EVE Search - GIVE US Good Looking Ships!!

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

GIVE US Good Looking Ships!!

» 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 - 0 post(s)
Wolfric Draksmile	Posted - 2011.04.29 15:12:00 - [1] Not a new topic I Know. But I am so sad to see all these ships ridiculously ugly. It is very sad when we see the beautiful ships that were in the final of the starships contest. http://news.deviantart.com/article/133308/ Why not picking in these contest to relook al the ugly ships??? The Apocalypse for example is so ugly that I never bought one. I am about to up Caldari ships to buy a Golem Marauder because I will never get in a Paladin.
TriadSte Gallente	Posted - 2011.04.29 15:17:00 - [2] I have an additional question: When are the winners of those competitions going to have there winning design rendered and imported into the game?
Lady Ghoulia Eternal-Darkness	Posted - 2011.04.29 15:42:00 - [3] GIVE US GOOD THREADS
boseo Gallente Azure Horizon	Posted - 2011.04.29 15:48:00 - [4] Edited by: boseo on 29/04/2011 15:48:41 I think preferences on ships is a personal thing, as I don't think some of the ships you are complaining about are that bad, while ones other people like I don't. I would also like to point out that its highly unlikely that current ship designs will be changed, as they have been around long enough for some people to get attached to them, no mater how much some people complain. I mean come on the Apocalypse is a ship that is almost instantly recognizable to any eve pilot and you want to take that away?
HeIIfire11	Posted - 2011.04.29 15:50:00 - [5] Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 29/04/2011 15:52:14 Originally by: Wolfric Draksmile Not a new topic I Know. But I am so sad to see all these ships ridiculously ugly. It is very sad when we see the beautiful ships that were in the final of the starships contest. http://news.deviantart.com/article/133308/ Why not picking in these contest to relook al the ugly ships??? The Apocalypse for example is so ugly that I never bought one. I am about to up Caldari ships to buy a Golem Marauder because I will never get in a Paladin. +1 all the way. If someone was to make a space ship game using ships from that contest eve would be in trouble. Originally by: boseo I mean come on the Apocalypse is a ship that is almost instantly recognizable to any eve pilot and you want to take that away? It looks like a bottle opener ffs.
Zars Boy	Posted - 2011.04.29 16:15:00 - [6] Just had to buy a faction ship for the wife because she liked the colour. I explained that she had no gunnery skills so it would be useless' Not a good enough reason for her. The colour is the most important thing when buying a ship. Ask any woman. FFS wives shold be bared from playing.
HeIIfire11	Posted - 2011.04.29 16:26:00 - [7] Here's a list of ships I think are fugly. Rest are ok or good. Typhoon !!!!! Dominix !!!!! Aeon Phoenix Blackbird Caracal Moa Celestis !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Exequror !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Bellicose Crucifier Bantam Imicus Probe
Mortania Minmatar No Compromise Gentlemen's Agreement	Posted - 2011.04.29 16:28:00 - [8] Completely disagree. I don't believe the deviant art contestant pictures are any more awesome than what we already have. Several of the ships do a terrible job of emulating the racial design of ships. Also, there are many awesome ships in EVE already. Nearly all Minmatar and Gallente ships, many of the Amarr and even some of the Caldari ships are all terrific. I think you must be confusing your personal aesthetic sense with universal truth.
Chandaris Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2011.04.29 16:46:00 - [9] Originally by: HeIIfire11 Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 29/04/2011 16:38:32 Here's a list of ships I think are fugly. Rest are ok or good. Apocalypse Typhoon !!!!! Dominix !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Aeon Phoenix Blackbird Caracal Moa Celestis !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Exequror !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Bellicose Crucifier Bantam Imicus Probe Myrmidon Ibis Ferox How dare you insult my Myrmidon, Dominix and beloved Ferox. If our paths cross in New Eden good sir, it will be your ship, and your pod for that remark.
2manno Halifax	Posted - 2011.04.29 16:50:00 - [10] agreed with OP. EVE has some of the ugliest ships ever to sail in a video game. i could double the number of EVE subscribers overnight with a few weeks of design time, a small budget, and the artwork of a 10 year old.
Ranger 1 Amarr Paragon Fury Cascade Imminent	Posted - 2011.04.29 16:57:00 - [11] Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Unfortunately opinion is often in the ear of everyone. ===== The world will not end in 2012, however there will be a serious nerf to Planetary Interaction.
HeIIfire11	Posted - 2011.04.29 17:08:00 - [12] Originally by: Chandaris Originally by: HeIIfire11 Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 29/04/2011 16:38:32 Here's a list of ships I think are fugly. Rest are ok or good. Apocalypse Typhoon !!!!! Dominix !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Aeon Phoenix Blackbird Caracal Moa Celestis !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Exequror !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Bellicose Crucifier Bantam Imicus Probe Myrmidon Ibis Ferox How dare you insult my Myrmidon, Dominix and beloved Ferox. If our paths cross in New Eden good sir, it will be your ship, and your pod for that remark.
Ayieka	Posted - 2011.04.29 17:21:00 - [13] Originally by: HeIIfire11 Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 29/04/2011 16:38:32 Here's a list of ships I think are fugly. Rest are ok or good. Apocalypse Typhoon !!!!! Dominix !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Aeon Phoenix Blackbird Caracal Moa Celestis !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Exequror !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Bellicose Crucifier Bantam Imicus Probe Myrmidon Ibis Ferox Go to jail, right now.
J Kunjeh Gallente	Posted - 2011.04.29 17:43:00 - [14] OP: are you playing the same game I am? ~Gnosis~
HeIIfire11	Posted - 2011.04.29 18:02:00 - [15] Originally by: Ayieka Originally by: HeIIfire11 Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 29/04/2011 16:38:32 Here's a list of ships I think are fugly. Rest are ok or good. Apocalypse Typhoon !!!!! Dominix !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Aeon Phoenix Blackbird Caracal Moa Celestis !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Exequror !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Bellicose Crucifier Bantam Imicus Probe Myrmidon Ibis Ferox Go to jail, right now. Ok ok I admit I thought about it for a while before adding that one. Will remove it so that I don't get jumped by hundreds of people. But the rest are staying on there!!
Golanik	Posted - 2011.04.29 18:04:00 - [16] Originally by: 2manno Halifax agreed with OP. EVE has some of the ugliest ships ever to sail in a video game. i could double the number of EVE subscribers overnight with a few weeks of design time, a small budget, and the artwork of a 10 year old. We're waiting.
Abrazzar	Posted - 2011.04.29 18:09:00 - [17] CCP needs to hire some Apple designers to get some really good looking ships for EVE, not that incoherent mess we have now. --------
Athelas Loraiel Amarr StarFleet Enterprises -Mostly Harmless-	Posted - 2011.04.29 18:16:00 - [18] Originally by: Ranger 1 Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Unfortunately opinion is often in the ear of everyone. Wife says you hit her G-spot. Is that your main? She's interested, lol....poets...
