Jump to content
bastanold

Ships and the crew required

Recommended Posts

I'm saying, that if there is a player who can show the efficiency of 10 average players, the game must allow him to use this efficiency.

 

Thanks,

Archonious

Actually all - this might be an interesting chance to look at how we might implement the low-sec / hi-sec model of EVE in DU.

 

What if one those areas also had difficulty added to them.

 

i.e: Low sec = simplified controls (allowing automated for small crew capital ships for instance) but in high-sec you had full complex controls, 1 player per ship position etc.

 

It would make high-sec less of a "I have more money so I win" and more a high-stakes area rewarding well crewed ships of team members who really work together. More like real life.

 

Just a thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually all - this might be an interesting chance to look at how we might implement the low-sec / hi-sec model of EVE in DU.

 

What if one those areas also had difficulty added to them.

 

i.e: Low sec = simplified controls (allowing automated for small crew capital ships for instance) but in high-sec you had full complex controls, 1 player per ship position etc.

 

It would make high-sec less of a "I have more money so I win" and more a high-stakes area rewarding well crewed ships of team members who really work together. More like real life.

 

Just a thought.

The issue here, is that low-sec and hi-sec in EVE are there arbitrarily, because of lore NPCs operating out of it.

 

I believe the only real factor in why a ship should be difficult to control, has to have to do with in-game mechanics, like, you can't tie 100 modules onto one control unit, because said control unit has a CPU limit it how many modules it can handle, so a second human being is needed to man another station that takes care of other mmodules on board the ship.

 

A battleship has far more thrusters, guns, larger sensors and what have you, so it needs more people to man its bridge. A frigate ,not so much, as it's a far smaller ship, thus having less CPU requirements on its Control Unit.

 

Likewise, in a cruiser the engineer watch may be able to regulate the reactor from the bridge, but in a battleship, due to the size of the modules in said construct, the engineering watch handles shieldsand the such, while the chief engineers handles the power core's output and that part of the business.

 

It's organic that way.

 

But that's just me. :|

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue here, is that low-sec and hi-sec in EVE are there arbitrarily, because of lore NPCs operating out of it.

 

I believe the only real factor in why a ship should be difficult to control, has to have to do with in-game mechanics, like, you can't tie 100 modules onto one control unit, because said control unit has a CPU limit it how many modules it can handle, so a second human being is needed to man another station that takes care of other mmodules on board the ship.

 

A battleship has far more thrusters, guns, larger sensors and what have you, so it needs more people to man its bridge. A frigate ,not so much, as it's a far smaller ship, thus having less CPU requirements on its Control Unit.

 

Likewise, in a cruiser the engineer watch may be able to regulate the reactor from the bridge, but in a battleship, due to the size of the modules in said construct, the engineering watch handles shieldsand the such, while the chief engineers handles the power core's output and that part of the business.

 

It's organic that way.

 

But that's just me. :|

No no - that works well. And could means the sec zones then have diff "size" ships. Maybe the zones are then somehow related to atmosphere/low orbit/"inner space"/deep space type thing?

 

It's early. So may well be a half-baked idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No no - that works well. And could means the sec zones then have diff "size" ships. Maybe the zones are then somehow related to atmosphere/low orbit/"inner space"/deep space type thing?

 

It's early. So may well be a half-baked idea.

Who knows? I guess as we come closer to Alpha, the Devs will share more info on the subject. :P 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually all - this might be an interesting chance to look at how we might implement the low-sec / hi-sec model of EVE in DU.

Sorry, but my knowledge about EVE is same as PinkyTroll's knowledge about DU. I can guess and imagine only.

 

Thanks,

Archonious

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of my comments will be concerning ships designed for military use, as I think they're the ones that will be most harmed by an approach allowing easy use of automation. If I don't mention another specific type of ship, I'm probably talking about military vessels.
 

And meaning "Large Ship", as is very vague.


Purposefully vague. Early game "large" ships will be in the range of smaller crews numbering in the dozens. It won't be for a few years (probably after the stargate network and a few profitable worlds are established) until capital ships with crews >50 will start being used.

Crew size won't be about some vague number. These things don't need to be simulated here - they're actually happening and can be a part of interesting tactics.

