| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Atkins Friendly
NightWatch Ind
20
   |
Posted - 2013.10.09 18:34:00 -
[1] - Quote
Every now and then, I like to take a moment and view the beauty of Eve and remove all open windows and just look at the spectacular visuals that come with the game. Seeing the missiles screech across the open void of space or see the lasers pulse as they hit their target. But i've come to notice there are some turrets that don't get much love in the visual department.
Probably the saddest of the group is the autocannons and blasters. Zoomed out, they are barely even noticeable compared to the colorful gleam of beams or missiles trails. And even zoomed in to autocannons, they look so pathetic and out of place on the grid compared to the other weapons. No i'm not talking about the turrets themselves; they look great. I'm talking about the projectiles fired from them.
I was curious, is there a reason why autocannons, with their fast rate of fire, just cant have a constant stream of bullets throughout it's activation cycle? Seeing guns first for 1 seconds, and then not fire (but the turrets still spin) is kinda of lame. I would love to see a Hurricane with a full set of autocannons peppering the crap out of ships with a constant wall of bullets.The Daedalus from stargate kind of comes to mind on the visuals,
Link to video of Daedalus in combat
I dont want it to effect dps or damage or any of that, this is simply a visual update that would bring pleasure to the eyes.
As far as blaster go, the projectiles travel so quickly through space that it's hard to catch a glimpse of them. That's how blasters work and I respect that. However, their impact is kind of weak and i believe that's where blasters could improve. Currently, the impact of a blaster looks more like the targeted ship absorbed the impact rather than get hit with it. The amount of kenetic energy being released when a blaster/rail round hitting a hull or shield should be tremendous. Visually, you should see an explosion of particles blast from the impact site.
Any ideas or suggestions on why this couldnt be done? |
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
153
|
Posted - 2013.10.09 21:59:00 -
[2] - Quote
Constant bullets from autocannons would be awesome. Would like to see Hybrids have a flashier effect - so they sort of warp space a little :D |
Nephyium
No Win Scenario
18
|
Posted - 2013.10.10 01:04:00 -
[3] - Quote
I agree to this suggestion. And I also want to mention that there are many things in real life can be use as reference for visual and sound effects. Especially for projectile weapons, it just doesn't sound real.
Most of the auto cannon and artillery fire just sounds like small-arms fire, and nothing like vehicle/ship mounted weapon.
And here are some examples of real weapons here can be use as reference:
Schwerer Gustav gun (German rail way gun) 800 MM ---- Artillery
Iowa-class battleship main gun 406MM ---- Artillery
M110 howitzer 203MM ---- Artillery / Auto cannon
M114 howitzer 155MM ---- Artillery / Auto cannon
M61 Vulcan 30MM ---- Auto cannon
M230 Chain Gun ---- Auto cannon
Phalanx CIWS 20MM ---- Auto cannon
The impact of the projectiles can be improved upon those weapons above, same with sound effect.
And also you have to know that you as a pilot are inside the vehicle/ship, which the sound affecting the pilot will be completely than the ones outside. Because of the weapon fires that echo within a confined area creates a high amplitude, low frequency wave that literally shakes into the core of your body, that you can feel your internal organ shakes with it.
When a vehicle/ship got hit with a projectile, the shockwave to the hull and structure will resonate with it can create a low humming sound. Such as battleship and tank took fire in a battle.
For what I can suggest to CCP is....if you already have a military advisor, fire him. If not, get a real military advisor that actually been to combat and knows how weapon and equipment work. Call of Duty and Battlefield did a good job on that.
And you'll be surprised how visual and sound effect can affect the overall quality of the game. |
Zappity
Kurved Space
499
|
Posted - 2013.10.10 01:35:00 -
[4] - Quote
People without experience in SPACE combat need not apply.
If technology is advanced enough to make a spaceship travel faster than light I think they'd be able to manage some sound control.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Komodo Askold
Legion of Darkwind
46
|
Posted - 2013.10.10 11:32:00 -
[5] - Quote
Zappity wrote:People without experience in SPACE combat need not apply.
