| Author |
Crew system |
Admiral C. Wilson
Admiral
Joined: July 06, 2010
Posts: 262
From: Arkansas
|  Posted: 2011-01-16 16:31
Like my ship name the C.S.S Titanic,
_________________
Well boys it looks like we'll be home in time for coffee and donuts.
-Admiral Ricky Chance Wilson
|
Fatal Perihelion
Chief Marshal
Fatal Squadron
Joined: April 15, 2010
Posts: 308
| Posted: 2011-01-16 16:41
Nerd Alert!
As someone mentioned in another thread, it is more realistic that Combatships dont have any crew at all aboard, but are driven by a pilot with remote, just like us sitting in front of a screen.
Why waste lives? Not very progressive..
Well if fights in space will be possible and ever ocur at all is another question.
Why do we need crew and why should a crew be injured? If the bridge was hit, all would die or be harmed. But even without a crew we could say that damaged parts of the ship reduces speed, slows down JD recharge, slow down Weapon cooldown.....
But To be honest, still i dont see anything with these ideas what would make the game better, give it more depth.
_________________
|
Admiral C. Wilson
Admiral
Joined: July 06, 2010
Posts: 262
From: Arkansas
| Posted: 2011-01-16 16:47
Quote:
|
On 2011-01-16 16:41, Fatal Perihelion wrote:
Nerd Alert!
As someone mentioned in another thread, it is more realistic that Combatships dont have any crew at all aboard, but are driven by a pilot with remote, just like us sitting in front of a screen.
Why waste lives? Not very progressive..
Well if fights in space will be possible and ever ocur at all is another question.
Why do we need crew and why should a crew be injured? If the bridge was hit, all would die or be harmed. But even without a crew we could say that damaged parts of the ship reduces speed, slows down JD recharge, slow down Weapon cooldown.....
But To be honest, still i dont see anything with these ideas what would make the game better, give it more depth.
|
|
Oh shut up, the reason for this to add a little more to the game. I cant stand cry babys
_________________
Well boys it looks like we'll be home in time for coffee and donuts.
-Admiral Ricky Chance Wilson
|
jamesbob
Grand Admiral
Joined: August 22, 2009
Posts: 410
| Posted: 2011-01-16 18:14
Quote:
|
On 2011-01-16 16:47, Admiral Chance Wilson*CO* wrote:
Oh shut up, the reason for this to add a little more to the game. I cant stand cry babys
|
|
well then maybe you should play a different game considering most people are probably not ready to manage a resource like this and noone wants to have to go do suppy dutys unless its the fleet admirals in their support stations.
and another thing for a system like this.
does crew die before or after the ship starts taking hull damage. if before its a pretty silly idea then because a ship might still have armor yet no crews which in it self sounds retarted
if after you might as well stick with the hull damage system as that has a effect on combat as well because damanged systems actually can not be used untill they are repaired.
and when a ship is being fired apon with damaged system that ship has got to jump or die.
however if its jumpdrive is damaged its bye bye ship.
plus considering the devs/mods/ people that do all the coding
have a luandry list of stuff to do it may not get added till about 2 years later if your lucky and they think it should be added.
[ This Message was edited by: jamesbob on 2011-01-16 18:15 ]
_________________
|
Zero28
Grand Admiral
Joined: August 25, 2006
Posts: 591
| Posted: 2011-01-16 19:18
So on one side, we get those who says its a nice idea but woudl rather keep the current Spacebar mash Combat technic that Many whine agaisnt
on the other side, we Get those who Says its a nice idea, but they jsut question about things to balance out, Wich is a Good thing i beleive
at least we got 1 common thing, It is a good idea. and like kenny said, we already got 3 ideas well on the table, Thats a good thing
How would crew affected by hull/armor damage? Well i beleive when taking armor damage, (maybe depending on armor type?) crew shoudl get very little damage unlike hull, Maybe later on Have some of the current weapons that have bonus VS hull Changed it to Bonuses VS Crew members ( AP vs HE ?) then again, those are only maybes
Lets take EMP cannons, There are meant to hurt Sheilds and system, But in no way they should affect the crew since its just an energy and electrical attack. Gauss cannons and whatever other hull bonus weapons, Since ther meant to hit hull hard, The crew would be more weak than standart weapons, Again only Maybes, im merely throwing out ideas
For Damaged system, Its been a VERY long time i haven't seen my ships take Any sort of system damage what so eve,r i don't know if there broke or anything, But a player who knows he can still dish out damage enough to maybe win , he will keep fighting even with system damage/destroyed. Same goes with the crew.