Pulling some numbers out of nowhere, let's say your organisation is at war with another similarly sized one, and you encounter large battles on a regular basis. Analysing previous battles, you've found that on average your fighters become damaged enough to require repairs at a rate of 0.25/min, and the average repair by a well-trained engineer takes two minutes. Thus, your engineers should have constant downtime in battle and really, you only need one, no? However, perhaps you're a little cautious and instead prefer to have a crew of three engineers so that in the event of an uncharacteristic set of damages, you can still get all your ships out into the fray as fast as possible. This will be more expensive (you need to hire the engineers, buy their equipment, etc.) but it could end up saving your ass. But if you can't acquire the funds, or your boss doesn't consider it important enough, your ship now costs less but could have problems.

This game will have accountants, or if not dedicated members, accounting.
 

I'm not speaking about small or big ship balance. Question is how big difference would be between "automatic" and "multicrew" ship.


Depends what you're doing. Are you controlling a cargo freighter with few weapons, having hired a mercenary company to protect you through no man's land between two warring factions you're smuggling between? Sure, having automatic weapons might work, and you probably don't need to be an extraordinary pilot. Just keep those shields up and watch your engine.
 
Are you controlling a dreadnaught ready to go into battle? You'll be fine getting there, but in battle you'll want proper navigators telling you exactly what's going on, a commander to coordinate everything, dedicated engineers for the engine and for your fighters' maintenance, people on comms to communicate with other ships, a first mate to help oversee everything, and gunners to control all the firepower on the ship to fire at the same time. An automated ship will be used once in battle, get utterly routed, and then no organisation will ever buy the design again because it's terrible and the free market will render automatic ships extinct.
 

"99% of most crews job is watching screens". So the question is this. If 1 or maybe 2 persons can quickly switch and well control all these systems, why it need to be not allowed? Of course, this will require great players skills and resistance to stress, multitasking, and fresh head while under the pressure. This is a way to the progress of players skills (not account in-game skills). Isn't that "Hard to master"?


It's not that it won't be allowed, but you are intentionally crippling your ship in a battle. People can't rush from the bridge to the engine room on a 20km capital ship. You can't have one person mount all the guns on each side of the ship at the same time to create a coordinated attack on the enemy's capital ships. They can't be coordinating the attack run of your fighters *and* repairing the damaged ones in the hanger bay.

Out of battle, automated ships will have a place. Freighters, diplomatic ships, people with enough money to burn and hire mercenaries, they'll all be able to use automated stuff for most things, but even then you probably want a small skeleton crew to run things more efficiently.
 

But the main thing is - "And yes, if they are lucky, 99% of most crews job is watching screens. But you want them there for those 1% of the time - battle ;)"
And this is the main problem! It could be cool to manage some systems 1-2 times, but doing this crap day after day.


This is a problem real life ships face and one good commanders will have to effectively solve. How do you keep a company's morale up? How do you entertain them between battle? Most ships have a smaller amount of the crew manning the basics between battles with other members sitting down playing card games. No one sits at a gun all the time.
 
This is what will make good commanders invaluable. They won't just be good at coordinating attacks and battle tactics, but at having a presence and keeping their men in high spirits.
 

The game must give fun not routine work. Most of the things in the list is routine. Yes, these things could look very awesome in theory and dreams, but doing them day after day (to be good in that role) will be fully not enjoyable very soon. Or you think that somebody come back home from the 8hrs routine work in office (or any other) and will enjoy another few hours of routine gameplay?
Saying "YOU MUST HAVE MULTICREW" you forcing somebody to do the routine.
Saying "YOU MAY HAVE MULTICREW or IMPROVE AND PRACTISE YOUR SKILLS" gives the option to have a crew or work hard to do as more as possible.


Once again, it's not "you must have multiple crew members". It's "sure, go solo, but you will die". Two friends might be able to coordinate what they want to do better than a nation can, but the nation has the power behind it to actually get these things done.

 


 

Furthermore, ignoring why solo/skeleton crews will be less efficient, how will solo players even be able to build ships like this? It would take forever to gather all the materials for a ship so large, let alone to script all the elements and connect them to a bridge. It just seems like an enormous waste of investment, especially in a game all about working together to rebuild humanity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but my knowledge about EVE is same as PinkyTroll's knowledge about DU. I can guess and imagine only.

 

Thanks,

Archonious

Given you are the guy that a few comments back wrote "If arm grows from ass, then you need 100500 people to crew ship" I guess you know nada in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of my comments will be concerning ships designed for military use, as I think they're the ones that will be most harmed by an approach allowing easy use of automation. If I don't mention another specific type of ship, I'm probably talking about military vessels.