If technology is advanced enough to make a spaceship travel faster than light I think they'd be able to manage some sound control. Well, we as capsuleers perceive our surroundings through our ship's scanning systems and camera drones, input that is taken by the ship's CPU and fed through our implants as something easy for our mind.
That includes fancy visuals and sounds (it's natural for us to be put in alert by the sound of a gun). So we have a background excuse.
That said, I agree with the OP; I've recently created a topic about laser sounds, and it's the same we're talking here: while some weapons have both nice visuals and sounds, others could use a little bit of improvement.
- Blasters, as you said, lack a bit in the on-impact visuals, while their sounds (both on shoot and on impact) and are quite powerful even for small ones, unnerving in a good sense (sounds like you're taking some serious beating).
- Lasers have nice visuals, but they lack in sounds: they seem not in par with their damage, and the on-impact sound sounds more like a car crash than the superheating of solid matter completed with high current electrical discharges.
- Autocannons have quite powerful sounds, but they could use brighter explosions on-shot and on-impact, as well as a small buff in sound power.
- Artilleries and railguns sound and look great, specially railguns; I wouldn't change them (unless you want to buff artillery on-impact visuals, if AC ones are improved).
- Missiles look and sound awesomely IMO.
- Drones are fine in terms of sound; perhaps Minmatar ones could use more visible shooting.
|
Malcolm Malicious
Malware Detected
Brave Collective
5
|
Posted - 2013.10.10 11:56:00 -
[6] - Quote
All muzzle FX need a serious visual update. Look at missile impacts and then compare them with turret hits... I mean come on!
The firing animations for lasers are okay I guess, they're lasers, they don't really get any flashier than they are now. Autocannons should appear to shoot less rapidly but over a longer period of time, given the caliber of these big guns. They could also use flashier more noticeable effects, given they're firing PROJECTILES. Blasters have good effects compared to the others, but could be better.
Railguns: wtf. Especially after the medium long range turret buffs, I was excited to fly around blapping things with mighty rails. Then I forgot how anti-climactic they looked when they fired. They need to look like railguns, not some kind of beam weapon. Give them a single, flashy projectile animation and an equally devastating hit effect.
Same goes for artillery. Change the bursts of muzzle fire so they look like actual artillery fire, and replace that dim beam of alpha with a projectile animation. The hit effect should look like you just alpha'd that target with 12000 explosive damage.
Let's not even get into Sentry drones. DO THEY EVEN SHOOT? |
Zappity
Kurved Space
502
|
Posted - 2013.10.10 12:02:00 -
[7] - Quote
Yeah, I agree that they could (should) be improved. Just not that bowel-shaking noise would necessarily be accurate.
Actually, I'd love a sound effect for overheating modules that are getting too hot. Maybe that ticking sound of hot metal expanding.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
538
|
Posted - 2013.10.10 12:50:00 -
[8] - Quote
Atkins Friendly wrote:I was curious, is there a reason why autocannons, with their fast rate of fire, just cant have a constant stream of bullets throughout it's activation cycle? Seeing guns fire for 1 seconds, and then not fire (but the turrets still spin) is kinda of lame. I would love to see a Hurricane with a full set of autocannons peppering the crap out of ships with a constant wall of bullets.The Daedalus from stargate kind of comes to mind on the visuals.
Hm. And I find short volleys to be more appealing aestheticaly, especially considering that it's how rapid firing weapons are often used IRL.
YMMV I guess.
Thinking about it, why not to make those volleys longer when guns are overheated? And add other distinctive OH visual/sound effects to other weapon systems (perhaps close-ranged ones - long-ranged guns already shoot/launch faster). |
Atkins Friendly
NightWatch Ind
28
|
Posted - 2013.10.10 13:54:00 -
[9] - Quote
Malcolm Malicious wrote:All muzzle FX need a serious visual update. Look at missile impacts and then compare them with turret hits... I mean come on!
