open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked [Proposal] Separate T3 ship appearance from subsystem choices.
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

LordElfa
Gallente
Golden Lyon Warriors
Posted - 2011.06.06 19:34:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: LordElfa on 06/06/2011 19:37:04
The only gripe I've ever had with T3 ships is that the appearance of the ship is decided by the subsystem choice.

Why not make it so you can choose the look separately from the subsystem choice?

I've seen too many T3 chips all look the same because there are obvious subsystem choices made (normally full damage or covert) and it makes for less individuality. Hell, I've seen some great potential looks for T3 but you would never see it flying in-game because the grouping of subsystems to get that appearance would be tactically unwise.

You train hard and spend a lot of Isk to build a T3, letting you choose the look and not your subsystem choice seems logical and allows for greater individuality and self expression.

Rented
Posted - 2011.06.06 20:09:00 - [2]
 

I demand pink tassles for my loki.

ShadowGod56
Posted - 2011.06.06 21:03:00 - [3]
 

would love to be able to do this, there are so many cool looking modals attached to subs with ****ty bonuses Sad

Mars Theran
Caldari
EVE Rogues
EVE Rogues Alliance
Posted - 2011.06.07 00:09:00 - [4]
 

Two reasons this is a bad idea.

1. It stops people from identifying the Sub's by looking at the T3.
2. If you do that, you may as well just scrap the whole thing and make all T3 look the same.

I appreciate that some T3 sub's look a little odd, particularly combined with certain other sub's, but that is part of owning a T3. Fact is, the sub's could use a little remodeling in some areas, and they could also be rebalanced to make the scrap ones more appealing.

Not supported. I really would rather wonky looking sub's, than more generic ship classes.

LordElfa
Gallente
Golden Lyon Warriors
Posted - 2011.06.07 05:31:00 - [5]
 

Edited by: LordElfa on 07/06/2011 05:43:54
You're being rediculous Mars, nobody I know uses the appearance of a T3 to base what they have on it.

Find some other reason to come out against something other than nitpicking.

Yeep
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.06.07 12:09:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: LordElfa
Edited by: LordElfa on 07/06/2011 05:43:54
You're being rediculous Mars, nobody I know uses the appearance of a T3 to base what they have on it.



We could allow you to choose the gun models that appear on your ship independantly of what guns you actually have fitted. Don't like the look of shield hardeners? Tick a box and get the visual effect of an armor tank instead.

Or perhaps you need to get to know some people who are better at Eve.

LordElfa
Gallente
Golden Lyon Warriors
Posted - 2011.06.07 14:08:00 - [7]
 

Wow, a snarky comment from goon, color me shocked, next.

Ranka Mei
Caldari
Posted - 2011.06.07 16:49:00 - [8]
 

Originally by: Mars Theran
Two reasons this is a bad idea.

1. It stops people from identifying the Sub's by looking at the T3.
2. If you do that, you may as well just scrap the whole thing and make all T3 look the same.

I appreciate that some T3 sub's look a little odd, particularly combined with certain other sub's, but that is part of owning a T3. Fact is, the sub's could use a little remodeling in some areas, and they could also be rebalanced to make the scrap ones more appealing.

Not supported. I really would rather wonky looking sub's, than more generic ship classes.


^^ Precisely this.

Not supported.

LordElfa
Gallente
Golden Lyon Warriors
Posted - 2011.06.07 21:26:00 - [9]
 

Alright, fine. It was just an idea.

Forget I said anything, let's get back to business as usual.

Max Kolonko
Caldari
Worm Nation
Ash Alliance
Posted - 2011.06.07 21:41:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: LordElfa
Edited by: LordElfa on 07/06/2011 05:43:54
You're being rediculous Mars, nobody I know uses the appearance of a T3 to base what they have on it.

Find some other reason to come out against something other than nitpicking.


You just don't know right people :P
In less than two minutes you can have estimated fitting of t3 based on ship model and visible turrets and tanking modules graphic effects. Scouting in WH covers things like that, when you want to know what t3's are loged on a pos, and what to expect of them.

Mars Theran
Caldari
EVE Rogues
EVE Rogues Alliance
Posted - 2011.06.08 00:14:00 - [11]
 

I'd actually like it if they made the sub's more useful. Strictly from an ex-Tengu pilots perspective, I have to agree that I usually ended up with a ship that looked funny, because of the Sub's I needed. I've also made Tengu that looked pretty cool, but unfotunately were not worth flying. Either because of an odd mix of Sub's, or just because the Sub's are spec'd so poorly that there is no way anyone would be caught flying them.

I wouldn't mind if they swapped the Sub appearance around honestly, and made the cool ones the ones that people need, but that doesn't really solve the whole every T3 looks the same problem. That just boils down to nobody in their right mind will use any other sub combination than those particular 2 or 3. They really are the only ones that work; everything else is a just flying board waiting to be nailed.

Kaelie Onren
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.06.08 07:28:00 - [12]
 

I'd also like to have the option of choosing the shape of the wingy bit on my tempest. I think octagon is in.

Any argument for arbitrarily changing the look of a ship just because you want it that way is so wrong I don't really know where to start.

As the more practical reasons have already been covered by my esteemed colleagues, I'll go with the story argument. A shield subsystem just looks like that. If you don't like it, don't install one. You can't change it's looks unless you have a degree in starship engineering and want to risk damaging it's structural nano fiber whatzits. And even then if your engineer isn't named Geordi Laforge, then your chance of blowing up your warp core is 20% per jump.


Ranka Mei
Caldari
Posted - 2011.06.08 09:08:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Mars Theran
I appreciate that some T3 sub's look a little odd, particularly combined with certain other sub's, but that is part of owning a T3. Fact is, the sub's could use a little remodeling in some areas, and they could also be rebalanced to make the scrap ones more appealing.

Not supported. I really would rather wonky looking sub's, than more generic ship classes.


Yeah. Especially the almost always needed Dissolution Sequencer looks a bit wonky. So maybe CCP just needs to do a small design overhaul at some point. No biggie, though.

And while they're at it, can I have my much craved for 'sleeper' piano black hull, please? That'd be awesome. :)

LordElfa
Gallente
Golden Lyon Warriors
Posted - 2011.06.08 11:01:00 - [14]
 

Well, the positive side to my idea is that while you may not be able to guess the config of an enemy by looking at his T3, he can't guess yours either.

Goose99
Posted - 2011.06.08 23:17:00 - [15]
 

Supported, but not for the aesthetics reasons Op cited. It is far too easy to tell a T3's capabilities just by looking at it. It has huge impact on non-blob pvp, and defeats one aspect of t3's advantage in versatility.

LordElfa
Gallente
Golden Lyon Warriors

Posted - 2011.06.09 00:59:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Goose99
Supported, but not for the aesthetics reasons Op cited. It is far too easy to tell a T3's capabilities just by looking at it. It has huge impact on non-blob pvp, and defeats one aspect of t3's advantage in versatility.


See, there you go, not only does my idea let you choose the appearance of your ship despite your subsystem chice, it keeps your opponent from know what systems you're using.

Kaelie Onren
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.06.09 04:13:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: LordElfa
Originally by: Goose99
Supported, but not for the aesthetics reasons Op cited. It is far too easy to tell a T3's capabilities just by looking at it. It has huge impact on non-blob pvp, and defeats one aspect of t3's advantage in versatility.


See, there you go, not only does my idea let you choose the appearance of your ship despite your subsystem chice, it keeps your opponent from know what systems you're using.


No. If that is what you want then you should just remove all appearance changes in T3 ships so there is no possibility in knowing what they are fitting, but that is probably the whole reason CCP made it that way in the first place. (you think they did it just to be 'ccol'?)

And no, 1 alt supporting does not a good proposal make.

LordElfa
Gallente
Golden Lyon Warriors
Posted - 2011.06.09 18:18:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Kaelie Onren
Originally by: LordElfa
Originally by: Goose99
Supported, but not for the aesthetics reasons Op cited. It is far too easy to tell a T3's capabilities just by looking at it. It has huge impact on non-blob pvp, and defeats one aspect of t3's advantage in versatility.


See, there you go, not only does my idea let you choose the appearance of your ship despite your subsystem chice, it keeps your opponent from know what systems you're using.


No. If that is what you want then you should just remove all appearance changes in T3 ships so there is no possibility in knowing what they are fitting, but that is probably the whole reason CCP made it that way in the first place. (you think they did it just to be 'ccol'?)

And no, 1 alt supporting does not a good proposal make.


Do you fly T3?

Danika Princip
Minmatar
Tactical Narcotics Team
Posted - 2011.06.10 10:30:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: LordElfa
Edited by: LordElfa on 06/06/2011 19:37:04
The only gripe I've ever had with T3 ships is that the appearance of the ship is decided by the subsystem choice.

Why not make it so you can choose the look separately from the subsystem choice?

I've seen too many T3 chips all look the same because there are obvious subsystem choices made (normally full damage or covert) and it makes for less individuality. Hell, I've seen some great potential looks for T3 but you would never see it flying in-game because the grouping of subsystems to get that appearance would be tactically unwise.

You train hard and spend a lot of Isk to build a T3, letting you choose the look and not your subsystem choice seems logical and allows for greater individuality and self expression.


You complain about all T3s looking the same, and then ask for a change that will lead to all t3s looking the same? What?

LordElfa
Gallente
Golden Lyon Warriors
Posted - 2011.06.10 13:52:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Danika Princip
Originally by: LordElfa
Edited by: LordElfa on 06/06/2011 19:37:04
The only gripe I've ever had with T3 ships is that the appearance of the ship is decided by the subsystem choice.

Why not make it so you can choose the look separately from the subsystem choice?

I've seen too many T3 chips all look the same because there are obvious subsystem choices made (normally full damage or covert) and it makes for less individuality. Hell, I've seen some great potential looks for T3 but you would never see it flying in-game because the grouping of subsystems to get that appearance would be tactically unwise.

You train hard and spend a lot of Isk to build a T3, letting you choose the look and not your subsystem choice seems logical and allows for greater individuality and self expression.


You complain about all T3s looking the same, and then ask for a change that will lead to all t3s looking the same? What?


You obviously didn't understand the idea then. The idea is to let you choose the configuration of the ship separately from the sub. Basically, you would add your subs, then choose the appearance of your ship, rather than have the sub choice determine the appearance.

Danika Princip
Minmatar
Tactical Narcotics Team
Posted - 2011.06.10 17:12:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: LordElfa
Originally by: Danika Princip
Originally by: LordElfa
Edited by: LordElfa on 06/06/2011 19:37:04
The only gripe I've ever had with T3 ships is that the appearance of the ship is decided by the subsystem choice.

Why not make it so you can choose the look separately from the subsystem choice?

I've seen too many T3 chips all look the same because there are obvious subsystem choices made (normally full damage or covert) and it makes for less individuality. Hell, I've seen some great potential looks for T3 but you would never see it flying in-game because the grouping of subsystems to get that appearance would be tactically unwise.

You train hard and spend a lot of Isk to build a T3, letting you choose the look and not your subsystem choice seems logical and allows for greater individuality and self expression.


You complain about all T3s looking the same, and then ask for a change that will lead to all t3s looking the same? What?


You obviously didn't understand the idea then. The idea is to let you choose the configuration of the ship separately from the sub. Basically, you would add your subs, then choose the appearance of your ship, rather than have the sub choice determine the appearance.


No, I understood it perfectly. What you'd get is everyone using the one appearance that looked the least ******ed.

LordElfa
Gallente
Golden Lyon Warriors
Posted - 2011.06.10 18:41:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Danika Princip
Originally by: LordElfa
Originally by: Danika Princip
Originally by: LordElfa
Edited by: LordElfa on 06/06/2011 19:37:04
The only gripe I've ever had with T3 ships is that the appearance of the ship is decided by the subsystem choice.

Why not make it so you can choose the look separately from the subsystem choice?

I've seen too many T3 chips all look the same because there are obvious subsystem choices made (normally full damage or covert) and it makes for less individuality. Hell, I've seen some great potential looks for T3 but you would never see it flying in-game because the grouping of subsystems to get that appearance would be tactically unwise.

You train hard and spend a lot of Isk to build a T3, letting you choose the look and not your subsystem choice seems logical and allows for greater individuality and self expression.


You complain about all T3s looking the same, and then ask for a change that will lead to all t3s looking the same? What?


You obviously didn't understand the idea then. The idea is to let you choose the configuration of the ship separately from the sub. Basically, you would add your subs, then choose the appearance of your ship, rather than have the sub choice determine the appearance.


No, I understood it perfectly. What you'd get is everyone using the one appearance that looked the least ******ed.


Of course, because everyone has the exact same taste.Rolling Eyes
As it stands, every T3 ship pretty much looks the same already due to there only being a few decent sub combos worth a damn. That was the whole reason for the idea. So we could have the setup we wanted without being forced to have all the ships look the same.

Ranka Mei
Caldari
Posted - 2011.06.11 05:55:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: LordElfa
As it stands, every T3 ship pretty much looks the same already due to there only being a few decent sub combos worth a damn. That was the whole reason for the idea. So we could have the setup we wanted without being forced to have all the ships look the same.


Then you're barking up the wrong tree, and maybe you should go and ask CCP to beef up some of the other, less popular subsystems a bit?

To just have people pick a T3 look, regardless of what subsystem combo they have, however, is plain stupid.

David Grubev
Games of War
Posted - 2011.06.11 10:16:00 - [24]
 

Because you want to put tractor wheels on your Ferrari, still have it look like a Ferrari, but make it run through muddy and bumpy terrain. Why not take this a step further and be able to use any ship skin you want.

I'll have my Nyx-modelled Blackbird now, please.

LordElfa
Gallente
Golden Lyon Warriors
Posted - 2011.06.11 19:03:00 - [25]
 

Edited by: LordElfa on 11/06/2011 19:04:22
Originally by: Ranka Mei
Originally by: LordElfa
As it stands, every T3 ship pretty much looks the same already due to there only being a few decent sub combos worth a damn. That was the whole reason for the idea. So we could have the setup we wanted without being forced to have all the ships look the same.


Then you're barking up the wrong tree, and maybe you should go and ask CCP to beef up some of the other, less popular subsystems a bit?

To just have people pick a T3 look, regardless of what subsystem combo they have, however, is plain stupid.


Deciding the appearance of your ship is stupid?! Not having other players being able to guess the setup of your ship based on appearance is stupid?!

Fine, then like I said many posts ago, just forget I said anything, I wouldn't want to shake up the static, status quo.

KeeganDoomFire
Posted - 2011.06.19 21:02:00 - [26]
 

actualy suported, mostly because I hate that my tangu flys backwords from what it looks like it should.

Naomi Knight
Amarr
Posted - 2011.06.19 22:34:00 - [27]
 

no,
btw would be cool to fake my ms to an ibis for enemies , they would get a nasty suprise on agression:D


 

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