 

Purposefully vague. Early game "large" ships will be in the range of smaller crews numbering in the dozens. It won't be for a few years (probably after the stargate network and a few profitable worlds are established) until capital ships with crews >50 will start being used.

 

Crew size won't be about some vague number. These things don't need to be simulated here - they're actually happening and can be a part of interesting tactics.

 

Pulling some numbers out of nowhere, let's say your organisation is at war with another similarly sized one, and you encounter large battles on a regular basis. Analysing previous battles, you've found that on average your fighters become damaged enough to require repairs at a rate of 0.25/min, and the average repair by a well-trained engineer takes two minutes. Thus, your engineers should have constant downtime in battle and really, you only need one, no? However, perhaps you're a little cautious and instead prefer to have a crew of three engineers so that in the event of an uncharacteristic set of damages, you can still get all your ships out into the fray as fast as possible. This will be more expensive (you need to hire the engineers, buy their equipment, etc.) but it could end up saving your ass. But if you can't acquire the funds, or your boss doesn't consider it important enough, your ship now costs less but could have problems.

 

This game will have accountants, or if not dedicated members, accounting.

 

Depends what you're doing. Are you controlling a cargo freighter with few weapons, having hired a mercenary company to protect you through no man's land between two warring factions you're smuggling between? Sure, having automatic weapons might work, and you probably don't need to be an extraordinary pilot. Just keep those shields up and watch your engine.

 

Are you controlling a dreadnaught ready to go into battle? You'll be fine getting there, but in battle you'll want proper navigators telling you exactly what's going on, a commander to coordinate everything, dedicated engineers for the engine and for your fighters' maintenance, people on comms to communicate with other ships, a first mate to help oversee everything, and gunners to control all the firepower on the ship to fire at the same time. An automated ship will be used once in battle, get utterly routed, and then no organisation will ever buy the design again because it's terrible and the free market will render automatic ships extinct.

 

It's not that it won't be allowed, but you are intentionally crippling your ship in a battle. People can't rush from the bridge to the engine room on a 20km capital ship. You can't have one person mount all the guns on each side of the ship at the same time to create a coordinated attack on the enemy's capital ships. They can't be coordinating the attack run of your fighters *and* repairing the damaged ones in the hanger bay.

 

Out of battle, automated ships will have a place. Freighters, diplomatic ships, people with enough money to burn and hire mercenaries, they'll all be able to use automated stuff for most things, but even then you probably want a small skeleton crew to run things more efficiently.

 

This is a problem real life ships face and one good commanders will have to effectively solve. How do you keep a company's morale up? How do you entertain them between battle? Most ships have a smaller amount of the crew manning the basics between battles with other members sitting down playing card games. No one sits at a gun all the time.

 

This is what will make good commanders invaluable. They won't just be good at coordinating attacks and battle tactics, but at having a presence and keeping their men in high spirits.

 

Once again, it's not "you must have multiple crew members". It's "sure, go solo, but you will die". Two friends might be able to coordinate what they want to do better than a nation can, but the nation has the power behind it to actually get these things done.

 


 

Furthermore, ignoring why solo/skeleton crews will be less efficient, how will solo players even be able to build ships like this? It would take forever to gather all the materials for a ship so large, let alone to script all the elements and connect them to a bridge. It just seems like an enormous waste of investment, especially in a game all about working together to rebuild humanity.

Matey, what Archonious, Lord of Cringe, doesn't understand (and he DOESN'T understand, he has not played EVE) is that not everyone is able to grasp the complexity of the whole chaotic PvP that is going to happen in DU (if EVE is any example as of numbers-per-area of players in PvP). In fact, I won't lie, I avoid massive PvP in EVE due to how chaotic it is, instead, I play the market the other (chaotic) PvP, that doesn't involve missiles or lasers.

 

I for example, in DU, I do not give a flying flamingo for being a captain (of a ship at least) or being a navigator, or being a gunner. I like ground combat stuff, stealthy stealthy cloaky cloaky kind of gameplay. BUT, I want to experience the fight from within a ship bby controbuting on repairs - or a boarding party, whatever works best.

 

See, Archonious arguements of "people must not do busy work" in a game, is the same cancer of an arguement in any MMO.

 

"I don't want to play a healer, because healers are [insert homosexual slur here]". 