Totally agree. the impact of missiles are insanely awesome. The heatwave/shockwave they create go perfect for it.
I remember back in the old days when the arti's were the kings of the battlefields. It was so cool flying by a maelstrom and hearing a deafening blast of the 1600mm's. That was so cool. Remember the old torpedo effects? lol good ole days.
Barrogh Habalu wrote:Hm. And I find short volleys to be more appealing aestheticaly, especially considering that it's how rapid firing weapons are often used IRL.
YMMV I guess.
I respect your opinion on that. Maybe a compromise then could be in place. Have burst for the autocannons, but yet a nice steady stream for machine guns and dual autocannons?
In any case, you should feel like a badass with any gun you put on your ship. Back in the day, noobies were in awe when they saw the explosions of torpedoes, they might not of done much damage to frigates, but just shooting at them was such a thrill.
Now, I can understand that these new sites and sounds could effect gameplay, especially in alliances fights, but for the most part, we know how to go into the settings and turn down the effects for better performance as needed and that shouldnt be a reason not to implement this ideas. |
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
538
|
Posted - 2013.10.10 21:03:00 -
[10] - Quote
Atkins Friendly wrote:I respect your opinion on that. Maybe a compromise then could be in place. Have burst for the autocannons, but yet a nice steady stream for machine guns and dual autocannons?
In any case, you should feel like a badass with any gun you put on your ship. Back in the day, noobies were in awe when they saw the explosions of torpedoes, they might not of done much damage to frigates, but just shooting at them was such a thrill.
In any case I agree that ACs woldn't be hurt by some more "oomph" added to their visuals. Thing to note is that weapon cycles can differ and if changes are to be made, effect duration should be picked with potential glitches in mind (if they overlap in time; o hai small ACs). Or, of course, tweaking some coding to make it possible go away from "weapon cycles -> visual is shown" model completely. |
|
|
Nephyium
No Win Scenario
18
|
Posted - 2013.10.11 04:23:00 -
[11] - Quote
I think that Homeworld has really good weapon effects for space combat, especially their beam weapon and ion cannons, when they fires, it's a continuous stream of light hitting the target and only pause briefly for recharge.
Same goes with auto cannon / Gatling gun, they only stop fires during reload, they should fire continuously without any problem.
For rail gun, it usually charge up first before it fires, add a visual effect for the weapon during charging should be good, like the glow effect on the weapon. And when it fires, it discharge all the energy with the projectile leaving a trail of super heated plasma effect.
Blaster on the other hand, it is a rapid firing weapon utilize capacitor discharge in series that launches multiple projectile in sequence creating a barrage effect, it has less kinetic energy but makes up by the speed it fires.
Changing the effect of the weapon don't necessary need to change the way how weapon works. They still fires the same ammo at the same speed and using the same damaging type and formula. Just make the adjustment on the visual part. |
Nephyium
No Win Scenario
20
|
Posted - 2013.10.17 00:50:00 -
[12] - Quote
Guess many people wanted the weapon effects to be changed...
|
Sarah Stallman
International Unification
14
|
Posted - 2013.10.17 01:21:00 -
[13] - Quote
Nephyium wrote:...
M61 Vulcan 30MM ---- Auto cannon
...
Phalanx CIWS 20MM ---- Auto cannon
Same gun. 
But yes, I support improving the weapon animations. With all the new, shiny ship textures we're getting recently, it seems fitting to upgrade some of the modules. |
Choc talar
Aerodyne Collective.
Aerodyne Collective
16
|
Posted - 2013.10.17 06:57:00 -
[14] - Quote
I agree with the sounds of cannons and artillery needing an upgrade. A small auto cannon should at least sound like a mini gun, and like the OP mentioned appear to fire a stream of ammo. They wouldn't have to adjust the damage just the look. a medium auto cannon could sound like the 20mm auto cannon on an A10 Warthog. The sound of that beast firing is awesome and terrifying to say the least. I used to love CAS runs in Iraq when we A10 on station for support.
