EVE Search - Ship design

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Ship design

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
oOReikaOo Michiko Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 9	Posted - 2013.09.27 21:24:00 - [1] - Quote Why? I know this isn't LoL and the developers probably never answer questions... but wtf... For example the atron http://l.yimg.com/ck/image/A1175/1175328/300_1175328.jpg just why? This is a myr from the top view.. honestly this is what i think an atron should look like http://imgur.com/uuxH1rF What is wrong with symmetry or aesthetics in space? Is there a reason the ship designers though to make every one of their ships with some form of random protrusion? I just dont understand it.
Donbe Scurred University of Caille Gallente Federation 280	Posted - 2013.09.27 21:41:00 - [2] - Quote Why ask why? Just fly
Jint Hikaru OffWorld Exploration Inc 812	Posted - 2013.09.27 21:44:00 - [3] - Quote Why do you believe it's nessecary to have symmetrical ships in space? Jint Hikaru - Miner / Salvager / Explorer / SpaceBum In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
Karak Terrel As Far As The eYe can see Chained Reactions 320	Posted - 2013.09.27 21:47:00 - [4] - Quote They need to be streamlined because of the fluid in space.. On the other hand, asymmetrical ships are cool
ShahFluffers Ice Fire Warriors Late Night Alliance 3308	Posted - 2013.09.27 21:50:00 - [5] - Quote Basically what Jint said. The DEVs wanted to do something "different" because they didn't feel the need to make anything symmetrical. Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective.
Amhra Rho Accujac Elimination 75	Posted - 2013.09.27 21:51:00 - [6] - Quote With regards to the Atron, I think the underlying thought process was that this is a ship that would clearly motivate the capsuleer to quickly earn something better looking. There's real reasons why your Eve character doesn't do /dance.
ColdCutz Frigonometry 91	Posted - 2013.09.27 22:56:00 - [7] - Quote Basically the Millenium Falcon Effect. To be perfectly blunt.
oOReikaOo Michiko Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 9	Posted - 2013.09.27 23:32:00 - [8] - Quote Amhra Rho wrote: With regards to the Atron, I think the underlying thought process was that this is a ship that would clearly motivate the capsuleer to quickly earn something better looking. success ... i trashed it the second i could
Laetitia Nzero Southern Cross Empire Flying Dangerous 14	Posted - 2013.09.28 02:21:00 - [9] - Quote oOReikaOo Michiko wrote: Why? I know this isn't LoL and the developers probably never answer questions... but wtf... For example the atron http://l.yimg.com/ck/image/A1175/1175328/300_1175328.jpg just why? This is a myr from the top view.. honestly this is what i think an atron should look like http://imgur.com/uuxH1rF What is wrong with symmetry or aesthetics in space? Is there a reason the ship designers though to make every one of their ships with some form of random protrusion? I just dont understand it. Do you even know anything about design?
Omega Tron 31	Posted - 2013.09.28 02:27:00 - [10] - Quote The really short and often unliked answer -- THIS IS EVE ONLINE. Go out and fly the ship. It's cool. EVE Online is CCP's sand box. -áThe sand is owned by CCP. -áWe just get to pay them a monthly fee to throw the sand at each other. -áGet over your thoughts that you have some influence on what they will add or do for you.
Mara Rinn Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium 4108	Posted - 2013.09.28 02:38:00 - [11] - Quote What is this fascination people have with symmetrical designs? I like the Atron, it's a beautiful design. I don't like the Condor, it's far to angular and jagged. I like the Slasher, even though it's bordering on boring (because it's symmetrical). Many people find the Dominix ugly, and it's symmetrical. Asymmetrical is great. These ships are awesome: Atron Buzzard Osprey Raven Typhoon Omen Symmetrical is boring and ugly: Dominix Rokh Fenrir Drake If you want a symmetrical frigate, try the Merlin, Maulus, Rifter, Slasher, Bantam, Magnate, Punisher, etc. Of course if you want a "face only a mother can love" there's always the Moa :) Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players
oOReikaOo Michiko Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 10	Posted - 2013.09.28 05:09:00 - [12] - Quote im just saying theres no reason to make ALMOST EVERY ship a lesson in abstract art... Cant we cant some normal ship designs too?
Icarus Able Traverse Holdings 112	Posted - 2013.09.28 05:16:00 - [13] - Quote oOReikaOo Michiko wrote: im just saying theres no reason to make ALMOST EVERY ship a lesson in abstract art... Cant we cant some normal ship designs too? Yes because normal is a good idea for a society that not only being thousands of years in the future from us , got cut off in a far end of the universe went back to the dark ages then 20,000 years later reemerged as a huge interstellar society.Yes im sure they still have your concept of "normal".
