Backstage - OOC Forums
EVE-Online RP Discussion and Resources => EVE OOC Summit => Topic started by: Graelyn on 12 Apr 2011, 02:47
-
Just wondering, I hadn't seen it floating around.
(http://i51.tinypic.com/mljcs3.jpg)
-
Just wondering, I hadn't seen it floating around.
*the bane of Ghost's existence*
*Ghost Hunter looks at the some 1,700 people taken from that one battlecruiser wreck Harvest
I have a feeling I am going to be redoing a lot of numbers.
-
According to the presentation, a functioning ship is in the Max category, while minimums are, like, unfitted ships.
-
According to the presentation, a functioning ship is in the Max category, while minimums are, like, unfitted ships.
What purpose does the Max Capacity serve when all types of passengers are regulated to the cargo bay size?
Full cargo bay = max capacity? etc.
I like minimum being unfit ships, versus max being active ships.
-
Ugh, turns out someone had posted it on EVEFiction... Doh.
-
Saw that.
-
It is from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJfiQ43Adsg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJfiQ43Adsg). (Heh at the content warning: Violence.)
Minimum crew: Unfit ship flying around.
Maximum crew: Ship, with people manning the modules and a usual passenger compartment.
Of course, you can likely stretch it - cargo expanded Industrial can take a whole lot of people in slave ship conditions, but that's not what they're designed to do (unless you're flying Amarr).
-
So The Caldari have a larger crew on their ships then the Amarr...what.
-
Gallente rely more on automation, have larger crew quarters per volume. Caldari have caskets as crew quarters. Minmatar. . . don't have crew quarters? hope they're able to stay awake long enough to reach the target?
-
Very nice. I see they have toned down the numbers quite considerably... which I must admit is a good thing. I'm glad there is an option for the "I don't want any crew!" crowd to be happy as well. Sensible and useful stuff all over.
Only gripe is the wide differences between the low and high end numbers of the minimum requirements, which will allow the "NO CREW!" RPer to say that his Brutix can run with just 15 people, while the "LOLCREW" RPer will need to have all of 80 people on board. Just a bit too much gap between the numbers, allowing for a wider gap between the paradigms of these two sets of folks, resulting in that a PF opportunity to resolve their differing viewpoints is lost.
-
Yeah GoGo is right, I rather wished the numbers were more detailed and not just what is clearly a very rough estimate here.
-
Yeahh..... I would have thought it would be something more like
Amarr +20%
Minmatar +10%
Gallente +5%
Caldari -Null
Logic being
- Amarr use hoards of slave labour for the large heavy tasks (Capboosters are huge!)
- Minmatar (like Tony said) do everything the hard way, but with an emphasis (mostly) on speed and agility, slightly less than a small army is needed when compared to an Amarrian ship
- Gallente are still quite a populous race, although I am dubious about making them +5% because well - from a chron a while back and I forget which one, but essentially the navy is struggling to recruit and I would assume that dictates ship design, and the drone argument that Tony mentioned
- Caldari, extreme population deficiency and focused on high levels of education and specilisation so less crew, more computers and mainly tech-sperts making sure things are running.
As for crew numbers - I also was thinking that while it mentions a minimum crew for a capsuleer.
What about the Max? shouldn't that STILL be less as well?
-
Capsuleer is part of the hardware of the ship.
Because you have one, you need less computers, not less personnel to run the ship.
-
Capsuleer is part of the hardware of the ship.
Because you have one, you need less computers, not less personnel to run the ship.
Hmm.
Fair enough I suppose - I did however think that was at least part of what the Pod did, to reduce the max crew by handling those things, but maybe I got it backwards.
-
Capsuleer is part of the hardware of the ship.
Because you have one, you need less computers, not less personnel to run the ship.
Hmm.
Fair enough I suppose - I did however think that was at least part of what the Pod did, to reduce the max crew by handling those things, but maybe I got it backwards.
I'm pretty sure a pod would reduce the crew needed as, from my understanding at least, it removes the need for most command crew and I imagine a lot of the people whose job it was to push a button to make the ship do something.
