These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next page
 

Bring back the old crucifier hull
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Dhuras
The Classy Gentlemans Corporation
Moist.
#1 - 2014-02-04 05:36:31 UTC
The old crucifier hull was very visually distinct. when you saw it you would immediately know what it was, but this new model is as generic as it gets. a blobby mess with 2 wings that looks like a thousand other Tai Fighter rip-offs I know the old crucifier hull was a bit of an odd shape and that turned some people off, but the ship models aren't doing to please everyone and some of us like our asymmetry, and again, it was visually striking, you knew exactly what a crucifier was by the silhouette alone.
Gigan Amilupar
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#2 - 2014-02-04 06:04:43 UTC
I actually like the new hull. I think it looks really good. Also:

Tie Fighter

New Crucifier

I don't really see the resemblance.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#3 - 2014-02-04 07:22:14 UTC
Everything resembles a Tie Fighter somehow; what about the Rifter, since it also has two wings.

I personally like the new Crucifier/Sentinel model a lot, because it doesn't look like a Minmatar ship anymore.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Kaerakh
Obscure Joke Implied
#4 - 2014-02-04 07:32:19 UTC
Dhuras wrote:
The old crucifier hull was very visually distinct. when you saw it you would immediately know what it was, but this new model is as generic as it gets. a blobby mess with 2 wings that looks like a thousand other Tai Fighter rip-offs I know the old crucifier hull was a bit of an odd shape and that turned some people off, but the ship models aren't doing to please everyone and some of us like our asymmetry, and again, it was visually striking, you knew exactly what a crucifier was by the silhouette alone.


Isn't it annoying how the Orca looks like an orca?
We should change it because my minority opinion doesn't like new things or change. Especially since it's just one of those widely spread gandum rip-offs.

Schrodinger's Hot Dropper

The Fate of Forum Alts

Guaranteed Success
Laner Irondoll
Hideaway Hunters
The Hideaway.
#5 - 2014-02-04 09:29:06 UTC
Dhuras wrote:
The old crucifier hull was very visually distinct. when you saw it you would immediately know what it was, but this new model is as generic as it gets. a blobby mess with 2 wings that looks like a thousand other Tai Fighter rip-offs I know the old crucifier hull was a bit of an odd shape and that turned some people off, but the ship models aren't doing to please everyone and some of us like our asymmetry, and again, it was visually striking, you knew exactly what a crucifier was by the silhouette alone.

.
No, old crucifier model was terrible and I hope to see more revamped models this year (the minmatar Burst needs a serious makeover too)
Dav Varan
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#6 - 2014-02-04 09:53:45 UTC
New model looks like a bc sized ship.
Swiftstrike1
Swiftstrike Incorporated
#7 - 2014-02-04 10:54:18 UTC
The new crucifier model is very cool, but it does seem a little beefy for such a fragile little frigate.

Casual Incursion runner & Faction Warfare grunt, ex-Wormholer, ex-Nullbear.
Ronny Hugo
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#8 - 2014-02-04 12:09:41 UTC
I like the new crucifier, the Amarrians are a narcissistic race (or so religious people usually are at least), so their ships and weaponry would be built to look menacing and powerful, not only designed to perform well. The Minmatar ships looks purely function over form (despite being very wrong from an engineers standpoint), and the caldari and gallente are somewhere between form and function.
But only Amarr seem to understand that sticking out bits are inefficient and that if you are to move large objects they need to be built like a skyscraper if the engines are the ground pointing downwards. See abaddon, apocalypse, armageddon, arbitrator, crucifier, providence, archon, Aeon, Avatar, coercer, dragoon, executioner. The only other race battleships that make engineering sense is the maelstrom, typhoon and Rokh. And the maelstrom only if you remove the wingy bits (you'd just release plasma to cool down, no need for heatsinks sticking out like that).
I have too many problems with the designs of the spaceships in Eve to make a thread about it.
Dhuras
The Classy Gentlemans Corporation
Moist.
#9 - 2014-02-10 20:03:23 UTC
Gigan Amilupar wrote:
I actually like the new hull. I think it looks really good. Also:

Tie Fighter

New Crucifier

I don't really see the resemblance.


