These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

! DEPRECATED -- Winter Expansion: Crucible SUMMARY (Updated 11/9)

First post
Author
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
#81 - 2011-10-28 01:26:53 UTC
Iam Widdershins wrote:
Nova Fox wrote:
Iam Widdershins wrote:
Mr LaForge wrote:
I'll just drop this pic here of the new crow/raptor

http://i.imgur.com/z3WQf.jpg

I like it. Do you have sources?


That doesnt look like ccp's engine.

It's probably a 3rd party modeling tool rendering a model pulled from blueprint files in a recent test server dump


Though possible ccp usually doesnt put such a low texture on ships these days.
Then again normal mapping doesnt seem enabled either but that would make it look weirder not flatter. In house models are about multiple thousand poly's and they pull thier light maps form those before they wrap them on the lower 200-500 count poly models.

Dust 514's CPM 1 Iron Wolf Saber Eve mail me about Dust 514 issues.

Iam Widdershins
Victory or Whatever
#82 - 2011-10-28 01:43:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Iam Widdershins
Nova Fox wrote:

Though possible ccp usually doesnt put such a low texture on ships these days.
Then again normal mapping doesnt seem enabled either but that would make it look weirder not flatter. In house models are about multiple thousand poly's and they pull thier light maps form those before they wrap them on the lower 200-500 count poly models.

You wouldn't get an in-house model; by the time those make it into any form of the EVE client, they have already been reduced with normal maps. If what I'm assuming is correct, this would be an actual textured model, maybe with an early version of the texture, from the data dump of one of the test client versions.

Lobbying for your right to delete your signature

Hiram Alexander
State Reprisal
#83 - 2011-10-28 01:51:11 UTC
Iam Widdershins wrote:
Nova Fox wrote:

Though possible ccp usually doesnt put such a low texture on ships these days.
Then again normal mapping doesnt seem enabled either but that would make it look weirder not flatter. In house models are about multiple thousand poly's and they pull thier light maps form those before they wrap them on the lower 200-500 count poly models.

You wouldn't get an in-house model; by the time those make it into any form of the EVE client, they have already been reduced with normal maps. If what I'm assuming is correct, this would be an actual textured model, maybe with an early version of the texture, from the data dump of one of the test client versions.

Youtube 360 deg. view - link

You can get more information from Sarmatiko possibly. He hinted to me earlier that it was from one of the other test servers - not Sisi.
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
#84 - 2011-10-28 01:53:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Nova Fox
I was referencing that the inhouse models is why the ingame models look so good, they're used for references to make the normal maps. This texturing is very underwhelming when compared to the fighter bomber.

Multiplicity, Choas and i think two more are developer playgrounds. players are normally not allowed there.

Dust 514's CPM 1 Iron Wolf Saber Eve mail me about Dust 514 issues.

Iam Widdershins
Victory or Whatever
#85 - 2011-10-28 02:29:33 UTC
Nova Fox wrote:
I was referencing that the inhouse models is why the ingame models look so good, they're used for references to make the normal maps. This texturing is very underwhelming when compared to the fighter bomber.

Multiplicity, Choas and i think two more are developer playgrounds. players are normally not allowed there.

Well, anyway, it looks good. Kind of harks to the Mantis and the Caracal, and the original Crow. Er, Condor.

Lobbying for your right to delete your signature

Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
#86 - 2011-10-28 02:30:34 UTC
well it could be missing a few layers, well have to see wait and see.

Dust 514's CPM 1 Iron Wolf Saber Eve mail me about Dust 514 issues.

JC Anderson
RED ROSE THORN
#87 - 2011-10-28 03:27:03 UTC  |  Edited by: JC Anderson
Actually, months before the new Maller model made it to the test server, it was posted on these forums in the same way. These are models that apparently are pulled from a compressed build, converted, and rendered by a third party app.

I'd think that would be the only way since we can't exactly access Eve's render engine.
Iam Widdershins
Victory or Whatever
#88 - 2011-10-28 03:32:08 UTC
I don't know any of the people who produce these images, but I think that some of them may be pushed as extra content data in small patches leading up to a larger expansion, to reduce the size of the overall patch. So basically they could be sitting as unused data in the files of the current client version; this is a pretty standard practice.

