EVE Search - Machariel downsized to 1400 meters is a joke!!!

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Machariel downsized to 1400 meters is a joke!!!

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Carola Kessler Lost Sisters Of New Eden Freelancer Coalition 23	Posted - 2012.07.19 12:42:00 - [1] - Quote The Machariel has been downsized to 1400 meters somewhat, smaller then Hyperion and Apocalypse, making it a joke against her reputation beeing the biggest BS within the BS sized ship class in Eve.... Dear CCP devs i beg you to take this back and give the Machariel its former size 1920 Meters, let her be still the biggest BS in Eve with his reputation beeing feared by most of the Eve pilots. Current size doesn't fits to it really, all which think the Same way like me, please raise your hands and vote for giving the MAch back her old size!! http://game-craft.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/EVE-ships-subcap-Tyrannis.jpg PLEASE PLEASE take this Change back!!! sincerly Carola Kessler
h4kun4 Dei Mudda GmbH Freelancer Coalition 4	Posted - 2012.07.19 13:02:00 - [2] - Quote The Machariel has to be ithe biggest Subcapital in EVE, everytime I undock with my Mach, I think: lol watch that small Orca down there... No but seriously, for me its ridiculous to switch the size of ships every 3 Months...first i was like, omg My maelstrom is 600m long...then i was like, wow its 1500m long, and now you wnat the Maelstrom with 1484m to be longer than a machariel? That is not how i should be...
Nagarythe Tinurandir Catholic School for Boys 25	Posted - 2012.07.19 13:02:00 - [3] - Quote they made minmatar frigs and some cruisers giants. i doubt they will take back any of this. let's just hope some day the sizes of all ships are consistent. comparing fighters, fighter bombers and frigs is just... :(
Jerick Ludhowe Suicides-R-Us Celsetial Being 93	Posted - 2012.07.19 13:30:00 - [4] - Quote Mach was the size of a carrier..... Oh and obviously the fastest and most agile BS should be the largest If you want to complain about the visuals on the mach how about complain about the fail ass turret placement on the ship...
Carola Kessler Lost Sisters Of New Eden Freelancer Coalition 24	Posted - 2012.07.19 14:16:00 - [5] - Quote Jerick Ludhowe wrote: Mach was the size of a carrier..... Oh and obviously the fastest and most agile BS should be the largest If you look at the design from the Machariel and its original lore beeing a hijacked design from Jove and transformed beeing transformed in a BS from Angel Cartel , maybe the size was cause its original intent beeing a Carrier from the Jovians...who knows.....but just look closer, from the middle of the Machariel could have started the figthers or other Drones.
Jerick Ludhowe Suicides-R-Us Celsetial Being 93	Posted - 2012.07.19 14:28:00 - [6] - Quote Carola Kessler wrote: Jerick Ludhowe wrote: Mach was the size of a carrier..... Oh and obviously the fastest and most agile BS should be the largest If you look at the design from the Machariel and its original lore beeing a hijacked design from Jove and transformed beeing transformed in a BS from Angel Cartel , maybe the size was cause its original intent beeing a Carrier from the Jovians...who knows.....but just look closer, from the middle of the Machariel could have started the figthers or other Drones. It's not a carrier, it's a fast agile BS. Being the size of a carrier is foolish period. Considering that this game has a habit of contradicting its own contradictions... saying it should be the size of a carrier because it was based off a jove ship that could have been a carrier seems like a rather epic stretch.
h4kun4 Dei Mudda GmbH Freelancer Coalition 4	Posted - 2012.07.19 14:35:00 - [7] - Quote Normally how large a ship is, is completely unimportant for its agility, the only things that matter are Acceleration (Inertia Modifier) and Mass and because the Mass of the Mach is so low and its Intertia modifier is so low for a ship of its type, it just the most agile one. Its a Highjacked Jove Design, so maybe the Jove take ultra light matrial and super efficient thrusters...so its very possible I just think taht its a Joke to make a ship smaller after a patch...so you go to sleep, 1912m Machariel, you wake up in the Morning...ship shrinked ti 1400m, omgwtflol how unlogical^^
Carola Kessler Lost Sisters Of New Eden Freelancer Coalition 24	Posted - 2012.07.19 15:06:00 - [8] - Quote Jerick Ludhowe wrote: Carola Kessler wrote: Jerick Ludhowe wrote: Mach was the size of a carrier..... Oh and obviously the fastest and most agile BS should be the largest If you look at the design from the Machariel and its original lore beeing a hijacked design from Jove and transformed beeing transformed in a BS from Angel Cartel , maybe the size was cause its original intent beeing a Carrier from the Jovians...who knows.....but just look closer, from the middle of the Machariel could have started the figthers or other Drones. It's not a carrier, it's a fast agile BS. Being the size of a carrier is foolish period. Considering that this game has a habit of contradicting its own contradictions... saying it should be the size of a carrier because it was based off a jove ship that could have been a carrier seems like a rather epic stretch. Again seems you're not getting the point...the MAchariel Lorewise was a Hijacked Jove design...as H4 mentioned like me before, which ofcourse implemtents some Jove technics in its design and technical abilities makes the ship one of the agilest and fastes BS within game breaking this background meants breaking its reputation and history so.....according to that its still a joke and your explanations and points are not valid PERIOD. sincerly Carola Kessler
James Amril-Kesh 4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance 381	Posted - 2012.07.19 15:17:00 - [9] - Quote The real limitations on the agility of a ship are structural. Larger ships have to turn slower because inertial dampers can't fully compensate for the rotational acceleration of the ship, so the slower turn rate limits the stresses placed on the structure. Supposedly the Machariel would have superior Jovian construction materials and inertial dampers allowing for a significantly more agile ship. EVE's 4th of July Fireworks
Junko Sideswipe Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx 29	Posted - 2012.07.19 15:25:00 - [10] - Quote The thing was as big as a carrier, that's silly.