Hra Neuvosto FinFleet Northern Coalition. 128	Posted - 2013.09.28 05:26:00 - [14] - Quote Every ship should be a sphere.
Omar Alharazaad ZomCom 72	Posted - 2013.09.28 05:30:00 - [15] - Quote Asymmetrical ships are dead sexy, and the norm. The symmetrical ships are the weird ones. They offend the Great Old Ones, and we don't want them stomping around in our sandbox, now do we? Raven, Blackbird, Manticore = Hawt. Besides, which is more important, it not offending your sense of symmetry, or the sweet sweet violence it delivers?
Solhild Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 1204	Posted - 2013.09.28 05:31:00 - [16] - Quote Laetitia Nzero wrote: oOReikaOo Michiko wrote: Why? I know this isn't LoL and the developers probably never answer questions... but wtf... For example the atron http://l.yimg.com/ck/image/A1175/1175328/300_1175328.jpg just why? This is a myr from the top view.. honestly this is what i think an atron should look like http://imgur.com/uuxH1rF What is wrong with symmetry or aesthetics in space? Is there a reason the ship designers though to make every one of their ships with some form of random protrusion? I just dont understand it. Do you even know anything about design? Well I'm reading that he doesn't like some designs. Knowing about design doesn't necessarily mean that you start liking crap designs. Personally I like elements of asymmetry but some of the ships in EVE are overworked.
oOReikaOo Michiko Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 10	Posted - 2013.09.28 05:33:00 - [17] - Quote OT a bit but just use "OP" please...
Remiel Pollard The 0th Fleet A Rather Intimidating Group of Individuals 1746	Posted - 2013.09.28 06:23:00 - [18] - Quote Personally, I love the Atron, and its T2 variants. I think they're sexy. To each their own, though, or in other words, different strokes for different folks. Aesthetics is a really subjective issue, and they're probably not going to redesign a ship just because a few people think it's ugly or they would have done something about the Moa a long time ago. They definitely aren't going to redesign ships because they're asymmetrical, because they designed them that way on purpose. Besides, what if anything is symmetrical anyway? Your car? WRONG. Which side is the steering wheel on? The gas tank? What about your motorcycle? WRONG. Which side is the drive chain on, or the brake discs? What about a real warship? WRONG? What side is the conning tower on an aircraft carrier? What side of an Aegis destroyer do you normally find the fire control radar on? And what about aircraft. Well, external symmetry is vital for aerodynamics, but you take a look at one a lot closer and you will find that many aircraft will still have different features on each side, perhaps little antennae and such. Many fighter jets have an offset cannon mount, for example, like the A-10 Warthog which is essentially built around one big gun. It's offset slightly to the left, although the firing barrel cycles to the exact centreline of the aircraft in barrel rotation. And honestly, symmetry is boring anyway, and not especially required for fictional pixelated spacecraft. You don't scare me. I've been to Jita.
Roime Quantum Cats Syndicate Samurai Pizza Cats 3506	Posted - 2013.09.28 06:37:00 - [19] - Quote Atron looks great, and flies like it looks. Seriously,we won't be bringing back the old unique ships for events. We might give other stuff away that is interesting, but no Guardian Vexor, Opux Luxury Yacht, Fedthron, Impoc, SIR, etc, etc.-á
Marius Evo Crack Babies 10	Posted - 2013.09.28 07:29:00 - [20] - Quote I love the asymmetric shape. I believe it shows a great insight to large scale navy vessel design. I would imagine that very-important-internet-spaceship construction would be very similar to building say an air craft carrier. Form follows function. But then again. What is symmetric? A car? No! A car has a drivers side and a passenger side. I find it more odd that the eve spaceships appear to be designed for atmospheric flight and and at some point should deal with gravity. My point is, they have an up and down side. If there is no gravity in space why design ships that have a deck and a bottom.
Remiel Pollard The 0th Fleet A Rather Intimidating Group of Individuals 2181	Posted - 2013.12.26 00:55:00 - [21] - Quote Marius Evo wrote: I love the asymmetric shape. I believe it shows a great insight to large scale navy vessel design. I would imagine that very-important-internet-spaceship construction would be very similar to building say an air craft carrier. Form follows function. But then again. What is symmetric? A car? No! A car has a drivers side and a passenger side. I find it more odd that the eve spaceships appear to be designed for atmospheric flight and and at some point should deal with gravity. My point is, they have an up and down side. If there is no gravity in space why design ships that have a deck and a bottom. If it's the future, and stuff like artificially generated gravity is possible, this is just practical. Humans are used to an up-and-down orientation, so having a layout with a top and bottom makes more sense, so long as an artificial gravity system is present. Anything else would be much more cumbersome and unnecessarily difficult to navigate. You don't scare me. I've been to Jita.
