These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Dev response please! Machariel downsized to 1400 meters is a joke!!!

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Jack Tronic
borkedLabs
#61 - 2012-07-28 20:50:11 UTC
Marcus Gord wrote:
The Mach has been huge for how long now? Only now it's a problem and it needs to be downsized? Come on.

If they're going to do this to the Mach, are they going to make the other half of the Aeon too? Perhaps make the Wyvern fly forwards? (You know it looks like it flies backwards!)

People have already talked about Carriers/Supercarriers and their sizes too.

At least be consistent.


Crybabies. Macherial got resized because the skin for V3 which involves opening it up in a 3d editor anyway to apply the textures.

Capitals haven't been V3ed yet.
Tallian Saotome
Nuclear Arms Exchange Inc.
#62 - 2012-07-29 07:58:38 UTC
I've been listening to people complain about the mach being oversized for years. Bout time it gets resized, tired of it dwarfing my thanny.

Perhaps the best overall solution to all these complaints is to establish a size range for each class, and resize all ships in that class to conform(with machs and hypes being at the large end of battleship, for instance, and all capships getting sized up. Has anyone noticed the huge variety in size for titans?)

Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom.
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#63 - 2012-07-29 12:32:25 UTC
Tallian Saotome wrote:


Perhaps the best overall solution to all these complaints is to establish a size range for each class, and resize all ships in that class to conform(with machs and hypes being at the large end of battleship, for instance, and all capships getting sized up. Has anyone noticed the huge variety in size for titans?)


This is the only acceptable outcome. Lets hope we get a good rescaling of ships, stations, and celestials in the near future.
Austneal
Nero Fazione
#64 - 2012-07-29 15:15:05 UTC
So they've nerfed the Dramiel into uselessness, dwarfed the Machariel, and made the Cynabal look like Rudolph the red nosed reindeer.... anyone want to buy a set of angel ships?
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#65 - 2012-07-29 15:32:28 UTC
Austneal wrote:
So they've nerfed the Dramiel into uselessness, dwarfed the Machariel, and made the Cynabal look like Rudolph the red nosed reindeer.... anyone want to buy a set of angel ships?


Dram is not useless.... It's just no longer the best at everything frig it once was... Now the slower frigs are actually better at brawling Roll Changes to the dram were a HUGE step forward...

Mach getting reduced in size a reason to not buy it? Really? REALLY?!! It's arguably the best sub cap in the game and it being smaller is not going to have ANY effect on this WHATSOEVER. All that's happening is the foolishly sized ship is being reduced to reasonable levels. Honestly I'd rather the mach go to like 1000m instead of 1400m it still feels far to big for it's speed, agility and sig. Smaller more "tech advanced" BS pwning the larger lower "tech" ships is way more bad ass anyway...
Durzel
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#66 - 2012-07-30 08:25:53 UTC
Instead of redoing the textures and making the capitals much bigger (as they should be imo) CCP took the path of least resistance and are making BS smaller instead. Less work, same net result.
to0onsi
National Liberation Force
SL0W CHILDREN AT PLAY
#67 - 2012-07-31 01:53:34 UTC
Can someone tell me if they have changed the unpackage size too ?
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#68 - 2012-07-31 10:53:43 UTC
Ogogov wrote:
-1

Shrink all the battleships or properly scale carriers so that they can fit the volume of assembled ships that they are supposed to.

I simply cannot see how a carrier is supposed to be able to fit two assembled BS in the SMA as it stands. It is utterly ridiculous.


SMAs, cargo containers, etc are stolen gallifreyan technology
Yelena Fedorova
#69 - 2012-08-02 16:01:03 UTC
to0onsi wrote:
Can someone tell me if they have changed the unpackage size too ?

Probably not
2manno Asp
Death By Design
#70 - 2012-08-08 22:42:10 UTC
why is my Cynabal suddenly hilariously large?
Frying Doom
#71 - 2012-08-09 02:29:15 UTC
They just made the Mach smaller so you cannot see the duct taped parts that hold it together.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Mike Whiite
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#72 - 2012-08-09 10:24:42 UTC
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:
Mach getting reduced in size a reason to not buy it? Really? REALLY?!! It's arguably the best sub cap in the game and it being smaller is not going to have ANY effect on this WHATSOEVER. All that's happening is the foolishly sized ship is being reduced to reasonable levels. Honestly I'd rather the mach go to like 1000m instead of 1400m it still feels far to big for it's speed, agility and sig. Smaller more "tech advanced" BS pwning the larger lower "tech" ships is way more bad ass anyway...



If only that where true, Caldari have the smallest hightec ships, with the sig's of giants and less agillity and speed than their Minmatar counter parts.

High tech advanced -> Sig >
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#73 - 2012-08-09 14:08:54 UTC
still to big, texture is not sharp enough. Make it as big as a rifter.

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
#74 - 2012-08-10 09:31:52 UTC
I am happy to see the size of Machariels being reduced...

The tier 3 caldari battleship "ROKH" looked like a frigate compared to the Machariel and so did almost any other ship in the game.

Pinky
Donedy
Lulzsec Space
#75 - 2012-08-10 12:07:14 UTC
Yeah, it should have been changed before.
Finally it has a BS size.
Spc One
The Chodak
Void Alliance
#76 - 2012-08-11 07:33:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Spc One
We still didn't get official dev response.
So we don't know exact reason why to downsize it.
Since machariel was 1936m from it's intrudction it should stay this way..


http://www.eve-wiki.net/index.php?title=Machariel

New machariel looks very good, but it would be awesome if it could stay at 1936m.
Aglais
Ice-Storm
#77 - 2012-08-13 01:44:22 UTC
Your thread argues nothing that could benefit the game in any way, and it makes you look like an idiot who can't accept change.

If nothing else the Machariel being smaller will make the textures on it look sharper I guess? I dunno. Besides, it's more believable for being actually fast and agile now.
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
Tactical-Retreat
#78 - 2012-08-13 09:28:32 UTC
Precisely. The Mach is a speed ship, deal with it.

The bigger, the slower. CCP only respected that point.

Signature Tanking Best Tanking

[Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr

Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart
Ogogov
Arpy Corporation
#79 - 2012-08-13 13:53:35 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Ogogov wrote:
-1

Shrink all the battleships or properly scale carriers so that they can fit the volume of assembled ships that they are supposed to.

I simply cannot see how a carrier is supposed to be able to fit two assembled BS in the SMA as it stands. It is utterly ridiculous.


SMAs, cargo containers, etc are stolen gallifreyan technology


That would explain the Dalek infestation in my cargo hold. I tried everything but Windex seems to work best.
2manno Asp
Death By Design
#80 - 2012-08-13 16:12:38 UTC
Altrue wrote:
Precisely. The Mach is a speed ship, deal with it.

The bigger, the slower. CCP only respected that point.


of course, but then why make the cynabal bigger?

contradiction and ensuing frustration continues...