Player Features and Ideas Discussion

No I am not bashing on STO.

What I am saying the learning curve from dy 1 noob to someone that can properly maintain themselves in missioning, or combat PvP, or even incursions, or simply trying to do the epic arcs out there is complicated enough without introducing some lame Crew module thing.

You are trying to gimp people by FORCING them to play a certain way and basically be tied to a certain region for their supply base.

I think it is you that has no clue about EvE, I have been playing years now. And this idea just simply will not work without many overhauls and changes.....not to mention the meta which will just not accept it because its too dumb of a gimmick that WILL add more complexity and baseless crap to the game that has nothing to do with the spirit of EVE.

Now as to us being Capsuleers.....Yes i know my ships have crew, do i really care beyond my ship working as needed.....no I am immortal and basically a Demi-God....i do not care much about the baseliners and do not wish them to have 1 ounce of control or conflict with MY control of MY ship.

So no.
-1 for this idea.

Uhm yeah as a vet i could deal with it all most likely........

A fresh faced noob.....with everything else mixed in....too much complexity....that is my point.

So please get off your high horse and go do something else. Oh what was the reference with armored core anyway? Do you think i care if its a player group, or a programming company, or some nerdy in the garage CGI film thing.....your idea is still trash for this Game.

Armored Core's a game which is known more for the complexity of its customization options than anything else. If you were in to giant robot games, you'd probably have heard of it.

Are you using nerdy as an insult on a forum for a MMO about space ships? =)

Folks who like vehicle games usually like complexity. It doesn't take long to get used to it. Complexity isn't the killer. New User experience with the tutorial's UI is.

So let me get this right OP.

If your proposal were enacted I would have to waste my precious game time (of which I have little) pursuing an activity (PvE) I not only truly detest but have spent considerable time and effort making unnecessary in terms of earning ISK in order to stay competitive in my primary activity (PvP).

More of an incentive to not bother logging in that to PvP from my point of view.

Not supported.

This is your thread. This is your idea. It is your job to present your idea, and then convince the rest of us that it's a good idea.

It's not our job to turn your idea into a good idea, it's our job to give your our feedback of your idea.

P.S: Your thread is not a new idea. Someone brings it up every week or so, and it never goes over well. Balance in EVE is a very delicate tightrope, and adding in an additional several slots that you can min/max makes it even more difficult to do than it already is. That's the reason most people tend to dislike it.

Now you took that one further, and added in the poor features of losing ship quality after PvP losses to punish people for frequent PvP, tying the mechanic to PvE regardless of peoples desire to do PvE on a particular character, and requiring you to visit specific areas to get the correct kinds of crew, which would have all sorts of adverse effects on people that don't live conveniently in empire, and those that PvP frequently.

And your justifications on this is "Oh well people should try and not lose their ships, and this should punish gankers, and this would boost rewards people do just PvE, and how dare you question my qualifications I'm a member of some Armored Core bullshit group that nobody in EVE cares the slightest bit about or has apparently even heard of."

TLDR: Your idea was trash, everyone is telling you it's trash, but you can't understand this because you tailored the idea to exactly how you want the game to be and your particular playstyle without taking into effect the forced negative changes it would have for everyone who is not a highsec hugging ganker fearing carebear.

I cannot -1 this hard enough.

I liked the original poster but I don't agree with everything.

I like
Crew slots as a concept, adds more planning and customization to ships.

Some concepts that wont work
Finding crews in different parts of space. Many of us have.. 50+ ships. There is just no way to "find" crew for that many. We would do nothing else then fly around looking for crew. If the argument is that you don't have to have a crew then the crew could only have a marginally impact on a ship, at most 1% or something. making them not that useful.
If we instead threat them as a module that you buy from a specific faction and can trade it would be different. Different factions could have different type of crews so your faction standing with.. lets say gusistas would allow you to buy guristas crew that happen to be better at X then Amarr crew.

Im always going to be for more personalization as long as its something you have to plan ahead of time.

0: Search bar in the top, enter "crew": 52 pages of results. Now that was not so hard was it?