Artillery is particularly weak in sound quality. Anybody who has been in any nations military and used fire support can attest to this. simple 105mm fire can be easily heard from us infantry when they fire 15k away, they are loud, and they are devastating. Most of the medium to large artillery are many times bigger than a 105mm.
I also remember tessalation demo at Eve Fanfest last year and the added effects of seeing stuff hit shield or armor would be awesome as hell and add a new level of immersion. Would love to see an artillery round blast a chunk of armor off of a ship in battle. |
Hell Bitch
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
26
|
Posted - 2013.10.17 11:19:00 -
[15] - Quote
I'd be happy if they straightened the barrels of the lower grade artillery (250's for smalls etc..)
Do they fire special squint rounds? |
Nephyium
No Win Scenario
20
|
Posted - 2013.10.18 04:57:00 -
[16] - Quote
Choc talar wrote:I agree with the sounds of cannons and artillery needing an upgrade. A small auto cannon should at least sound like a mini gun, and like the OP mentioned appear to fire a stream of ammo. They wouldn't have to adjust the damage just the look. a medium auto cannon could sound like the 20mm auto cannon on an A10 Warthog. The sound of that beast firing is awesome and terrifying to say the least. I used to love CAS runs in Iraq when we A10 on station for support.
Artillery is particularly weak in sound quality. Anybody who has been in any nations military and used fire support can attest to this. simple 105mm fire can be easily heard from us infantry when they fire 15k away, they are loud, and they are devastating. Most of the medium to large artillery are many times bigger than a 105mm.
I also remember tessalation demo at Eve Fanfest last year and the added effects of seeing stuff hit shield or armor would be awesome as hell and add a new level of immersion. Would love to see an artillery round blast a chunk of armor off of a ship in battle.
That is correct, same reason I suggest CCP needs a military advisor. |
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
159
|
Posted - 2013.10.18 05:31:00 -
[17] - Quote
Yep, Hybrid and Projectile are boring as hell. |
Sarah Stallman
International Unification
18
|
Posted - 2013.10.18 06:17:00 -
[18] - Quote
Choc talar wrote:the 20mm auto cannon on an A10 Warthog. The sound of that beast firing is awesome and terrifying to say the least. I used to love CAS runs in Iraq when we A10 on station for support.
The GAU-8 is 30mm. |
Malcolm Malicious
Malware Detected
Brave Collective
19
|
Posted - 2013.10.18 07:19:00 -
[19] - Quote
Hell ***** wrote:I'd be happy if they straightened the barrels of the lower grade artillery (250's for smalls etc..)
Do they fire special squint rounds?
Oh dear god, they need to remake a lot of the projectile turrets, it really erks me seeing the irregular forms that are suppose to not only shoot, but somehow load ammo out of nowhere into the odd-shaped barrels. I'll be brutally honest, whoever designed the current turrets didn't put much thought on the practical design of these being physical ammo-loading weapons.
Also, square/rectangular barrels. Really? I guess it's not that unreasonable, they could be fired with square sabots in theory. It would make more sense with railguns. Oh god, any railgun that isn't the largest caliber of its size look more like... I don't even know.
Some of the models I think actually make sense are the 250mm and 425mm railguns. The 250 would have all the ammo loaded in the turret casing as it's relatively large compared to the caliber of the ammo. The 425mm is the most practical looking turret in my opinion because the barrel looks as if its loaded with conventional loading mechanisms, drawing the ammo from the storage under the hull.
The naming should be more consistent with the design. For example, all the artillery now have double barrels, but aren't named as such, unlike dual 425mm autocannons, etc.
Also, there should be a reloading animation where the turret retracts as it does during warping to give a better feel that the gun module/built-in ammo box/whatever is being reloaded with new ordnance. |
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
159
|
Posted - 2013.10.18 07:54:00 -
[20] - Quote
Weapon sounds and effects can be a Little bit over the top, because you have to zoom out nearly everytime while in Combat.
Oh BTW. Its like Professional femal Show Dancer, they use so much make-up, that they Look Good from the distance to catch the jurys attention. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |