| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Lordess Trader
   |
Posted - 2010.01.29 18:09:00 -
[31]
Edited by: Lordess Trader on 29/01/2010 18:24:19
guys dont forget to put that you support the thread several of you guys keep forgetting it.
|
crimson fire
|
Posted - 2010.02.03 12:03:00 -
[32]
yes!
|
Lord Helghast
|
Posted - 2010.02.12 23:41:00 -
[33]
i really pray that they get this done in the next expansion, Hate to compair but STO/BP/Other upcoming/new space games are just making me sad at eve effects... the planets and moons were a nice step, but we really need to go further.
|
Mr Greh
Dead Sun Heavy Mining
|
Posted - 2010.02.12 23:45:00 -
[34]
I would love to see all these changes.
|
Ben Fenix
Caldari Empire
Luminance Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.02.13 03:24:00 -
[35]
Not just the turrets need to be enhanced. Even the missile system looks like an epic fail to me. Best example is the drake. Why does this ship have so many missile bays on both sides for when they're not used? It looks so damn silly when a missile is coming right out of nowhere in the middle of the ships belly. Not to mention that this is a "!BATTLE!" Cruiser. In comparison to what the name stands for and what is going on on the screen, when fighting, the drake should be called "Pong Cruiser"
Cause when fighting it looks like the drake is the bar and the missiles are the dot...just silly. That example matches with every other missile based ship in eve. the bigger the ship gets, the sillier it looks.
Lord Helghast said:
1. I would like to see an enhancement to the gun and projectile effects, as currently the effect really doesnt feel powerful at all, we're dealing with things up to 1400mm and yet the effect looks much less satisfying as it stands.
The problem is the size of the turrets. They are everywhere the same. On any ship. Looks silly too. On a frig the number of turrets are realistic but they are totally oversized. on a battleship where there should be hundreds of turrets if we stick to what the name it's standing for. it's almost the same. they are also totally unrealistic oversized (Rokh f.e.) and they are far too few. EPIC Fail in my opinion.
I don't speak of changing the stats. keep'em as they are. just match the size and amount of turrets according to the class of ship and as the author of this thread said: the effects. possible way to get this done: implement a turret/missile-battery system on bigger ships. for when you activate one of your turret/missile-buttons a hole battery of beams, projectiles or missiles is firing. matching the size of the effects according to the ships class would have the nice side effect that finally f.e. a battleship would'nt just look like a battleship, it would fight like a battleship and the player could finally feel like a captain of a battleship.
Please CCP, there is no need in rushing things like walking on stations and dust 514 if there are still bigger issues to solve in EVE as they are right now. eyecandy for the players is necessary too to keep them sticked to the game. if the graphical difference between WOS and the rest of the game (with all the unsolved issues I mentioned above) will be getting the big like we've seen it on the trailers then this won't be good at all. I'm hoping for the best.
By the way: Topic absolutely supported!
__________________________________
Space is massive. Humanity is not. |
Maxsim Goratiev
Imperial Tau Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.02.13 08:56:00 -
[36]
Edited by: Maxsim Goratiev on 13/02/2010 08:58:44
 Quote:
. In fact most ships would simply vent the atmosphere or fracture apart with very small explosions if any, it all depends on how it was destroyed.
that would be really cool, i whant to see capitals breaking in half upon death, and battleship falling to pieces. IN the epic mission arc you can see several battleships torn to shreds and a minmatar dread broken in half. WE could use those sorts of wrecks.
CUrrently eve is eye-candy while you are in station and orbiting a planet. As soon as someone fires a gun, it starts looking like a dated game with bad effects.
Please resize your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes.StevieSG |
Psycho Tripper
Urban Malice
|
Posted - 2010.02.13 11:17:00 -
[37]
Yes to all of it!
|
Serpents smile
|
Posted - 2010.02.13 11:22:00 -
[38]
Mo' eyecandy! 
|
Memorya
|
Posted - 2010.02.13 15:09:00 -
[39]
Full support 
|
Sundlander
Suddenly Ninjas
|
Posted - 2010.02.13 17:51:00 -
[40]
Yes, yes to everything. Eyecandy tastes good.
Also the engine trails added a lot to the game. I really hope this will happen soonÖ.
|
Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron
Legion of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2010.02.13 17:52:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Zahorite
You know the only problem I have with all of this is the "smoke trails" that everyone is talking about all over this thread.