Lobbying for your right to delete your signature

JC Anderson
RED ROSE THORN
#89 - 2011-10-28 03:39:41 UTC
Iam Widdershins wrote:
I don't know any of the people who produce these images, but I think that some of them may be pushed as extra content data in small patches leading up to a larger expansion, to reduce the size of the overall patch. So basically they could be sitting as unused data in the files of the current client version; this is a pretty standard practice.


Wouldn't be surprised if that was the case... The maller images were posted so far in advance of them making it to the test server that your theory would most likely be correct.

When those were posted it was the same thing. The textures were bland, and everybody said it didn't look like it was CCP's engine. They were mostly passed off as a false rumor.

Then one day, the models shown in those images were suddenly the new Maller. ;)
JC Anderson
RED ROSE THORN
#90 - 2011-10-28 03:44:41 UTC
Oh, and you can get a 360' render of the model rotating at the following link,
http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/sarmatiko/crow_model_revamp.mkv
Iam Widdershins
Victory or Whatever
#91 - 2011-10-28 04:29:43 UTC
JC Anderson wrote:
Oh, and you can get a 360' render of the model rotating at the following link,
http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/sarmatiko/crow_model_revamp.mkv

Someone already linked this on youtube up there ^^^

Lobbying for your right to delete your signature

JC Anderson
RED ROSE THORN
#92 - 2011-10-28 05:55:21 UTC
Iam Widdershins wrote:
JC Anderson wrote:
Oh, and you can get a 360' render of the model rotating at the following link,
http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/sarmatiko/crow_model_revamp.mkv

Someone already linked this on youtube up there ^^^



Bah I no longer feel special.
Reilly Duvolle
Hydra Squadron
#93 - 2011-10-28 06:49:50 UTC
Nick Bison wrote:
Great initial info.
I will be suprised if the ship stats hold all the way to production.
I can very well see a reduction in the High Power slots to 6 turret/missile by release time as I would not expect these pocket battleships to have full battleship damage but, still a butt-load.

Oh, and if the Highs are reduced, I could see a 25m3/25Mbit drone bay on each, 75m3/50Mbit on Gallente.


The whole point of the new battlecruiser class is to create something unique. These are very very fast and carries a big punch. They are also laugably thin skinned, and with no viable defence against small ships (Gallente 25m dronebay gives it some capability but not all that much). They have amazing strengths and amazing weaknesses. Taking away punch to add dronebays would make them more balanced as solo ships, but it sure as hell would also strip away a good portion of their uniquness. 8 guns and no dronebays is pure win to me.
Iam Widdershins
Victory or Whatever
#94 - 2011-10-28 07:03:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Iam Widdershins
Reilly Duvolle wrote:
Nick Bison wrote:
Great initial info.
I will be suprised if the ship stats hold all the way to production.
I can very well see a reduction in the High Power slots to 6 turret/missile by release time as I would not expect these pocket battleships to have full battleship damage but, still a butt-load.

Oh, and if the Highs are reduced, I could see a 25m3/25Mbit drone bay on each, 75m3/50Mbit on Gallente.


The whole point of the new battlecruiser class is to create something unique. These are very very fast and carries a big punch. They are also laugably thin skinned, and with no viable defence against small ships (Gallente 25m dronebay gives it some capability but not all that much). They have amazing strengths and amazing weaknesses. Taking away punch to add dronebays would make them more balanced as solo ships, but it sure as hell would also strip away a good portion of their uniquness. 8 guns and no dronebays is pure win to me.

In response to the underlined:

Except the Talos, which will ROFL-**** them.

Clearly you haven't looked into what double 90-webs will do to a frigate.

Lobbying for your right to delete your signature

pussnheels
Viziam
#95 - 2011-10-28 09:22:19 UTC
Iam Widdershins wrote:
Reilly Duvolle wrote:
Nick Bison wrote:
Great initial info.
I will be suprised if the ship stats hold all the way to production.
I can very well see a reduction in the High Power slots to 6 turret/missile by release time as I would not expect these pocket battleships to have full battleship damage but, still a butt-load.

Oh, and if the Highs are reduced, I could see a 25m3/25Mbit drone bay on each, 75m3/50Mbit on Gallente.


The whole point of the new battlecruiser class is to create something unique. These are very very fast and carries a big punch. They are also laugably thin skinned, and with no viable defence against small ships (Gallente 25m dronebay gives it some capability but not all that much). They have amazing strengths and amazing weaknesses. Taking away punch to add dronebays would make them more balanced as solo ships, but it sure as hell would also strip away a good portion of their uniquness. 8 guns and no dronebays is pure win to me.

In response to the underlined:

Except the Talos, which will ROFL-**** them.

Clearly you haven't looked into what double 90-webs will do to a frigate.


I see them more being used as a supplement to small and roaming gangs for extra dps and more like our own historical Battlecruisers , huntdown everything that is not fast enough and run away against everything that is bigger and stronger

But aslong we don't have any definite stats everything is speculation

I do not agree with what you are saying , but i will defend to the death your right to say it...... Voltaire

Iam Widdershins
Victory or Whatever
#96 - 2011-10-28 09:26:08 UTC
pussnheels wrote:
But aslong we don't have any definite stats everything is speculation

We do have some definite stats (see page 3 and the fitting tool link in the OP), so it's not ALL speculation. However, you are right in that these numbers and stats are all very much unannounced and subject to change.

Lobbying for your right to delete your signature

thekiller2002us
The J8sters
#97 - 2011-10-28 09:27:31 UTC
I'm really happy about the upcoming expansion. I'm really looking forward to it- NERF those caps ccp

I'm with Brick on this one- make thouse carebearing b******s squeal..

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
#98 - 2011-10-28 09:43:12 UTC
Reilly Duvolle wrote:
The whole point of the new battlecruiser class is to create something unique....

What's unique about them?

Paper tanks (for their size), maxed out guns with tracking/range bonuses. They are trying to make BC sized destroyers.

Problem is that CCP is apparently not aware of this yet and seem to want to balance them as if they were generic PvP ships when in truth they are supposed to be fire-support craft with little survivability when alone. Web bonuses and the like will just create massively OP boats that obsolete everything smaller.

The roses CCP .. do you smell them!
Iam Widdershins
Victory or Whatever
#99 - 2011-10-28 09:47:18 UTC
Hirana Yoshida wrote:
Reilly Duvolle wrote:
The whole point of the new battlecruiser class is to create something unique....

What's unique about them?

Paper tanks (for their size), maxed out guns with tracking/range bonuses. They are trying to make BC sized destroyers.

Problem is that CCP is apparently not aware of this yet and seem to want to balance them as if they were generic PvP ships when in truth they are supposed to be fire-support craft with little survivability when alone. Web bonuses and the like will just create massively OP boats that obsolete everything smaller.

The roses CCP .. do you smell them!

Yeah.

Honesly, I like the idea behind them, and CCP has made some really good points introducing them, and if they were introduced as is it wouldn't be the end of the world... but I think a really big tracking bonus or a really good falloff bonus would be better for the Talos than the massive web bonus it has right now. It worries me.

Lobbying for your right to delete your signature

Onictus
Capital Fusion.
Pandemic Horde
#100 - 2011-10-28 10:07:15 UTC
Iam Widdershins wrote:
Hirana Yoshida wrote:
Reilly Duvolle wrote:
The whole point of the new battlecruiser class is to create something unique....

What's unique about them?

Paper tanks (for their size), maxed out guns with tracking/range bonuses. They are trying to make BC sized destroyers.

Problem is that CCP is apparently not aware of this yet and seem to want to balance them as if they were generic PvP ships when in truth they are supposed to be fire-support craft with little survivability when alone. Web bonuses and the like will just create massively OP boats that obsolete everything smaller.

The roses CCP .. do you smell them!

Yeah.

Honesly, I like the idea behind them, and CCP has made some really good points introducing them, and if they were introduced as is it wouldn't be the end of the world... but I think a really big tracking bonus or a really good falloff bonus would be better for the Talos than the massive web bonus it has right now. It worries me.


Its still a going to be a paper thin tank in point range....So I doubt it'll be that unbalancing.


Not to mention that you are going to have to armor tank if you really want to take advantage of that web bonus, so its not likely to be THAT fast compared to the Tornado.