New feature: "store" your crew?

[Bishop]

Ok guys. I started this thread on the Steam forums, and was asked to move it here to get your opinion on the matter at hand.

I'm flying a civilian ship, and I've got all four crew members to 100/100. If I were to switch to a military ship, I'd have to fire all my crew, as military ships have 0 crew slots.

I don't know about you, but I'd like the ability to store my crew members at the station, much as you can store equipment. To keep it balanced, I think crew should be kept cycling and paid (though, I don't know about you, but crew fees have never really troubled me). Think of it like having them "in reserve"; you're paying them to wait for you to come back to the civilian ship that they've signed up to crew. You stop paying them, they leave, but you shouldn't be forced to fire them just because you switch ships for a while.

So, the question is: Do you think the ability to store your crew in stations should be added?

EDIT: This thread can probably be deleted, as SeeJay's thread serves the same purpose, and the discussion is taking place there.

[Edited on 7-4-2014 by Bishop]

[_-Caleb-_]

How can u "store" a person? xD

[DaveK]

How can u "store" a person? xD

cryogenics . . . suspended animation . . . prison?? :P:P

SeeJay's (quickly growing) thread is at http://www.starwraith.com/forum/viewtop ... #pid171505

[PaulB]

Ok guys. I started this thread on the Steam forums, and was asked to move it here to get your opinion on the matter at hand.

I'm flying a civilian ship, and I've got all four crew members to 100/100. If I were to switch to a military ship, I'd have to fire all my crew, as military ships have 0 crew slots.

I don't know about you, but I'd like the ability to store my crew members at the station, much as you can store equipment. To keep it balanced, I think crew should be kept cycling and paid (though, I don't know about you, but crew fees have never really troubled me). Think of it like having them "in reserve"; you're paying them to wait for you to come back to the civilian ship that they've signed up to crew. You stop paying them, they leave, but you shouldn't be forced to fire them just because you switch ships for a while.

So, the question is: Do you think the ability to store your crew in stations should be added?

EDIT: This thread can probably be deleted, as SeeJay's thread serves the same purpose, and the discussion is taking place there.

[Edited on 7-4-2014 by Bishop]

Yes, as I've ranted and raved about before.

[hank]

You can look back at past posts ... I've asked why the larger frame military ships can't have at least one or two crew members.

I think you should in the bigger military ships. Why not? (and I don't mean 'store' a crew but be able to transfer a crew from a civilian ship to a large military ship)

I agree the small ships simply don't have room but at least a Shrike or Chimera could accommodate one or two crew members.

Just a simple opinion of mine.

... and have a nice day


[Edited on 7-11-2014 by hank]

[Marvin]

I've asked why the larger frame military ships can't have at least one or two crew members.

I think you should in the bigger military ships. Why not?

From an upcoming entry to The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Evoverse:

Down through history, tacticians have occasionally talked the designers of air and space craft into building two-seat fighters. The arguments for this configuration were many: (1) splitting up the duties between two people would, in effect, cut reaction time in half; (2) two sets of eyes could do a better job of spotting an approaching bandit; (3) in an emergency, one person could read the EMR checklist procedures while the other person would perform the required tasks.

Nonetheless, pilots didn't buy it. They argued: (1) an extra person added unnecessary weight; (2) coordinating the duties took precious time away from the job at hand (engaging and killing the enemy); (3) the pilot had to depend on the second guy ... who was usually less competent than the pilot (or so claimed the pilot) and, anyway, the pilot could handle all the duties himself.

[SeeJay]

MIL frames have "boosted" systems to compensate for the lack of a crew.
With the current setup a correctly setup CIV frame with a crew al 100% loyalty/skill can take on a MIL frame and win a fight.
You will most likely loose in combat if you don't have a crew when you fight against MIL frames.

If MIL frames was to be boosted even more with the addition of a crew, it will be far to superior to the CIV frames regarding combat.
That will result in that not many people would fly CIV frames at all. Not even for trading since the MIL frames can do that as well and make a good profit each run.

[DaveK]

For more detail search out the old thread(s) on this issue. Everyone flew a big civvy frame - cargo - crew - combat as good as a mil frame. Lots of discussions and work by Vice to find a balance lead to what we have now; Mil ships are for combat - better cannon performance - better shields and other equipment - even a cargo hold ("Oh look - a Eurofighter Typhoon is coming! We're saved - it's carrying 25 crates of Diet Coke. Hoorah!" ) But no crew. In return Civ ships got crew, 5 cargo bays and a big choice of equipment.

The resulting balance is what we have - different players use different frames - civ and mil - instead of everyone flying a big civvy frame as soon as they could afford it. IMHO the balance is good. So if you like combat get a mil frame - if you like trading and exploration a civvy frame decked out as you think best!

One of the strengths of the game is the built in limitation that make you choose - it would be 'easier' if we could buy another couple of more equipment slots of weapon hardpoints of cargo bays, but getting the balance right within the constraints is part of the fun.

Still, as it says (sort of) in a 'good book' . . . don't ask, don't get!