the thread, instead of knocking over sci-fi missteps and criticizing our space program.

One- Stations; a little detail that would make them seemed more lived in. would be small tugs moving ships, freight containers and things of the such. some stations do this to a small extent. Instead of being enveloped in a docking dome.

the sound (lol) of welders, grinders, building ships maintaining the station or fixing burnt hulls.

Two- sound effects of thing breaking in your ship as you take hull damage





o my god ...finally one who's getting it!

You should have used this thread then...

Lifeless World

EDIT:

Or this thread: Rethinking asteroid belts as actual belts, in lieu with today's emphasis on scanning


I think those are a little ambitious, but I wil agree that dynamic landscaping is a very worth while feature. Currently, the world has no reaction to capsuleer presence. I agree that that's a problem. Blink

Schrodinger's Hot Dropper

The Fate of Forum Alts

Guaranteed Success
Tusker Crazinski
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#95 - 2015-01-15 18:21:22 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:

Where is the burden of proof required? How can I possibly prove or disprove that imaginary ships can or cannot have windows capable of surviving massive firepower in much the same way as the rest of the ship?


It's not a question of can or can't, its a question of are windows dumb on a spaceship. save for a few small portholes (with shutters) for the astrogator and docking ports. The answer is yes,... very.

No utility, structural compromise, mass penalty, extra cost, radiation shielding compromise, no utility.

granted all ships in EVE are essentially spaceballs, So whether or not these ships are rendered with or with out them is unimportant. that being said I do like it when a space game characterizes space as it's own medium instead of making it as familiar as possible.
Orange Something
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#96 - 2015-01-15 18:43:14 UTC
eug3nio Anninen wrote:
ok i understand that
you guys do not want a cockpit

....so i would like to view my crew ( even little animations) moving around the deck of my frigate when i zoom in ....fact is that ships from space look "dead pieces of iron" , with some exception
an example: it's too difficult to put a rotating radar above the capital ships roofs (tecnically speaking ? something that make me " belive "is for real?

i'm not asking too much ....it's 2015 after all....

BTW i liked a lot the new rendering method , it's about time ,
glad to see the game evolving from a graphic side too ^^



Wait, what?

How would you see your crew moving about while looking at your ship?
Deacon Abox
Black Eagle5
#97 - 2015-01-15 19:04:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Deacon Abox
CCP Darwin wrote:
Tusker Crazinski wrote:
and windows.... why would you ever put windows on a spaceship?


Imagine you were building a real spaceship: What kind of monster would you need to be NOT to add windows?

How about the monster that builds space stations with no windows What?

CCP, there are off buttons for ship explosions, missile effects, turret effects, etc. "Immersion" does not seem to be harmed by those. So, [u]please[/u] give us a persisting off button for the jump gate and autoscan visuals.

Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#98 - 2015-01-15 19:17:06 UTC
eug3nio Anninen wrote:
an example: it's too difficult to put a rotating radar above the capital ships roofs (tecnically speaking ? something that make me " belive "is for real?

Rotating radars are soooo mid-20th century.

Phased array radars are gradually taking over even the most basic of radar installations. They may not look as neat, but they do the job really well.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#99 - 2015-01-15 19:48:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Dersen Lowery
Kaerakh wrote:
If someone would show me a lore page explaining EVE's equivalent to transparisteel or transparent aluminum and how trivial the cost was, I wouldn't be having this discussion.


Why? Because you've never seen a Gallente or Minmatar station with transparent sections hundreds of meters or even kilometers across in at least one dimension?

It's already well established that there is at least one kind of transparent handwavium able to be manufactured in vast quantities, with a structural integrity that exceeds anything we're familiar with. Why couldn't you make windows out of it?

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!
Murkar Omaristos
The Alabaster Albatross
Unreasonable Bastards
#100 - 2015-01-15 20:03:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Murkar Omaristos
In response to the "lifeless world" thread linked above by Debora.....I've always thought it would be cool if there were higher resolution textures to support more detailed planets, so that some "landmark stations" (like Jita, Amarr, starter systems, etc.) could be much closer to the planet's surface without reducing the visual clarity that planets currently have.

Something like this where the station is in a very low orbit (although maybe not quiiiiite this close).

Of course, this would likely have to apply to a small number of select systems because it would probably be a huge load to do everywhere. But it would add some really cool visual effects and make the game feel much more alive. At the moment every planet feels kind of....the same.