J Kunjeh Gallente	Posted - 2011.04.29 18:23:00 - [19] Originally by: Abrazzar CCP needs to hire some Apple designers to get some really good looking ships for EVE, not that incoherent mess we have now. Lolol...yes, then all ships would be white and more expensive than they should be. ~Gnosis~
baltec1	Posted - 2011.04.29 18:33:00 - [20] Whats wrong with the domi?
Captain Brickwalle	Posted - 2011.04.29 18:35:00 - [21] Edited by: Captain Brickwalle on 29/04/2011 18:37:11 The problem isn't the design, it's the staggered tech level of the ship rendering. The scorp noctis echelon are on a whole other level and rendered in a totally different style (artistically not technically... But maybe technically too) Ships like the Mack domi apoc all look blurry pixilated and FLAT compared to these new incredibly detailed designs. Last edit... Damn smart phone
FatRaps	Posted - 2011.04.29 18:51:00 - [22] Originally by: Zars Boy Just had to buy a faction ship for the wife because she liked the colour. I explained that she had no gunnery skills so it would be useless' Not a good enough reason for her. The colour is the most important thing when buying a ship. Ask any woman. FFS wives shold be bared from playing. I bet she stinks
Hermann Fegelein Amarr	Posted - 2011.04.29 18:55:00 - [23] The designs are fine. To me it just seems that people ran out of things to whine about.
Jennifer Starling Imperial Navy Forum Patrol	Posted - 2011.04.29 19:03:00 - [24] Edited by: Jennifer Starling on 29/04/2011 19:06:56 Originally by: Wolfric Draksmile But I am so sad to see all these ships ridiculously ugly. Why not picking in these contest to relook al the ugly ships??? EVE is not only suppoosed to be a dark, harsh and cruel place but also an ugly and asymmetrical place .. Wtb Klingon Warbird!
Ranger 1 Amarr Paragon Fury Cascade Imminent	Posted - 2011.04.29 19:14:00 - [25] Originally by: Captain Brickwalle Edited by: Captain Brickwalle on 29/04/2011 18:37:11 The problem isn't the design, it's the staggered tech level of the ship rendering. The scorp noctis echelon are on a whole other level and rendered in a totally different style (artistically not technically... But maybe technically too) Ships like the Mack domi apoc all look blurry pixilated and FLAT compared to these new incredibly detailed designs. Last edit... Damn smart phone The Scorp, Noctis and Echelon are all done with the newer graphics that CCP announced we will eventually see all ships redone in. Personally I hope the "present" that we are getting on EVE's 8th birthday is another ship (or group of ships) redone in this way. ===== The world will not end in 2012, however there will be a serious nerf to Planetary Interaction.
Ranger 1 Amarr Paragon Fury Cascade Imminent	Posted - 2011.04.29 19:19:00 - [26] Originally by: Athelas Loraiel Originally by: Ranger 1 Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Unfortunately opinion is often in the ear of everyone. Wife says you hit her G-spot. Is that your main? She's interested, lol....poets... I swear she looked far to young to be married! * Yes, I always post with my main. ===== The world will not end in 2012, however there will be a serious nerf to Planetary Interaction.
Mortania Minmatar No Compromise Gentlemen's Agreement	Posted - 2011.04.29 19:36:00 - [27] Originally by: Jennifer Starling Edited by: Jennifer Starling on 29/04/2011 19:13:38 Originally by: Wolfric Draksmile But I am so sad to see all these ships ridiculously ugly. Why not picking in these contest to relook al the ugly ships??? EVE is not only supposed to be a dark, harsh and cruel place but also an ugly and asymmetrical place .. I concur. Minmatar ships are beautiful in their harsh junkheap look. They are supposed to feel industrial and harsh. I find the Maelstrom, Loki and even the Thrasher to some extent to be "ugly" because they break away from that a bit too much. They are too polished.
Wolfric Draksmile	Posted - 2011.04.29 19:45:00 - [28] Edited by: Wolfric Draksmile on 29/04/2011 19:46:30 That's true, it must be people who like these ugly things. Well make new ships for all the factions! I do not need ships more powerful but new design and why not new options.
Jacob Stov	Posted - 2011.04.29 20:06:00 - [29] There are tons of good looking ships in eve. Unfortunatly they don't perform. A good example would be the Caldari hybrid ship line.
Hra Neuvosto Wolfsbrigade	Posted - 2011.04.29 20:10:00 - [30] Originally by: Jennifer Starling Wtb Klingon Bird of Prey or Romulan Warbird! Or a Mon Calamari Cruiser! All those look horrible. Except the Mon Calamari Cruiser. Star Trek has some of the worst spaceship designs ever made.
Golanik	Posted - 2011.04.29 20:24:00 - [31] They're supposed to look like space ships, not like graduate art projects. Space ships are an industrial product and look industrial. Last time I saw a movie with polished, beautiful space ships it was called Phantom Menace and it sucked. Don't even try to argue with that logic.
Jennifer Starling Imperial Navy Forum Patrol	Posted - 2011.04.29 20:28:00 - [32] Originally by: Jacob Stov There are tons of good looking ships in eve. Unfortunatly they don't perform. A good example would be the Caldari hybrid ship line. Ashimmu! I wish my Tengu looked like that, I'd be really very very happy!
Wolfric Draksmile	Posted - 2011.04.29 20:34:00 - [33] Edited by: Wolfric Draksmile on 29/04/2011 20:36:45 Originally by: Golanik They're supposed to look like space ships, not like graduate art projects. Space ships are an industrial product and look industrial. Last time I saw a movie with polished, beautiful space ships it was called Phantom Menace and it sucked. Don't even try to argue with that logic. - Well If that was true, The space ships should have symetric propulsion, and relatively symetric forms to simplify the propulsion equilibirum... - Lot of the industrial ships in this game are more look like combat ship than the true combat ships. - Vikkings had Drakkars, Greeks Trirems, The Spitfire, The Messershmitt 109, The Mustang P51, The B2, The F22, all for War but Beautiful... - A Nimitz class aircraft carrier is not so ugly...
Mortania Minmatar No Compromise Gentlemen's Agreement	Posted - 2011.04.29 21:06:00 - [34] Originally by: Wolfric Draksmile - Vikkings had Drakkars, Greeks Trirems, The Spitfire, The Messershmitt 109, The Mustang P51, The B2, The F22, all for War but Beautiful... - A Nimitz class aircraft carrier is not so ugly... All of these ships have aero/aquadynamic requirements. The underside of a Nimitz is shapely and flow optimized. The top, where it does matter isn't. It's functional as the needs required and gets "ugly". Spaceships don't have those needs, they can be purely functional. Think Borg cubes.
Jennifer Starling Imperial Navy Forum Patrol	Posted - 2011.04.29 21:15:00 - [35] Edited by: Jennifer Starling on 29/04/2011 21:15:07 Originally by: Mortania All of these ships have aero/aquadynamic requirements. Spaceships don't have those needs, they can be purely functional. Think Borg cubes. Still, symmetry is needed if you fly through gas clouds, atmospheres, generally everwhere where there's resistance thus aerodynamics. Space isn't a vaccuum. Especially not in EVE with its phosphorescent clouds -.- Next to that it's extremely unprobable that all ship manufacturing corps factions would pick ugly and asymmetrical ships. Perhaps a few but definitely not all. You'd expect Amarr to make pretty, symmetrical ships that would radiate grandiosity, for instance.
Wolfric Draksmile	Posted - 2011.04.29 21:16:00 - [36] Originally by: Mortania Originally by: Wolfric Draksmile - Vikkings had Drakkars, Greeks Trirems, The Spitfire, The Messershmitt 109, The Mustang P51, The B2, The F22, all for War but Beautiful... - A Nimitz class aircraft carrier is not so ugly... All of these ships have aero/aquadynamic requirements. The underside of a Nimitz is shapely and flow optimized. The top, where it does matter isn't. It's functional as the needs required and gets "ugly". Spaceships don't have those needs, they can be purely functional. Think Borg cubes. Vikkings did not put a dragon head on the front of their ships for hydrdynamics, The shark smile painted on the Mustang P51 did not help it to fly better. Yes I agree with the fact that spacecraft do not need to have aerodynamics form, but, Warmachines had always been impressive. So Industrial ships could be diform but probably not the warships
Hermann Fegelein Amarr	Posted - 2011.04.29 21:27:00 - [37] If you wan't pretty ships, fly Amarr. Their ships are designed to be pretty with symmetrical designs, gold plating, and calligraphy that decorates the ship. If you don't want to fly Amarr than stop whining. The ships of each race reflect their personality. Amarr ships are to glorify their religion and appease their God. Caldari ships are built with praticality and use. Anything not needed on a Caldari ship is removed often leaving just the cockpit, antennae, engines and whatever is needed to hold the ship together. Gallente ships follow an organic approach. This is because they use organic chemicals in many of their ship designs. As a result they have green ships with curved surfaces. It also reflects their beliefs on freedom. Minmatar ships are rugged. Because the Minmatar use Guerrilla Warfare as a military strategy their ships are made out of old materials and stolen items. Much like the AK-47s used by todays Guerillas with rusty parts and a barrel from Russia, receiver from Yugoslavia and a trigger from Ukraine!
Wolfric Draksmile	Posted - 2011.04.29 21:43:00 - [38] Originally by: Hermann Fegelein If you wan't pretty ships, fly Amarr. Their ships are designed to be pretty with symmetrical designs, gold plating, and calligraphy that decorates the ship. If you don't want to fly Amarr than stop whining. The ships of each race reflect their personality. Amarr ships are to glorify their religion and appease their God. Caldari ships are built with praticality and use. Anything not needed on a Caldari ship is removed often leaving just the cockpit, antennae, engines and whatever is needed to hold the ship together. Gallente ships follow an organic approach. This is because they use organic chemicals in many of their ship designs. As a result they have green ships with curved surfaces. It also reflects their beliefs on freedom. Minmatar ships are rugged. Because the Minmatar use Guerrilla Warfare as a military strategy their ships are made out of old materials and stolen items. Much like the AK-47s used by todays Guerillas with rusty parts and a barrel from Russia, receiver from Yugoslavia and a trigger from Ukraine! It is possible to reflect all of these with goodlooking ships. Condescendance is not an answer. Russian T55 or T82 are rustics material, Sukoi 27 or Mig 29 are also rustic planes compared to F16. But They are not ugly. And I fly Amarr. But I don't want to fly a Paladin. So How do I do to have a Marauder?
Jacob Stov	Posted - 2011.04.29 21:49:00 - [39] Asymmetric designs are inefficient. There is no drag in space, but there is inertia. Asymetric ships have to divert propulsion power to keep them flying in a streight line. Woohoo ! I just discovered why Caldari ships are so f+++ slow ! Half of the engine power goes to the manouvering thrusters !
Wolfric Draksmile	Posted - 2011.04.29 21:51:00 - [40] Originally by: Jacob Stov Asymmetric designs are inefficient. There is no drag in space, but there is inertia. Asymetric ships have to divert propulsion power to keep them flying in a streight line. Woohoo ! I just discovered why Caldari ships are so f+++ slow ! Half of the engine power goes to the manouvering thrusters ! Exactly. That I was trying to say with my bad english ;-)
Mortania Minmatar No Compromise Gentlemen's Agreement	Posted - 2011.04.29 22:06:00 - [41] Nah, just make sure the overall thrust is down the +z axis and you're fine. Anything not symmetrical just needs to account for that fact.
Jennifer Starling Imperial Navy Forum Patrol	Posted - 2011.04.29 22:07:00 - [42] Edited by: Jennifer Starling on 29/04/2011 22:08:08 Originally by: Jacob Stov Asymmetric designs are inefficient. There is no drag in space, but there is inertia. Asymetric ships have to divert propulsion power to keep them flying in a streight line. Woohoo ! I just discovered why Caldari ships are so f+++ slow ! Half of the engine power goes to the manouvering thrusters ! Indeed! ^^ Originally by: Hermann Fegelein If you wan't pretty ships, fly Amarr. Their ships are designed to be pretty with symmetrical designs, gold plating, and calligraphy that decorates the ship. They're definitely the least ugly in general. But "pretty with symmetrical designs" isn't true for many of their ships. The Maller and Aurogor are bulky. The Coercer looks ok but it's not symmetrical. The Omen class has an - asymmetrical - growth on the right side which makes it a lot uglier than necessary. The ridiculous - asymmetrical - "cut in half" Crucifier and Aeon are downward ugly. The Tormentor class looks like space maggot at best. And then we're only talking about one faction's ships. The rest is far worse. Can't we have just ONE race out of FOUR with pretty, symmetrical ships????
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.04.29 22:10:00 - [43] Originally by: Jacob Stov Asymmetric designs are inefficient. There is no drag in space, but there is inertia. Asymetric ships have to divert propulsion power to keep them flying in a streight line. Woohoo ! I just discovered why Caldari ships are so f+++ slow ! Half of the engine power goes to the manouvering thrusters ! For the record, there are no symmetric ships in EVE, so if we want to include that criterion, all of them have to be replaced. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
J Kunjeh Gallente	Posted - 2011.04.29 22:15:00 - [44] I'm definitely behind getting all of the ships re-skinned and rendered with the latest and greatest tech, but as for design I don't know. I am personally not a fan of a number of ships, but it's likely just personal taste...someone else might adore them. That isn't to suggest though that CCP should stop trying to make all game assets look ever better. ~Gnosis~
Wolfric Draksmile	Posted - 2011.04.29 22:17:00 - [45] Originally by: Jennifer Starling Edited by: Jennifer Starling on 29/04/2011 22:08:08 Originally by: Jacob Stov Asymmetric designs are inefficient. There is no drag in space, but there is inertia. Asymetric ships have to divert propulsion power to keep them flying in a streight line. Woohoo ! I just discovered why Caldari ships are so f+++ slow ! Half of the engine power goes to the manouvering thrusters ! Indeed! ^^ Originally by: Hermann Fegelein If you wan't pretty ships, fly Amarr. Their ships are designed to be pretty with symmetrical designs, gold plating, and calligraphy that decorates the ship. They're definitely the least ugly in general. But "pretty with symmetrical designs" isn't true for many of their ships. The Maller and Aurogor are bulky. The Coercer looks ok but it's not symmetrical. The Omen class has an - asymmetrical - growth on the right side which makes it a lot uglier than necessary. The ridiculous - asymmetrical - "cut in half" Crucifier and Aeon are downward ugly. The Tormentor class looks like space maggot at best. And then we're only talking about one faction's ships. The rest is far worse. Can't we have just ONE race out of FOUR with pretty, symmetrical ships???? I would not say it better. Why Do it this to the Omen?
