Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
LinaSlice KANGAHobothe1
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 19:42:00 -
[1] - Quote
In my opinion the new stealth bomber models were very well done. I realize the main reason for the remake was to accommodate the launcher hard points and bomb launching, but if anything this has shown is CCP is capable of designing really cool looking ships.
I can't help but think about how CHEESY it is that most or all TECH 2 ships are very slightly modified tech 1 hulls. Bullocks. I believe that completely redesigning all tech 2 ships would be very very well received.
For instance, Heavy Intradictors could have a visible hard point where warp disruption fields are mounted. Lots of opportunity to make the effects look very cool when offline and activated.
Recons are fun and popular for small gang PVP, yet they are barley more interesting than their TECH 1 counterparts.
Command ships are great for PVP and PVE. People love flying them and aspiring to fly them, but they are barley more than TECH 1 crap with a nice paint job. Again, bullocks.
I realize this would be an ambitious project that would take multiple patches. My preferred order would be:
Heavy Intradictors Command Ships Recons HACs Covert Ops Transport ships Logistics All other frigs Black Ops
Agree or disagree? Dev's - could this ever happen? |
Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
607
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 20:37:00 -
[2] - Quote
But...T2 ships ARE just specialised variants of T1 ships, why shouldn't they look similar? |
LinaSlice KANGAHobothe1
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 20:43:00 -
[3] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote:But...T2 ships ARE just specialised variants of T1 ships, why shouldn't they look similar?
That is just a rationalization for something that should have never been done in the first place. Visually yes, but functionally, not even close. I'm assuming the original designs were to keep client side lag down, NOT because they "conceived" tech 2 ships as "variants" of tech 1. |
Femaref
Armageddon Day WE FORM VOLTRON
14
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 21:05:00 -
[4] - Quote
It's not really the lag that is a problem, as you either have to load a file or you don't. Considering all Tech 2 ships are composed out of several parts, they are actually more costly to load than t1 ships.
The reasoning is rather the amount of work needed to get a good looking ship model. Yes, it probably would be nice to have a new model for each and any ship out there, but that would require an awful lot of design work. Just going by the list in the OP, that would be 4 + 8 + 8 + 8 + 8 + 4 + 16 + 4 + x (marauders are missing at least) = 60 new designs. At the moment, there are 20 + 4 + 20 + 12 + 12 + 12 (Frigs/Destroyer/Cruiser/Battlecruiser/Battleships/Industrials) = 80 T1 Ships. Considering it took about 1 year or so to even get 4 new battlecruisers out, 60 new designs would be a massive undertaking, and most probably not exactly feasible, as some designers and artists are still working on the v3 project.
And to be honest, I like my repainted and gizmoed tech 1 ships. Even when I was still getting new ships to fly on a regular basis, I immensely loved them even though the deimos was just a camo'ed thorax. |
LinaSlice KANGAHobothe1
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 21:14:00 -
[5] - Quote
Femaref wrote:It's not really the lag that is a problem, as you either have to load a file or you don't. Considering all Tech 2 ships are composed out of several parts, they are actually more costly to load than t1 ships.
.
I was referring to the original reason why they did not make new models when heavy doctors, for instance, first came out. We can probably speculate a laundry list of reasons, but it would be nice if they acknowledged this and started chipping away at it. |
Kusum Fawn
State War Academy Caldari State
94
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 04:35:00 -
[6] - Quote
LinaSlice KANGAHobothe1 wrote:Danika Princip wrote:But...T2 ships ARE just specialised variants of T1 ships, why shouldn't they look similar? That is just a rationalization for something that should have never been done in the first place. Visually yes, but functionally, not even close. I'm assuming the original designs were to keep client side lag down, NOT because they "conceived" tech 2 ships as "variants" of tech 1.
everywhere they are listed, they are listed as variants,
the very name tech 2, is a reference to the other hull as being tech 1. Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.
Ships to goo calc - https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=107898 |
LinaSlice KANGAHobothe1
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 06:38:00 -
[7] - Quote
Kusum Fawn wrote:LinaSlice KANGAHobothe1 wrote:Danika Princip wrote:But...T2 ships ARE just specialised variants of T1 ships, why shouldn't they look similar? That is just a rationalization for something that should have never been done in the first place. Visually yes, but functionally, not even close. I'm assuming the original designs were to keep client side lag down, NOT because they "conceived" tech 2 ships as "variants" of tech 1. everywhere they are listed, they are listed as variants, the very name tech 2, is a reference to the other hull as being tech 1.
You are missing the point. CCP has REUSED hulls MANY MANY MANY more times than they ever should have in this game. |
Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
609
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 10:00:00 -
[8] - Quote
LinaSlice KANGAHobothe1 wrote:Kusum Fawn wrote:LinaSlice KANGAHobothe1 wrote:Danika Princip wrote:But...T2 ships ARE just specialised variants of T1 ships, why shouldn't they look similar? That is just a rationalization for something that should have never been done in the first place. Visually yes, but functionally, not even close. I'm assuming the original designs were to keep client side lag down, NOT because they "conceived" tech 2 ships as "variants" of tech 1. everywhere they are listed, they are listed as variants, the very name tech 2, is a reference to the other hull as being tech 1. You are missing the point. CCP has REUSED hulls MANY MANY MANY more times than they ever should have in this game.
I suppose you'd remove the T1 ship from the production requirements of the T2 variant as well then?
And there are what, three variations of the rupture? I don't think anything gets more than three, does it? It's not like we're all running around in ships that look exactly the same or anything. |
Mfume Apocal
Origin. Black Legion.
473
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 11:32:00 -
[9] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote:And there are what, three variations of the rupture? I don't think anything gets more than three, does it? It's not like we're all running around in ships that look exactly the same or anything.
While I mostly agree with you, there are cases like: -Moa (+Eagle, Onyx, Gila) -Merlin (+Hawk, Harpy, Worm) -Thorax (+Deimos, Phobos, Vigilant)
Which is more a case of getting lazy with faction hulls (Serpentis, Guristas) rather than T2. |
Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
610
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 11:44:00 -
[10] - Quote
Mfume Apocal wrote:Danika Princip wrote:And there are what, three variations of the rupture? I don't think anything gets more than three, does it? It's not like we're all running around in ships that look exactly the same or anything. While I mostly agree with you, there are cases like: -Moa (+Eagle, Onyx, Gila) -Merlin (+Hawk, Harpy, Worm) -Thorax (+Deimos, Phobos, Vigilant) Which is more a case of getting lazy with faction hulls (Serpentis, Guristas) rather than T2.
This is true, but I'd rather see new hulls for the faction boats than for the T2 ones. I think that'd be much more reasonable in terms of CCP's apparently overworked art department too. |
|
Loius Woo
PATRIOT KNIGHTS
79
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 13:55:00 -
[11] - Quote
So new SB hulls are cool, Ill grant you.
But what needs fixing in Eve is NOT the art.
If we were to list all of the things that need to be fixed in Eve, I think 60-80 new ship designs that give no additional gameplay opportunities at all would be pretty far down the list.
Actual ship balance New ships to fill missing roles (like more T1 and T2 destroyers) New modules to add complexity to fits Fix POS's Fix sov warfare solve the ongoing AFK Cloak vs Local intel debate (I don't know how, but there IS something to be solved here) Fix lowsec integrate Dust 514 Implement walking in stations ... ... ... Maybe do some art stuff...
See what I mean? |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
790
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 16:12:00 -
[12] - Quote
From a military standpoint, it would make sense to use the same hull as often as possible to cut down on costs. |
Jackal Datapaw
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
17
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 16:35:00 -
[13] - Quote
actually new ship models would not cause lag, as they are installed with your client, not streamed, so when you start the game ALL the ships become preloaded, that includes the tech twos. The tech twos arn't loaded as the same thing as tech ones as they are still two different models. The computer doesn't see them as the same, but two different items/objects. , this game doesn't stream it items to the client, they are all preloaded and downloaded with the client itself.
You may continue I just wish to throw that out there =) |
Oregin
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
20
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 17:14:00 -
[14] - Quote
I have to disagree I'm afraid, I like that he T2 ships are altered T1 hulls. I particularly like the new Phobos model as an example of how minor alterations to the T1 can make a statement about the ship and its role. I am starting to feel like the colour schemes are becoming too watered down though, the new amarr ships as an example.
Much as I love the new SB models. It actually bothers me that they're no longer close enough to the T1 hulls (ugly as they are). I dislike it because of the inconsistency now with other T2 models. |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |