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.
Herzog Wolfhammer Sigma Special Tactics Group 3890	Posted - 2013.12.26 04:03:00 - [31] - 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. Here's a little clue as to understanding ship design in Eve: Look at the sensor types. Magnetometric, radar, lidar, gravimetric.... look at what these systems are and what race uses them, and you will see the ship design around that. Someone at CCP really did their homework.
Logan Revelore Minimal Solutions Aurora Irae 16	Posted - 2013.12.26 04:20:00 - [32] - Quote Jint Hikaru wrote: Why do you believe it's nessecary to have symmetrical ships in space? One would at first think it isn't necessary, but a symmetrical distribution of matter in relation to the thrust points is highly desirable in order to get the correct thrust direction, otherwise you have to compensate for the differential mass acceleration. (ie. without compensation the ship will tumble)
Shadow Lord77 Shadow Industries I 366	Posted - 2013.12.26 05:02:00 - [33] - Quote Because Iceland.
Logical 101 Agony Unleashed Agony Empire 57	Posted - 2013.12.26 05:14:00 - [34] - Quote Logan Revelore wrote: symmetrical distribution of matter in relation to the thrust points is highly desirable in order to get the correct thrust direction I am not aware of any instance in which an EVE ship would require atmospheric or sustained gravity related directional compensation. The only requirement for basic sustained directional compensation in the vacuum of space would be thrust point placement and comparative strength. /science As for asymmetry and flight design, I kinda like EVE's weirder ships. They remind me of the old Blohm und Voss Bv 141, which I really enjoy, because it looks crazy.
Elian Troller Primary Support Service Legion of xXDEATHXx 3	Posted - 2013.12.26 05:26:00 - [35] - Quote Try flying Amarr. 80% of their ships are quite symmetric.
Felicity Love Nighthawk Exploration 1110	Posted - 2013.12.26 05:31:00 - [36] - Quote ... hopes maybe there will be another ship design contest... Working as intended; suck it up, Princess.
Chirjo Durruti Snotra RDEM PLLC Haven. 0	Posted - 2013.12.26 06:38:00 - [37] - Quote Hra Neuvosto wrote: Every ship should be a sphere. Every ship should be a homogeneous sphere. To OP: Some ship hulls used throughout New Eden can be quite offensive if you you're not accustomed to asymmetric shapes. It's like experiencing your first song from The Dillinger Escape Plan or Converge after listening only to popular music all the time. If your mind is intrigued by things it does not understand right away, you will stay and learn to understand. I fly some ships that i found ugly at first (e.g. Dominix). But you have to understand: these things protect you from harm when you're in space. Learn to respect them. Fortunately, Eve is quite a strategic and (important in this case) tactical oriented MMO. If you're like me, you will spend most of your time in space zoomed out and in tactical mode anyway. Your ship will then be nothing more than a perfectly symmetrical dot. HOWTO: No More Tears (solo) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdA4ciUrH-k If you can get me a better crew than THIS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPrtQ9AdoM0 convo me.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 18044	Posted - 2013.12.26 11:44:00 - [38] - Quote Chris Winter wrote: The 747 is symmetric left to right. Your other examples have two planes of symmetry, which isn't what people are asking for. That's kind of the point: there is no left or right, nor is there any up and down. The 747 counts as symmetrical because there is a right way up in a gravity well and because its functionality relies on asymmetry on the up-down axis. What people should be asking for is the two-plane symmetry, and the fact that they're not means that what they're asking for doesn't really make sense. If you want to go with the thrust vector argument, that two-planar symmetry becomes even more important (but then again, since not even our spaceships today are symmetrical, it's obviously very easy to compensate for). 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.