-
The numbers make sense but the racial adjustment figures don't, in my opinion.
A Raven-class battleship is 730m long according to the ship charts (http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/corp/DavikRendar/EVE_Shipchart_Apocrypha_Edition_v2%5B2%5D.jpg), and the base numbers say it probably has a crew of 4000-8000. By comparison, a modern-day Nimitz class aircraft carrier is 332m long (overall; not waterline) and carries a crew of about 6500 (including airwing). Obviously there's a world of difference in technology, but a simple raw comparison suggests that at least CCP is in the ballpark.
What doesn't make sense is the upward scaling for the Caldari. This is a very high tech society and the trend extends into the description of the Scorpion-class battleship, noting that it is "crammed to the brink with sophisticated hi-tech equipment that few can match." They also have population limitations, being so much smaller than the other Empires that cloning was a viable option for some time (how long isn't defined) in order to quickly boost the population.
-
If you made the Caldari +0% and the Gallente -5% (for their history of automation and drones) would that make you feel better?
Drones and Automation are the Gallente schtick. Them having the lowest crew requirements seems completely reasonable to me.
-
So, what is this all about exactly, gameplay wise ? What will it add, except roleplay ? How would it work ?
-
Mainly, it just shuts up the deniers.
Which I suppose I support.
-
Oh yes true. Good stuff.
-
WHile I'm not surprised by the smaller Amarr crew modifier (I don't believe there's actually any proof behind the "wastefull slave labor aboard ships" thing), both the Caldari and Minmatar ship modifiers surprise me.
While the former could be at least partially explained as being caused by a higher density of interactive systems in the hull (the Amarr and Gallente bother burn large volumes of hull on thick armor plating; the Amarr may have large, luxurious quarters for higher officers, the Gallente may be spending room on internal drone storage and automation systems, etc...). Furthermore, I'm fairly sure the Caldari Navy has been described at times as the smallest, if the highest-tech navy, so having high concentrations of crew aboard extremely valuable ships isn't such a strategically poor choice.
Minmatar hulls, on the other hand, are often obviously smaller than their counterparts in other races in terms of internal volume (compare, say, the largely "empty" structure of the Breacher hull to that of the relatively large Kestrel or Tristan hulls), nor would they have the hugely complex (and thus oversight-demanding) resources of the Caldari, so I'm not sure why they need so many crew. Perhaps they lack even basic automation features the Amarr and Caldari have instituted, let alone the advanced drone systems of the Gallente?
-
There shouldn't be any racial modifiers to crew sizes.
-
Wait! Ships in Eve have crew?
-
Wait! Ships in Eve have crew?
Yes. They're the spinning Christmas trees from Dr. Who "The Christmas Invasion."
-
Wait! Ships in Eve have crew?
:bash:
-
So The Caldari have a larger crew on their ships then the Amarr...what.
TonyG + Caldari= The exact opposite of previous PF
-
So The Caldari have a larger crew on their ships then the Amarr...what.
TonyG + Caldari= The exact opposite of previous PF
I now understand why so many people have an issue with him.
-
If you made the Caldari +0% and the Gallente -5% (for their history of automation and drones) would that make you feel better?
Drones and Automation are the Gallente schtick. Them having the lowest crew requirements seems completely reasonable to me.
Automation on Gallente ships is a bonus. On Caldari ships it's a requirement. Low numbers of population plus extreme high tech, remember?
-
Automation on Gallente ships is a bonus. On Caldari ships it's a requirement. Low numbers of population plus extreme high tech, remember?
My complete lack of awareness about things Caldari bites again, but isn't that why they invented tube-kids so they could get around the lack of population?
-
Automation on Gallente ships is a bonus. On Caldari ships it's a requirement. Low numbers of population plus extreme high tech, remember?
My complete lack of awareness about things Caldari bites again, but isn't that why they invented tube-kids so they could get around the lack of population?
It hasn't fully put them to scale with the Minmatar or Gallente, is my impression. They are better than they would be, but are still behind.
-
[spoiler]1. Gallente = Drones.
