These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Which Ship would you like to see remodelled?

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mysttina
Alpha Spectres
#561 - 2013-12-19 09:42:46 UTC
Even though many would argue it is an iconic ship of Eve Online...for me it would be Moa!!!

As it is currently, it looks more like an engineering/construction ship rather than a combat ship...

I am okay with the asymmetric ship design, and Caldari principle of function over looks ( Moa shape doesn't really looks functional, other than hurting its enemy with its ugliness!! ).

Sorry but Moa/Eagle/Onyx need some sexification and love! P
Iudicium Vastus
Doomheim
#562 - 2013-12-19 11:03:41 UTC
Imicus and Dominix.
And maybe Harbinger. Thing looks like some sort of slug and/or insect.

[u]Nerf stabs/cloaks in FW?[/u] No, just.. -Fit more points -Fit faction points -Bring a friend or two with points (an alt is fine too)
Chance Harper
Doomheim
#563 - 2013-12-19 11:30:09 UTC
all the ugly ones:

Dominix
Raven
Golem
Typhoon
Bantam
Imicus
Navitas
Tristan
Vigil
Slasher


Sitting at work atm, cant think of more.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#564 - 2013-12-19 11:35:32 UTC
Kiryen O'Bannon wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:

Wrong. Simmetry needs a reason. Assimetry is the natural way ANY engineering project grows. If you need a device added to your project you find best place and put it there. making a second one to put on other side so it would be simmetrical is IDIOCY.

Only designers care for simmetry (and aerodynamics experts on a lesser degree).


No, that is not true. We are not talking about minor parts; we're talking about the structure/superstructure. "Natural" has nothing to do with engineering.

Small parts like machine guns or night sights on a tank won't be symmetrical, but the overall hull form of the tank will be.. because it is equally likely to need to engage targets on either side.

No one puts a second device on the other side for artistic symmetry, but only semantic pedants would point that out. Devices that need to be on both sides for full coverage (for example, point defense emplacements) will be.

Quote:
that makes sense when you build things in assembly lines and pieces are just connected and done.

Ships in eve are even larger than real live ships. And NEVER a ship is made like that. Things this size are build in ways that do not care for these properties.

You are not talking about a car with 3 meters here. You are talking about ships with half a km LONG!! Adding a new piece on other side just to make simmetrical will add THOUSANDS of tons of steel! Also internals of ships in real life are NOWHERE near simmetric therefore the pieces from left size of the ships are NOT interchangeable with the ones on right side anyway.

Makign simmetric Huge structures is LESS efficient!!

Just pay attention, military equipment around the world is basically the only place where you find assimetry. Why? BEcause military equipment cannot bother with "looking cool". They need to be efficient. The simmetry is kept up to a level for some logical reasons. A plane must have 2 equal sides to fly correctly.

But a tank have a coaxial gun on only 1 side. They have a search light on one side.

A carrier does nto have an island on each side of the runway, because 1 is enough!

Comemricial buildigns are simemtrical, because people care for it. Industrial buildings are not, because making them simmetrical would be a wastage!


Buildings do not move. Objects that need to move and fight are symmetrical because it is easier to design propulsion and arrange weapons and sensor coverage that way.

It doesn't matter how big ships in EVE are; there is no arbitrary size where asymmetry becomes the norm.

Furthermore, no one is talking about making every tiny bit symmetrical, either in EVE or in real life. It's about the overall hull form. Remember that aircraft carrier? it's lower hull IS symmetrical to make it pass through water more easily and with less complex design.

Britain had asymmetrical battleships in WWI. Some battleships had main battery turrets on the sides, and some were offset fore and aft so that they could (theoretically) fire a full broadside. It didn't work. Eventually the idea was abandoned and in-line turrets like the U.S. used became the norm. Look up the Neptune and Colossus class ships.

Aysmmetry without a specific reason is ******* STUPID.


Lunar landign module was not simmetrical . Voyager ships were nto simmetrical. And they are the closest thigns as space ships for interplanetary travel we have.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Niclas Solo
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#565 - 2013-12-19 13:11:45 UTC
I wish they would change back commandships

Abso is cool but harbi is not.
Eos is cool but myrm is ok.
Sleipner is cool but cane is not.
Drake is drake...
Khoul Ay'd
The Affiliation
#566 - 2013-12-19 23:41:59 UTC
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:
Did someone already mentioned the Dominix?