Raven O'Russ Liza idi na... 1	Posted - 2013.12.26 11:52:00 - [39] - Quote Well, I see that it is a bit "slowpoke" type of message to be seen by a topic starter, but I'd like to say there are quite many ships with the onboard symmetry. (My favourite Maelstrom surely is one of them, anyway ) Count almost every capital, BS, BC, ORE ships, industrial, shuttle and destroyer hulls, also add all 4 t3 cruiser and unique pirate hulls. The champions of non-symmetric and bizarre designs are gallente, second to none. Well, gallenteans even made a totally symmetric dominix to look strange just because they wanted to. (but the talos and algos are a pleasure to observe) Here is a "But" incoming. There are people who like their non-symmetric ships in New Eden. They really exist. Unbelievable, but they do. Tastes differ. And both we and the devs have to take notice of their likings, I believe. (Oh, may be the devs themselves are one of these?) Another point of view is from people who put the efficiency in front of their list of needs, those will fly any ship, even if it looks like a ball or some UFO until it annihilates everything in its way. Sad but true. I hope the OP will never become one of those, otherwise he/she will find oneself inside a nightmare of some sort which will frighten npc and make them suicide or warp out because of just being within its aura of awful design My single wish is that may be one day (at least during next decade) we will face a moa design which I will not want to jettison and shoot at immediately after seeing it in my hangar by an accident. Just like they made the stabber hull to look awesome. End of the line. Fly safe.
Barrogh Habalu Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire 658	Posted - 2013.12.26 11:54:00 - [40] - Quote I believe that complete symmetry is creepy even when it comes to things like ship designs. That said, Atron is rather fugly.
Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley 93	Posted - 2013.12.26 11:56:00 - [41] - Quote not sure why i read all of those posts but i did ... interceptors look a lot better since bubble immunity http://www.devilswarrior.info/killboard/?a=home
Pohbis Neo T.E.C.H. 374	Posted - 2013.12.26 11:56:00 - [42] - Quote Mara Rinn wrote: Symmetrical is boring and ugly: Rokh Oh no you didn't !
Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley 93	Posted - 2013.12.26 12:27:00 - [43] - Quote Chirjo Durruti wrote: Hra Neuvosto wrote: Every ship should be a sphere. Every ship should be a homogeneous sphere. To OP: Some ship hulls used throughout New Eden can be quite offensive if you you're not accustomed to asymmetric shapes. It's like experiencing your first song from The Dillinger Escape Plan or Converge after listening only to popular music all the time. If your mind is intrigued by things it does not understand right away, you will stay and learn to understand. I fly some ships that i found ugly at first (e.g. Dominix). But you have to understand: these things protect you from harm when you're in space. Learn to respect them. Fortunately, Eve is quite a strategic and (important in this case) tactical oriented MMO. If you're like me, you will spend most of your time in space zoomed out and in tactical mode anyway. Your ship will then be nothing more than a perfectly symmetrical dot. +1 for Converge reference http://www.devilswarrior.info/killboard/?a=home
Logan Revelore Minimal Solutions Aurora Irae 16	Posted - 2013.12.26 13:11:00 - [44] - Quote In a future expansion they should allow ship building from base modules, sorta like the T3 cruisers, but much more comprehensive, such as everything is designed by the player.
Raven O'Russ Liza idi na... 1	Posted - 2013.12.26 13:25:00 - [45] - Quote Logan Revelore wrote: In a future expansion they should allow ship building from base modules, sorta like the T3 cruisers, but much more comprehensive, such as everything is designed by the player. Now you should start to imagine the amount of troubles, bugs, modelling and texturing, different other work and also time required for balancing your dream. When you finish, may be this will be implemented already.
Arresy Barres PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 29	Posted - 2013.12.26 13:55:00 - [46] - Quote Atron is the cutest thing in space, aww man, it's like hamsters, little cute and cuddly. Just look at it. So sweet.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 697	Posted - 2013.12.26 19:43:00 - [47] - Quote A picture of a full-scale Atron next to a small model Merlin. It's clear which ship design is more beautiful. I kinda like the Atron, while it's definitely ugly, it has a certain appeal. But a good portion of the assymetry on EVE ships seems to have no real purpose other than making it look like the engineers on either side of the hangar weren't communicating with each other. One begins to wonder if the Raven was supposed to be two different ships that were mistakenly attached together--though there is a certain elegance from its single weird under-wing spiked-ray. And we have to suppose that the Aeon was being designed on land and an earthquake sunk the right side of the hangar. All in all, I like some assymetry, but I think it should not be a default. The best-looking ships in my opinion tend to be basically symmetrical with an even center of balance, with their assymetry being made of smaller parts that don't need to be reproduced on the other side, and which look like they belong there. Excellent examples of good assymetry: the spinning radar dish on the Scorpion the side crew cabin on the Navitas the side crew cabin on the Heron NOT the side crew cabin on the Blackbird the box-parts on the sides of the Tempest NOT the way the top part and bottom part weren't attached right Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) And bring back the missile Inquisitor!!