2. Amarr = Lasers and drones.
Drones = less crew.
3. Caldari = missiles
Missiles = Crew changing out missiles between missile cycles, therefore more crew.
4. Minmatar = rust.
Rust = scrubbing.
Scrubbing = most crew evar.[/spoiler]
It uh... it makes sense if you don't think about it too hard, and forget that the Caldari have low population numbers. /joke Also, I could so turn those numbers into a workable tabletop game mechanic. :eek:
Instead of scrapping these and going with something else, I'd say look at the mechanics of the ships themselves, and perhaps having racial modifiers on all the various stats. Min/max crew, max capacity, etc. That's really the only change I'd make. That's also such a simplified chart that it makes my head hurt.
Also, a low population doesn't become a disadvantage until you have disproportionate crew sizes; A Caldari ship has more crew, and less ships, and lower population. This is why the Gallente drones would be such a threat, and why Pod technology would initially be such a boost to their war effort.
Just sayin'.
-
Personal assumption on "what, Caldari need more crew" - their ships are most high tech. More complex systems don't mean that they're easier to maintain. It means the exact opposite. (Contrast to Amarr: It might be that they avoid serviceable parts, with lasers being mechanically more simple than "projectile" weapons and a block of armour being easier to maintain than a shield projector.) But yes, would good to hear the background for the numbers.
-
You do know the reasons behind the racial modifiers.
There is none, they were pulled out of someones ass.
-
[spoiler]3. Caldari = missiles
Missiles = Crew changing out missiles between missile cycles, therefore more crew.[/spoiler]
A well-trained crew can't reload a missile tube in 10 seconds. The only thing that could possibly do this is some sort of auto-reloading system.
Personal assumption on "what, Caldari need more crew" - their ships are most high tech. More complex systems don't mean that they're easier to maintain. It means the exact opposite. (Contrast to Amarr: It might be that they avoid serviceable parts, with lasers being mechanically more simple than "projectile" weapons and a block of armour being easier to maintain than a shield projector.) But yes, would good to hear the background for the numbers.
I agree with the need for a background for the numbers (but cringe at who it'd likely come from :ugh:). This does seem like it came out of left field.
High tech doesn't necessarily equal a need for more crew, however. Training would handle part of the problem - give the enlisted crew specialized NECs and send them to training schools related to their assigned jobs. You could supplement them with robots (less crew, able to handle simple taskings, don't take up as much space as an organic crew would) for day-to-day maintenance tasks.
Many people are surprised to know that the average crew size on US Navy warships has shrunk over the last decade: as an example the crew size on destroyers (about as advanced as possible: helicopters, torpedoes, SPY-1, RIM-116, vertical missile launching systems, ballistic-missile defense systems, controllable-pitch propellers) went from almost 400 to about 300 people. And we're at our busiest levels since World War 2: the SecNav just went on record as saying that we're now responsible for maintaining a Carrier 1.7 presence in the Middle East (two carriers on station 9 out of 12 months of the year; figure an eight-month deployment).
-
while i cannot be certain i do have a couple of ideas as to why the racial crew adjustments work the way they do...
Matari - these ships were built with as little tech as possible, therefore it is reasonable to assume that more manual labour would be required from the crew of matari ships, this is likely extremely tiring work, especially during combat situations, and you would need necessary crew to replace any losses during combat to maintain efficiency.
Amarr - IIRC most of the crew on amarrian ships, are barely trained slaves, on vitoc.... i can see why malnourished and drug addled types need to have extra crew on hand... though since failure is generally recieved badly by their 'overseers' most of these slaves would learn fast...
Caldari - While the State's population may show that they should have ships that should have less crew, remember that even before TEA, military service was mandatory within the state, every able bodied man and woman of the state had at least some form of military training. their ships have more people on them simply because they can have more... the neccessity of having a smaller crew never happened, so they never did it.
Gallente - since the end of the previous Gallente-Caldari war the number of people signing up to the Gallente military has dropped, with no real incentive other than the pay, people within the federation have taken up roles that they prefer over military service. as the numbers began to dwindle they had to work on automated methods of completing jobs that they no longer had the manpower to perform manually.
just my ideas on the subject.
