These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

Ship size changes

First post First post
Author
Strata Maslav
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2012-07-17 14:41:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Strata Maslav
Along with V3'ing of the Angel vessels on sisi, the Machariel has taken an approximately 25% reduction in visual size. I am oddly in favor of this change as the current model is only slightly smaller than that of a carrier. A carrier can (edit: almost) hold x2 unpacked Machs in its bay making the differential in size somewhat strange.


This brings me onto a interesting request. Would it be possible for all ships to be the appropriate size in regards to their cargoholds?


I haven't done the math but I imagine this would effect carriers and perhaps certain industrial ships. If these ships need to be increased in width or height you may have to increase the size of stations.

Not to mention supercarriers are only marginally larger then carrier and smaller than a dreadnought? The super carrier is a super capitals ship which cannot dock at stations and yet it is smaller than a dreadnought which can?


I assume that capital & industrial ships will see some V3'ing soon. Will this allow for further changes to model sizes?


CCP, you could add some really great immersion/grandeur to the game if you ensure that your scaling system is closer to reality.
Soi Mala
Whacky Waving Inflatable Flailing Arm Tubemen
#2 - 2012-07-17 22:36:55 UTC
Strata Maslav wrote:
Along with V3'ing of the Angel the vessels on sisi, the Machariel has taken an approximately 25% reduction in visual size. I am oddly in favor of this change as the current model is only slightly smaller than that of a carrier. A carrier can hold x2 unpacked Machs in its bay making the differential in size somewhat strange.


This brings me onto a interesting request. Would it be possible to for all ships to be the appropriate size in regards to their cargoholds?


I haven't done the math but I imagine this would effect carriers and perhaps certain industrial ships. If these ships need to be increased in width or height you may have to increase the size of stations.

Not to mention supercarriers are only marginally larger then carrier and smaller then a dreadnought? The super carrier is a super capitals ship which cannot dock at stations and yet it is smaller then a dreadnought which can?


I assume that capital & industrial ships will see some V3'ing soon. Will this allow for further changes to model sizes?


CCP you could add some really great immersion/grandeur to the game if you ensure that your scaling system is closer to reality.


Sorting out the scaling once and for all would be epic. Space is big, and our ships are comparatively tiny. Stations, titans, super carriers etc should literally dwarf everything. There is a kind of fix in this video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3O64C8KvLY&feature=plcp Basically a "dolly zoom" effect. Annoyingly, it resets every jump or dock, but for cinematic moments, it's quite nice. :)
Sheynan
Lighting the blight
#3 - 2012-07-17 23:51:36 UTC
Especially supercapitals are in dire need of this.
Jack Miton
Perkone
Caldari State
#4 - 2012-07-18 04:59:33 UTC
Quote:
A carrier can hold x2 unpacked Machs in its bay making the differential in size somewhat strange.


it actually cant since they take up more than 500m3

There is no Bob.

Stuck In Here With Me:  http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/

Down the Pipe:  http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout

Strata Maslav
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2012-07-18 12:19:21 UTC
Jack Miton wrote:
Quote:
A carrier can hold x2 unpacked Machs in its bay making the differential in size somewhat strange.


it actually cant since they take up more than 500m3


I stand corrected, the Macherial has a unpacked volume of 595,000m3. I think this need changing now that the ship model has itself been reduced to a comparable size to the other BS.

All other other BS are under 500,000m3 allowing for a carrier to hold 2 of them.
Ogogov
Arpy Corporation
#6 - 2012-07-18 15:19:55 UTC
+1

Even given the most recent scaling changes, it's ludicrous to believe a battleship can fit inside a carrier, even if it was cut up into little bits.
Strata Maslav
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#7 - 2012-07-18 16:07:00 UTC
Thanatos = 13,095,000m3
Battleship = 500,000m3

A Thanatos should be x26 the size of a Battleship. Currently they are about x4/x5.
Sirinda
Ekchuah's Shrine Comporium
#8 - 2012-07-18 17:05:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Sirinda
Strata Maslav wrote:
Thanatos = 13,095,000m3
Battleship = 500,000m3

A Thanatos should be x26 the size of a Battleship. Currently they are about x4/x5.


Volume, not area. It should have around 5-7 times the battleship's length.

EDIT: Assuming twice the height/beam of a BS, that is.
Strata Maslav
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#9 - 2012-07-18 19:37:14 UTC
Sirinda wrote:
Strata Maslav wrote:
Thanatos = 13,095,000m3
Battleship = 500,000m3

A Thanatos should be x26 the size of a Battleship. Currently they are about x4/x5.