Tetsuo Tsukaya Itinerant Empire 214	Posted - 2013.12.26 01:06:00 - [22] - Quote To be honest my real problem here is that you don't realize that the Atron looks awesome. You should feel bad. If you want symmetry train into Amarr. Done.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 17968	Posted - 2013.12.26 01:12:00 - [23] - Quote Remiel Pollard wrote: If it's the future, and stuff like artificially generated gravity is possible, this is just practical. Humans are used to an up-and-down orientation, so having a layout with a top and bottom makes more sense, so long as an artificial gravity system is present. Anything else would be much more cumbersome and unnecessarily difficult to navigate. That just means that there's even less need for a common up and down, since it's completely arbitrary and available as yet another option for space optimization. Anyway, Marius' point is correct: there are no symmetrical ships in EVE just like there are very few symmetrical vehicles on Earth. Hell, not even our spaceships today are symmetrical, because it actually just causes problems. For instance, this is not a symmetrical design GÇö in fact, it's entire ability to function relies on asymmetry. this and this is how it would look if it were symmetric. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0.
Bel Tika Dirty Rotten Scoundrel's Not.Safe.For.Work. 179	Posted - 2013.12.26 01:18:00 - [24] - Quote i have more a problem with the gun/missile mounts than the actual ships an then it just an annoyance
Savnire Jacitu FRONTLiNE GRP. 223	Posted - 2013.12.26 01:23:00 - [25] - Quote Next thing you know you'll start complaining about how the megathron in asymmetrical. And at that point we'll have to flay you alive. <corrupt>
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 683	Posted - 2013.12.26 01:26:00 - [26] - Quote There is gravity in space. It's just a lot less typically and when something is in orbit it's in freefall, so you don't notice the gravity. Also EVE ships can do low orbit bombardment of planets meaning they might be interacting with the very top of the atmosphere if they go slightly wrong, and certainly are interacting with the planetary gravity.
Logical 101 Agony Unleashed Agony Empire 56	Posted - 2013.12.26 01:26:00 - [27] - Quote oOReikaOo Michiko wrote: I just dont understand it. Think harder. I know, I know, it makes your head hurt, but just do it.
Chris Winter Zephyr Corp V.A.S.T. 328	Posted - 2013.12.26 03:20:00 - [28] - Quote Tippia wrote: Remiel Pollard wrote: If it's the future, and stuff like artificially generated gravity is possible, this is just practical. Humans are used to an up-and-down orientation, so having a layout with a top and bottom makes more sense, so long as an artificial gravity system is present. Anything else would be much more cumbersome and unnecessarily difficult to navigate. That just means that there's even less need for a common up and down, since it's completely arbitrary and available as yet another option for space optimization. Anyway, Marius' point is correct: there are no symmetrical ships in EVE just like there are very few symmetrical vehicles on Earth. Hell, not even our spaceships today are symmetrical, because it actually just causes problems. For instance, this is not a symmetrical design GÇö in fact, it's entire ability to function relies on asymmetry. this and this is how it would look if it were symmetric. The 747 is symmetric left to right. Your other examples have two planes of symmetry, which isn't what people are asking for. Symmetry in space isn't necessary, sure, but in order to have a ship that doesn't spin wildly out of control the thrust vector needs to pass through the center of mass. For a lot of ships this doesn't seem to be the case assuming uniform density.
Benny Ohu Chaotic Tranquility Casoff 1924	Posted - 2013.12.26 03:30:00 - [29] - Quote Hra Neuvosto wrote: Every ship should be a sphere. the cube is far better-looking the sphere doesn't make any sense, because,
Nariya Kentaya Always Negative 774	Posted - 2013.12.26 04:00:00 - [30] - Quote ShahFluffers wrote: Basically what Jint said. The DEVs wanted to do something "different" because they didn't feel the need to make anything symmetrical. from a scale of perfect symmetry to complete random construction though, it should go perfect amarr > caldari > gallente > minmatar the extremes ebing amarr and their narcissism, and minmatar and the fact that it is almost literally scraps from ships blown up in the last fight welded back together with some prayer and tape.

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last 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.