I admit the tie fighter comparison was pretty bad, The point I was trying to get across as that they went with a design that has been done to death (central hull with two wings), whereas the old crucifier had its own unique asymmetrical model.
Kaerakh
Obscure Joke Implied
#10 - 2014-02-10 20:07:30 UTC
Dhuras wrote:
Gigan Amilupar wrote:
I actually like the new hull. I think it looks really good. Also:

Tie Fighter

New Crucifier

I don't really see the resemblance.


I admit the tie fighter comparison was pretty bad, The point I was trying to get across as that they went with a design that has been done to death (central hull with two wings), whereas the old crucifier had its own unique asymmetrical model.



The crucifier has wings? O_o

Schrodinger's Hot Dropper

The Fate of Forum Alts

Guaranteed Success
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
#11 - 2014-02-10 23:10:11 UTC
God yes, bring back the old model, the new model looks like it's flying upside down, plus we were told that it would be animated and I have yet to see any animation on it.

Also the artists have got carried away with the scaling, it looks far too big to be a frigate hull, not unless those windows are tiny.

OP +1

Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction...
Icarus Able
Refuse.Resist
#12 - 2014-02-11 03:10:54 UTC
Ronny Hugo wrote:
I like the new crucifier, the Amarrians are a narcissistic race (or so religious people usually are at least), so their ships and weaponry would be built to look menacing and powerful, not only designed to perform well. The Minmatar ships looks purely function over form (despite being very wrong from an engineers standpoint), and the caldari and gallente are somewhere between form and function.
But only Amarr seem to understand that sticking out bits are inefficient and that if you are to move large objects they need to be built like a skyscraper if the engines are the ground pointing downwards. See abaddon, apocalypse, armageddon, arbitrator, crucifier, providence, archon, Aeon, Avatar, coercer, dragoon, executioner. The only other race battleships that make engineering sense is the maelstrom, typhoon and Rokh. And the maelstrom only if you remove the wingy bits (you'd just release plasma to cool down, no need for heatsinks sticking out like that).
I have too many problems with the designs of the spaceships in Eve to make a thread about it.



Ooh do you have a PHD in warp drive technology or starship engineering???? no well then stfu
Mag's
Azn Empire
#13 - 2014-02-11 03:16:50 UTC
Icarus Able wrote:
Ronny Hugo wrote:
I like the new crucifier, the Amarrians are a narcissistic race (or so religious people usually are at least), so their ships and weaponry would be built to look menacing and powerful, not only designed to perform well. The Minmatar ships looks purely function over form (despite being very wrong from an engineers standpoint), and the caldari and gallente are somewhere between form and function.
But only Amarr seem to understand that sticking out bits are inefficient and that if you are to move large objects they need to be built like a skyscraper if the engines are the ground pointing downwards. See abaddon, apocalypse, armageddon, arbitrator, crucifier, providence, archon, Aeon, Avatar, coercer, dragoon, executioner. The only other race battleships that make engineering sense is the maelstrom, typhoon and Rokh. And the maelstrom only if you remove the wingy bits (you'd just release plasma to cool down, no need for heatsinks sticking out like that).
I have too many problems with the designs of the spaceships in Eve to make a thread about it.



Ooh do you have a PHD in warp drive technology or starship engineering???? no well then stfu
I couldn't find his skill sheet on Eveboard. But he could have quite a few navigation skills and some ship construction ones too. Blink

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Caldari 5
D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F. S.A.S
Affirmative.
#14 - 2014-02-11 04:03:30 UTC
Dhuras wrote:
I admit the tie fighter comparison was pretty bad, The point I was trying to get across as that they went with a design that has been done to death (central hull with two wings), whereas the old crucifier had its own unique asymmetrical model.