Volume, not area. It should have around 5-7 times the battleship's length.

EDIT: Assuming twice the height/beam of a BS, that is.


Well tbh it should look as though you have enough space to fit them into the cargo hold/fly into and dock.
Carola Kessler
Lost Sisters Of New Eden
#10 - 2012-07-19 12:08:50 UTC
The stations are allready to small in relation to some of the Capitals, i'm talking about the Docking bay if you look a naglfar undocking you get a headache everytime how a ship that high like Mt. St Helens Passes through the docking bays from most the stations.Shocked
ISD Stensson
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#11 - 2012-07-19 12:11:48 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Stensson
I cleaned this thread a little by deleting few off topic and trolling posts. Please stay on topic while posting. Thank ye.

[b]ISD Stensson Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department[/b]

Carola Kessler
Lost Sisters Of New Eden
#12 - 2012-07-19 12:30:05 UTC
Btw. the downsizing from the Machariel to 1400 meters is a joke, since the Mach was the biggest BS within the game.

Have a look at the sizes according to this following picture.... [url=http://game-craft.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/EVE-ships-subcap-Tyrannis.jpg]http://game-craft.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/EVE-ships-subcap-Tyrannis.jpg[/url

So whoever thougth it would be a good idea to shrink down the Machariel to the current size it has on Sisi completely ignored the lore about this ship and should get crucified in public! X
Whisperen
Delta vane Corp.
DARKNESS.
#13 - 2012-07-20 11:30:22 UTC
Smaller looks better it was always far to large.
TakeTheCannolis
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#14 - 2012-07-20 14:54:17 UTC
Whisperen wrote:
Smaller looks better it was always far to large.


No, carriers and supers have always been far too small, which makes ships like the Mach look "too big." Other ships don't need to be scaled down in size, those need to be scaled up in size.
Freundliches Feuer
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#15 - 2012-07-20 15:15:55 UTC
I totally agree supercaps need scaling up... big time.
Leisen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#16 - 2012-07-21 12:48:08 UTC
Could just go off of the ship measurements rather than cargo size but...yeah it's FUBAR. Here's hoping they get it worked out sooner rather than later. :P
Draconus Lofwyr
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#17 - 2012-07-21 19:02:32 UTC
Supercarriers definitely need to be scaled up to somewhere near halfway between carrier and titan in size. As for resizing the titan any larger, would need to make pos's bigger so they have some place to park relatively comfortably.

Would also help to scale up the stations and outposts in low/null sec some as well, i keep expecting a light on top of the Caldari outpost to come flashing on and Tardis noises to start up every time i see an Anshar undock. like that little waffle is almost small enough to fold up and put IN the jump freighter.
Janet Patton
Brony Express
#18 - 2012-07-22 05:33:58 UTC
I would like to add that they made the Rifter 2.5x bigger then it use to be. It has grown from 56m to 139m in length. The guns look really puny on it now. I think I know why they did this though. They wanted to fit the new launchers on it with out them dwarfing the ship. (Even though you might only ever have one launcher on it ever) I think they over did it though and that they should perhaps scale the ship back down somewhere between what is now and what it was. Maybe around 90-100m?

Why do I have this sig? I don't smoke.

Overs
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#19 - 2012-08-01 15:35:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Overs
CCP has a very screwball sense of the size or volume of their ships relative to their mass. They are usually larger by a factor of 10 or 20. For example, the space shuttle weighs about 2,000,0000 kg which is twice the mass of most in game frigates, yet the space shuttle is about 1/10th the size (volume).

Another real world comparison is a US Super Carrier which is about 100,000 tons (100,000,000 kg) and 330 meters in length. Its in game mass equivalent is the battleship. For instance the Abaddon is 103,000,000 kg, about equal to a US super carrier, but 1,254m in length, almost 4 times the length. Length is only one of the dimensions so I'm going to assume that its 4 times wider and taller too, which means that while the Abaddon has about the same mass as the USS Ronald Reagan it is 64 times larger.
CCP Vertex
C C P
C C P Alliance
#20 - 2012-08-01 16:18:00 UTC
We are actively working on the size of ships; this is a slow manual process and is done when the artists have time. This is why you have seen some ships change recently.

**CCP Vertex  |  Senior Development Manager ** | @CCP_Vertex

12Next page