-
Just a reality check before the emo-rage spreads further.
Both things can be true:
1) Caldari have an issue with their relatively small population.
2) Caldari ships require more crew than Gallente.
Indeed, you can kinda see how that makes even more sense that way. Also, you all seem to be missing the point that Caldari have the second lowest creq requirement. Trumped only by the masters of automation. So, yeah.
-
Also, you all seem to be missing the point that Caldari have the second lowest creq requirement. Trumped only by the masters of automation. So, yeah.
Looks like Amarr do to me. 5% < 10%
But I still say the modifiers shouldn't exist. They add nothing to the verisimilitude or story-bearing capacity of the universe, and will only serve to inspire immense factional cock-waving and butthurt.
-
Also, you all seem to be missing the point that Caldari have the second lowest creq requirement. Trumped only by the masters of automation. So, yeah.
Looks like Amarr do to me. 5% < 10%
But I still say the modifiers shouldn't exist. They add nothing to the verisimilitude or story-bearing capacity of the universe, and will only serve to inspire immense factional cock-waving and butthurt.
Yeah, if they were gonna do the modifiers, they really should have just listed numbers for all the races individually.
-
I am thinking that at these tech levels, crew numbers actually seem insanely appropriate. Obviously you don't have meat loading missiles.
Anybody ever stop to think about damage control? So many unknowns there is absolutely no fucking way to automate it. I assume the crew spends most of their time working out, in their racks, and waiting for the shit to hit the fan on the caliber of vessels we are actually talking about.
-
Am I the only one who looked at the survivor rate and went "wha...?"
As the ship class gets bigger the maximum number of survivors increases as well, until we hit Dreadnought. Then suddenly we've only got 15-30% of the crew surviving. I'm guessing it's supposed to have something to do with Dreads being mobile weapons platforms and most of their hulls being dedicated to very large weapon systems and the seige reactors (I'm guessing it's some sort of reactor that either ups the energy output ten-fold or diverts all the power from the engine systems).
Also, Titans have a huge margin and the lowest average since the Battlecruiser class. It might have to do with the doomsdays, but they're also the only other ship class to use the XL size guns. Coincidence?
-
Hm, they probably thought about what kind of firepower you need to destroy a Titan in the first place. Survival rates are estimates based on the typical fight. 50 Battleships obliterating a single one would probably yield very low rates as well.
-
You're a few kilometers deep in the superstructure of a titan, operating a reactor. Suddenly, you get hit by wave motion guns or whatever. End of story?
-
You're a few kilometers deep in the superstructure of a titan, operating a reactor. Suddenly, you get hit by wave motion guns or whatever. End of story?
the story of a crewmen trying to escape as a titan falls apart around them would actually be rather interesting.
-
Coming this summer from Jerry Bruckheimer...
-
Am I the only one who looked at the survivor rate and went "wha...?"
As the ship class gets bigger the maximum number of survivors increases as well, until we hit Dreadnought. Then suddenly we've only got 15-30% of the crew surviving. I'm guessing it's supposed to have something to do with Dreads being mobile weapons platforms and most of their hulls being dedicated to very large weapon systems and the seige reactors (I'm guessing it's some sort of reactor that either ups the energy output ten-fold or diverts all the power from the engine systems).
Also, Titans have a huge margin and the lowest average since the Battlecruiser class. It might have to do with the doomsdays, but they're also the only other ship class to use the XL size guns. Coincidence?
One of the things I remember being talked about is that how fast the ship is destroyed, and what it is destroyed by, affects survivor probability. Dreadnoughts are giant siege guns versus Carriers/Supercarriers which have a multitude of drones and other systems. Titans are a bit iffy, but probably due to their sheer size escaping it in a couple minutes is probably a problem.
-
You're a few kilometers deep in the superstructure of a titan, operating a reactor. Suddenly, you get hit by wave motion guns or whatever. End of story?
the story of a crewmen trying to escape as a titan falls apart around them would actually be rather interesting.