Mibad	Posted - 2011.04.29 22:21:00 - [46] CCP atleast give us the new high res textures like you did for the scorpion and T3 ships. (there was some dev blog about the new shaders forever ago) Sure, remodels would be sexy and all, but at the very least give us high res textures for the ships.
Hieronimus Rex Minmatar Infinitus Sapientia New Eden Research.	Posted - 2011.04.29 23:08:00 - [47] Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Jacob Stov Asymmetric designs are inefficient. There is no drag in space, but there is inertia. Asymetric ships have to divert propulsion power to keep them flying in a streight line. Woohoo ! I just discovered why Caldari ships are so f+++ slow ! Half of the engine power goes to the manouvering thrusters ! For the record, there are no symmetric ships in EVE, so if we want to include that criterion, all of them have to be replaced. Or you could place engines asymmetrically to offset this, as is the case with many ships. Also, lots of these ships are pretty ugly. I'd much rather have variety and ugliness than have all ships look pretty but identical (for example if you think star trek federation ships look nice...they are all essentially a saucer with engines in different places).
Katra Novac	Posted - 2011.04.29 23:14:00 - [48] Have to agree, Eve has some of the worst looking ships I've ever seen. But then on the bright side, if they release anymore crap designs they should blend in nicely with what we've already got.
Corina's Bodyguard	Posted - 2011.04.29 23:23:00 - [49] I guess I see a odd form of beauty. I even can stand the Moa... However, I do agree that the textures need to be redone. When you can see clear polygons, theres a problem
Grimpak Gallente The Whitehound Corporation Frontline Assembly Point	Posted - 2011.04.29 23:26:00 - [50] Originally by: Wolfric Draksmile Not a new topic I Know. But I am so sad to see all these ships ridiculously ugly. It is very sad when we see the beautiful ships that were in the final of the starships contest. http://news.deviantart.com/article/133308/ Why not picking in these contest to relook al the ugly ships??? The Apocalypse for example is so ugly that I never bought one. I am about to up Caldari ships to buy a Golem Marauder because I will never get in a Paladin. no --- Quote: The more I know about humans, the more I love animals. ain't that right.
Mortania Minmatar No Compromise Gentlemen's Agreement	Posted - 2011.04.29 23:59:00 - [51] Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Jacob Stov Asymmetric designs are inefficient. There is no drag in space, but there is inertia. Asymetric ships have to divert propulsion power to keep them flying in a streight line. Woohoo ! I just discovered why Caldari ships are so f+++ slow ! Half of the engine power goes to the manouvering thrusters ! For the record, there are no symmetric ships in EVE, so if we want to include that criterion, all of them have to be replaced. Hmm, just thinking about this, aren't the shuttles symmetrical?
Sarmatiko	Posted - 2011.04.30 00:03:00 - [52] Vangel is awesome. Just wait
Jennifer Starling Imperial Navy Forum Patrol	Posted - 2011.04.30 00:06:00 - [53] Originally by: Mortania Originally by: Tippia For the record, there are no symmetric ships in EVE, so if we want to include that criterion, all of them have to be replaced. Hmm, just thinking about this, aren't the shuttles symmetrical? Tipps probably means pointsymmetrical or linesymmetrical. Only Borg cubes and Spheres are.
Maverick2011 Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2011.04.30 00:18:00 - [54] Originally by: Mortania Completely disagree. I don't believe the deviant art contestant pictures are any more awesome than what we already have. Several of the ships do a terrible job of emulating the racial design of ships. Also, there are many awesome ships in EVE already. Nearly all Minmatar and Gallente ships, many of the Amarr and even some of the Caldari ships are all terrific. I think you must be confusing your personal aesthetic sense with universal truth. And you have the universal truth with you of course. Yea, most EVE ships look horrible,like piece of trash flying in space, see only a few of caldari and minmatar ships, they look like deformed insects or pieces of metal combined in a frankenstein style.
Teranul	Posted - 2011.04.30 00:22:00 - [55] This is actually a major peeve of mine with the game. The ship designers for EVE have pigeonholed themselves with these stupidly rigid racial ship design guidelines. They make a point of having the designs be largely homogeneous as though they were all built by the same designer and manufacturer, which makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE considering how many damn ship-building corporations there are in the EVE universe. Why do all Gallente ships follow the same design guidelines? Why are there apparently no independent ship manufacturers in the entirety of the damn universe outside of ORE? Beyond that, a lot of the guidelines are just stupid. Caldari is supposed to be "industrial", efficiency-minded, unbalanced... which just makes them all end up looking completely stupid, like the brainchildren of some madman with a major fetish for assymetry. Gallente ships always being front-heavy is just an insult to everyone who gazes upon them. And the Amarr ships, despite being the best-looking of them all, are seriously hampered by the need to put bird-beak shapes on EVERYTHING. It's complete nonsense, and honestly, I'd rather they just throw out all the damn racial restrictions and design ships that are functional AND aesthetically pleasing - y'know, like real spaceship manufacturers would tend to do. The effect an aesthetically pleasing design has on marketing alone is just too damn great to ignore. People tend to put aesthetics pretty high when they're buying cars, why would spaceships not be the same (disregarding, for a moment, that they're thousands of times more expensive)? Besides, for the game itself, the marketing is just going to be more effective if people see ships they WANT to buy because they're friggin' cool. Can you imagine how ineffective a trailer would be if all the ships they showed were the Moa, Bantam, Blackbird and Griffin? There's a reason the Nyx shows up so damn often, after all. CCP would be doing themselves nothing but favors if they could just replace those failtastic designs with stuff that actually makes sense.
Brannoncyll	Posted - 2011.04.30 00:31:00 - [56] Originally by: Jacob Stov Asymmetric designs are inefficient. There is no drag in space, but there is inertia. Asymetric ships have to divert propulsion power to keep them flying in a streight line. Woohoo ! I just discovered why Caldari ships are so f+++ slow ! Half of the engine power goes to the manouvering thrusters ! All you need is for the thrust to act upon the center of mass. Who said the mass distributions of the Caldari ships are uniform?
