|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jennifer Starling
Amarr
   |
Posted - 2010.11.21 11:41:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Jennifer Starling on 21/11/2010 11:45:03
- - - - - - - - - -
Well CCP deliberately designs ugly ships, it not only a cold and harsh - but also ugly universe.
But yes, I 100% support this protest. There's quite a number of ship that I simply refuse to fly because of their looks.
Gief Klingon ships! 
 Originally by: ****InOnYoU
If you choose ships in EVE that look good, over functionality, you're a bad at spaceships, mkay?
Also, if you think CCP's artists are so terribad... go apply for a job so we can laugh at yours when you release your first turd in the game.
Stop whining, troll.
If you look at the fan art that was contributed to the "design a ship contest" it's clear that it's very easy to make nice looking ships instead of ugly asymmertical space secretion humps or random lego constructions made by a 3 year old.
|
Jennifer Starling
Amarr
|
Posted - 2010.11.21 12:13:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Tippia
The unique design of the EVE spaceships is what gives the game character and sets apart from the boring cookie-cutter "fighterjet in space" design you see everywhere else. Keep them the way they are (except maybe the Imicus hull).
Well it's your sense of taste of course (do you also have a fascination for misshaped deformed people that are missing limbs?) but ugh .. deliberately ugly asymmetrical is definitely unique but I don't think EVE needs that to set it apart. It's the game mechanics that make the game, not the ugly spaceships.
"Oh let's make everything ugly so we stand apart from the rest".
|
Jennifer Starling
Amarr
|
Posted - 2010.11.21 13:52:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Jennifer Starling on 21/11/2010 13:54:42
Originally by: Jeffrey DeVIlle
~ **** ships add variety; if everything looked good, nothing would stand out
It's true, Klingon ships look the same as Romulan ships which are indistinguishable from Star Wars Star Destroyers which very closely resemble Stargate Wraith ships!
Good looking <> Same looking <> no standing out
|
Jennifer Starling
Amarr
|
Posted - 2010.11.21 15:13:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Jennifer Starling on 21/11/2010 15:14:17
Originally by: Sidus Isaacs
****ing pathetic. Stop acting like a child, you are embarrassing yourself.
Stop acting like some pathetic patronizing moron who thinks his opinion and priorities are the absolute truth? 
If you were really Jesus you would have something better to do than trolling on forums ..
|
Jennifer Starling
Amarr
|
Posted - 2010.11.22 09:17:00 -
[5]
Originally by: utzutz 2
Who is taking a look at his ships anyway ? The most time it is zoomed out....
Well do you see your car when you're driving it? Most people still prefer nice looking cars though.
|
Jennifer Starling
Amarr
|
Posted - 2010.11.22 10:52:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Tippia
Those (ship contest) ships ù especially the top 3 ones ù were also universally dull, derivative and boring. The kindest thing I can say about them is that they were "safe"à and thus don't fit into the rather bold design style of the rest of EVE.
Like I said: this is quite possibly because there is so little room for new ships and so much room (and so much planned) for other graphical additions, that it's about, or even slightly above, the pace you'd expect.
You mean except for that huge update to them three years ago, the tweaks several of them have had since, the hints that they will all be migrated over to a new texturing and shading systemà? And (again) aside from the fact that the artists have far better things to do than remake old content ù you know, such as adding new content.
Well basically it's all a matter of taste and priority.
Personally I don't find ugly and asymmetrical exciting, you may love it and call it "bold". I liked quite a number of ship contest designs, you find them boring. You say there's little room for new ships, I say a remake won't do any harm, like the character portraits the new versions don't even have to look like the old ones.
If CCP removed the Moa, Maller, Vexor from the game end introduced a prettier, symmetrical mark II version of them I would rejoice (the Moa is so hopelessly ugly it may be removed alltogether imo and replaced by a decent looking ship). You would grumble and find EVE losing its identity.
Some people find their ships's look the most important aspect of the game. Others couldn't care less if their ships looked like a carton box as long - as the stats are the best.
|
Jennifer Starling
Amarr
|
Posted - 2010.11.22 11:22:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Hra Neuvosto
//EDIT - did the guy above me call Maller and Vexor asymmetrical?
Well *cough* ... Thorax and Omen then? 
|
Jennifer Starling
Amarr
|
Posted - 2010.11.23 09:50:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Jennifer Starling on 23/11/2010 09:53:13
Originally by: Dorian Tormak
CCP hire different ship designers please, I mean man I've got my own spaceship designed that's able to fly and everything and still looks cooler than moas/bellicoses ect.