Totally doing that lol!
-
Well not even all of a capital sized ship is destroyed when the ship is "killed." Capitals leave behind rather in-shape wrecks where it's quite easy to see just by looking at it what kind of ship it was. As opposed to sub-caps, where the only thing left behind is a tristed scrap of metal bearing no resemblance to a ship at all.
Seeing how this is the case, I don't think the entire ship would be destroyed and/or exposed to the vaccum of space, no? Just enough of it is burnt/wrecked that it's useless.
-
You're a few kilometers deep in the superstructure of a titan, operating a reactor. Suddenly, you get hit by wave motion guns or whatever. End of story?
the story of a crewmen trying to escape as a titan falls apart around them would actually be rather interesting.
It would be a pretty short story.
Likewise, all those month long cruises spaceships supposedly go on - where are they?
Makes me think if Eve time is actually not directly proportional to RL time. That's an idea I've been quietly thinking about for a long time, but I've never seen it come up. Of course, it's an impossible idea, but one wonders where game mechanics = in-game reality and where they aren't.
-
I for one am grateful this information was released. It's more of a leaked picture though. I think a CCP dude mentioned a more official disclosure though?
-
I worked on some boats for a while up here.
I wonder if the engineering sections of dreads and titans are similar. Massive reactors deep in the hull. It is kind of the same as a boat going down in water. We pretty much were told that if we were working in the engine room (we didn't just work there we fucking slept there) when the shit hit the fan we were hosed.
-
Can anybody give a detailed crew complement of an Aircraft Carrier, a Sub and a Destroyer?
As for the variability in crew, it might make a huge difference if you man your ship for 24/7 operations, or just for small missions.
Also considering on-board repairs are normally impossible (sans special modules), and command crew largely unneccessary, I expect there only to be regular maintenance crew, and crew that services the maintenance crew.
-
Can anybody give a detailed crew complement of an Aircraft Carrier, a Sub and a Destroyer?
Nimitz Class Aircraft Carrier
Ship's company: 3,200
Air wing: 2,480
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz-class_aircraft_carrier
Ohio class Ballistic Missile Submarines
Crew: 15 Officers, 140 Enlisted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio-class_submarine
Ticonderoga-class cruiser (Best class in the fleet, Hooyah!)
33 officers, 27 Chief Petty Officers, and approx. 340 enlisted
(But you really only need about twenty Electronics Technicians, since they do everything anyway.)
Arleigh Burke class destroyer
23 officers, 300 enlisted
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arleigh_Burke_class_destroyer
Oliver Hazard Perry class frigate
Complement: 176
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Hazard_Perry_class_frigate
-
For British frigates and destroyers...
40% warfare (navigation, combat, seamanship)
20% marine engineering
15% weapons engineering
20% logistics (catering, stewards, stores etc.)
5% other (medical, chaplaincy etc)
This is very very rough and not to be taken universally.
Navigation will normally consist of a navigating officer and an officer of the watch, with ratings (enlisted ranks) on radar, comms, helm etc. Seamanship includes ropes, upper deck duties and manning the guns, and has no officers in charge. Combat has one or two officers overlooking the ops room (or CIC).
Logistics has an officer and a deputy officer. Ratings will fill the roles of cooks, stewards and general logisticians. Engineering has an officer, a deputy officer and two assistant officers. Weapons engineering can include information systems. I do not know non-officer structure as that is a completely different world to mine.
Some things might surprise people though. Submarines only have one medic, an officer I think, and they will not be equipped to deal with serious injuries
-
One thing to consider might be length of deployment - capsuleer ships usually dock in a station every night, whereas navy vessels could be expected to be out in space for weeks and months on end. On the other hand, capsuleer ships that are going to be hanging out in wormholes for days and weeks and months, or the handful of remaining nullsec roamers that live out of their ships in hostile territory (do they still exist anymore? Last people I heard of doing that were U'K in the cloaky vagabonds).
So, for example, a mission boat that's going to dock every hour and overnight might have a different crew (relative to maximum) than a carrier that's never going to leave its home wormhole.