Also come to think of it, it might be a Counter of the possible Mass repair drones that repairs faster then a ship takes damage, Since crew shouldn't be resupplied by Supply ships, The ship will eventually lose its crew to fight, and become at 1 point almost inopperable
The crew Should be more resistant to the hull, because of that, The crew woudl put a limit on how much repair can a ships get in mid combat
Off course, Theres a lot of question and possible answers that can be done, And liek Kenny said, The more complicated we make this goes, The more chances the idea is going to be killed off, You guys ask Balance questions, i just try to answer them out, your ideas however are welcome
@bob, Maybe your not ready to manage this extra resources, BUt Many of us can't stand This very little to do, spacebar mashing. The crew system is not something your going to need to monitor as bad as the energy bar, nor your hull, Its just to put a limit of how much can a ship fight, even while bering repaired
[ This Message was edited by: Zero28 on 2011-01-16 19:20 ]
_________________
19:33:51 [ZION]GothThug {C?}: "Zero..you are DS's hero"
|
tucker32
Fleet Admiral
Joined: February 16, 2009
Posts: 141
From: deep jungle of vargo
| Posted: 2011-01-16 19:23
lol still this is not gonna be added anytime soon this will require too much coding and stuff we are still waiting for the new skins to come out
_________________
|
Gejaheline
Fleet Admiral
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 19, 2005
Posts: 1127
From: UGTO MUNIN HQ, Mars
| Posted: 2011-01-16 19:28
It could possibly have been me that mentioned that ships could be robotic, since I'm certainly familiar with the idea. However, while it's good for fighters and missile buses to be automated since they're not expected to survive the mission and will usually either return intact or not at all, warships need to be able to survive and recover from damage, which makes humans important since they can make decisions and are good generalists, while a machine is typically built with a specific task and has trouble when the situation exceeds its tolerances (for example when a large hole has been blown out of the damage detection system).
But I digress.
While a crew system is a great idea in a simulation game (and I have a million and one ideas for crew systems), DS is primarily an action game, and so one could assume that hull/system damage includes crew casualties and such.
I would rather propose that system damage begins to occur as soon as hull damage is suffered, since what does hull represent if armour represents a ship's protective systems? Answer: A ship's critical components. Thus, hull damage equates (essentially - there are presumably bulkheads and superstructure to consider - ) to system damage. This should hopefully give a similar result to the original suggestion, in that damaged ships become progressively harder to operate, without adding a whole extra series of items related to crew health.
_________________
[Darkspace Moderator] [Galactic Navy Fleet Officer]
|
Fatal Perihelion
Chief Marshal
Fatal Squadron
Joined: April 15, 2010
Posts: 308
| Posted: 2011-01-16 19:49
Quote:
|
On 2011-01-16 16:47, Admiral Chance Wilson*CO* wrote:
Oh shut up, the reason for this to add a little more to the game. I cant stand cry babys
|
|
Your insult is just a little lame fleetadmiral. Maybe you read again:
"But To be honest, still i dont see anything with these ideas what would make the game better, give it more depth."
Then you can tell me how this crew idea "adds something new to the game", in your opinion.
And if people cry about spacebarmashing, maybe try things like rotating shields, Cloak, or teamwork, to add something new to your game?
Good luck with the "Titanic"
Edit: The Idea that System Damage starts with Hull damage, i like much better. But what will it lead to? people will probably jump out earlier, i dont know if thats good or bad.