Carola Kessler Lost Sisters Of New Eden Freelancer Coalition 24	Posted - 2012.07.19 15:34:00 - [11] - Quote Junko Sideswipe wrote: The thing was as big as a carrier, that's silly. eyerolls It is a jovian design supposed beeing a Jovian Carrier maybe....but modified by the Angel Cartel working as Battleship.....so ....with Jovian technologie or some content by it stolen like Sanshas allready did why the heck not!! I don't understand your all negative expressions letting the Machariel be the most agile and fastest ship be in Eve according to its price its allready close to a Carrier or Dreadnaugth!! Sincerly Carola Kessler
Junko Sideswipe Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx 30	Posted - 2012.07.19 15:40:00 - [12] - Quote Shrink the maelstrom too, you put that thing next to a chimera and you suddenly don't feel like ever wanting a carrier ever again.
Ogogov Ars ex Discordia Test Alliance Please Ignore 21	Posted - 2012.07.19 15:43:00 - [13] - Quote -1 Shrink all the battleships or properly scale carriers so that they can fit the volume of assembled ships that they are supposed to. I simply cannot see how a carrier is supposed to be able to fit two assembled BS in the SMA as it stands. It is utterly ridiculous.
Junko Sideswipe Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx 30	Posted - 2012.07.19 15:50:00 - [14] - Quote Ogogov wrote: I simply cannot see how a carrier is supposed to be able to fit two assembled BS in the SMA as it stands. It is utterly ridiculous. It's like that scene in the transformers movie, where they get to the giant cube thing, and they shrink it down to the tiny cube.
Jerick Ludhowe Suicides-R-Us Celestial.Being 93	Posted - 2012.07.19 16:06:00 - [15] - Quote Carola Kessler wrote: Jerick Ludhowe wrote: Carola Kessler wrote: Jerick Ludhowe wrote: Mach was the size of a carrier..... Oh and obviously the fastest and most agile BS should be the largest If you look at the design from the Machariel and its original lore beeing a hijacked design from Jove and transformed beeing transformed in a BS from Angel Cartel , maybe the size was cause its original intent beeing a Carrier from the Jovians...who knows.....but just look closer, from the middle of the Machariel could have started the figthers or other Drones. It's not a carrier, it's a fast agile BS. Being the size of a carrier is foolish period. Considering that this game has a habit of contradicting its own contradictions... saying it should be the size of a carrier because it was based off a jove ship that could have been a carrier seems like a rather epic stretch. Again seems you're not getting the point...the MAchariel Lorewise was a Hijacked Jove design...as H4 mentioned like me before, which ofcourse implemtents some Jove technics in its design and technical abilities makes the ship one of the agilest and fastes BS within game breaking this background meants breaking its reputation and history so.....according to that its still a joke and your explanations and points are not valid PERIOD. sincerly Carola Kessler No i get your point, i just think it's mongaloidish as lore has been contradicted so many times it's not even remotely a good argument to stand on. As for the whole carrier thing, keep grasping at straws... The ship looks nothing like a carrier, acts nothing like a carrier... Only similarity was the machs ludacris size... Now that's changing so give the whole "carrier" thing a rest. Furthermore, if you consider a small change of size to 1 ship that makes it look far less ridiculous "game breaking" then your opinion is by default null and void to begin with.
Aglais Liberation Army BricK sQuAD. 81	Posted - 2012.07.19 16:20:00 - [16] - Quote I only support this if the Rifter goes down to 90 meters, the Dram goes to 80, and the Cynabal goes to 450. As well as fixing the glaring inconsistencies between Hawk, Harpy, Worm and Merlin. The latter two sit at 97 meter long axes, whereas the former two somehow are 88. They're supposed to be based on the same hull.
Xercodo Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam 1225	Posted - 2012.07.19 21:51:00 - [17] - Quote I don't care how Jove that thing was, ti was oversized D: On the other hand I love her make-over. The Drake is a Lie
nat longshot solo and loveing it 37	Posted - 2012.07.20 00:53:00 - [18] - Quote now that ccp has deside to let me speak once again. one the mach was to large was a pain getting hung up and accl gate and other stuff in mission. it need to be resized it still a large ship. As for the new paint/V3 i love it.