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.04.30 00:49:00 - [57] Originally by: Mortania Hmm, just thinking about this, aren't the shuttles symmetrical? Only along one axis. We tend to think of "symmetrical" as being a matter of Right = Left, but that's because we have a clearly defined "Up" and "Down", and because things rarely need to be symmetrical along this vertical axis because there are other forces around to mostly keep them on the right keel as they move forward (at least as long as we're talking about the stuff we encounter every day). In space, however, vertical symmetry is just as important as horizontal symmetry, and since Up/Down" symmetry obviously isn't a problem for the EVE ships, there's no reason why Left/Right-symmetry could be an issue either (yes, yes: up, down, left and right don't really make sense either, but we're looking at the local reference frame of ships that have an obvious up-directionà so there!). The ship designers of EVE can apparently generate thrust that balances out the (perceptually) wildly different upper and lower parts of the ship, so balancing out the left and right side as well is just more of the sameà Alsoà Originally by: Brannoncyll All you need is for the thrust to act upon the center of mass. Who said the mass distributions of the Caldari ships are uniform? àthis. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
Preestar The Green Machine	Posted - 2011.04.30 00:54:00 - [58] The problem is spaceships dont exsist so creating over 50 spaceships is kinda difficult but I certainly think thet can do much better than what they have done. Put some effort in it and make them look futuristic.
Mortania Minmatar No Compromise Gentlemen's Agreement	Posted - 2011.04.30 00:55:00 - [59] Originally by: Maverick2011 Originally by: Mortania Completely disagree. I don't believe the deviant art contestant pictures are any more awesome than what we already have. Several of the ships do a terrible job of emulating the racial design of ships. Also, there are many awesome ships in EVE already. Nearly all Minmatar and Gallente ships, many of the Amarr and even some of the Caldari ships are all terrific. I think you must be confusing your personal aesthetic sense with universal truth. And you have the universal truth with you of course. Yea, most EVE ships look horrible,like piece of trash flying in space, see only a few of caldari and minmatar ships, they look like deformed insects or pieces of metal combined in a frankenstein style. I would have thought that my very mentioning of the idea that opinion doesn't = truth would have been enough, normally. But, I didn't leave it at that, I used "I don't believe" and "I think" which are very much opinion statements.
theRaptor Caldari Tactical Operations	Posted - 2011.04.30 00:56:00 - [60] Originally by: Teranul It's complete nonsense, and honestly, I'd rather they just throw out all the damn racial restrictions and design ships that are functional AND aesthetically pleasing - y'know, like real spaceship manufacturers would tend to do. Apart from "lol real spaceship manufacturers" the best ship designs I have ever seen are all heavily industrial with very little aesthetics about them (ie the Sulaco from Aliens). "Aesthetics" = streamlining and spoilers. ie stuff you don't put on starfaring battleships.
Mortania Minmatar No Compromise Gentlemen's Agreement	Posted - 2011.04.30 00:58:00 - [61] Edited by: Mortania on 30/04/2011 00:59:04 Originally by: Tippia In space, however, vertical symmetry is just as important as horizontal symmetry, and since Up/Down" symmetry obviously isn't a problem for the EVE ships, there's no reason why Left/Right-symmetry could be an issue either (yes, yes: up, down, left and right don't really make sense either, but we're looking at the local reference frame of ships that have an obvious up-directionà so there!). The ship designers of EVE can apparently generate thrust that balances out the (perceptually) wildly different upper and lower parts of the ship, so balancing out the left and right side as well is just more of the sameà Radially symmetric would make for a limited palette don't you think?
Camron Champagne	Posted - 2011.04.30 01:00:00 - [62] Originally by: Zars Boy Just had to buy a faction ship for the wife because she liked the colour. I explained that she had no gunnery skills so it would be useless' Not a good enough reason for her. The colour is the most important thing when buying a ship. Ask any woman. FFS wives shold be bared from playing. I'd be willing to be when she reads that post that you'll be barred from playing as well Color is important especially when your just planning on flying it around and want something fashionable to be seen in. Ask anyone with tase. "Every Pirate is a lost soul waiting to be shown the light"
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.04.30 01:01:00 - [63] Originally by: Mortania Radially symmetric would make for a limited palette don't you think? Yes. And for that reason, I ♥ Moa. Symmetry is for chumps! ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
Teranul	Posted - 2011.04.30 01:09:00 - [64] Originally by: theRaptor Apart from "lol real spaceship manufacturers" the best ship designs I have ever seen are all heavily industrial with very little aesthetics about them (ie the Sulaco from Aliens). "Aesthetics" = streamlining and spoilers. ie stuff you don't put on starfaring battleships. No, aesthetics = NOT LEGOS. I mean, really. The fuggin' Blackbird? LEGO SHIP. Not a GOOD lego ship, either! Bloody awful-looking on every front. Real naval ships have no problem managing to look good and kick ass all at the same time. Considering the actual design constraints placed on those that are not issues for these far-flung superpowered behemoths, the designers of these things can afford to be far more creative with their layout. But instead of producing better-looking models, they go for artistry. The BAD kind. The kind that throws paint at random on a canvas. Make no mistake, I care not a whit for symmetry like those other folks have been arguing about for god-only-knows-why. I just want ships that don't look like cheap *** crapped out by a sexually depraved autistic*, thank you very much.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.04.30 01:14:00 - [65] Originally by: Teranul Considering the actual design constraints placed on those that are not issues for these far-flung superpowered behemoths, the designers of these things can afford to be far more creative with their layout. àand that freedom is exactly the same thing that lets them look decidedly odd and unlike any of the cookie-cutter spaceship designs we see everywhere else. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
Jin Leegai Autistic Sharks Test Alliance Please Ignore	Posted - 2011.04.30 01:20:00 - [66] They literally JUST redid ships in trinity. I'd rather have them work on important things, like new sounds and a better UI.
Mortania Minmatar No Compromise Gentlemen's Agreement	Posted - 2011.04.30 01:24:00 - [67] Seriously! Where are the beautiful spacefaring craft? Just like in real life! Gorgeous! (and symmetrical!)
Ay Liz Sacred Templars RED.OverLord	Posted - 2011.04.30 01:29:00 - [68] They don't have to change any ships imho. They all look good in their own way.. more or less. But most textures could use a higher resolution. It would make everything more shiny!
Val'Dore Word Bearers of Chaos Word of Chaos Undivided	Posted - 2011.04.30 04:05:00 - [69] Originally by: Mortania Seriously! Where are the beautiful spacefaring craft? Just like in real life! Gorgeous! (and symmetrical!) Now, demonstrate what happens when you put an MWD on that. ~No matter what happens, somebody will find a way to take it too seriously.~ Tiericide
Mortania Minmatar No Compromise Gentlemen's Agreement	Posted - 2011.04.30 04:15:00 - [70] Originally by: Val'Dore Now, demonstrate what happens when you put an MWD on that. Assuming you have engineers who do maths beforehand, it goes faster in the opposite direction of the thrust provided by the MWD. (This assumes it was built with the structure sufficient to absorb the thrust from the MWD.)
Delkana Fox	Posted - 2011.04.30 04:32:00 - [71] I believe the inherent problem with the Symmetry argument is that if everything is symmetrical than everyone will be flying the same cylinder shape with the only difference being with a variety of colors. Asymmetrical designs allow massive variations in potential shape of the ship. I do not think most of the ships are bad on their own, just incomplete. Think Raven with the one unfinished wing, or the Typhoon missing the front half.
Ris Dnalor Minmatar Fleet of Doom RaVeN Federation	Posted - 2011.04.30 04:38:00 - [72] meh, give me a wireframe option for ship models, stick figures for characters, and more tactical options pls.