 

See, Archonious is the kind of guy who thinks healers in an MMO are "lol, noob, play healer". See how much he argues on how "support roles are boring"?

 

That's why he doesn't want a crew. He knows that he has to rely on those "noob-healer" players to run a ship in DU. He's naive, sure, but I would not consider Archonious dumb. :) 

 

Bottom-line? 

 

Anyone can participate in Construct V Construct in PvP. Your skills will always have a place in PvP. You don't have to train in Combat, to assist in combat. You are a builder? Good, repair hull breaches. You're a medic? Good, heal the wounded on the battlefield (or even revive? who knows). You are a ground combat guy? You can board another ship (possibly Archonious', it will only have 2 people crew, lol) . You are a pilot but you are not experienced enough to handle a battleship? Fly an escort star-fighter and defend the battleship from other star-fighters. Engineer? Repair said star-fighters when they dock back in the battleship, re-arm them with ammo and be of use.

 

That's just the cherry on top as of why a ship would need crew. Because there WILL BE people to crew it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty much the general gist of what's being said in this thread - it makes absolute sense to have more efficiency from more crew on larger ships. In pretty much what #4 said regarding roles and what was later said regarding NQ's statement on efficiency of larger ships.

 

The statements that I really disagree with, and what I really don't want to see happen, is the obsession of "balance", that has existed in, and completely crippled several games in the past. Life is unfair. Sure, there would always be advantages and disadvantages in everything and anything, but I don't want to have a "fair fight" against a capital ship when I'm flying a little single seat fighter - or even a bunch of em. If I take my mitsubishi pajero onto a a race track up against a Ferrari, I expect to lose in a race, badly, beyond any recognition. Likewise, I would like to see specific roles when it comes to ship designs, and sizes - so using that same comparison with cars, my Pajero climbs 40 degree hills in the mud on the farm - something which a Ferrari wouldn't be able to do.

 

Basically, what I would really hate to see, is the whining of "whine, that capital ship gun melted my single seat fighter - it's too OP, balance it" - in the regard of EVE online, something which I didn't quite like (though I understood why they had to do it in the span of EVEs gameplay), was the fact that smaller ships were literally invulnerable to larger ones, as the guns were unable to hit them. Yes, you want a mixture of ships in fleets - but that mixture needs to be achieved through each ship earning it's specific role in that fleet through it's own strengths, rather than forcing a rock paper scissor scenario, with the ability to evade turret fire of small maneuverable craft lying with the pilot, against the aim of a gunner, or the quality of the design and location of hardpoints of the ship - rather than simply saying "gun size X cannot hit targets smaller than size Y". 

 

Would this result in certain ships and builds that would be significantly better than the others - of course - but isn't that the entire point of a game such as DU, part of which is building and improving blueprints and ships? And it would also bring in the mechanic of correctly identifying your target based on it's threat level meaning the difference between victory and defeat. I feel, that 'unbalance' in this sense, is a GOOD thing, since it will push players to try and build better, more efficient, more advanced ships throughout the 'evolution' of DU, rather than stifling this with balance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty much the general gist of what's being said in this thread - it makes absolute sense to have more efficiency from more crew on larger ships. In pretty much what #4 said regarding roles and what was later said regarding NQ's statement on efficiency of larger ships.

 

The statements that I really disagree with, and what I really don't want to see happen, is the obsession of "balance", that has existed in, and completely crippled several games in the past. Life is unfair. Sure, there would always be advantages and disadvantages in everything and anything, but I don't want to have a "fair fight" against a capital ship when I'm flying a little single seat fighter - or even a bunch of em. If I take my mitsubishi pajero onto a a race track up against a Ferrari, I expect to lose in a race, badly, beyond any recognition. Likewise, I would like to see specific roles when it comes to ship designs, and sizes - so using that same comparison with cars, my Pajero climbs 40 degree hills in the mud on the farm - something which a Ferrari wouldn't be able to do.

 

Basically, what I would really hate to see, is the whining of "whine, that capital ship gun melted my single seat fighter - it's too OP, balance it" - in the regard of EVE online, something which I didn't quite like (though I understood why they had to do it in the span of EVEs gameplay), was the fact that smaller ships were literally invulnerable to larger ones, as the guns were unable to hit them. Yes, you want a mixture of ships in fleets - but that mixture needs to be achieved through each ship earning it's specific role in that fleet through it's own strengths, rather than forcing a rock paper scissor scenario, with the ability to evade turret fire of small maneuverable craft lying with the pilot, against the aim of a gunner, or the quality of the design and location of hardpoints of the ship - rather than simply saying "gun size X cannot hit targets smaller than size Y". 