-
And we're done (http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/New_Eden_Crew_Guidelines).
-
And we're done (http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/New_Eden_Crew_Guidelines).
(http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/9971/1153845965749.jpg)
-
I've just put the final info onto the EM forum. The first response (http://www.electusmatari.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=10647&pid=92788#pid92788) came back with data:
I hate TonyG.
Changes to prior PF:
- Minmatar used to have among the smallest crew complements, Caldari the largest (Apocalypse 6314 deaths in an incident, so more, Tempest 6500, Megathron 6900, Raven 7400)
- Frigates used to be pilotable without crew (*major* change)
-
Is the crew of one the capsuleer alone? If yes, then that'd be exactly the same as the old blueprints, where all the other mentioned frigates have a crew of one, and the Punisher has a crew of three. (Admitted, the given ratios would suggest that capsuleer Rifters, for example, would usually carry two crewmen on top of the capsuleer.) Actually there's a concrete number on one ship we know: The Reaper, if I remember correctly, has a crew of one.
Because the information, while certainly Prime Fiction, is still very, very coarse, as well. Minmatar, in specific, mentions "advanced designs". I'd assume that specific designs use a lot more of crew (EW, scanning etc.) compared to, say, Slashers which essentially are a few guns and a missile launcher slapped on an engine.
-
Read CCP Delegate Zero's post (http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1494778&page=2#42)
Do take note of the word 'guidelines'. This information is not intended to be prescriptive or constraining on your imaginations as players. The entry discusses typical situations but New Eden is a diverse world and capsuleers are among the most diverse of its inhabitants.
Not every aspect of crewing is dealt with either. Some questions you have raised are best left in the realm of your imaginations.
So, investing some extra ISK into an android/drone to fill in the crew slots for a frigate? Perfectly acceptable.
-
Seri, you can do it as soon as you can buy them in-game.
-
Is the crew of one the capsuleer alone? If yes, then that'd be exactly the same as the old blueprints [...]
No: the capsuleer shuttle has a crew of zero. An unfitted capsuleer frigate apparently now requires a crew of 1-3 to undock, and if it's fully crewed and carrying passengers a frigate could have 10-40 souls aboard (in addition to its probably-soulless pilot).
-
Hey! Who are you calling a soulless pilot?
-
Hm, interesting how it doesn't really infer automation and ships crewed by drones isn't also "advanced technology"...just says "Caldari ships have advanced technology" without specifying what exactly.
-
So I think Seri is spot-on with pointing to CCP Zero's comment. If you think (as I do) that your Slasher doesn't need that one crew member, it doesn't. In my case, my Slasher is just a courier, basically a shuttle with a bigger cargo bay. This is fine with me.
Also, frigates having the ability to carry lots of passengers isn't new in the least...
-
Seri, you can do it as soon as you can buy them in-game.
I'll sell you some (http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Robotics) at fair market rates.
(Fair rates determined by average market value in seller's choice of region. Delivery not included.)
Addendum: In fact, you know what, I think I'll start carrying some of those in all my ships.
-
I would expect logistics ships to have fewer crew than other T2 cruiser hulls - remote reps rather than ammo-chewing guns which need to be targeted at foes.
-
Wouldn't it mean that Amarrians would have least amount of crew on their gunships, because they do not really have any hassle with the ammo...
-
Wouldn't it mean that Amarrians would have least amount of crew on their gunships, because they do not really have any hassle with the ammo...
Technicly, yes. also remember that while the act of reloading is likely fully automated (realoading hybrid guns, projectile guns and launchers in 10 seconds and lasers in 1? No crew does that by hand.) someone has to ensure that ammo is loaded in-out and thus stored properly in between re-loads. In Amarrian ships it may be as simple as having a moving slider with the crystals fixed along them, simply stopping the gun's energy flow for a second, while adjusting it to swap the multi aside for the radio or whatever, then resume fiering. At least on other ships you have to empty the magazine and load more/a new sort of ammo.
It's nearly a given that Amarrian ships need considerably less crew per gun. Ofc, Khanid ships would be an exception with their launchers etc.