Teranul	Posted - 2011.04.30 06:17:00 - [73] Originally by: Tippia àand that freedom is exactly the same thing that lets them look decidedly odd and unlike any of the cookie-cutter spaceship designs we see everywhere else. As though it's a GOOD thing that they're fuggin' ugly? I don't see that as a positive, myself.
Wen Jaibao Aperture Harmonics K162	Posted - 2011.04.30 06:31:00 - [74] Originally by: Teranul Originally by: Tippia àand that freedom is exactly the same thing that lets them look decidedly odd and unlike any of the cookie-cutter spaceship designs we see everywhere else. As though it's a GOOD thing that they're fuggin' ugly? I don't see that as a positive, myself. Nor I. If I was to take a guess, I'd consider that 1/2 of the ships in eve are downright ugly, 1/3 of them are bearable, and 1/6 actually look good.
Wolfric Draksmile	Posted - 2011.04.30 06:56:00 - [75] Edited by: Wolfric Draksmile on 30/04/2011 06:56:22 I Love Abaddon, Armageddon, Punisher, Prophecy, Crusader, Harbinger, Arbitrator, Rokh, Hurricane, Cyclone, Thrasher, Coercer, Firetails, Slicer, and more others. Some ships would need only few modifications to be perfect. But what to do with a Apocalypse or a Moa, A Blackbird or an Osprey? The Reactor of the Osprey should make it turn around on himself... I Fly Drakes But I never bought a Caldari Cruiser. If I'd Find one in space without pilot, I'd just destroy it to clean the view. Sorry but it is the true.
Cathy Drall Amarr Royal Amarr Institute	Posted - 2011.04.30 13:31:00 - [76] Originally by: Wolfric Draksmile I would not say it better. Why Do it this to the Omen? /me drools over symmetrical Zealot * "Im not nearly as paranoid as people think I am"
SehrGute	Posted - 2011.04.30 14:10:00 - [77] Edited by: SehrGute on 30/04/2011 14:16:59 there are a couple of design issue that bothers me. Ships don't feel as large as they should be. - smaller and slower weapon effects would make the ships look larger. - slower turning speed, so that inertia don't there the ship in half by simply taking a right turn. - you can see the GIANT pilot man i fighters and FB. - more points on ships for weapon effects to hit, and points outside the model for shots that misses. ships has heads and necks? whats up with that? bridge, sure thats cool, but way do many ships have to look like they can spring to life? way not give us the possibility to choose between different models when making a ship, just with same specs. then we don't loss our beloved old models, and we would get new life to eve.
Ranger 1 Amarr Paragon Fury Cascade Imminent	Posted - 2011.04.30 18:47:00 - [78] Edited by: Ranger 1 on 30/04/2011 18:49:24 Originally by: Mortania Seriously! Where are the beautiful spacefaring craft? Just like in real life! Gorgeous! (and symmetrical!) 1: This is not symmetrical. 2: Many people would consider this ugly. 3: Stations aren't being discussed, ships are. 4: Spacecraft do exist currently, and most that will never enter atmosphere are far from symmetrical. 5: Designing a symmetrical ship for deep space use would often be a waste of resources and materials. 6: Even vessels designed for terrestrial (or in this example, aquatic) use are asymmetrical. An example would be the fast and maneuverable Outrigger. ===== The world will not end in 2012, however there will be a serious nerf to Planetary Interaction.
Sharon Anne Caldari	Posted - 2011.04.30 19:04:00 - [79] I don't know. Getting ugly on someone's ass has meaning, being pretty just doesn't cut it for me. Just saying. *The general epidemic of rectal-cranial inversion*
Cathy Drall Amarr Royal Amarr Institute	Posted - 2011.04.30 20:28:00 - [80] Originally by: Sharon Anne I don't know. Getting ugly on someone's ass has meaning, being pretty just doesn't cut it for me. Just saying. How's that? You avatar isn't that ugly? "Im not nearly as paranoid as people think I am"
Mortania Minmatar No Compromise Gentlemen's Agreement	Posted - 2011.04.30 20:54:00 - [81] Originally by: Ranger 1 1: This is not symmetrical. 2: Many people would consider this ugly. 3: Stations aren't being discussed, ships are. 4: Spacecraft do exist currently, and most that will never enter atmosphere are far from symmetrical. 5: Designing a symmetrical ship for deep space use would often be a waste of resources and materials. 6: Even vessels designed for terrestrial (or in this example, aquatic) use are asymmetrical. An example would be the fast and maneuverable Outrigger. You missed the hidden <sarcasm> flag.
Kyra Felann Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2011.04.30 21:06:00 - [82] Originally by: boseo I would also like to point out that its highly unlikely that current ship designs will be changed, as they have been around long enough for some people to get attached to them, no mater how much some people complain. They said at Fanfest that they won't change ship designs too drastically for exactly this reason. They said that the scorpion redesign represents about the most extreme change they'd make. -----WARNING SIGNATURE BELOW----- Bring back the NeoNeoCom!
Kyra Felann Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2011.04.30 21:11:00 - [83] Edited by: Kyra Felann on 30/04/2011 21:11:28 Whoops. Ignore this. -----WARNING SIGNATURE BELOW----- Bring back the NeoNeoCom!
Soon Shin	Posted - 2011.04.30 23:16:00 - [84] Problem with asymmetry is that it simply ruins the look of the ships like the omen with that ******ed armlike thing on one of its sides without one on the other. I don't see the purpose of that and would simply look much better if they added one oth the other side or simply got rid of it completely. Caldari Asymmetry would make anyone uncomfortable flying the ship. Not only does it look unwieldy and bulky, but would make it a pain to build or fix, symmetric is good in that often parts for one side will work for the other like motors, electronics etc. Asymmetric design not only affects the look but the performance and the design of the parts and makes it unnecessarily complex. The blackbird looks fragile and probably would be affected heavily by inertia. As a fan of the omen navy issue and zealot I must really ask the designers to simply remove that ugly part on the side at the front or add another one to make it complete.
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong	Posted - 2011.05.01 00:49:00 - [85] did you list the myrm? Oh, it's on.
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong	Posted - 2011.05.01 00:51:00 - [86] Originally by: Jacob Stov Asymmetric designs are inefficient. There is no drag in space, but there is inertia. Asymetric ships have to divert propulsion power to keep them flying in a streight line. Woohoo ! I just discovered why Caldari ships are so f+++ slow ! Half of the engine power goes to the manouvering thrusters ! nope, all you need is symmetrical shielding and or stabilizer. the ship itself doesn't matter, the field does. so yes if it went down it would be awesome if some ships in eve started spinning before death xD
Lost Greybeard	Posted - 2011.05.01 01:02:00 - [87] Real-life ships are based around symmetry concerns because of the difficulties of atmospheric re-entry and escape. Any symmetries in an orbit-constructed starship are purely because the designer thought it was pretty. --- If you outlaw tautologies, only outlaws will have tautologies. ~Anonymous
Luminak Narz	Posted - 2011.05.01 02:07:00 - [88] Edited by: Luminak Narz on 01/05/2011 02:07:51 /signed I would even go as far as to say the the appearance of many ships actually (in small part) affects my level of enjoyment of the game. And for all the talk from CCP of wanting more subscribers, I'm sure the appearance of the ships turns a lot of people off. But unfortunately, this is just another topic that will probably never fully be addressed since CCP has limited resources, and huge future plans with Incarna and Dust. Not to mention the inflexible, whiny Eve community. Wolfric, I'd just get over it. Just as an aside, I'd love to see some data on how players from North America feel about the current ships vs EU players. Don't know why, but something in my gut tells my the Europeans like 'em better.