 

Would this result in certain ships and builds that would be significantly better than the others - of course - but isn't that the entire point of a game such as DU, part of which is building and improving blueprints and ships? And it would also bring in the mechanic of correctly identifying your target based on it's threat level meaning the difference between victory and defeat. I feel, that 'unbalance' in this sense, is a GOOD thing, since it will push players to try and build better, more efficient, more advanced ships throughout the 'evolution' of DU, rather than stifling this with balance.

 

good point too, +1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the real world every concept or object has some sort of 'hole' or weakness. Same should go for ship and warship design. Dynamic stress is key to insuring a continual arms race and shifting doctrines. 'Balance' is a theoretical concept and doesn't exist in our universe. Entropy insures that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea of multi-crew ships but i know there will be times when there wont be enough of my friends & Org mates online at the same time to crew a ship (much less several for fleet ops) and i'm not about to hire some potentially mutinous PUG crew & hand them my ship on a silver platter (is my EVE paranoia showing? TRUST NOBODY!) so i have a couple of suggestions:

 

1. Give players the ability to use offline friends/Org members as crew with the caveat that the offline crewmen can only be assigned to one construct at a time (no virtual clones on all your friends ships)

 

AND/OR

 

2. Recruitable NPCs similar to Star

Trek online

 

-Fully trainable (not inherently specialized) like player characters but with skills capped at the players corresponding skill level

 

-"Crew Management" skill to determine how many crewmen players can recruit

 

-NO ENTOURAGES! NPC crew cannot leave their assigned constructs.

 

-Requires crew quarters? A bed per creman? I'd be ok with this. It makes sense and players would only have to include quarters in their constructs if they want to use NPCs.

 

-Gear? Not even sure if players will have gear but im ok either way. Might be nice aesthetically (uniforms & such) but not exactly a priority.

 

Anyway it'd be nice to be able to just log in and play rather than log in and wait, potentially forever, for enough trustworthy people to log in AND be willing to crew my ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea of multi-crew ships but i know there will be times when there wont be enough of my friends & Org mates online at the same time to crew a ship (much less several for fleet ops) and i'm not about to hire some potentially mutinous PUG crew & hand them my ship on a silver platter (is my EVE paranoia showing? TRUST NOBODY!) so i have a couple of suggestions:

1. Give players the ability to use offline friends/Org members as crew with the caveat that the offline crewmen can only be assigned to one construct at a time (no virtual clones on all your friends ships)

 

AND/OR

 

2. Recruitable NPCs similar to Star

Trek online

-Fully trainable (not inherently specialized) like player characters but with skills capped at the players corresponding skill level

-"Crew Management" skill to determine how many crewmen players can recruit

-NO ENTOURAGES! NPC crew cannot leave their assigned constructs.

-Requires crew quarters? A bed per creman? I'd be ok with this. It makes sense and players would only have to include quarters in their constructs if they want to use NPCs.

-Gear? Not even sure if players will have gear but im ok either way. Might be nice aesthetically (uniforms & such) but not exactly a priority.

Anyway it'd be nice to be able to just log in and play rather than log in and wait, potentially forever, for enough trustworthy people to log in AND be willing to crew my ship.

 

DU is a MMO. The whole point of the game is socializing, knowing people you can trust and playing together. I don't see why one would deliberatly jeopardize that idea by introducing NPC crew members.

 

If your org only consists of your friends (lets say 4) then you won't be able to man a big ship anyway. You'll be stuck with single seaters or 2 seaters.

Go make friends. Go make allies. Go make deals. Be part of an alliance to always have people to play with without giving up on your personal freedom. That's the point of a MMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another mechanic could be it would have to affect energy reserves. I figure to use automated processes there would have to be a main computer controlling those processes and the more you tax that computer the more power it requires. Now if you had a crew to manually operate some of these systems, you could eliminate some of those power drains, which would greatly decrease the chance of your ship running on empty mid-fight.

 

Another advantage a manned crew can have in terms of the weapon systems is that manned weapons are immune to target-disrupting electronic counter measures.