1: That was not me talking about STO. Someone else. Once again though, if the game is not EVE, your experience in those games does not matter to anyone here.

2: Your definition of being a "bad captain" revolves around the central idea that if you lose ships, you are a bad captain. That's basically the definition of someone who is scared of PvP. I can make a fairly certain assumption that you don't live in a WH, that you don't live in lowsec, and if you live in nullsec you avoid PvP whenever possible except for potentially the occasional large fleet. People who fight to control their space wouldn't propose penalizing losing crew quality while PvPing, because they accept frequent ship losses as a necessary consequence of defending their territory. So yeah, I'd guess at least a 80% chance of highsec, non PvPing carebear.

3: Your idea of "work" revolves around PvE, that by continuously PvEing, you can power up a ship to further levels than otherwise. It means that people who PvE in the style you approve of gets bonuses, while people who do PVE that is not within those categories, or chooses to do their PvE on alt characters gets the shaft. This is an incredibly short sited view that only permits accruing bonuses to people to PvE the way you think they should, on the character that would use them. Basically only people that fit your own playstyle then, huh?

For example, I keep two of my characters in my PvP staging system, then several more in a PvE ratting sytem, and several more in a highsec system for ice mining. But my PvP characters never PvE, because I need them staged far from the PvE areas to be ready to PvP. Guess I'm just SoL and doomed to having terrible crew then, huh?

4: It's not your job to decide that larger ships need "extra oomph to make them harder to deal with". CCP has in the past 24 hours said "we are fine with the current position of BS's in the game".

5: This is a PvP game, the entire economy is driven by the continuous destruction and production of ships. From the beginning, people are told that "By undocking, you consent to PvP, Concord is not there to protect you, Concord is there to punish the transgressor." That is why people who whine about being involved in PvP against their will get told to HTFU. But there is no such reverse of this. If someone never wanted to PvE on a particular character, there is no mechanic in the game that can force them to, and no hint of any reasoning by CCP that they would ever contemplate forcing people to PvE on their PvP characters as a prerequesite for their PvP ships not being terrible.

TLDR: Your continued insistence that everyone should have to abide by rules that primarily benefit your PvE non PvP oriented play style, and punish those opposite your play style (By PvPing frequently in a PvP game, such surprise) is as ridiculous as those who play this game thinking that CCP should protect them from any interaction by people they don't want to interact by them, despite being told flat out that this is OK, and intended game design, and that EVE is a harsh dark place.

If you want anyone to believe you actually PvP, and have any interest in not ******* over the PvP community, you are either going to need to change your proposal so that it doesn't overwhelmingly favor people that never PvP and just fly around avoiding losing ships and grinding missions all day, or actually show that you PvP. You certainly don't on the character you are posting with, but it's possible you PvP on an alternate character. I rather doubt it though.

First of all, I apologize for taking so long to respond. Birds gotta fly, Fish gotta swim, Employees gotta work, ya know?

As for it not being punishment enough? Not really. No. Realistically, if you became known as a guy who loses six ships a day. No one is going to want to work on your boat. From a gaming stand point is still feels like a slap on the wrist compared. If you get caught in Pirates of the Burning Sea (not that I recommend that game, really) doing piratey actions, you go to jail. If you get caught being a criminal in Skyrim, you go to jail. If you get caught doing something like this in real life, you'll be lucky if you survive your encounter with the authorities.

I don't care about AFK flying. If you want to get rid of that, get rid of auto-pilot. I wouldn't be opposed to that.

Suicide Gankers would be hurt the most from this.. if they did it constantly. Although, the fact that you can get away with it all is kind of unrealistic. Imprisonment in MMO's generally doesn't seem to have any real effect though, at least when I've had to go through it. Since players can just AFK. This crew system seems to be the most fair way of punishing bad captains.

If you want to be hyper competitive then yes you need crew in bigger ships. Smaller ships would not be as effected. T1 and T2 frigates would suffer the least from lack of crew and remain competitive. Crewed ships will always be better though, under this idea.

I'm not sure what this last bit is a counter-argument towards?



I didn't argue that they aren't already punished. I've reiterated this point since some seem to be under the impression that dying even once would kill their social standing. I wanted to make it very clear that REPEATED ship losses are the trigger. One loss should have a very small effect, if any. Since the idea isn't fully formed, I don't really have a set amount of ship losses required to result in reputation loss. It was never intended to be more than one, however. And I even presented the concept that it may only effect the ship type you're using. Part of the idea was to kill off the throw-away ship concept. A captain who is well known for successfully commanding carriers in to battle repeatedly shouldn't be hurt because he accidentally jumped his hauler in to a gate camp. His reputation as a well known and popular carrier captain should remain standing, obviously.

Again, this punishes both bad PvPers and bad PvE players.



I concede that it hasn't been thought through. Although I've been pretty honest about it. The idea was built off of how to realistically include crew, how to one would go about getting them since you can't just manufacture people (or you shouldn't be able to anyways), and how you'd go about getting better quality crew, as well as what would inhibit your progress. I also wanted to try and make what Crew do unique as opposed to doing what Rigs and normal Modules already do, such as latent hull or armor regen. Drone healing in bay. Faster reload / crystal switched, ect. I laid the barest ground work based on this idea. If you dislike the idea so much, I really would appreciate input on how to change it to make it better, instead of just shooting it down.

Whoa. Whoops. I completely apologize for that then. Generally. I don't expect my experience in those games to matter, and I apologize if it's coming off like I think being good at other games should matter here.



My definition of a bad captain revolves around real life expectations.

Currently, I reside in high sec. I didn't play for a while but the majority of play before my absence was primarily mission grinding to keep funds up for throw away ships for low sec patrols in small squads. Frankly, I didn't have much fun when I finally got a larger ship, and tended to stick to smaller vessels. Right now I'm toying about mostly with an Algos and seeing exactly how far I can push DD's as far as PvE and Exploration goes, and after that I've been thinking of seeing what all I can do both offensively and defensively with them in small scale PvP engagements. The relatively poor reputation of DD's makes me want to try and make one shine as a valued member of a patrol team. I enjoy most aspects of EVE outside of station and gate camping, since it's always seemed to me that alt scouting makes these practices useless and yet they're still done and they're boring as all hell.

A friend of mine recently joined, and as he prefers high sec and joined a fairly small corp, I am unlikely to move very far from him so I can help him get on his feet in this game. Once he feels stable enough I'll probably begin dragging him in to low sec. While I'm a bit of a moral nihilist, he has a strong ethics streak so I predict that we'll probably be running anti-pirate patrols of some kind, or hang out with low sec miners as hired body guards. As Null in my experience is little more than high sec with slower Concord response times, with Concord being replaced with Alliance owned forces, I don't think I'll be there much until I decide I want to get back in to group PvP for the fleet battles. That is the extent of my current existence in EVE.

I hope that somehow helps in your need to put a bead on what sort of player I am in EVE.



Not everyone has the time or money to develop two characters. My system is designed around certain base concepts on how to realistically obtain crew, but it also does not take in to account being accomodating to those who can run more than one character and rewarding them more than the average joe who only has the cash to throw away for one account at a time (or the time for only one character).

Although, what would you think of making rescued crew being willing to join their rescuers ship and work for them out of thankfulness and respect for their rescuer? Perhaps the more quickly you defeat their ship, the more respect they have, and thus the more willing they are to join you for free? It'd have to be developed deeper than that, obviously, but just as a base point to jump off of. This would give a small bonus to very well done PvPers who do not want to take the time to turn in wanted crew or return them safely for isk rewards to friendly stations.



It's not my job to decide anything about the game. That's why I'm in the idea suggestion thread and not ramming it through at the office with CCP staff.



It's a PvE/PvP game. People can avoid the PvE right now if they want but CCP has done a pretty good job of showing that they care about making the non-PvP aspects of the game fun. This idea makes them more rewarding than not PvEing, allowing people to work the PvE to get better rewards, and allowing them to grind and dedicate themselves to become stronger than those who don't. That's already an aspect of this game to a point, but this would really enhance that.