Bollox Reader Pera Support Group	Posted - 2011.05.01 04:37:00 - [89] Asymmetrical ships are more visually interesting to me than ships with bilateral symmetry. Yeah, first time I saw a Raven undock next to me my thought was that it looked like a city block had detached itself from a planet or something. But when it comes time for long-term ship spinning in station, oddly shaped ships are just more interesting. Also, combat space ships aren't going to be looking at one another. Aesthetics are mostly wasted, most of the population is going to be more concerned with orbital bombardment capabilities than "Ooh, it looks nice." The Amarr really are the only ones that are concerned with appearance, big phallic ships for penetrative power, painted gold for the bling factor. As far as atmospheric flight, look at escape velocity and compare that to the speed of capsuleer ships. Even with an MWD you aren't going to get most of them out of the gravity well. As far as the nebula issue, well even the thickest of nebulae are far thinner than what we would call an atmosphere. And the shield systems on ships would cut through it with no problem. I happen to like Eve ships, from the Amarrian phalli to the Gallente sex toys to the Minmatar flying scaffolds to the Caldari... whatever they are. If you know Eve ships at all, you recognize the style when you see it. CCP would be stupid to change the designs because of this recognition factor. And frankly, I don't give a damned if folks don't join Eve because the ships aren't pretty enough for them. If they are that shallow, they wouldn't last long in our community anyway.
Sai Hai Caldari Shin-Ra Ltd	Posted - 2011.05.01 07:52:00 - [90] Originally by: Ranger 1 Originally by: Captain Brickwalle Edited by: Captain Brickwalle on 29/04/2011 18:37:11 The problem isn't the design, it's the staggered tech level of the ship rendering. The scorp noctis echelon are on a whole other level and rendered in a totally different style (artistically not technically... But maybe technically too) Ships like the Mack domi apoc all look blurry pixilated and FLAT compared to these new incredibly detailed designs. Last edit... Damn smart phone The Scorp, Noctis and Echelon are all done with the newer graphics that CCP announced we will eventually see all ships redone in. Personally I hope the "present" that we are getting on EVE's 8th birthday is another ship (or group of ships) redone in this way. To make a model like new scorp takes 1 or 2 days maximum. If they were paying to their 3d artists eve ships could be redone in ~2 months.
ExcalibursTemplar	Posted - 2011.05.01 10:29:00 - [91] Edited by: ExcalibursTemplar on 01/05/2011 10:40:20 Edited by: ExcalibursTemplar on 01/05/2011 10:29:43 i'll be honest i pretty much dont look at ships in this game becuase there ****ing ugly. All i see pretty much say 90% of the time is the background of space little red crosses little white crosses and other generic icons that represent stuff in space. Basically because im caldari and i dont want to have a look at the crap im flying, except the scorp i love the scorp. Also the guy that made the point about advertising is spot on. What originally pecked my intrest in this game was a very simple flash advert on a website. It was just the words eve online and a picture of a huge fleet of nightmares or naglafar i cant remember which. Now if that was a picture of a huge fleet of Ravens ill be honest i would of probably gone ewwwwww and never of botherd as i hate the raven hull that much (i fly a CNR a lot to). Also to the guy that was concerened about the ships all looking the same shape if they were redone ala startrek. That doesnt have to be the case they dont even have to be symetrical they just need to look good. Look at the ships in Babylon 5 there not symetrical but imo there the best ships designs for any scifi franchise ever. Just look at the noctis which is universaly accepted as a nice looking ship i'll put money on it CCP got their insperation for that ship either from Babylon 5 or the film 2010:The year we make contact.
Glyken Touchon Independent Alchemists	Posted - 2011.05.01 10:38:00 - [92] Originally by: MotherMoon Originally by: Jacob Stov Asymmetric designs are inefficient. There is no drag in space, but there is inertia. Asymetric ships have to divert propulsion power to keep them flying in a streight line. Woohoo ! I just discovered why Caldari ships are so f+++ slow ! Half of the engine power goes to the manouvering thrusters ! nope, all you need is symmetrical shielding and or stabilizer. the ship itself doesn't matter, the field does. so yes if it went down it would be awesome if some ships in eve started spinning before death xD also centre of mass and centre of volume are not the same.
Jenny Cameron Caldari Ordo Eventus	Posted - 2011.05.01 13:23:00 - [93] I must confess I've never seen a TV series, cartoon or game with uglier ships than EVE. I mean: can you take ships serious if they look like a turkey that people drove over with a truck? ________________* - If you're in favour of a bloodline change please vote in the Assembly Hall in this thread -
Avon Caldari Versatech Co. RED.OverLord	Posted - 2011.05.01 14:06:00 - [94] Edited by: Avon on 01/05/2011 14:07:11 Originally by: Sai Hai To make a model like new scorp takes 1 or 2 days maximum. If they were paying to their 3d artists eve ships could be redone in ~2 months. I'm not so sure - if I were to make low poly ships like those in Eve I would start off making a very detailed high-poly version to render so I could bake some displacement maps to put on the low poly version. Then there are all the other texture layers to create. Then tweaking the low poly model so the maps work well. That's a bit more than 2 days of anyone's time. (Unless you think they just do a low poly model and then texture it? - Possible I suppose, but unlikely.) Retro sig
Wolfric Draksmile	Posted - 2011.05.01 18:15:00 - [95] To me, we should be abble to choose between an largiest panel of ships with different design. Now we do not have the choice... If we do'nt like the Paladin, you will have to train another race to have a Marauder. It is pretty hard. In a game based on economy it is relatively strange to have no choice.
Jenko Raa	Posted - 2011.05.02 18:16:00 - [96] Originally by: Bollox Reader Asymmetrical ships are more visually interesting to me than ships with bilateral symmetry. Yeah, first time I saw a Raven undock next to me my thought was that it looked like a city block had detached itself from a planet or something. But when it comes time for long-term ship spinning in station, oddly shaped ships are just more interesting. Also, combat space ships aren't going to be looking at one another. Aesthetics are mostly wasted, most of the population is going to be more concerned with orbital bombardment capabilities than "Ooh, it looks nice." The Amarr really are the only ones that are concerned with appearance, big phallic ships for penetrative power, painted gold for the bling factor. As far as atmospheric flight, look at escape velocity and compare that to the speed of capsuleer ships. Even with an MWD you aren't going to get most of them out of the gravity well. As far as the nebula issue, well even the thickest of nebulae are far thinner than what we would call an atmosphere. And the shield systems on ships would cut through it with no problem. I happen to like Eve ships, from the Amarrian phalli to the Gallente sex toys to the Minmatar flying scaffolds to the Caldari... whatever they are. If you know Eve ships at all, you recognize the style when you see it. CCP would be stupid to change the designs because of this recognition factor. And frankly, I don't give a damned if folks don't join Eve because the ships aren't pretty enough for them. If they are that shallow, they wouldn't last long in our community anyway. I completely agree. I really like the ships in EVE. I fly a Navy Domi, because its a great ship and it looks like a drone-flinging-armor-hardened-camouflaged-beast.