I don't think there is any "smoke" in space. Even on engines like what the space shuttle uses, in space what is being burned is a perfect combination of fuels, it doesn't leave any remains behind like smoke, just the molecules created after the interaction of the two fuel parts. Kind of like how hydrogen and oxygen when combined won't leave smoke behind, just the H2O molecules created by the combination. Although on Earth the intense heat could burn other molecules and leave a bit of smoke behind.
Anyway anything that "leaves a smoke trail" isn't supported by me. Same with giant "explosions", they just wouldn't be that big in space unless it was the fuel source exploding, in which case it could be very big depending on that fuel source rather than the ship size. For instance it is completly possible that an interceptor with a MWD would create a bigger boom than a battleship. If the engine doesn't go, which it shouldn't always explode then the explosion would be limited by the oxygen in the ship. In fact most ships would simply vent the atmosphere or fracture apart with very small explosions if any, it all depends on how it was destroyed.
Basically I would rather see things be realistic instead of shiny and graphics intense.
Engine trails were always optional, with an on/off switch in the client graphics options. No reason why it can't be so again.
As for realism, here's a sample justification: a reaction engine will always leave a trail of something behind itself, so the visible trails are the exhausts made visible by your ship's computer to aid in situational awareness with respect to ships' heading and speed. Or some variation thereof.
...
|
Birdman Ravo
|
Posted - 2010.02.14 04:59:00 -
[42]
Support for all of it.
|
Grideris
|
Posted - 2010.02.14 09:35:00 -
[43]
I can not iterate just how much more awesome this game would be with all this cool stuff.
Esp the point on having battleships have heaps of guns (but staying the same as they are stat wise). That would just look awesome!
So don't argue it CCP - do it!
|
R4zGr1z
|
Posted - 2010.02.14 18:01:00 -
[44]
|
Morgals
Dark Star Industries
|
Posted - 2010.02.19 19:02:00 -
[45]
Yes! to Engine Trails. this should be in 100%
The others are nice to have as well.
Dark Star Industries
Actions speak louder than words.
Let us show you=> DSI-Recruitment in game channel |
Lordess Trader
|
Posted - 2010.02.19 21:54:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Razin
Originally by: Zahorite
You know the only problem I have with all of this is the "smoke trails" that everyone is talking about all over this thread.
I don't think there is any "smoke" in space. Even on engines like what the space shuttle uses, in space what is being burned is a perfect combination of fuels, it doesn't leave any remains behind like smoke, just the molecules created after the interaction of the two fuel parts. Kind of like how hydrogen and oxygen when combined won't leave smoke behind, just the H2O molecules created by the combination. Although on Earth the intense heat could burn other molecules and leave a bit of smoke behind.
Anyway anything that "leaves a smoke trail" isn't supported by me. Same with giant "explosions", they just wouldn't be that big in space unless it was the fuel source exploding, in which case it could be very big depending on that fuel source rather than the ship size. For instance it is completly possible that an interceptor with a MWD would create a bigger boom than a battleship. If the engine doesn't go, which it shouldn't always explode then the explosion would be limited by the oxygen in the ship. In fact most ships would simply vent the atmosphere or fracture apart with very small explosions if any, it all depends on how it was destroyed.
Basically I would rather see things be realistic instead of shiny and graphics intense.
Engine trails were always optional, with an on/off switch in the client graphics options. No reason why it can't be so again.
As for realism, here's a sample justification: a reaction engine will always leave a trail of something behind itself, so the visible trails are the exhausts made visible by your ship's computer to aid in situational awareness with respect to ships' heading and speed. Or some variation thereof.
Depends on the drive being used, a propolsion ion drive, would vent negative charged ions past the positive grid, leaving the ions as a train as they expel out the back...
As for explosions, if their nuclear based propolsion drives, im almost positive the f*cking impulse/warp drive exploding would make a MASSIVE explosion.
As for the venting of gases, it wasnt said that we needed more fires on the ship, though random placement of the fire and smoke, and maybe gases leaking from the hull in various areas would be nice... even if to each client it looked different atleast i want to see some bad ass effects when im loosing my 200m ISK battleship slowly but surely.
http://eveonline-aghostblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/ricochet.html <---- THIS IS WHAT I THINK SHOULD BE #1 on the list to be done with this graphical revision...
I'm sick of seeing my rails missed yet the client rendered the damn shot as hitting him dead on!
And why does every f*cking gun hit the exact same spot!?!?!
|
Lord Helghast
|
Posted - 2010.02.25 12:48:00 -
[47]
will the csm ever pick this up :D hehe, they really need to make a better way for us to track which assembly hall topics have been picked up for vote etc, maybe this needs to be changed from a forum to an actual CSM solution.
|
Skanthra
|
Posted - 2010.02.25 13:24:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Serpents smile
Mo' eyecandy!
Yes!
|
Shifty Face
|
Posted - 2010.03.03 00:48:00 -
[49]
I've always been irked by the fact that all turret effects hit their mark graphically, even while missing wildly. Better turret effects that actually include a "missed shot" effect would be very nice.
Engine trails would be a nice edition as well, I especially like the idea of different effects for Ab/Mwd. |
Ogogov
|
Posted - 2010.03.03 03:15:00 -
[50]
Supported - railguns and artillery in particular look terrible. Blasters look less bad but still crap. Some of the missile explosion effects are starting to look very dated.
You know, that way the artillery trail tracks a ship after it's fired and follows it around like a laser... this also ties in with the other thread requesting missed and glancing shots be rendered correctly.
|
T'Amber
www.shipsofeve.com
|
Posted - 2010.03.03 04:34:00 -
[51]
+1000
-T'amber
www.shipsofeve.com/soe5
|
343guilty1
Gallente
Strategic Insanity
|
Posted - 2010.03.03 04:58:00 -
[52]
Supporting everything EXCEPT the explosions on missiles idea, because as of now they are accurate, don't speak out of your ass about things, because contrary to what you've seen in hollywood videos, there are NO fireballs in space, as it is a vacuum, and therefor no fire can be made. Smaller explosions from the air of the ship yes, but as big fireballs, no -.-
|
Dogfighter
|
Posted - 2010.03.03 16:53:00 -
[53]
+1
|
Kytanos Termek
Perkone
|
Posted - 2010.03.03 20:10:00 -
[54]
Update missles too while you at it
They were the only thing missed by your bloody update :-)
|
Simokon
Smegnet Incorporated
|
Posted - 2010.03.04 01:14:00 -
[55]
|
Arcturus Raz
|
Posted - 2010.03.04 07:52:00 -
[56]
Wow something everyone is agreeing on...
|
Wu Jiaqiu
Frenemy and Foerend Co.
|
Posted - 2010.03.04 09:23:00 -
[57]
Edited by: Wu Jiaqiu on 04/03/2010 09:22:44
Yes.
|
Chirjo Durruti
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.03.04 15:04:00 -
[58]
-1 I don't care about eye candy. If you want eye candy, play the new crysis or how it's called. Put more people on fixing bugs, because these are ruining my player experience. Not missing effects.
|
Enzu777
|
Posted - 2010.03.09 20:49:00 -
[59]
|
Red Raider
Airbourne Demons
DeMoN's N AnGeL's
|
Posted - 2010.03.09 22:34:00 -
[60]
All kinds of greatness in this thread.
BS turrets are too small. In fact they should be about 3x the size they are now at a minimum.
ALL gun effects suck except lasers...go figure. AC's should either fire a burst of ammo or continuously fire through the cycle time and both projectile systems should have much better firing and hitting effects. Hybrids also have crappy effects. Most guns sound like complete crap(though I like med rails). A large AC should sound more like a 25mm Bushmaster Chaingun instead of a spitwad cannon and a small AC should sound like a burst from a minigun with the cycle noise in between bursts, even if the computer is simulating the sound give me the choice of the sound. Hell in theory you could program the computer to make it sound like you were shooting geese or cows at your enemy so why not Sound...eh...real? Then intensify the effect if you are overheating the system.
Missile effects are ridiculous in that I would love to see smoke trails and explosions that were much smaller and spherical instead of planar.
The hull damage idea is cool though aging as you own your ship is kind of dumb but if it is limited to YOUR client and you can turn it off then I am all for it. At least let me bust out a high pressure washer and a paint brush to keep her looking good and don't kill bandwidth with something unnecessary.
It would be cool to see smoke coming from your engine if you are using an AB or MWD intensify this for overheating as well.
I don't like the change to wrecks since it really adds nothing to the game unless you are directly looking at the wreck but meh.
Sounds good.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |