These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Rubicon] Command Ship Models

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ozzymandias Duskwalker
Spartan Vanguard
#481 - 2013-10-09 12:23:00 UTC
I don't like the idea of changing the models in general tbh. Command ships have always struck me as filling more than just a combat role therefore their current models being more suitable for them than the more aggressive models of the attack(assault?) battle cruisers. The Prophecy model, for example, looks like something that is supposed to hold the line and survive serious DPS while its pilot commands the fleet. The pilot of a harby however would be expected to focus on doing damage, not lead a team.

This is just my aesthetic opinion though but seeing as this is mostly an aesthetic change I believe my argument to be relevant.

SSTC, flying moas before they were cool.

SSTC is now recruiting! we have lvl 5 mission fleets, incursion fleets, mining fleets, camping fleets, lolfleets, whyisthisguyfcing? fleets, 'zzZzZZzzzz' fleets (POS and POCO bashing) and exploration fleets!.
David Ost
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#482 - 2013-10-09 14:18:34 UTC
I don't care about others, only sleipnir. And I am sad with this proposal about sleip.

First of all, the justification for this change is projectiles(hurric) vs missiles(cyclone) right? Ok so you ruined cyclone with missiles and now want to use it like justification for sleipnir change? Shocked But I dont think that weapon system is big deal for ship hull. Imho defense system is the key part of how hull model look. And guess what sleipnir and claymore defense hull is strongly based on their shield (shield rep bonus) like cyclone... So If you change this, you are saying: "Hey there is no correlation between ship hull model and their defense abilities. It's just cosmetics, like a color." Right? Pirate

As a resullt of this may I ask you for hull model update for sleip based on cyclone hull? Thanks a lot.

Ps: another drake, please god no Sad
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#483 - 2013-10-09 19:10:34 UTC
Aesheera wrote:
Iam Widdershins wrote:
Ignore haters, these changes are great.

Almost as great as if you actually made more ship models for them.

This isnt hate.

I - and I am sure others - are all for T2 versions of the other BC hulls.
Just dont slap them on Commandships.

Why not? I'd rather have this done and put the attack BC hulls in place for the next T2 BC, if such a thing should ever come in the near future. Which is another reason why I'd be cool to have a T2 myrm now instead of next to never.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#484 - 2013-10-09 19:13:37 UTC
Ozzymandias Duskwalker wrote:
I don't like the idea of changing the models in general tbh. Command ships have always struck me as filling more than just a combat role therefore their current models being more suitable for them than the more aggressive models of the attack(assault?) battle cruisers. The Prophecy model, for example, looks like something that is supposed to hold the line and survive serious DPS while its pilot commands the fleet. The pilot of a harby however would be expected to focus on doing damage, not lead a team.

This is just my aesthetic opinion though but seeing as this is mostly an aesthetic change I believe my argument to be relevant.

It's a fat chicken. Fat chickens don't command, they just flop around then decapitated. We need something more sleek for the role. I'd say the oracle, but the role is too far divorced from a command ship, thus I'll settle for the harb.
Twisted Chick
Sebiestor Tribe
#485 - 2013-10-09 20:20:59 UTC
If your gonna change my Nighthawk to a Drake then give me back my 6 missile slot

Title: She who hunts Pandas

"Remember you can't spell Slaughter without Laughter!"

          ~Pinkamena Diane Pie~
Aesheera
Doomheim
#486 - 2013-10-09 20:38:13 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

It's a fat chicken. Fat chickens don't command, they just flop around then decapitated. We need something more sleek for the role. I'd say the oracle, but the role is too far divorced from a command ship, thus I'll settle for the harb.

Abso should be a fat chicken, considering the flying brick it is.

- I think my passion is misinterpreted as anger sometimes. And I don't think people are ready for the message that I'm delivering, and delivering with a sense of violent love.
GordonO
BURN EDEN
#487 - 2013-10-09 22:42:52 UTC
Twisted Chick wrote:
If your gonna change my Nighthawk to a Drake then give me back my 6 missile slot


Still not going to be useful. But making the sliepner look like a cane is just plain bad..

... What next ??
Twisted Chick
Sebiestor Tribe
#488 - 2013-10-09 23:06:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Twisted Chick
GordonO wrote:
Twisted Chick wrote:
If your gonna change my Nighthawk to a Drake then give me back my 6 missile slot


Still not going to be useful. But making the sliepner look like a cane is just plain bad..


I want an even weapon slot if its going on a drake :P It will look goofy with the 5 missile slots on a drake. Call me weird but I like symmetrical ships and weapon slots >_>

Title: She who hunts Pandas

"Remember you can't spell Slaughter without Laughter!"

          ~Pinkamena Diane Pie~
Kirren D'marr
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#489 - 2013-10-09 23:44:02 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
I also want to let you guys know that nothing in these changes affects any timeline for getting special models onto these ships. Updating T2 ships with specialized models is a long-term project the Art guys are working on in every expansion, and that will continue. These changes are not being made "instead" of model changes, they are completely seperate and don't take any significant amount of time away from the other ongoing art projects such as the new sisters ships and the revamped marauder models.


Then why bother making this change at all? If you know these changes are just going to be changed again, what is the point of doing this now and just getting a lot of angry responses (unless you're intentionally trying to get people riled up)?

CCP Fozzie wrote:
There are no longer such things as fleet or combat command ships. That distinction was removed when we rebalanced the class.


That was the first mistake. If they're not going to have distinct roles, then you may as well just have four ships instead of eight.

CCP Fozzie wrote:
And just to be clear we're still early on and nothing is set in stone at this point. What I don't want to do however is make kneejerk changes before more people have had a chance to try them out and give the alternate hulls a chance on Sisi.. Take the time to check them out on Sisi and let the idea settle in, keep letting us know what you think. We will continue to be taking feedback for quite a while.


Sorry, but staring at more Drake hulls is not going to make me think they are any less ugly and boring, no matter what color you slap on them.

Why a switch on/off? Because the new animation doesn't add anything to gameplay and it's graphically annoying. In other words, it's worse than bad: it's useless. Simple as that.     _ - Kina Ayami_
SOL Ranger
Imperial Armed Forces
#490 - 2013-10-10 00:55:01 UTC
Kirren D'marr wrote:

...
That was the first mistake. If they're not going to have distinct roles, then you may as well just have four ships instead of eight.
...


I'll never understand this, why exactly would different ships with different properties but the same role be so redundant to the game that they might as well be removed?

I'd understand and support your opinion if it was to resurrect the killed off ship role, but you're actually leaning towards advocating the removal of ships because of a principle that there should only exist one ship per role per faction; I've seen this opinion before and I'll always end up surprised that this at all can seem as a reasonable pursuit.


I'd love to have countless same faction ships with similar and overlapping properties and hulls having the same role, it is realistic, fun and nobody wants to be pigeon holed into one single ship and hull for one role or play style.

The Vargur requires launcher hardpoints, following tempest tradition.
OTMOROSOK
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#491 - 2013-10-10 05:48:14 UTC
Why CCP wants to use the same 3D old models for this ships? Why they want every faction would have 3 ships of the same design, what's the point?

Dear CCP developers are You short of ideas of designers? Do You want to refresh the looks of the comand ships or just tell You boss: "I've completed the task that You told me to complete! Where is my bonus?" :)

Would You make a really new looking ships' 3D models, please, like You've done with sisters' ships.
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
#492 - 2013-10-10 08:06:39 UTC
Sure new Hulls are the Goal but atleast I get my T2 Myrm thanks CCP. :p

Meet the Mario Kart 8 - Capsuleer Club Cup
Zae'dra Xanthe
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#493 - 2013-10-10 11:10:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Zae'dra Xanthe
Please

For the love of all things humane....

Please...

*NO* T2 DRAKES, CANES and the brown and ugly looking Amarr ship.

-- rage mode off --

CCP, you don't have design talent? Get some dudes and start doing modeling work. Something entirely NEW (or at least considerably modified NEW given all T2 things share hulls with their T1 variants) would be acceptable. This is pure slacking!