An there was the main issue with the old model, Amarrian Ships are meant to be Symmetrical, the asymmetric ship just felt wrong.
ColdCutz
Frigonometry
#15 - 2014-02-11 21:26:44 UTC
Caldari 5 wrote:
Dhuras wrote:
I admit the tie fighter comparison was pretty bad, The point I was trying to get across as that they went with a design that has been done to death (central hull with two wings), whereas the old crucifier had its own unique asymmetrical model.

An there was the main issue with the old model, Amarrian Ships are meant to be Symmetrical, the asymmetric ship just felt wrong.
Symmetry is boring. I loved the uniqueness of the old design as Dhuras stated. Also you conveniently ignored his main point that they went with a design that has been done to death.
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
#16 - 2014-02-11 21:33:41 UTC
Looks like mega tanked ship...

The Tears Must Flow
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#17 - 2014-02-11 21:47:50 UTC
ColdCutz wrote:
Caldari 5 wrote:
Dhuras wrote:
I admit the tie fighter comparison was pretty bad, The point I was trying to get across as that they went with a design that has been done to death (central hull with two wings), whereas the old crucifier had its own unique asymmetrical model.

An there was the main issue with the old model, Amarrian Ships are meant to be Symmetrical, the asymmetric ship just felt wrong.
Symmetry is boring. I loved the uniqueness of the old design as Dhuras stated. Also you conveniently ignored his main point that they went with a design that has been done to death.


Symmetry is essential in space. If your ship has a highly asymmetrical mass, mass distribution and propulsion systems, you start to spin in circles instead of propelling forward. Moreover, all Amarr ships are highly symmetrical, with the only exceptions of the Omen hulls and their drone bay, the Coercer hulls with the cockpit attachment and the former Crucifier hulls. The rest is all symmetrical, and CCP brought one of the few aberrations back into line. In addition, many Amarr ships have a hull that is divided into 2 equal parts (shuttle, Coercer, Executioner, Providence, ...), which was furthered with the new Crucifier as well.

I only hope they don't touch the Aeon hull. The massive asymmetry there is iconical and should always remain.

To sooth your longing for more asymmetry: Do you have a good concept for an asymmetrical Crucifier?

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Caldari 5
D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F. S.A.S
Affirmative.
#18 - 2014-02-12 02:34:28 UTC
ColdCutz wrote:
Caldari 5 wrote:
Dhuras wrote:
I admit the tie fighter comparison was pretty bad, The point I was trying to get across as that they went with a design that has been done to death (central hull with two wings), whereas the old crucifier had its own unique asymmetrical model.

An there was the main issue with the old model, Amarrian Ships are meant to be Symmetrical, the asymmetric ship just felt wrong.
Symmetry is boring. I loved the uniqueness of the old design as Dhuras stated. Also you conveniently ignored his main point that they went with a design that has been done to death.

The new design reminds me more of a catamaran than a Tai fighter, the Central Hull, is no where need as bulbous as a Tai Fighter's is.

Frankly if you want an asymmetrical ship, go fly a Caldari Ship instead. although some **** in the art department seems to want to modify those Hulls to be Symmetrical too, which is quite annoying. Poor Scorpion
Ashlar Vellum
Esquire Armaments
#19 - 2014-02-12 05:45:37 UTC
Silhouette of a ship is important.

Problem with crucifier now - it's too similar to 4 ships that are already in the game and have completely different roles.
New model is cool, but it's not a crucifier it's a brawly slicer or a combat executioner.
Dhuras
The Classy Gentlemans Corporation
Moist.
#20 - 2014-02-12 18:08:31 UTC
Caldari 5 wrote:
Dhuras wrote:
I admit the tie fighter comparison was pretty bad, The point I was trying to get across as that they went with a design that has been done to death (central hull with two wings), whereas the old crucifier had its own unique asymmetrical model.

An there was the main issue with the old model, Amarrian Ships are meant to be Symmetrical, the asymmetric ship just felt wrong.


I'll take "what is an Aeon" for 1000 Alex
123Next page