Ships & Modules

~not sure if this has been brought up already~

Just been flying round in a Myrmidon and the missing high-slot being, well, missing was quite noticeable. It just looks kinda ugly and it's obvious that there should be something in that gap on the ship model.

Seems to be the same on all of the BC's. So as the title says can we expect updated ship models to reflect the latest series of changes any time soon?

Mik,

Well they released Corax with 8 platforms, but let it mount only 7 launchers. So I bet nobody will bother updating current models.

You know what's ugly? Turrets in stupid places, like on engines.

Bad devs, bad.

the armageddon have a 8th turret hardpoint since it was first released and it had that empty hardpoint until the day salvager apeared on the ship hulls, 10 year later maybe?
so i dont really think appearance vs number of highs is such a high concern for ccp.
also the unused hardpoint you have now could be useful for a very remote possibility that ccp will release a T2 versions with more guns

what looks bad to you probably look awesome to others and atm when ccp change a hull they tend to make all the ship the same, all the time we lose some peculiar design, the maller now looks good but the old model fitted more the idea of the armor tanking brick, all the minmatar hulls lost their rust and the new tempest stabber totally lost the scrap metal design that was caracteristic of minmatar hulls

Should an existing model by updated, there is one ship that should be the top priority and that is the Moa.

I was just thinking about that the other night. A particularly bad culprit in that crime is the Omen, which has a nice, long hull and clusters almost all of its guns on the engine nacels. Why in God's name would you invite your enemy to simultaneously get to target your propulsion system AND your weapon emplacements?

Another bad ship for gun fittings, IMO, is the Hyperion. You have this huge, beautiful battleship, and you cluster ALL the turrets on the stern and bow. It's aesthetically awful to look at, and from a basic engineering standpoint, makes no sense. Why would the designers clump up all the turrets in one area that could, theoretically, get knocked out in a shot or two? Yeah, it doesn't affect gameplay in any way, but the practical girl inside me is screaming every time I look at it.


100% agree with you. To me, the 'evolution' of the Minmatar ships just makes them look like they belong. They still retain a very ominous, dark look to them, but they no longer look like garbage. I get the Minmatar are an evolving and new country, but that doesn't mean that their ships have to remain junk. Once they've got their foot in the door, it's time to modernize. The new Minmatar designs cherish the past, but build for a future -- a future where they're not constantly endangering valuable pilots with shoddy ships.

Remember that the traditional Amarr fleet doctrine strings ships out in an inpenetrable salient - the weapons and engines on an omen should be somewhat hull down to enemy gunners on all but the anchor ship (which is also furthest away) as a result of the placement of the adjacent ship.

Placement so far aft does of course limit the fire-arc of the majority of the turrets but it was still moderately logical until that fleet doctrine became obsolete.

I completely agree. Moreover, the new Minmatar models are at the same time similar and different from the old ones. Older models are that; models made for a past game time iwth older graphics. That said, I do like the general aestethic style of EVE Online: most ships are asymetrical and/or have strange forms, but it's ok since they're made for space, not air. You can easily recongize them from other games' ships. I think all older ships -Rupture, Moa...- should keep that distinctive look they have, still being themselves, while upgraded to the new graphics, and in case of the Rupture, to the new Minmatar style.

New models would almost be like getting new ships, and new ships are always fan-fricking-tastic.