This... this is a downgrade. No way in hell in putting my behind into a T2 drake or cane, thank God there are still other options.
Mashie Saldana
V0LTA
WE FORM V0LTA
#494 - 2013-10-10 12:04:05 UTC
If you promise to merge the Hurricane and Minmatar shuttle model as soon as possible to become the new Sleipnir, then maybe we can live with the Hurricane model temporarily.

As long as the final ship is looking menacing with lots of solar panels.

I will still miss the old Sleipnir.

How to win EVE
Tenaris Zeratul
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#495 - 2013-10-10 13:17:13 UTC
I know a lot of people don't like the changes, for example, the Sleipnir being a Cane now. I was thinking about this, and I was wondering if all command ship hulls made before Rubicon retain the classic look, and maybe get some sort of prefix/suffix (I.E. "Legacy Eos"/Eos Legacy Edition"), and all command ships built after Rubicon have the new looks.

This way, people who like the old hulls can still fly them, and those who like the new ones can fly those.
Kirren D'marr
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#496 - 2013-10-10 13:26:46 UTC
SOL Ranger wrote:
Kirren D'marr wrote:

...
That was the first mistake. If they're not going to have distinct roles, then you may as well just have four ships instead of eight.
...


I'll never understand this, why exactly would different ships with different properties but the same role be so redundant to the game that they might as well be removed?

I'd understand and support your opinion if it was to resurrect the killed off ship role, but you're actually leaning towards advocating the removal of ships because of a principle that there should only exist one ship per role per faction; I've seen this opinion before and I'll always end up surprised that this at all can seem as a reasonable pursuit.


I'd love to have countless same faction ships with similar and overlapping properties and hulls having the same role, it is realistic, fun and nobody wants to be pigeon holed into one single ship and hull for one role or play style.


My intent wasn't so much as to advocate the removal of ships, but rather to point out the mistake of removing the roles. T2 ships are supposed to be designed with a specific role and purpose; unlike their T1 counterparts, they are highly specialized. In homogenizing the command ships, some of that specialization has been removed. Yes, command ships still have a distinct role apart from other hulls, but now there are certain roles and cases where there is no longer a ship designed to fill that specific role, and the new more bland group doesn't do the job as well as it used to.

Frankly, the removal of fleet and combat command ships just felt like laziness on CCP's part. It was a cop-out to make their balancing easier. I'm all for having more options to fly, but not at the expense of utility and function. If CCP wants more ships in a given role, they should be adding hulls, not reducing the effectiveness of ones that we already have.

P.S. The Drake is still ugly, and we don't need any more of them flying around!

Why a switch on/off? Because the new animation doesn't add anything to gameplay and it's graphically annoying. In other words, it's worse than bad: it's useless. Simple as that.     _ - Kina Ayami_
Syri Taneka
NOVA-CAINE
#497 - 2013-10-10 14:05:01 UTC
I like all of them except the Sleip, simply because the Hurricane is such a bland hull to begin with. A t2 Myrm would be PIMP, as would a t2 Drake.
Kane Fenris
NWP
#498 - 2013-10-10 17:15:59 UTC
Tenaris Zeratul wrote:
I know a lot of people don't like the changes, for example, the Sleipnir being a Cane now. I was thinking about this, and I was wondering if all command ship hulls made before Rubicon retain the classic look, and maybe get some sort of prefix/suffix (I.E. "Legacy Eos"/Eos Legacy Edition"), and all command ships built after Rubicon have the new looks.

This way, people who like the old hulls can still fly them, and those who like the new ones can fly those.



this is a nice idea i had another idea :

what it ships have the skin of the ship they are invented from (sleip beeing possibly invented from hurrocane or cyclone)etc....


but this wont happen because of the same reason: "It will be to confuseing esp for new players etc....."
PavlikX
Scan Stakan
HOLD MY PROBS
#499 - 2013-10-10 18:31:23 UTC
Heh. I have better option - give additional low slot to the damnation and leave absolution alone P
Cleopatrra
Lorcalon Industries
#500 - 2013-10-10 18:48:39 UTC
So is it just me or does the new Myr look almost like the T1 variant... Was looking forward to the redish one.