I think the best idea i heard from is to reinvent captured faction techniques.
Before my DS times, you could capture a Luth planet for example and refit your ship with Luth weapons! This would give a huge motivation boost to invade and to defend Planets.
[ This Message was edited by: Fatal Perihelion on 2011-01-16 20:15 ]
_________________
|
Zero28
Grand Admiral
Joined: August 25, 2006
Posts: 591
| Posted: 2011-01-16 20:14
Quote:
|
On 2011-01-16 19:28, Gejaheline wrote:
While a crew system is a great idea in a simulation game (and I have a million and one ideas for crew systems), DS is primarily an action game, and so one could assume that hull/system damage includes crew casualties and such.
I would rather propose that system damage begins to occur as soon as hull damage is suffered, since what does hull represent if armour represents a ship's protective systems? Answer: A ship's critical components. Thus, hull damage equates (essentially - there are presumably bulkheads and superstructure to consider - ) to system damage. This should hopefully give a similar result to the original suggestion, in that damaged ships become progressively harder to operate, without adding a whole extra series of items related to crew health.
|
|
I see your point, But Fatal also as a point, If systems Starts to fail much faster than then hull, People will jump out of fights much sooner, making the battles shorter in overall, I beleive we once had System damaged before that gets damaged when hull started to get hits, What happened to it?
the reason il stick with crew system (don't get me bad, i like your idea Geja, it woudl be defenitly a + to DS) Is not only we can use it the same way you described your system damage as for now, without any new items (we just needs planets wich are already in game) But eventually in the next months or year we can add new stuff attached this this crew system, it will be, i beleive much less Restrained to mere system damaged. It adds whole new possibilities
BUt Geja, either way will work with me  Your idea is great, I jsut think it will be limited to that
_________________
19:33:51 [ZION]GothThug {C?}: "Zero..you are DS's hero"
|
deathblave
Marshal
Joined: October 10, 2007
Posts: 268
| Posted: 2011-01-16 20:23
if u played the 483 version system damged whould had made u cry i remenfer sitting on the other side of a planet as a ugto getting ion half to death from the emp disableing my systems and jd being disabled that system damge was evil but fun cause the splash hurt the ad wores if it get to close
_________________
|
Zero28
Grand Admiral
Joined: August 25, 2006
Posts: 591
| Posted: 2011-01-16 20:28
ewww ever heard of Making sentences?
Actually i did played a while back, but i forgot it was that bad
_________________
19:33:51 [ZION]GothThug {C?}: "Zero..you are DS's hero"
|
Admiral C. Wilson
Admiral
Joined: July 06, 2010
Posts: 262
From: Arkansas
| Posted: 2011-01-16 20:49
Quote:
|
On 2011-01-16 19:49, Fatal Perihelion wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2011-01-16 16:47, Admiral Chance Wilson*CO* wrote:
Oh shut up, the reason for this to add a little more to the game. I cant stand cry babys
|
|
Your insult is just a little lame fleetadmiral. Maybe you read again:
"But To be honest, still i dont see anything with these ideas what would make the game better, give it more depth."
Then you can tell me how this crew idea "adds something new to the game", in your opinion.
And if people cry about spacebarmashing, maybe try things like rotating shields, Cloak, or teamwork, to add something new to your game?
Good luck with the "Titanic"
Edit: The Idea that System Damage starts with Hull damage, i like much better. But what will it lead to? people will probably jump out earlier, i dont know if thats good or bad.
I think the best idea i heard from is to reinvent captured faction techniques.
Before my DS times, you could capture a Luth planet for example and refit your ship with Luth weapons! This would give a huge motivation boost to invade and to defend Planets.
[ This Message was edited by: Fatal Perihelion on 2011-01-16 20:15 ]
|
|
Yes my ship is named Titanic and I have good luck most of the time. And its Admiral not FA. Also you sound like your whineing in your first post. And that bugs me. So Ill see you in the MV Marshel
_________________
Well boys it looks like we'll be home in time for coffee and donuts.
-Admiral Ricky Chance Wilson
|
Aradrox
Grand Admiral
Joined: March 12, 2007
Posts: 133
From: Tennessee
| Posted: 2011-01-17 00:19
the old refit isnt coming back Fatal thats just how it is and will stay the devs have made that perfectly clear
_________________
[
|
Kenny_Naboo
Marshal
Pitch Black
Joined: January 11, 2010
Posts: 3823
From: LobsterTown
| Posted: 2011-01-17 03:50
I'm all for what Geja said too.
Systems damage should start to occur once the hull starts to take a pounding. Also, I find systems repair too fast currently. Repairs should take a looooong time, especially in battle conditions.
Right now, when one of your systems.... say one of your weaps or perhaps ECM... goes down, the thing gets repaired in scant seconds. Whoa. That's way too fast. It should take minutes to bring back online.
I think this can be adjusted easily without major recoding.
Anyway, back to the topic of the crew system. I also agree, we can continue to do without it. But the crew system is something that can be considered in the future when the Devs have ample time on their hands.
Everybody here always wanted DS to be more of a tactical simulator/shooter. You guys want more depth to the game right? Why not a crew system?
Being the captain of a starship, or any ship, isn't just about jumping in, targetting, and then whamming the hell out of your spacebar before hitting Shift-J to get out of Dodge before the walls come caving in on you. Well, yes it currently is...  but wouldn't you want more? It's not about geek- or nerd-dom. It's about getting a more immersive experience.
OK... for the Geek part... in BSG:TRS, what was it that Lee Adama answered his daddy Bill Adama when asked about what holding a command is all about, just before he took command of the Pegasus?
Admiral William Adama: In your opinion, off the record, what was Garner's flaw?
Major Lee Adama: He was used to working with machines. Command is about people.
In fact, to make your ship more "personal", we can go beyond just the ship name.
Who knows DS can even include a bridge crew in future? Take a leaf from STO. Your bridge crew can be trained (either through battle experience or maybe via paying by credits). And their experience act as modifiers in combat. Eg: How far out you can detect ships? How long does cloaked contact appear on your screen after pinging? How effective your ECCM or ECM is? etc etc.
....and you CAN lose your bridge crew in battle. Either killed when your ship blows up... or maybe they even have "durability" points like enh.
Just ideas to throw into the pot. They're just ideas. Maybe not for today. But still..... 
Think about it for a moment.
[ This Message was edited by: Kenny_Naboo[+R] on 2011-01-17 03:53 ]
_________________
... in space, no one can hear you scream.....
|
jamesbob
Grand Admiral
Joined: August 22, 2009
Posts: 410
| Posted: 2011-01-17 04:27
Quote:
|
On 2011-01-16 19:28, Gejaheline wrote:
It could possibly have been me that mentioned that ships could be robotic, since I'm certainly familiar with the idea. However, while it's good for fighters and missile buses to be automated since they're not expected to survive the mission and will usually either return intact or not at all, warships need to be able to survive and recover from damage, which makes humans important since they can make decisions and are good generalists, while a machine is typically built with a specific task and has trouble when the situation exceeds its tolerances (for example when a large hole has been blown out of the damage detection system).
But I digress.
While a crew system is a great idea in a simulation game (and I have a million and one ideas for crew systems), DS is primarily an action game, and so one could assume that hull/system damage includes crew casualties and such.
I would rather propose that system damage begins to occur as soon as hull damage is suffered, since what does hull represent if armour represents a ship's protective systems? Answer: A ship's critical components. Thus, hull damage equates (essentially - there are presumably bulkheads and superstructure to consider - ) to system damage. This should hopefully give a similar result to the original suggestion, in that damaged ships become progressively harder to operate, without adding a whole extra series of items related to crew health.
|
|
simple soultion to that robot problem upgrade them to the same ai system used by the terraformers in the x universe mind you our tecno warships might aid the ai in destroying us
_________________
|
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