Just say'in



Exactly, don't touch it! Just Sayin' Evil

The things we do today we must live with forever.... Think about it
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
#567 - 2013-12-19 23:45:09 UTC
Perhaps we should have a silent poll on login. Select a ship with a check box on login for redesign.

Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction...
IbanezLaney
The Church of Awesome
#568 - 2013-12-20 00:05:32 UTC
Hookbill.

It should be more 'Kestrelish' in its look considering kestrel is the base hull needed to swap in the LP store.

https://soundcloud.com/ibanezlaney
CMD Ishikawa
New Eden Public Security Section 9
#569 - 2013-12-29 17:08:31 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Kiryen O'Bannon wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:

Wrong. Simmetry needs a reason. Assimetry is the natural way ANY engineering project grows. If you need a device added to your project you find best place and put it there. making a second one to put on other side so it would be simmetrical is IDIOCY.

Only designers care for simmetry (and aerodynamics experts on a lesser degree).


No, that is not true. We are not talking about minor parts; we're talking about the structure/superstructure. "Natural" has nothing to do with engineering.

Small parts like machine guns or night sights on a tank won't be symmetrical, but the overall hull form of the tank will be.. because it is equally likely to need to engage targets on either side.

No one puts a second device on the other side for artistic symmetry, but only semantic pedants would point that out. Devices that need to be on both sides for full coverage (for example, point defense emplacements) will be.

Quote:
that makes sense when you build things in assembly lines and pieces are just connected and done.

Ships in eve are even larger than real live ships. And NEVER a ship is made like that. Things this size are build in ways that do not care for these properties.

You are not talking about a car with 3 meters here. You are talking about ships with half a km LONG!! Adding a new piece on other side just to make simmetrical will add THOUSANDS of tons of steel! Also internals of ships in real life are NOWHERE near simmetric therefore the pieces from left size of the ships are NOT interchangeable with the ones on right side anyway.

Makign simmetric Huge structures is LESS efficient!!

Just pay attention, military equipment around the world is basically the only place where you find assimetry. Why? BEcause military equipment cannot bother with "looking cool". They need to be efficient. The simmetry is kept up to a level for some logical reasons. A plane must have 2 equal sides to fly correctly.

But a tank have a coaxial gun on only 1 side. They have a search light on one side.

A carrier does nto have an island on each side of the runway, because 1 is enough!

Comemricial buildigns are simemtrical, because people care for it. Industrial buildings are not, because making them simmetrical would be a wastage!


Buildings do not move. Objects that need to move and fight are symmetrical because it is easier to design propulsion and arrange weapons and sensor coverage that way.

It doesn't matter how big ships in EVE are; there is no arbitrary size where asymmetry becomes the norm.

Furthermore, no one is talking about making every tiny bit symmetrical, either in EVE or in real life. It's about the overall hull form. Remember that aircraft carrier? it's lower hull IS symmetrical to make it pass through water more easily and with less complex design.

Britain had asymmetrical battleships in WWI. Some battleships had main battery turrets on the sides, and some were offset fore and aft so that they could (theoretically) fire a full broadside. It didn't work. Eventually the idea was abandoned and in-line turrets like the U.S. used became the norm. Look up the Neptune and Colossus class ships.

Aysmmetry without a specific reason is ******* STUPID.


Lunar landign module was not simmetrical . Voyager ships were nto simmetrical. And they are the closest thigns as space ships for interplanetary travel we have.


One thing is having some asymmetric parts in the design of the ship like the ones that you mention and other are those horrible Gallente and Caldari things called spaceships...