Terra Waugh Amarr Royal Amarr Institute	Posted - 2011.05.02 18:43:00 - [97] Originally by: Bollox Reader Asymmetrical ships are more visually interesting to me than ships with bilateral symmetry. Yeah, first time I saw a Raven undock next to me my thought was that it looked like a city block had detached itself from a planet or something. But when it comes time for long-term ship spinning in station, oddly shaped ships are just more interesting. Also, combat space ships aren't going to be looking at one another. Aesthetics are mostly wasted, most of the population is going to be more concerned with orbital bombardment capabilities than "Ooh, it looks nice." The Amarr really are the only ones that are concerned with appearance, big phallic ships for penetrative power, painted gold for the bling factor. As far as atmospheric flight, look at escape velocity and compare that to the speed of capsuleer ships. Even with an MWD you aren't going to get most of them out of the gravity well. As far as the nebula issue, well even the thickest of nebulae are far thinner than what we would call an atmosphere. And the shield systems on ships would cut through it with no problem. I happen to like Eve ships, from the Amarrian phalli to the Gallente sex toys to the Minmatar flying scaffolds to the Caldari... whatever they are. If you know Eve ships at all, you recognize the style when you see it. CCP would be stupid to change the designs because of this recognition factor. And frankly, I don't give a damned if folks don't join Eve because the ships aren't pretty enough for them. If they are that shallow, they wouldn't last long in our community anyway. This.
Jennifer Starling Imperial Navy Forum Patrol	Posted - 2011.05.02 19:04:00 - [98] Edited by: Jennifer Starling on 02/05/2011 19:06:02 Originally by: Bollox Reader I don't give a damned if folks don't join Eve because the ships aren't pretty enough for them. If they are that shallow, they wouldn't last long in our community anyway. Utter nonsense. As if the dozens of people who posted in favour of prettier ships suddenly "wouldn't last long in our community". What's next, the shallow people who don't like lag "wouldn't last long in our community"? The people who dispise botting "wouldn't last long in our community"?
Ranger 1 Amarr Paragon Fury Cascade Imminent	Posted - 2011.05.02 21:51:00 - [99] The fact that this topic stirs so much controversy and strong opinion probably means they are doing something right. ===== The world will not end in 2012, however there will be a serious nerf to Planetary Interaction.
Generals4	Posted - 2011.05.02 22:15:00 - [100] Being a symmetry fan i must concure. Most ships look really bad, but that's my taste. I just wish more ships (not all, wouldn't want to deprive others from their satisfaction) would have a symmetrical and "straight" (not in a sexual sense) look. The ships i truly hate (on top of my head): Dominix Moa Proteus Almost all the gallente frigs... no wait almost all their ships actually. and the space Mushroon known as the Avatar. Bantam and many others i think are "meh" What i do like: Merlin hull, oh god that thing should be a titan! Leviathan Hulk (it just fits a mining ship a lot) Rokh Mini Carriers. Certain tengu fits
Mortania Minmatar No Compromise Gentlemen's Agreement	Posted - 2011.05.02 22:24:00 - [101] Originally by: Generals4 Almost all the gallente frigs... no wait almost all their ships actually. If you're including the Tristan in this, then I think you're insane.
Generals4	Posted - 2011.05.02 22:36:00 - [102] Originally by: Mortania Originally by: Generals4 Almost all the gallente frigs... no wait almost all their ships actually. If you're including the Tristan in this, then I think you're insane. Then i'll need to make an appointment. I don't think a giant space robot looking thing actually fits the role of a spaceship. As some sort of drone, perhaps, but not a spaceship.
Rachel Cotey	Posted - 2011.05.03 02:55:00 - [103] CCP take note. Lots of good ideas in this thread. Most of it could be somwhat easy comparativly speaking... - new updated ship models. Not the same ones used in 2003(implement ship models from contest) - new stations - better weapon effects ( the ones in the video area amazing!) - weapons hit and miss effects - nebulas!! (the ones in the video are amazing) - launchers (missles dont spawn out of nothing)
Elmer Dunley Horsekoch	Posted - 2011.05.03 03:03:00 - [104] Originally by: Rachel Cotey CCP take note. Lots of good ideas in this thread. Most of it could be somwhat easy comparativly speaking... - new updated ship models. Not the same ones used in 2003(implement ship models from contest) - new stations - better weapon effects ( the ones in the video area amazing!) - weapons hit and miss effects - nebulas!! (the ones in the video are amazing) - launchers (missles dont spawn out of nothing) Or you know, just balance the content we have more effectively to make the game better overall instead of wasting man hours on eye candy.
Anne Arqui Minmatar Diamonds in the Rough Enterprises	Posted - 2011.05.03 04:45:00 - [105] Originally by: Generals4 Originally by: Mortania If you're including the Tristan in this, then I think you're insane. Then i'll need to make an appointment. I don't think a giant space robot looking thing actually fits the role of a spaceship. As some sort of drone, perhaps, but not a spaceship. Agreed, it more looks like a transformer or mech warrior, not a spaceship ..
TImora Fosty Solar Pride Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2011.05.03 05:29:00 - [106] only two ship-lines have problems with their exterior, though it's rather speciefic - Moa and blackbird
ChromeStriker	Posted - 2011.05.03 10:15:00 - [107] i quite like the typhoon...
Wolfric Draksmile	Posted - 2011.05.04 14:33:00 - [108] Edited by: Wolfric Draksmile on 04/05/2011 14:34:46 Give us New Ships in fact!! Because we could let the old one as if and have new ships more sexy!
Virtue Maulerant	Posted - 2011.05.04 14:43:00 - [109] The Blackbird hull is truly horrible,EVEN worse than the Moa hull. They both need to be reworked,they are a joke at best in terms of looks.
Virtue Maulerant	Posted - 2011.05.04 14:46:00 - [110] Edited by: Virtue Maulerant on 04/05/2011 14:46:43 Originally by: Elmer Dunley Horsekoch Originally by: Rachel Cotey CCP take note. Lots of good ideas in this thread. Most of it could be somwhat easy comparativly speaking... - new updated ship models. Not the same ones used in 2003(implement ship models from contest) - new stations - better weapon effects ( the ones in the video area amazing!) - weapons hit and miss effects - nebulas!! (the ones in the video are amazing) - launchers (missles dont spawn out of nothing) Or you know, just balance the content we have more effectively to make the game better overall instead of wasting man hours on eye candy. Or you know, maybe the art team can't do anything else other than make new eye candy?Maybe that is what the art team does?Exclusively?I don't know hmm maybe because they are an ART team and not a programming team?!Do you seriously believe the same people design the art for EVE and write the code at the same time? Get a clue. EDIT:That list is just great.Nebulae and Turrets/Missiles are a high priority though.

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.