Jack Miton Bite Me inc Exhale. 387	Posted - 2012.07.20 03:20:00 - [19] - Quote this change is good and long needed. mach is the fastest, most agile BS with the smallest sig and yet it is 1.5x the size of other BSs.... yeah, THAT makes sense...
MotherMoon Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic 988	Posted - 2012.07.20 05:38:00 - [20] - Quote Junko Sideswipe wrote: Shrink the maelstrom too, you put that thing next to a chimera and you suddenly don't feel like ever wanting a carrier ever again. THIS also wtf carriers are WAY to small. Why dust 514 is on Console and not PCBattle field 3 sales Xbox 360: 2.2 million PlayStation 3: 1.5 million PC: 500,000http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg

Kaycerra Black Lotus Heavy Industries Ethereal Dawn 1	Posted - 2012.07.20 06:26:00 - [21] - Quote Machariel was, and still is with the change a bit too big. the old size (1900) makes the ship LARGER than some carriers, and frankly thats a bit ridiculous. This gave the ship specific advantages in game, like making it easier to bump enemy ships, but really throws off the overall scale of the different ships in eve. I know that fitting them on grid would be ridiculous if they reflected their true lengths and signature radii' and all, but battleships and carrier same size was bad. I support this change.
Carola Kessler Lost Sisters Of New Eden Freelancer Coalition 24	Posted - 2012.07.20 07:09:00 - [22] - Quote Okay okay i see, everyone is telling Macha was to big, but....if looked into it seems more the Carriers and other Capitals were to small in size....whatever someone fits in his own sight of view. On the other hand it's rigth to resize ships in a proper size according to their abilities and whatnot....so...i'm giving up to argue about the shrinking from the Machariel but demand at least a resizing from the other Battleshisp, Capitals and so on as well. Sincerly Carola Kessler
Sellendis The Ares project 148	Posted - 2012.07.20 08:47:00 - [23] - Quote I agree, Mach was big, but it should remain the biggest BS in the game. Its made from Jove desighs, so its advanced tech somewhat. Big, fast and agile. Seeing Mach in action next to other ships is awesome, now resized its like all other BSs, not so imposing. So resize all or restore Mach to 1.9km CCP, please. Scaling ingame is a old problem, 2km long Provi can dock in the station and any SC cant, Nyx and Wyvren are only 3.2-3.3km long. Not much of a difference for docking (since i see a lot of empty space next to my docked Provi :) Turrets look like insanely big cannons on frigates, on BS they look like toys, not scaled at all properly. Fitting 2 BS in a carrier is a old stupid problem, how can a carrier barely few hundred meters bigger than 1 BS, fit 2 in its hangar? The carrier should be then 4 times the size at least to fit two 1km long BS inside. Sig sizes and weight aside, titans should then be ~30km, SC 10-13km, and carriers around at least twice the current size to get any sense of scale.
James Amril-Kesh 4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance 394	Posted - 2012.07.20 08:59:00 - [24] - Quote Sellendis wrote: Sig sizes and weight aside, titans should then be ~30km, SC 10-13km, and carriers around at least twice the current size to get any sense of scale. I don't think titans need to double in size (maybe should be more around 20-24 km), but the SC and carrier sizes sound good. Dreadnaughts also need a size increase. EVE's 4th of July Fireworks
Sellendis The Ares project 148	Posted - 2012.07.20 09:05:00 - [25] - Quote James Amril-Kesh wrote: Sellendis wrote: Sig sizes and weight aside, titans should then be ~30km, SC 10-13km, and carriers around at least twice the current size to get any sense of scale. I don't think titans need to double in size (maybe should be more around 20-24 km), but the SC and carrier sizes sound good. Dreadnaughts also need a size increase. Yeah, well sizes are not set in stone, just keep the scale somewhat working. Titans should dwarf anything, so being double the size of a SC is IMHO kinda small, x3 the size maybe? Honestly i forgot about dreads, some like Naf are bigger than SCs and can still dock, they are the size of SC anyway, so bumping them to 7-8km and SC to 10-13.
Sheynan Lighting the blight 22	Posted - 2012.07.20 15:22:00 - [26] - Quote Sellendis wrote: I agree, Mach was big, but it should remain the biggest BS in the game. Its made from Jove designs, so its advanced tech somewhat. Big, fast and agile. Seeing Mach in action next to other ships is awesome, now resized its like all other BSs, not so imposing. So resize all or restore Mach to 1.9km CCP, please. Scaling ingame is a old problem, 2km long Provi can dock in the station and any SC cant, Nyx and Wyvren are only 3.2-3.3km long. Not much of a difference for docking (since i see a lot of empty space next to my docked Provi :) Hell, Archon is 3286m long and can dock, Wyvren is 3226 and cant dock, funny aint it. So a regular carrier is bigger than a super carrier.....WTF here? Gonna resize Wyvren and Nyx then or downsize Archon? Fix all or dont bother at all. Turrets look like insanely big cannons on frigates, on BS they look like toys, not scaled at all properly. Fitting 2 BS in a carrier is a old stupid problem, how can a carrier barely few hundred meters bigger than 1 BS, fit 2 in its hangar? The carrier should be then 4 times the size at least to fit two 1km long BS inside. Sig sizes and weight aside, titans should then be ~30km, SC 10-13km, and carriers around at least twice the current size to get any sense of scale. yep do it CCP P:S: And I personally don't care about anyone who comes into this thread moaning that his capitals can't all safely snuggle under his POS anymore
Freundliches Feuer A Hulk Kill A Day Keeps The Doctor Away 11	Posted - 2012.07.20 15:30:00 - [27] - Quote The mach was fine in size, its the capitals that are way too small... also the rifter needs to go down in size or at least make the guns bigger :/ its ridiculous...