Please Bunnyvirus do something about the Dominix...
Galen Draz
Legion of Fallen Soldiers
#570 - 2013-12-29 17:29:04 UTC
Eos
Chirjo Durruti
Doomheim
#571 - 2013-12-29 17:55:03 UTC
change these:
Imicus: looks like a barricaded, half kicked-in door. model it as an organic looking heron. (i like the heron - sue me!)
Celestis: thruster extension way too large.
Catalyst: looks like forward half of an old B-17 with one wing cut off.
iteron mark V: it's tooooooooo loooooooong. (especially when aligning x.x)

And leave the Dominix the hell alone! Just observe a dominix repping her drones ... awww, cute :D

HOWTO: No More Tears (solo) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdA4ciUrH-k If you can get me a better crew than THIS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPrtQ9AdoM0 convo me.
Gealbhan
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#572 - 2013-12-29 18:16:17 UTC
Nidhoggur. That is if anyone ever flew it. Arrow
Silvetica Dian
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#573 - 2013-12-29 18:26:21 UTC
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
Dominix, because it just looks so stupid.

Leviathan, because a titan should look like a space *****, not anything sensible.

Nightmare, because a ship should not be allowed to look THAT AWESOME.


When i first saw a Widow i at once decided i didn't care which Blops was best. If i ever train for one it will be a widow.

Money at its root is a form of rationing. When the richest 85 people have as much wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion (50% of humanity) it is clear where the source of poverty is. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/20/trickle-down-economics-broken-promise-richest-85
Logical 101
PowerCow Farm
#574 - 2013-12-29 18:39:07 UTC
Aurick Steel wrote:
The other race's ships styling seem to age better, while the Caldari ships feel like the 90's still.

I have always liked Caldari ships as they are.

They remind me of the sort of ships we see in Aliens movies. You know... science fiction that doesn't have one foot in the kiddie pool and the other in a pile of fluffy, fantasy ****.
Rhatar Khurin
Doomheim
#575 - 2013-12-29 18:50:26 UTC
I would like the models of the mining barges redone.

Perhaps it's just me but i think they could look cooler. Look at the venture that's great looking.. Make them a bit more like that.
Antihrist Pripravnik
Cultural Enrichment and Synergy of Diversity
Stain Neurodiverse Democracy
#576 - 2013-12-29 19:00:41 UTC
Chance Harper wrote:
all the ugly ones:

Dominix
Raven
Golem
Typhoon
Bantam
Imicus
Navitas
Tristan
Vigil
Slasher


Sitting at work atm, cant think of more.


As a long time Raven user, I would disagree. It's not beautiful, but it's not ugly either.
But Tristan? Come on Big smile It's the second best looking frig after Rifter Cool

Anyway, I don't know if I posted yet in this thread so here's my list:

Moa
Bantam
Rupture

There are other ugly looking ships, but the original question was "Which ship would you like to see remodeled?" Nightmare (and Sansha ships in general) are horrible looking, but their design fit the backstory perfectly. They are ugly, but I would not like them to be any other way Smile
Hemi DarkStar
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#577 - 2013-12-29 20:14:18 UTC
I find the T2 mining barges a bit cheap design wise. They look way too similar to the T1 variants. Also the Venture looks kinda out of place compared to the big boys. As in the Venture looks way better then all the big mining barges. It's color and design is superior to the boring barges. Maybe put some of that color in the T2 variants of the barges? Expand the mesh a bit so they look a bit more different from their T1 brothers?

Mining is boring of course, but why not give the miners something to look at when they finally can afford the Mack or Hulk?
Raven O'Russ
The King's Retribution
#578 - 2013-12-30 09:11:58 UTC
Rupture. At least it needs new texture.
Moa. Seriously, it is just awful.


BTW, I'd like to say devs "great thanks" for stabber redesign. I just wish other minmatar looked so awesome with some animation like stabber does today.
soorajgk
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#579 - 2013-12-30 11:18:01 UTC
1. new ship model for interceptors, like tech3 battlecruisers.

2. command ships design should be changed, current design is based on existing tech1 model.

3. mining barges and exhumers ships looks almost the same, so think of new designs.
Oleszka
Syntropia Of Avatara
#580 - 2013-12-30 11:47:36 UTC
there is no need to redesign the ships, its only usefull to change the navy, pirat and T2 versions of the ships littlebit in the model not only in the skin color.

**EvE-Movie, take a look and enjoy it **PushMe