Now you did it! I almost managed to erase the Bellicose from my memory!
Buy indeed, those must be the ugliest cruiser hulls, by far.
Fortunately they have crappy stats so hardly anyone flies them anyway.
Originally by: Ranger 1
I'm a big, big fan of eye candy... and more is definately better.
Now we all know that a complete redo of the ship models in game is coming out incrementally with each patch. I'd suggest just holding on and seeing what will be released this time around. I have a feeling that will be our "Christmas Surprise" this year.
Well I don't dare to hope for a remake of a lot of ships in any forseeable future -.-
What do we get, 1 a year? And how can the Moa be redone so it will look ok .. it's hopeless!
Quote:
However I also try to firmly keep in mind that the CCP graphics team has far larger responsibilities than simply designing/redesigning the ships of EVE. Every POS structure, every peice of wreckage or installation floating in a mission, even every new icon in game requires that team to create it.
How important is your ship's look .. it's the one thing you see all the time whenever you play the game! How many minues do you spend on looking at for instance rogue drones in comparison? It's a bit frustrating that an average piece of space debris looks prettier than some ships you can fly?
|
Jennifer Starling
Amarr
|
Posted - 2010.11.23 12:18:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Jennifer Starling on 23/11/2010 12:26:07
Originally by: Wet Ferret
Functionality > appearance anyway. That also goes for the game as a whole (I'll take A+ gameplay and B- graphics rather than the opposite).
Why settle for less if you can have both? 
Originally by: Tarasina
The thing with Eve is that I don't buy or fly ships I don't like the look of. Every race has 4-5 frigates but I like at the most the looks of 0-2 per race. Other shipclasses have even fewer choices (cruisers/bc/bs) and most of them look like crap.
I don't fly ships I hate the look of (exception: Rook/Falcon). It's mostly the "old" t1 content ships that are ugly and asymmetrical - and unfortunately the t2 ships are just variations of those same ships.
If you look at ships that were later added later - like tier 2 BCs and tier 3BSs - most look quite agreeable. CCP has the designers to make ships look ok.
|
Jennifer Starling
Amarr
|
Posted - 2010.11.23 14:55:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Diesel47
Cool looking ships please.
Fix caldari ships. The MOA needs a redesign, the BLACKBIRD needs a redesign, even the raven looks crap.
Minmitar is supposed to look like garbage, no need to change them.
Gallente can use some help too. Amarr ships are fine however.
My suggestions:
Moa: complete redesign needed
Blackbird: could use some polish
Caracal: could look better too
Manticore: Just make it symmetical!!
Omen: remove the growth on the right side
Inquisitor: space maggot, complete redesign needed
Bellicose: complete redesign needed
Probe: make it look like something?
Slasher: can it look less like a very ugly insect?
Maller/Vexor: ugly bulky designs but some people like it
Thorax: make it symmetrical
|
|
|
Jennifer Starling
Amarr
|
Posted - 2010.11.23 18:59:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Jennifer Starling on 23/11/2010 19:04:10
Originally by: De'Veldrin
Two of your suggestions amount to "ZOMG my OCD can't handle a space ship that doesn't look the same on both sides." That's a bull**** argument and I'm calling it as such. There's no reason anything not intended for atmospheric entry needs to look the same from any angle.
Well, logically (as if EVE needs that) with all the gas clouds (basically a local atmosphere) in EVE asymmertical ships should become uncontrollable. You shouldn't be able to do PI. Logically spoken. But EVE isn't logical so let's not argue about logic or RL natures of law.
I just find the growth on the Omen ugly. A little asymmetry like the Coercer isn't bad but such a huge blob like the Omen - it looks stupid.
In the end, it's a matter of taste. Perhaps you like people with irregular growths on their body too, no-one is saying you can't or that's it's objectively wrong or right to do so.
|
Jennifer Starling
Amarr
|
Posted - 2010.11.23 20:33:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Jennifer Starling on 23/11/2010 20:34:44
Originally by: De'Veldrin
Unlike you (apparently) I tend to judge people by what they do, rather than how they look. More or less the same way I pick ships.
That's a flawed comparison. If you have to choose a spouse you'd rather pick one that doesn't look like a misshaped crooked quasimodo with some weird growth on his/her body. Especially if you could have one that looks gorgeous with the same "stats".
Looks do matter.
And yes there's people who don't care about the looks of their ship, it may as well look like a paper bag or turd. I'm obviously not one of those people.
|
Jennifer Starling
Amarr
|
Posted - 2010.11.23 20:37:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Jennifer Starling on 23/11/2010 20:46:49
Originally by: De'Veldrin
If spaceships required flight surfaces to control their direction, I'd agree with you. Since they don't...I'm not sure what the point you're trying to make is.
Well have you ever seen a scientifically designed starship that isn't symmetrical?
Besides, resistances that are not spread evenly across your ship will cause it to spin around it axes or be torn into pieces, it's only in (semi-)vacuum that flight surfaces don¦t influence your direction because there's no resistance.
|
Jennifer Starling
Amarr
|
Posted - 2010.11.23 20:57:00 -
[14]
Edited by: Jennifer Starling on 23/11/2010 20:59:13
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Jennifer Starling
Well have you ever seen a scientifically designed starship that isn't symmetrical?
Pretty much all of them that weren't designed for atmospheric duty.
Quote:
Besides, resistances that are not spread evenly across your ship will cause it to spin around it axes, it's only in (semi-)vacuum that flight surfaces don¦t influence your direction because there's no resistance.
àso in other words: there's no reason for spaceships to have control surfaces or to be symmetrical.
You missed the gas clouds and PI part of the argument?
Originally by: Tippia
Quote:
Looks do matter.
No. Design matters, or more accurately, art direction. A design style that is centred on the concept of "utility" means that "looks" becomes a non-issue. ISS, Skylab, Gallileoà they were all fugly pieces of tech, because they were built to work, not to look pretty.
Well since "looks" and "graphical style" both refer to visial aspects I think we're talking about the same.
Funny you quote all those symmertrical machines btw .. ^^
EVE isn't reality, it's a game. CCP could make the spaceships look like icecream and hamburgers and still have the same stats. So I still wonder why the ships are deliberatley made ugly - and I don't believe I'm the only one what that's concerned.
|
Jennifer Starling
Amarr
|
Posted - 2010.11.23 21:18:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Tippia
The gas clouds bit assumes the clouds are dense enough to be of any consequence ù they obviously aren't.
There "obviously" aren't because the ships "obviously" don't explode or get uncontrollable?
Well I think we still can use some more prettier spaceships!!
Bring them on!! 
|
Jennifer Starling
Amarr
|
Posted - 2010.11.24 08:12:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Jennifer Starling on 24/11/2010 08:14:59
Originally by: Orivanna
Those who talk about not needing symmetric ships in space:
How hard did you fail basic physics?
Asymmetric distribution of mass makes it extremely and unnecessarily difficult to balance thrust... especially when you are concerned about accurate ship control.
Equal distribution of resistance across your ship (like in an atmosphere) causes your ship to stay balanced, hence aerodynamics. Another example is using a sail - it has only use when there's wind/air - if there would be no air it wouldn't have any use. If there's no resistance (like in space) symmetry isn't needed as there's no resistance, there's no molecules colliding with your ship's surface.
Now to the ships of EVE. Why would you want to build ships that can't fly in atmospheres and are very dangerous to fly in gas clouds or nebulae where the atomic/molecular density is high enough to seriously destroy your ship? Say your ship is heavily damaged and you want to land on a planetary base on an earth like planet - you can't if you fly an asymmetrical ship. Your enemies flee into a dense gas cloud or planetary surface - you can't chase them in an asymmetrical ship.
Asymmetry restricts your ship to (sub)vaccuum space, why would you want that, especially military ships?
|
Jennifer Starling
Amarr
|
Posted - 2010.11.25 08:10:00 -
[17]
Edited by: Jennifer Starling on 25/11/2010 08:14:46
Originally by: Vertisce Soritenshi
I have stated this a few times already but I do not believe asymmetry is bad but there is a limit to how much of it is good. The Raven and Moa are examples of bad asymmetry. The Omen is a nice looking Asymmetrical ship. If the ship makes you wonder if they just ran out of material to make the ship then its bad. If it looks like its actually a functional part of the ship and has a reason to be there then it is good.
I'm not against asymmetry per se and I agree that in some cases it's far more agreeable than in others. The Moa would be just as dead ugly if it were symmetrical.
What I also don't get is the fact that all ship designers of all races and all bloodlines all decided to design asymmertrical ships and that not a single one of them even considered the fact that to be able to fly into atmospheres you better have symmetrical ships.
Which is very hard to believe. I can imagine that some designers like Creodon, Core Complexion make them - but every ship builder across the galaxy doing exactly the same thing? It's very unlikely and unrealistic. How the Amarr empress could ever agree upon this is beyond my comprehension!
Anyway, there's nothing against more pretty ships as we don't exactly have an abundance of them.
|
|
|
| |
|