Jerick Ludhowe Suicides-R-Us Celestial.Being 95	Posted - 2012.07.20 15:52:00 - [28] - Quote Freundliches Feuer wrote: The mach was fine in size, its the capitals that are way too small... also the rifter needs to go down in size or at least make the guns bigger :/ its ridiculous... 2km long bs that is the fastest, most agile, and has a tiny sig. How was that ludacris insult to scale ever fine? To be honest the mach should be one of the smallest of all the battleships for reasons already stated as well as the fact jove Battleships tend to be smaller than the more traditional ones fielded by the four races. Scale across all ships needs to be heavily reworked... Thrasher being larger than a rupture is just another example of foolish scaling.
Freundliches Feuer A Hulk Kill A Day Keeps The Doctor Away 13	Posted - 2012.07.21 17:12:00 - [29] - Quote Jerick Ludhowe wrote: Freundliches Feuer wrote: The mach was fine in size, its the capitals that are way too small... also the rifter needs to go down in size or at least make the guns bigger :/ its ridiculous... 2km long bs that is the fastest, most agile, and has a tiny sig. How was that ludacris insult to scale ever fine? To be honest the mach should be one of the smallest of all the battleships for reasons already stated as well as the fact jove Battleships tend to be smaller than the more traditional ones fielded by the four races. Scale across all ships needs to be heavily reworked... Thrasher being larger than a rupture is just another example of foolish scaling. Yes true that it was the biggest, but maybe the material it was made from, due to the Jovian+Angel nature, it just had the properties of being very agile and fast. Size doesn't always mean slower/faster. But thrasher is lol yeah.
Marzuq Scarlet Weather Rhapsody 7	Posted - 2012.07.21 18:21:00 - [30] - Quote The machariel is the biggest ship unpackage: (595,000 m3) compared to other battleships that are below 500,000 m3. You can't put more than one machariel in a carrier as a result. I do say the machariel should be back to its original size, its one of the things that made the ship awesome.

to0onsi AtlantiA French Corp Yulai Federation 1	Posted - 2012.07.22 02:48:00 - [31] - Quote yeah please please restore the previous size now is smaller than hyperion and apocalypse :/.... he always had that size why reduce it now ?? he's the biggest BS, that's what makes it unique.
Nephthiis AtlantiA French Corp Yulai Federation 0	Posted - 2012.07.22 02:54:00 - [32] - Quote please don't ruin it like the vaga
Janet Patton Brony Express 23	Posted - 2012.07.22 05:46:00 - [33] - Quote I think some of the rescaling was do to fitting the new launchers on ships. The Rifter is huge now, it went from 56m to 139m... kinda ridiculous. I think they over did it on some ships. Would really like to see some uniformity with ship sizes based on their class. Why do I have this sig? I don't smoke.
to0onsi AtlantiA French Corp Yulai Federation 1	Posted - 2012.07.22 16:07:00 - [34] - Quote someone can just answer me why reduce the macha size ?! I need to understand why...
RangerGord Rothschild's Sewage and Septic Sucking Services The Possum Lodge 2	Posted - 2012.07.22 17:13:00 - [35] - Quote ok, this explains why when i undocked in my dramiel to check out its newer much darker textures i could barely see the turrets... i was thinking, did they shrink the turrets that much? it just feels way too big
Jerick Ludhowe Toxic Waste Industries 100	Posted - 2012.07.22 17:29:00 - [36] - Quote to0onsi wrote: someone can just answer me why reduce the macha size ?! I need to understand why... It's been answered like 20 times between this and other threads.
to0onsi AtlantiA French Corp Yulai Federation 1	Posted - 2012.07.23 10:45:00 - [37] - Quote but in this case must be changed the unpackaged size he's the only BS who take 595K m3 before it makes sense...
Nevigrofnu Mrots Goonswarm Federation 33	Posted - 2012.07.23 11:50:00 - [38] - Quote If we are correcting sizes... looking at capitals, dreads are good, caldari carriers size needs to double and all supers should double or triple in size, specially the caldari one...
Carola Kessler Lost Sisters Of New Eden Freelancer Coalition 31	Posted - 2012.07.23 11:53:00 - [39] - Quote Nevigrofnu Mrots wrote: If we are correcting sizes... looking at capitals, dreads are good, caldari carriers size needs to double and all supers should double or triple in size, specially the caldari one... That was what i was referring to, Sizes from Capitals are to small, in relation to the noncapital ships, so technically the downsizing from the Machariel wasn't necessary, just a scale up in sizes for the Carriers and Super Carriers would've done the job just saying. sincerly Carola Kessler
Sellendis The Ares project 149	Posted - 2012.07.23 14:32:00 - [40] - Quote Correct, downsizing the Mach was pointless. Archon is bigger than Wyvren and almost same size as Nxy, and thats a carrier we are talking about. Carriers need to get bigger, not BS to get smaller.

EVEplexx TPlexx Inc. 0	Posted - 2012.07.23 20:12:00 - [41] - Quote Carriers simply need to be larger. Nothing more, nothing less.
Ranger 1 Ranger Corp 2298	Posted - 2012.07.24 03:24:00 - [42] - Quote Let me be the first to remind you, size doesn't matter. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base.
Spc One The Chodak Void Alliance 68	Posted - 2012.07.25 07:38:00 - [43] - Quote I approve of this. Make it 1912m Even Hyperion is 1698m
Spc One The Chodak Void Alliance 68	Posted - 2012.07.25 09:28:00 - [44] - Quote Machariel on TQ is currently 1936m: http://www.netsky.org/eve/MacharielTQ.png
Sellendis The Ares project 150	Posted - 2012.07.25 11:08:00 - [45] - Quote Since i hardly think they will listen to community for once, i took a crapload of pictures. From time when Machariel was most impressive looking BS, no one forgets first time they see one on undock. Usually in a small frigate, but then the sense of scale kicks in. Now i pulled next to an Apoc ingame, and its just....not with that intimidating look. So CCP, please restore Mach to 1.9km.
Mekhana Spiritus Draconis Sicarius Draconis 493	Posted - 2012.07.25 11:24:00 - [46] - Quote I do support making Carriers larger. 300 extra meters would be a good start.
Jerick Ludhowe Toxic Waste Industries 108	Posted - 2012.07.25 13:42:00 - [47] - Quote Spc One wrote: I approve of this. Leave it at1936m as it currently is on TQ. Even Hyperion is 1698m Hyperion is far too big as well tbh.
Spc One The Chodak Void Alliance 69	Posted - 2012.07.25 17:06:00 - [48] - Quote Can we get dev response on this please ?
Spc One The Chodak Void Alliance 69	Posted - 2012.07.25 17:42:00 - [49] - Quote Real Size Comparison: http://www.netsky.org/eve/macharielTQ1.png http://www.netsky.org/eve/macharielSISI.png
Barbara Nichole Cryogenic Consultancy Black Sun Alliance 287	Posted - 2012.07.25 21:48:00 - [50] - Quote As I've never really been fond of the Machariel I can't say my opinion counts a whole lot on this topic.. but you gotta admit it was pretty huge the way it was. It's not a cap ship. lol I've flown next to a machariel in my providence and it nearly dwarfed me... perhaps a less dramatic reduction would be in order... but it probably did need some reduction. [IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG]

Spc One The Chodak Void Alliance 69	Posted - 2012.07.26 05:43:00 - [51] - Quote Barbara Nichole wrote: As I've never really been fond of the Machariel I can't say my opinion counts a whole lot on this topic.. but you gotta admit it was pretty huge the way it was. It's not a cap ship. lol I've flown next to a machariel in my providence and it nearly dwarfed me... perhaps a less dramatic reduction would be in order... but it probably did need some reduction. Well Machariel was designed that way. So it's a huge ship, i don't see any reason for changing it now. It was this way since it came out. It is a special ship after all.
Ganthrithor GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 319	Posted - 2012.07.26 10:21:00 - [52] - Quote I always liked the Mach's gigantism. Please set it back :3 It made it such a good bumping ship...
Carola Kessler Lost Sisters Of New Eden Freelancer Coalition 35	Posted - 2012.07.26 10:38:00 - [53] - Quote Still no Dev reply on this topic.....its start to get frustrating. HEY CCP Devs Wake up and give us some feedback!!! sincerly Carola Kessler
Sheynan Lighting the blight 28	Posted - 2012.07.26 11:46:00 - [54] - Quote Fun fact: 85% of all players complaining about this are highsec carebears who are mad because their space ***** has shrunk, the other 15% are people who fear they will fail their bumps because the ship is slightly smaller. Both should just HTFU the change is sensible. (and I doubt we need a dev response for this)
Urgg Boolean Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 187	Posted - 2012.07.26 11:57:00 - [55] - Quote h4kun4 wrote: The Machariel has to be ithe biggest Subcapital in EVE, everytime I undock with my Mach, I think: lol watch that small Orca down there... No but seriously, for me its ridiculous to switch the size of ships every 3 Months...first i was like, omg My maelstrom is 600m long...then i was like, wow its 1500m long, and now you wnat the Maelstrom with 1484m to be longer than a machariel? That is not how i should be... Wow - they have really been doing all those changes? What a waste of time and effort. It also shows that they really don't have any long term vision or plan. Just seemingly random changes for arbitrary reasons.