 

With this you can indeed fly a large ship solo, but you have to pray that any fights you have are quick. Personally, I think a space version of a big rig/lorry shouldn't need to be as crew intensive as the space version of a tank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea of multi-crew ships but i know there will be times when there wont be enough of my friends & Org mates online at the same time to crew a ship (much less several for fleet ops) and i'm not about to hire some potentially mutinous PUG crew & hand them my ship on a silver platter (is my EVE paranoia showing? TRUST NOBODY!) so i have a couple of suggestions:

 

Or just fly a smaller ship when your mates are not online.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite the quasi-facetious "TRUST NOBODY" above, I have no problem socializing and making friends online, but i dont extend great gobs of trust to everyone. Do you? Building trust takes time and interaction. Larger Orgs have less interaction between all members than smaller ones because of time zones, work/school schedules, etc. and it ony takes one Reaver infiltrator to totally ruin your Org/personal efforts. It would be great if we could always know right off the bat who's a Reaver and who's a Good Guy, but unfortunately sometimes you don't find out until you feel the vibroblade slip between your ribs.

As for NPC crew "jeopardizing" the social aspect of the game - How? Will such a mechanic suddenly turn everyone into antisocial loners? Will it force everybody to fly solo with only their droids to interact with? EVE only has single player ships yet their chat and community are still active and space is full of fleets working together (even though popularity has been declining for some time).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for NPC crew "jeopardizing" the social aspect of the game - How? Will such a mechanic suddenly turn everyone into antisocial loners? Will it force everybody to fly solo with only their droids to interact with? EVE only has single player ships yet their chat and community are still active and space is full of fleets working together (even though popularity has been declining for some time).

 

One. This isn't a solo-pilot game only game like Eve.

 

Two. If NPCs are viable the crew-gathering will decline.

 

Three. Lore wise AI is banned and NQ are trying to avoid it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, i should've said this earlier, the main goal of this mechanic would be to fill in crew gaps when we don't have enough players to fully crew a construct. Full NPC crews would be possible but if your friends have higher skills than you in certain areas (likely since players will tend to specialize) then it would be foolish not to use your friends IF they're available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Three. Lore wise AI is banned and NQ are trying to avoid it.

I didnt mean droids as in mechanical constructs with AI, i just meant NPC humans. Lore is preserved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite the quasi-facetious "TRUST NOBODY" above, I have no problem socializing and making friends online, but i dont extend great gobs of trust to everyone. Do you? Building trust takes time and interaction. Larger Orgs have less interaction between all members than smaller ones because of time zones, work/school schedules, etc. and it ony takes one Reaver infiltrator to totally ruin your Org/personal efforts. It would be great if we could always know right off the bat who's a Reaver and who's a Good Guy, but unfortunately sometimes you don't find out until you feel the vibroblade slip between your ribs.

As for NPC crew "jeopardizing" the social aspect of the game - How? Will such a mechanic suddenly turn everyone into antisocial loners? Will it force everybody to fly solo with only their droids to interact with? EVE only has single player ships yet their chat and community are still active and space is full of fleets working together (even though popularity has been declining for some time).

Not knowing who may be bad and who may be an awoxer is part of the fun playing in an open world sandbox mmo. Figuring out real friends who really help you, is part of the game.

I could easily change your argument by saying: in eve you didn't trust anybody too, did you? Nonetheless you found enough people to trust with whom you flew and lived. Same thing in DU: you will find them

 

People are lazy. And most people will always take the easy route (as we saw in eve). So yes, crews will definitely decline of if you allow npc/automation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not knowing who may be bad and who may be an awoxer is part of the fun playing in an open world sandbox mmo. Figuring out real friends who really help you, is part of the game.

I agree. I'm just wanting to minimize my risk while I'm figuring out who to trust. Particularly early on.

 

I could easily change your argument by saying: in eve you didn't trust anybody too, did you? Nonetheless you found enough people to trust with whom you flew and lived. Same thing in DU: you will find them

People are lazy. And most people will always take the easy route (as we saw in eve). So yes, crews will definitely decline of if you allow npc/automation.

Yes i trusted people to varying degrees but in EVE they have to attack you from the outside, which at least gives you a chance to fight back or evade (usually) . In DU a Reaver disguised as a helpful able spacer with some time on his hands can just walk up behind you and shoot you in the head to take your ship, or blow it up from the inside.

Again, i just want to minimize the risk. I really hate seeing weeks/months/years of time and effort go down the drain just because i trusted the wrong person.

People who WANT to crew other players constructs could and would still do so. This would simply allow everyone, even small groups and (Perfection Postponed! ) solo players, to field decent ships/bases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm also a little disturbed by a familiar theme popping up all over the forum. I'll paraphrase:

 

 

YOU MUST JOIN THE COLLECTIVE

 

INDIVIDUALITY IS IRRELEVANT

 

RESISTANCE IS FUTILE

 

 

I thought in a sandbox a player could be and do and play any way they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well yes, true you can die. That's why you should choose your friends wisely.

DU, as the mmo it is, emphasizes on teamplay and ofc you can play alone or with only 10 people.

But don't assume you can mine as much as big orgs. Or take on bigger enemies. Or fly huge ships. It's kind of sad that people always want to compete (in the sense of doing the same thing) with big orgs while they're alone or only 10.

You don't lose your progress at all (you keep master blueprints, skills and quanta). You only lose your constructs.

 

If you want to fly big ships, mine a lot, build huge bases - you need to find the right people to do so. Or make an org yourself and recruit people for your goal. But that involves work and commitment, which a lot of people don't want to do. Crying out for the same rights (as a small gang compared to a large org) won't help you at all. And is pathetic imho

 

Edit:

And on a sidenote: yes, that's why there are sandboxes. But that doesn't mean nq should allow all mechanics. Or broken ones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea of multi-crew ships but i know there will be times when there wont be enough of my friends & Org mates online at the same time to crew a ship (much less several for fleet ops) and i'm not about to hire some potentially mutinous PUG crew & hand them my ship on a silver platter (is my EVE paranoia showing? TRUST NOBODY!) so i have a couple of suggestions:

 

1. Give players the ability to use offline friends/Org members as crew with the caveat that the offline crewmen can only be assigned to one construct at a time (no virtual clones on all your friends ships)

 

AND/OR

 

2. Recruitable NPCs similar to Star

Trek online

 

-Fully trainable (not inherently specialized) like player characters but with skills capped at the players corresponding skill level

 

-"Crew Management" skill to determine how many crewmen players can recruit

 

-NO ENTOURAGES! NPC crew cannot leave their assigned constructs.

 

-Requires crew quarters? A bed per creman? I'd be ok with this. It makes sense and players would only have to include quarters in their constructs if they want to use NPCs.

 

-Gear? Not even sure if players will have gear but im ok either way. Might be nice aesthetically (uniforms & such) but not exactly a priority.

 

Anyway it'd be nice to be able to just log in and play rather than log in and wait, potentially forever, for enough trustworthy people to log in AND be willing to crew my ship.

I am an EVE fella here (proud Stratios fly-boy as well), but you miss the point.

 

You don't got a crew to fly your Machariel (I got a feeling that you are part of the majority of the playerbase) ? Cool, fly a Crow, it's a single-seater in the lore and could be so in DU.

 

You can get into a hefty amount of trouble and PvP in a Crow. Or even better, SCOUT for easy kills and team up with other sing;e-seater pilots.

 

And to top it off. You can get in a single-seater and go on a planet an kill people on your own as an avatar. DU is AVATAR first, ship comes second.

 

This is not EVE 2.0, this is not a spaceship combat game. It's about you and the role you play as - as DU is an MMORPG. That also means you play a role as part of a ship's crew.

 

Nobody told you to get in a PUG. If you have been to Null-Sec in EVE, you know that coalitions throw in people together in fleets for home defense and strat ops / siege fleets. Same thing wil lhappen in DU. You are part of an alliance, and a BATTLESHIP is an alliance goal, it's mass PvP at its finest.

 

If you are a low-sec fella out of Providence... well... you COULD live in the border regions between two larger coalitions... you COULD be the in-between stop for traders and even have profit out of the trade between the two larger coalitions - oor smuggling, we don't judge here - just don't expect your minor low-sec Providence-like corporation to stand on an equal footing with a larger organisation that can fleet AND crew battleships. That's not how DU is aiming to work.

 

 

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And perhaps as addition there too:

 

Pvp in a sandbox isn't fair. It's never fair. It wasn't fair in eve and it won't be fair in DU.

Find tactics, mechanics and workarounds that set it somewhat off. But don't expect it to be fair at all if you get invaded by 10000 people

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×