open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked EvE and symmetric ships
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3

Author Topic

Tonamin1
Posted - 2010.12.23 09:57:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Tonamin1 on 23/12/2010 12:38:42
NO!!!
One of the great things that makes eve ... well eveish(no other description fits better) is buttugly and ASYMMETRIC ships, ships that have there shape dictated by function not estetics; the shapes that we hated and now love so much.

But lately the new models are becomeing more and more symmetric, same goes for the enteries for the lastest contest.

Keep it asimetric, keep it EvE.

Thank you, that is all.

Kara Sharalien
Gallente
Federal Navy Academy
Posted - 2010.12.23 12:28:00 - [2]
 

symmetric, asymmetric

Tonamin1
Posted - 2010.12.23 12:31:00 - [3]
 

Edited by: Tonamin1 on 23/12/2010 12:39:19
Fixed, happy now?

Lady Spank
Amarr
In Praise Of Shadows
Posted - 2010.12.23 12:43:00 - [4]
 

Originally by: Tonamin1
Edited by: Tonamin1 on 23/12/2010 12:39:19
Fixed, happy now?


Ignore the pedants. I support your interest in keeping the off shaped wonders :D

Tonamin1
Posted - 2010.12.23 12:46:00 - [5]
 

The way things are going it's more of a concern then an interest. Sad

Kara Sharalien
Gallente
Federal Navy Academy
Posted - 2010.12.23 12:47:00 - [6]
 

Edited by: Kara Sharalien on 23/12/2010 12:46:44
Originally by: Tonamin1
Edited by: Tonamin1 on 23/12/2010 12:39:19
Fixed, happy now?


Much. And I like asymmetric ships. But make no mistake, few ships in eve are functional. For example, how the **** does the oneros fly in a straight line?

Forwards is an important function of a logistics ship, and one the oneros would be incapable of performing in real life since the line of thrust is off-center from the axis of the ship.

De'Veldrin
Minmatar
Norse'Storm Battle Group
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2010.12.23 13:14:00 - [7]
 

Edited by: De''Veldrin on 23/12/2010 13:15:09
Originally by: Kara Sharalien
Edited by: Kara Sharalien on 23/12/2010 12:46:44
Originally by: Tonamin1
Edited by: Tonamin1 on 23/12/2010 12:39:19
Fixed, happy now?


Much. And I like asymmetric ships. But make no mistake, few ships in eve are functional. For example, how the **** does the oneros fly in a straight line?

Forwards is an important function of a logistics ship, and one the oneros would be incapable of performing in real life since the line of thrust is off-center from the axis of the ship.


That would only be true if the ship only had one exhaust port. As you can clearly see from this image: Look Ma, lots of Engines! it has more than one, which means the ship's computer can balance the thrust from each port to keep the line of thrust at, or very close to, the centerline of the ship.

Yay computers! \o/

Edit: Must learn to proofread before clicking submit.

Rhinanna
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2010.12.23 13:46:00 - [8]
 

[sarcasm]Yes because Intelligent ship designers would design a ship so it couldn't use 100% of it's engine power when heading straight forward.....[/sarcasm]

They should make sure the ship looks like it CAN fly in a straight line at full thrust at least.
Ships that don't look like they should be able to fly hurt player's immersion into EVE and puts a lot of people off the game. We need a balance of ship styles but currently there are a hell of a lot of asymertrical ships. Amarr are about the only race with a majority of symmetrical ships... and even then they have a lot that aren't.

Lady Spank
Amarr
In Praise Of Shadows
Posted - 2010.12.23 13:51:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Rhinanna
Ships that don't look like they should be able to fly hurt player's immersion into EVE and puts a lot of people off the game.


Cry moar noob.

Faolan Fortune
Posted - 2010.12.23 14:19:00 - [10]
 

Edited by: Faolan Fortune on 23/12/2010 14:19:21
I'm pretty sure, if you looked and counted, there is about half and half symmetric and asymmetric ships in EvE.

Also regarding new designs:
  • Zephyr = symmetric

  • Primae/Noctis = asymmetric

  • New Scorpion = symmetric

  • Echellon = asymmetric


There are also plenty of assymetric and symmetric ships alike in the eve ship contest, mine for example is a mix.

To be honest a ship design doesn't have to be either to look 'EvEish' or look good.

De'Veldrin
Minmatar
Norse'Storm Battle Group
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2010.12.23 14:23:00 - [11]
 

Edited by: De''Veldrin on 23/12/2010 14:24:25
Originally by: Rhinanna
[sarcasm]Yes because Intelligent ship designers would design a ship so it couldn't use 100% of it's engine power when heading straight forward.....[/sarcasm]



Rolling Eyes

Did IQs drop sharply while I wasn't paying attention?

An intelligent ship designer would have balanced the engines at max thrust FOR EACH ENGINE - is that such a hard ****ing concept that you couldn't have come up with it on your own? Really? Do I need to draw you a ****ing picture?

Edit: In before "bigger engine = moar thrust!!one!eleven!and a half!!!!!!one"

Glyken Touchon
Gallente
Independent Alchemists
Posted - 2010.12.23 15:29:00 - [12]
 

Symmetry isn't required, but a "balanced" appearance is.

The burst, for example looks fine
Omen looks good
Moa doesn't.
The catalyst is balanced front/back rather than left/right, so that's fine too.

Ones that I think fall somewhere inbetween are the Exequror & Blackbird.

Applying real world rocketry is assuming an even density throughout the model. Maybe the engines are in line with the densest portions of the internal gubbins. Maybe they're designed to be unstable to assist agility (eurofighter-style).

De'Veldrin
Minmatar
Norse'Storm Battle Group
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2010.12.23 15:47:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Glyken Touchon
Symmetry isn't required, but a "balanced" appearance is.



Other than "I think it's butt ugly" please explain why it's required.

If "I think it's butt ugly" is the only reason, that's fine, and valid, but that hardly makes it "required".

Kara Sharalien
Gallente
Federal Navy Academy
Posted - 2010.12.23 21:05:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: De'Veldrin
Edited by: De''Veldrin on 23/12/2010 14:24:25
Originally by: Rhinanna
[sarcasm]Yes because Intelligent ship designers would design a ship so it couldn't use 100% of it's engine power when heading straight forward.....[/sarcasm]



Rolling Eyes

Did IQs drop sharply while I wasn't paying attention?

An intelligent ship designer would have balanced the engines at max thrust FOR EACH ENGINE - is that such a hard ****ing concept that you couldn't have come up with it on your own? Really? Do I need to draw you a ****ing picture?

Edit: In before "bigger engine = moar thrust!!one!eleven!and a half!!!!!!one"


This thread is now about the Oneros' engines. You are talking out your arse, you can't balance the load "for each engine" and have the oneros fly forwards at max thrust out of each engine. The top right engine is significantly more powerful then the others. The two out-jutting engines would spend almost all their power trying to counteract the sideways force created by the off-center engine.

Thats what we call ****ty design.

Glyken Touchon
Gallente
Independent Alchemists
Posted - 2010.12.23 21:45:00 - [15]
 

Edited by: Glyken Touchon on 23/12/2010 21:44:59
Originally by: De'Veldrin
If "I think it's butt ugly" is the only reason, that's fine, and valid, but that hardly makes it "required".


yeah, I meant that for my personal taste, in order to look good, a ship needs to look balanced.

De'Veldrin
Minmatar
Norse'Storm Battle Group
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2010.12.23 22:44:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Kara Sharalien
Originally by: De'Veldrin
Edited by: De''Veldrin on 23/12/2010 14:24:25
Originally by: Rhinanna
[sarcasm]Yes because Intelligent ship designers would design a ship so it couldn't use 100% of it's engine power when heading straight forward.....[/sarcasm]



Rolling Eyes

Did IQs drop sharply while I wasn't paying attention?

An intelligent ship designer would have balanced the engines at max thrust FOR EACH ENGINE - is that such a hard ****ing concept that you couldn't have come up with it on your own? Really? Do I need to draw you a ****ing picture?

Edit: In before "bigger engine = moar thrust!!one!eleven!and a half!!!!!!one"


This thread is now about the Oneros' engines. You are talking out your arse, you can't balance the load "for each engine" and have the oneros fly forwards at max thrust out of each engine. The top right engine is significantly more powerful then the others. The two out-jutting engines would spend almost all their power trying to counteract the sideways force created by the off-center engine.

Thats what we call ****ty design.


And you walked right into the trap despite the fact that I pointed it out to you already.

You think that just because an engine is bigger it's more powerful?

Did it occur to you that maybe the larger one is larger because it's bloody inefficient? Or requires more shielding? Or any of a hundred other reasons that have nothing to do with its thrust potential?

Yet I'm the one talking out of my ass.

Mara Rinn
Posted - 2010.12.23 22:45:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Kara Sharalien
Originally by: De'Veldrin
In before "bigger engine = moar thrust!!one!eleven!and a half!!!!!!one"


... The top right engine is significantly more powerful then the others. ...


The engines are only there to serve the same role as fantasy roleplaying bikini armour. In much the same way that a woman wearing a thin strip of tin foil gets the same armour bonuses as a man entirely covered in thick steel plate, the larger nacelle doesn't necessarily entirely consist of an engine. For example, it might be the equipment responsible for the long-range armour repping bonus.

Vardath
Posted - 2010.12.23 22:57:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: De'Veldrin

Yet I'm the one talking out of my ass.


Yes you are, you can make up as many excuses as you want to justify the but ugly off center design of the oneiros, but the fact remains that it is off center, the fact also remains that this is a game and anything is possible, but I agree that any ship designer putting in an engine that large intends it to be powerful, thus the smaller engines would be less powerful and the ship would fly in circles.

De'Veldrin
Minmatar
Norse'Storm Battle Group
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2010.12.24 00:23:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: Vardath
Originally by: De'Veldrin

Yet I'm the one talking out of my ass.


Yes you are, you can make up as many excuses as you want to justify the but ugly off center design of the oneiros, but the fact remains that it is off center, the fact also remains that this is a game and anything is possible, but I agree that any ship designer putting in an engine that large intends it to be powerful, thus the smaller engines would be less powerful and the ship would fly in circles.


I'll just leave this here:

Originally by: Mara Rinn
...the larger nacelle doesn't necessarily entirely consist of an engine. For example, it might be the equipment responsible for the long-range armour repping bonus.



You mull that over some, Captain Assumes A Lot.

Tonamin1
Posted - 2010.12.24 10:48:00 - [20]
 

Eve universe has some kind of inertia countering tech for all we know, so ships with offset engines dont spin in a circle, end of story. Can we pleas move on now?

De'Veldrin
Minmatar
Norse'Storm Battle Group
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2010.12.24 13:21:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: Tonamin1
Eve universe has some kind of inertia countering tech for all we know, so ships with offset engines dont spin in a circle, end of story. Can we pleas move on now?


Probably not. But go ahead and give it a try.

Le Meistars
Posted - 2010.12.24 15:35:00 - [22]
 

There are those who say that the way ship looks doesn`t metter only it stas and performance. Well I find it annoing to fly buttugly ships like the Blacbird. You might as well replace it with a carton box with a flames at the back Laughing
I mean a lot of ships look the same as it was back in 2003. Don`t u think 7 year old design ... i do no ... ancient Rolling Eyes
Why CCP do not update them ... the EVE ship contest is a great way to do it.

De'Veldrin
Minmatar
Norse'Storm Battle Group
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2010.12.24 15:45:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: Le Meistars

Why CCP do not update them


Because looks are subjective, and no matter what CCP does, SOMEONE will think SOME ship is butt ugly and ***** about it.

Perfect example: I despise the drake's looks. It looks like a Navy stealth test bed. And the cyclone? Seriously? Why does my space ship have gills? Yet, I'm willing to bet there's someone, somewhere, that likes the way both of them look. So why ***** about it? It's like complaining about art - it's all subjective, so what are you hoping to achieve? If they change to make you happy, they'll just **** off the people who actually like the ships the way they are - so from CCP's standpoint, it's a lose no matter what they do.

Ahnkostia
Posted - 2010.12.24 15:53:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: De'Veldrin
Originally by: Le Meistars

Why CCP do not update them




it's a lose no matter what they do.


How about the Blackbird? Please don't tell me someone actually likes looking at that broken flying N64 controller.

De'Veldrin
Minmatar
Norse'Storm Battle Group
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2010.12.24 17:07:00 - [25]
 

Originally by: Ahnkostia
Originally by: De'Veldrin
Originally by: Le Meistars

Why CCP do not update them




it's a lose no matter what they do.


How about the Blackbird? Please don't tell me someone actually likes looking at that broken flying N64 controller.


I can't answer that for anyone but me. I think it looks like crap, but someone may indeed like it. Is it that hard to believe that not everyone shares your sense of aesthetics?

Corporal Punishment08
NosWaffle
Nostradamus Effect
Posted - 2010.12.24 17:46:00 - [26]
 

Edited by: Corporal Punishment08 on 24/12/2010 17:47:05
I like the asymmetry and I like the symmetry.

When I first started, and saw my Ibis, I was like wtf. But then it grew on me. Then I saw the old scorpion and fell in love. I still love the new one too. It's all good.

I'm just all around pleased with the ship designes.

And btw, I like the BB, Falcon, and Rook :P

Torothanax
Posted - 2010.12.25 22:30:00 - [27]
 

Originally by: Tonamin1
Edited by: Tonamin1 on 23/12/2010 12:39:19
Fixed, happy now?
Originally by: Kara Sharalien
Edited by: Kara Sharalien on 23/12/2010 12:46:44

Much. And I like asymmetric ships. But make no mistake, few ships in eve are functional. For example, how the **** does the oneros fly in a straight line?

Forwards is an important function of a logistics ship, and one the oneros would be incapable of performing in real life since the line of thrust is off-center from the axis of the ship.
Eve tech includes artificial gravity and inertia dampeners. I think they can manage to make a lopsided hunk of garbage fly straight if they wanted to.

Jarem Sothra
Gallente
Posted - 2010.12.27 10:51:00 - [28]
 

Originally by: Le Meistars
There are those who say that the way ship looks doesn`t metter only it stas and performance. Well I find it annoing to fly buttugly ships like the Blacbird. You might as well replace it with a carton box with a flames at the back Laughing
I mean a lot of ships look the same as it was back in 2003. Don`t u think 7 year old design ... i do no ... ancient Rolling Eyes
Why CCP do not update them ... the EVE ship contest is a great way to do it.


First off, this isn't Star Trek where every ship is streamlined, the engines sit on top of wings, and even the Klingon's have their ships streamlined. This is EVE, where each race has it's own unique style to go with it's culture. Take the Amarr; religious fanatics who thought their **** didn't stink, until they met the Gallente. With that kind of ego, their ships are the most streamlined and beautiful your gonna get in the game.

Now, the Gallente, the Roman's of the universe. There's no middle, just an upper and lower class. When the Amarrians showed their ass though, the Gallente kicked it hard. Their ships are all about functionality, not beauty, so that's where you get the difference between a Catalyst and a Moros.

On to the Caldari; one word, Capitalist. Their ships look like something from Babylon-5.

And as for the Minmatar, tribal, smugglers, and most of then are slaves, and so they have to take all that they can get, and so that's why most of their ships look like they've been tossed together in a garbage disposal.

Tonamin1
Posted - 2010.12.27 16:31:00 - [29]
 

Originally by: Jarem Sothra
And as for the Minmatar, tribal, smugglers, and most of then are slaves, and so they have to take all that they can get, and so that's why most of their ships look like they've been tossed together in a garbage disposal.


Garbage kicks ass!

Bobbeh
Minmatar
Navy of Xoc
The Remnant Legion
Posted - 2010.12.27 19:29:00 - [30]
 

wow this thread is well .......... yea

In space there is no drag, or lift, or reason to put wings on a ship, or have a ship look like it can fly. Sci Fi does that so people subconsciously accept those ships as plane like. The Exception comes when ships are meant for atmospheric flight, then they do need certain things, depending on tech ofcourse.

Think about it like this if you have one injured leg and one good leg your not gonna walk in circles your brain says ok we have an issue and decides to move your good leg slower to compensate, or it adds a skip in there to increase the speed of the injured leg.

Space ships do not need to look asthetically pleasing they need to be functional if they can make function pleasing to the eye then wonderful, if not then well w.e.


Pages: [1] 2 3

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only