Nariya Kentaya Always Negative 783	Posted - 2013.12.26 21:01:00 - [48] - Quote Elian Troller wrote: Try flying Amarr. 80% of their ships are quite symmetric. except 90% of those "symmetrical ships" end up with some dumbass pod or bar sticking out of their side for no apparent reason other than CCP has some horrid phobia of symmetry
Recnac Lunar Saloon 3	Posted - 2013.12.26 23:07:00 - [49] - Quote Stop worry about the fashion of the ships. Looks of the ship does not impact the performance.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 697	Posted - 2013.12.27 00:28:00 - [50] - Quote Recnac wrote: Stop worry about the fashion of the ships. Looks of the ship does not impact the performance. I beg to differ. The only reason a Moa can fly is because it is so ugly it repels the ground. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) And bring back the missile Inquisitor!!

CCP Falcon 5229	Posted - 2013.12.27 09:18:00 - [51] - 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. You thin an Atron should look like a Myrmidon... are you mad??!! I know our artists are a bit nuts, but that's just crazy... CCP Falcon -á \|\| -á EVE Community Manager -á \|\| -á EVE Illuminati @CCP_Falcon -á \|\| -á-á@EVE_LiveEvents

Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 623	Posted - 2013.12.27 09:38:00 - [52] - Quote more symmetry, proportional and dynamic looking ships are needed in this game too many wonky box shaped ships going around things like the crow's left wonky wing is annoying .... Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Teinyhr A Club for Reputable Gentlemen 343	Posted - 2013.12.27 12:26:00 - [53] - Quote The reason was that some Dev hated symmetric ship designs. He or she has since been fired or quit the job since most new ships have been symmetrical ar at least nearly, and redesigns of old ships have followed this rule. And obviously making random looking ships was a way to distinguish the game from other spaceship games in the early days.
Mr Doctor Sex Machineguns 79	Posted - 2013.12.27 12:55:00 - [54] - Quote Constant symmetry is boring. Granted it mostly looks nicer but nicer isnt always better, diversity is. In a spaceship where aerodynamics arent a premium there would probably be hardly any symmetry anyway, builds would be functional..... and I quite like the Atron, its ugly but in a meaty way and looks like it could really punch you with its big popeye arm.
Ramona McCandless The McCandless Clan Turing Tested 1880	Posted - 2013.12.27 13:02:00 - [55] - Quote There are a good balance of designs in EvE. If you don't like the look of what you are flying, you are free to reskill. I wont flying hideous Gallente snot-balls, but I respect the right of those who do to have different tastes to me. In short, if you fly for looks, train for what you like, not what you dont. * Vote MTU For CSM * "They feel the need to cover their ears and eyes in horror at your very presence." --áPontianak Sythaeryn Non omnis moriar
Barrogh Habalu Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire 706	Posted - 2013.12.27 13:38:00 - [56] - Quote Ramona McCandless wrote: There are a good balance of designs in EvE. If you don't like the look of what you are flying, you are free to reskill. I wont flying hideous Gallente snot-balls, but I respect the right of those who do to have different tastes to me. In short, if you fly for looks, train for what you like, not what you dont. Dat almost existential horror of fleet doctrines...
Ramona McCandless The McCandless Clan Turing Tested 1882	Posted - 2013.12.27 13:41:00 - [57] - Quote Barrogh Habalu wrote: Dat What? * Vote MTU For CSM * "They feel the need to cover their ears and eyes in horror at your very presence." --áPontianak Sythaeryn Non omnis moriar
Raven O'Russ Liza idi na... 1	Posted - 2013.12.27 13:54:00 - [58] - Quote "Dat" = that is, possibly. About fleets, i believe capsuleers are free to join the fleet or not, unless their corporations are not in state of war or something like that. Also, i am certainly sure there doesn't exist a great armada of moas. If you find one - please, send me a screenshot. As far as i know, fleets are divided by a) size, b) defence type, c) goal. And we have several available ships for any of this occasions. My opinion is that if (for example) someone doesn't like the look of gallente interceptor - so be it, there are amarr ceptors over there, being used just the same way. Feel free to tell me where I am wrong, since my latest activity is just shooting red crosses.