Jerick Ludhowe Toxic Waste Industries 108	Posted - 2012.07.26 13:01:00 - [56] - Quote Spc One wrote: Barbara Nichole wrote: As I've never really been fond of the Machariel I can't say my opinion counts a whole lot on this topic.. but you gotta admit it was pretty huge the way it was. It's not a cap ship. lol I've flown next to a machariel in my providence and it nearly dwarfed me... perhaps a less dramatic reduction would be in order... but it probably did need some reduction. Well Machariel was designed that way. So it's a huge ship, i don't see any reason for changing it now. It was this way since it came out. It is a special ship after all. Tons of things have been originally designed one way and then changed further down the road. This is an mmo and using the argument of "that's how it was designed originally don't change it" is a fail at best.... 2km mach was unimmersive. The fastest most agile bs with a small sig being like 2x the size of the average bs was stupid looking, period. Furthermore all this crap about it being jove so it should be HUGE does not even make sense...
Arduemont Malevolent Intentions Ineluctable. 258	Posted - 2012.07.26 14:01:00 - [57] - Quote Makes sense that the Mach should be smaller. Especially since its one of the fastest Battleships going. Not only that, but the large turret models will look more bad-ass on a smaller hull. Those people saying that because its jove it should be big, are actually brining up a pretty good argument for it being smaller. If a Jove frigate is roughly inequivalent to most other races battleships, the why isn't the Mach the size of a frig?
Garviel Tarrant Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire 19	Posted - 2012.07.26 15:22:00 - [58] - Quote The machariel is the fastest and most agile battleship. Making it smaller makes all the sense in the world.
Marcus Gord Preta Light Industries Naraka. 2	Posted - 2012.07.27 22:34:00 - [59] - Quote The Mach has been huge for how long now? Only now it's a problem and it needs to be downsized? Come on. If they're going to do this to the Mach, are they going to make the other half of the Aeon too? Perhaps make the Wyvern fly forwards? (You know it looks like it flies backwards!) People have already talked about Carriers/Supercarriers and their sizes too. At least be consistent.
Jiji Hamin Aliastra Gallente Federation 79	Posted - 2012.07.28 00:08:00 - [60] - Quote If you yall are going to make it smaller than make it so it counts as being smaller when stuffed in a carrier so that two can fit in a carrier hanger like other BSes of that size kthnx.

Jack Tronic borkedLabs 50	Posted - 2012.07.28 20:50:00 - [61] - Quote Marcus Gord wrote: The Mach has been huge for how long now? Only now it's a problem and it needs to be downsized? Come on. If they're going to do this to the Mach, are they going to make the other half of the Aeon too? Perhaps make the Wyvern fly forwards? (You know it looks like it flies backwards!) People have already talked about Carriers/Supercarriers and their sizes too. At least be consistent. Crybabies. Macherial got resized because the skin for V3 which involves opening it up in a 3d editor anyway to apply the textures. Capitals haven't been V3ed yet.
Tallian Saotome Casa Del Wombat 839	Posted - 2012.07.29 07:58:00 - [62] - Quote I've been listening to people complain about the mach being oversized for years. Bout time it gets resized, tired of it dwarfing my thanny. Perhaps the best overall solution to all these complaints is to establish a size range for each class, and resize all ships in that class to conform(with machs and hypes being at the large end of battleship, for instance, and all capships getting sized up. Has anyone noticed the huge variety in size for titans?) Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom.
Jerick Ludhowe Toxic Waste Industries 114	Posted - 2012.07.29 12:32:00 - [63] - Quote Tallian Saotome wrote: Perhaps the best overall solution to all these complaints is to establish a size range for each class, and resize all ships in that class to conform(with machs and hypes being at the large end of battleship, for instance, and all capships getting sized up. Has anyone noticed the huge variety in size for titans?) This is the only acceptable outcome. Lets hope we get a good rescaling of ships, stations, and celestials in the near future.
Austneal Four Pillar Production Dragehund 34	Posted - 2012.07.29 15:15:00 - [64] - Quote So they've nerfed the Dramiel into uselessness, dwarfed the Machariel, and made the Cynabal look like Rudolph the red nosed reindeer.... anyone want to buy a set of angel ships?
Jerick Ludhowe Toxic Waste Industries 115	Posted - 2012.07.29 15:32:00 - [65] - Quote Austneal wrote: So they've nerfed the Dramiel into uselessness, dwarfed the Machariel, and made the Cynabal look like Rudolph the red nosed reindeer.... anyone want to buy a set of angel ships? Dram is not useless.... It's just no longer the best at everything frig it once was... Now the slower frigs are actually better at brawling Changes to the dram were a HUGE step forward... Mach getting reduced in size a reason to not buy it? Really? REALLY?!! It's arguably the best sub cap in the game and it being smaller is not going to have ANY effect on this WHATSOEVER. All that's happening is the foolishly sized ship is being reduced to reasonable levels. Honestly I'd rather the mach go to like 1000m instead of 1400m it still feels far to big for it's speed, agility and sig. Smaller more "tech advanced" BS pwning the larger lower "tech" ships is way more bad ass anyway...
Durzel The Xenodus Initiative. 26	Posted - 2012.07.30 08:25:00 - [66] - Quote Instead of redoing the textures and making the capitals much bigger (as they should be imo) CCP took the path of least resistance and are making BS smaller instead. Less work, same net result.
to0onsi AtlantiA French Corp Yulai Federation 1	Posted - 2012.07.31 01:53:00 - [67] - Quote Can someone tell me if they have changed the unpackage size too ?
TheGunslinger42 Bite Me inc Elysian Empire 175	Posted - 2012.07.31 10:53:00 - [68] - Quote Ogogov wrote: -1 Shrink all the battleships or properly scale carriers so that they can fit the volume of assembled ships that they are supposed to. I simply cannot see how a carrier is supposed to be able to fit two assembled BS in the SMA as it stands. It is utterly ridiculous. SMAs, cargo containers, etc are stolen gallifreyan technology
Yelena Fedorova School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 16	Posted - 2012.08.02 16:01:00 - [69] - Quote to0onsi wrote: Can someone tell me if they have changed the unpackage size too ? Probably not
2manno Asp The Imperial Fedaykin 15	Posted - 2012.08.08 22:42:00 - [70] - Quote why is my Cynabal suddenly hilariously large?

Frying Doom Zat's Affiliated Traders 471	Posted - 2012.08.09 02:29:00 - [71] - Quote They just made the Mach smaller so you cannot see the duct taped parts that hold it together. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Mike Whiite Keystone Industrial 65	Posted - 2012.08.09 10:24:00 - [72] - Quote Jerick Ludhowe wrote: Mach getting reduced in size a reason to not buy it? Really? REALLY?!! It's arguably the best sub cap in the game and it being smaller is not going to have ANY effect on this WHATSOEVER. All that's happening is the foolishly sized ship is being reduced to reasonable levels. Honestly I'd rather the mach go to like 1000m instead of 1400m it still feels far to big for it's speed, agility and sig. Smaller more "tech advanced" BS pwning the larger lower "tech" ships is way more bad ass anyway... If only that where true, Caldari have the smallest hightec ships, with the sig's of giants and less agillity and speed than their Minmatar counter parts. High tech advanced -> Sig >
Bienator II madmen of the skies 830	Posted - 2012.08.09 14:08:00 - [73] - Quote still to big, texture is not sharp enough. Make it as big as a rifter. a eve-style bounty system https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=359105 You fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail to jump because you are cloaked
Pinky Denmark The Cursed Navy Tactical Narcotics Team 175	Posted - 2012.08.10 09:31:00 - [74] - Quote I am happy to see the size of Machariels being reduced... The tier 3 caldari battleship "ROKH" looked like a frigate compared to the Machariel and so did almost any other ship in the game. Pinky
Donedy Snuff Box 34	Posted - 2012.08.10 12:07:00 - [75] - Quote Yeah, it should have been changed before. Finally it has a BS size.
Spc One The Chodak Void Alliance 69	Posted - 2012.08.11 07:33:00 - [76] - Quote We still didn't get official dev response. So we don't know exact reason why to downsize it. Since machariel was 1936m from it's intrudction it should stay this way.. http://www.eve-wiki.net/index.php?title=Machariel New machariel looks very good, but it would be awesome if it could stay at 1936m.
Aglais Liberation Army BricK sQuAD. 82	Posted - 2012.08.13 01:44:00 - [77] - Quote Your thread argues nothing that could benefit the game in any way, and it makes you look like an idiot who can't accept change. If nothing else the Machariel being smaller will make the textures on it look sharper I guess? I dunno. Besides, it's more believable for being actually fast and agile now.
Altrue Exploration Frontier inc 24	Posted - 2012.08.13 09:28:00 - [78] - Quote Precisely. The Mach is a speed ship, deal with it. The bigger, the slower. CCP only respected that point. Death to trees !!! Axe Chop, chop, chop... You may understand what I'm talking about ;)
Ogogov Ars ex Discordia Test Alliance Please Ignore 26	Posted - 2012.08.13 13:53:00 - [79] - Quote TheGunslinger42 wrote: Ogogov wrote: -1 Shrink all the battleships or properly scale carriers so that they can fit the volume of assembled ships that they are supposed to. I simply cannot see how a carrier is supposed to be able to fit two assembled BS in the SMA as it stands. It is utterly ridiculous. SMAs, cargo containers, etc are stolen gallifreyan technology That would explain the Dalek infestation in my cargo hold. I tried everything but Windex seems to work best.
2manno Asp The Imperial Fedaykin 15	Posted - 2012.08.13 16:12:00 - [80] - Quote Altrue wrote: Precisely. The Mach is a speed ship, deal with it. The bigger, the slower. CCP only respected that point. of course, but then why make the cynabal bigger? contradiction and ensuing frustration continues...

Janet Patton Brony Express 44	Posted - 2012.08.13 20:57:00 - [81] - Quote When I first saw this ship I thought it looked ridiculous for how fast it can move for it's size. It really throws off your perception. It's a nice looking ship. I think it will now look more realistic this way. Why do I have this sig? I don't smoke.
Nova Fox Novafox Shipyards 4075	Posted - 2012.08.14 03:45:00 - [82] - Quote I remember the chimera being smaller than ANY battleship. Nova Fox Shipyards Inventory

CCP Konflikt CCP Engineering Corp CCP Engineering Alliance 170	Posted - 2012.08.20 11:21:00 - [83] - Quote Team Trilambda's V3'ing project give's us an opportunity to revisit more than just updating the textures of a model to work with newer trinity technologies and as part of this we've been rescaling ships so that they are all more relative to their counterparts from other races. In the case of the Machariel it was obviously much larger than other battleships. It is now similar in size to a Hyperion and ships from other races of the same class and tier. CCP Konflikt Technical QA Tester Team Trilambda

Suddenly Forums ForumKings Republic University Minmatar Republic 246	Posted - 2012.08.20 13:02:00 - [84] - Quote CCP Konflikt wrote: Team Trilambda's V3'ing project give's us an opportunity to revisit more than just updating the textures of a model to work with newer trinity technologies and as part of this we've been rescaling ships so that they are all more relative to their counterparts from other races. In the case of the Machariel it was obviously much larger than other battleships. It is now similar in size to a Hyperion and ships from other races of the same class and tier. I'm going to quote this later.
Isbariya The Dancer. A Point In Space 8	Posted - 2012.08.20 16:05:00 - [85] - Quote how about upscaling carriers and supers in time ? Besides any update on when we might expect a V3 version of capitals ?
Nagarythe Tinurandir Catholic School for Boys A Point In Space 42	Posted - 2012.08.20 16:12:00 - [86] - Quote CCP Konflikt wrote: Team Trilambda's V3'ing project give's us an opportunity to revisit more than just updating the textures of a model to work with newer trinity technologies and as part of this we've been rescaling ships so that they are all more relative to their counterparts from other races. In the case of the Machariel it was obviously much larger than other battleships. It is now similar in size to a Hyperion and ships from other races of the same class and tier. hm. so your saying that the reason for the rifter to be twice as big as a punisher after v3'ing? or the reaper 1/3 bigger than the impairor?
Bloodpetal Mimidae Risk Solutions 803	Posted - 2012.08.20 17:56:00 - [87] - Quote Carola Kessler wrote: The Machariel has been downsized to 1400 meters somewhat, smaller then Hyperion and Apocalypse, making it a joke against her reputation beeing the biggest BS within the BS sized ship class in Eve.... Dear CCP devs i beg you to take this back and give the Machariel its former size 1920 Meters, let her be still the biggest BS in Eve with his reputation beeing feared by most of the Eve pilots. Current size doesn't fits to it really, all which think the Same way like me, please raise your hands and vote for giving the MAch back her old size!! http://game-craft.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/EVE-ships-subcap-Tyrannis.jpg PLEASE PLEASE take this Change back!!! sincerly Carola Kessler Whatever. It was as big as my Nidhoggur, which is the smallest carrier. That's ridiculous. It's the size it should have been. Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting
Pink Marshmellow Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost 41	Posted - 2012.08.20 18:23:00 - [88] - Quote CCP Konflikt wrote: Team Trilambda's V3'ing project give's us an opportunity to revisit more than just updating the textures of a model to work with newer trinity technologies and as part of this we've been rescaling ships so that they are all more relative to their counterparts from other races. In the case of the Machariel it was obviously much larger than other battleships. It is now similar in size to a Hyperion and ships from other races of the same class and tier. The machariel is bigger than other ships by volume as well. 595k vs >500k for other battleships, you can only fit one in a carrier while you can fit 2 battleships in a carrier. You should reduced the unpackaged volume as well to reflect this.
Razgriz Shaishi Helix Pulse Rolling Thunder. 12	Posted - 2012.08.24 04:14:00 - [89] - Quote Tallian Saotome wrote: Has anyone noticed the huge variety in size for titans? Yes, I love how the Leviathon and the Ragnarok, the 2 weaker titans, are about 17 kilometers, while the Avatar and the Erebus, the 2 stronger titans, are significantly shorter at 13 kilometers
Waylon Sens Sense of Serendipity Echoes of Nowhere 1	Posted - 2012.08.24 18:33:00 - [90] - Quote You can't be Caldari and have qualities

Alara IonStorm 3023	Posted - 2012.08.24 20:02:00 - [91] - Quote Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote: hm. so your saying that the reason for the rifter to be twice as big as a punisher after v3'ing? or the reaper 1/3 bigger than the impairor? By the looks of it they are plusing up Frigate sizes into the 60-120m range with ceptors being around 60-80m and bigger ons closer to 100m. Punisher hasn't been done yet nor the Incursus last I checked. Kestrel, Merlin, Breacher, Atron, Slasher, Executioner and a bunch of others were up-sized.
Adrian Dixon Arbitrary Spaceship Destruction -affliction- 62	Posted - 2012.08.25 15:13:00 - [92] - Quote Maybe scaling the guns per ship would be better than trying to scale the hull.
Roll Sizzle Beef Space Mutiny 968	Posted - 2012.08.26 00:15:00 - [93] - Quote CCP Konflikt wrote: It is now similar in size to a Hyperion and ships from other races of the same class and tier. You said the T word. I thought everyone was supposed to be working away from that line (get it) of thinking.


Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.