Ramona McCandless The McCandless Clan Turing Tested 1885	Posted - 2013.12.27 13:57:00 - [59] - Quote Raven O'Russ wrote: "Dat" = that is, possibly. About fleets, i believe capsuleers are free to join the fleet or not, unless their corporations are not in state of war or something like that. Also, i am certainly sure there doesn't exist a great armada of moas. If you find one - please, send me a screenshot. As far as i know, fleets are divided by a) size, b) defence type, c) goal. And we have several available ships for any of this occasions. My opinion is that if (for example) someone doesn't like the look of gallente interceptor - so be it, there are amarr ceptors over there, being used just the same way. Feel free to tell me where I am wrong, since my latest activity is just shooting red crosses. I dont think you are wrong as such, but if I was in a fleet for doing stuff and srs bsnss Id be damned sure to ignore the look of whatever I was given to fly and think of the mission. I didnt cry when Chirrba supplied us all with Ospreys to help him, though its a hideous monstrosity of a hoover-ship But when I have choice, I fly in a style that suits me Preferrably Ashimmu shaped. * Vote MTU For CSM * "They feel the need to cover their ears and eyes in horror at your very presence." --áPontianak Sythaeryn Omnis nomiom nom nom nomi
Ambassador Crane Hellhound Productions 98	Posted - 2013.12.27 15:25:00 - [60] - Quote Mara Rinn wrote: Symmetrical is boring and ugly: Fenrir I cannot believe anyone would hate on our beloved Jawa ship!
Nariya Kentaya Always Negative 812	Posted - 2013.12.27 17:44:00 - [61] - Quote Ambassador Crane wrote: Mara Rinn wrote: Symmetrical is boring and ugly: Fenrir I cannot believe anyone would hate on our beloved Jawa ship! Fenrir is ******* amazing looking. and i stand by my previous post, certain races need to be more symmetrical than others, instead of al the ships beign randomly symmetrical or not
Ramona McCandless The McCandless Clan Turing Tested 1896	Posted - 2013.12.27 17:46:00 - [62] - Quote Nariya Kentaya wrote: and i stand by my previous post, certain races need to be more symmetrical than others, instead of al the ships beign randomly symmetrical or not Why? * Vote MTU For CSM * "They feel the need to cover their ears and eyes in horror at your very presence." --áPontianak Sythaeryn Omnis nomiom nom nom nomi
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 698	Posted - 2013.12.27 21:01:00 - [63] - Quote FENRIR!! Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) And bring back the missile Inquisitor!!
Ambassador Crane Hellhound Productions 99	Posted - 2013.12.27 21:12:00 - [64] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: FENRIR!! UTINNI!!!
David Laurentson Laurentson INC StructureDamage 86	Posted - 2013.12.27 21:16:00 - [65] - Quote Ramona McCandless wrote: Nariya Kentaya wrote: and i stand by my previous post, certain races need to be more symmetrical than others, instead of al the ships beign randomly symmetrical or not Why? Aesthetics are a good way to distinguish the races. ...that said, I'm pretty sure Nariya's already got that. The Caldari largely avoid symmetry (notable exceptions like the Scorpion and the Tengu are either stolen from Pirates or heavily based around ancient technology Not Our Own), the Amarr seem to think God will always check both sides for correct Purity, the Gallente are usually symmetrical, but even when they're not they still look Artistic (Art being a major driver in their advertising campaigns!), and the Minmatar get increasingly Symmetrical as they move from 'repurposed, upgunned ex-civilian-haulers' to building their own warships.
Ambassador Crane Hellhound Productions 100	Posted - 2013.12.27 21:52:00 - [66] - Quote On a more productive note than my previous posts in this thread... Is it just me or has anyone else noticed the recent trending towards more symmetrical designs with the newer ships being created in Eve. Random list from top of my head: New BC (Oracle, Naga, Talos, Tornado) New Destroyers (Dragoon, Corax, Algos, Talwar) New Ore ships (Orca, Noctis, Venture) New Bombers (Purifier, Manticore, Nemesis, Hound) All of these rather symmetrical in design. Very nice designs, so not meant to sound like a complaint, just pointing out it does seem to be steering away from the original design consistencies of the older ships.

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [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.