People often mention symmetry, but I think they often just mean the wing directions. If you would rotate a (original) Catalyst and fly it in the direction of its one wing, then you’d almost have a symmetrical design again.
I’m however not sure what to make of it all. We are obviously depending on a need for symmetry for flying things, because it flies well with our imagination and air streams. Should this be attacked and our imagination conquered with new designs? Or should we leave it be and go with what makes us feel comfortable? …
I always thought the Borg cubes were interesting and provocative in their bold simplicity.
That is just some generic piping, those details. Certaily Borg have the most lazy, most generic shape and unimpressive design I have seen in history of Sci-Fi. Even when symetrical along x,y,z axis. Only thing I see why they have done that is that borg are no longer able to come up with stuff, only anihilate or assimilate. With assimilation of too many designers all they could come up with was just a cube, because everyone had different idea, and then they debated, and it was futile, and then just decided that cube will be it, because “**** it”, takes too long and nobody will be even able to enjoy it from inside, and if not assimilated, then to hell with them.
Well, why shouldn’t it be “attacked”? Although I rather would call it “rethinking”.
Still it makes sense to consider atmospheric flight for ships in Eve. After all, planets are still where most humans rise from. At least from a lore perspective.
But for models in EVE, symetry means better looking textures. Also model doesnt need to be entirely symetric, some details can be located assymetrically. Just like I added that small tube on the side of my catalyst. Small textured space for assymetric detail artist can utilize in the file too, without much compromising of the entire texture quality.
You know, I’m always a tidbit depressed anytime I hear about ships being redesigned. Because I seem to be in the minority that has disliked the majority of them. There have been a few stellar changes (Moa for example, but damn that’s a low-hanging fruit), but I’ve actively disliked most of them. This remodel is just well and truly bizarre - they’re taking a distinct and decent design and making it super generic. I mean…a box with engines? It looks like they’re trying to turn it into a Bowhead, actually. Or heck, it’s just a bit more negative space away from being a duplicate of the Naga.
I think I need to emphasize the “super generic”, because three of the models are about identical. At a glance, I can’t tell the difference between the Tayra and the Badger. Those designs are so unremarkable that I don’t think most people would be able to pick them out from a lineup with cargo haulers from other sci-fi sources. Say what you will about the current design, at least each model is distinct. The proposed redesign is truly awful.
The Navitas actually looks better for the redesign, so I’ll give them that much. Probably because they kept the distinct look and updated it while maintaining it’s individuality.
For example, my skills, although limited, allow me to make something I would gladly see in EVE. There are hundreds of people with more skill than me in this game. Why CCP cant see that and use that like with previously player designed attack battlecruisers?
@CCP_Falcon, maybe its time for the next contest, maybe now with ship redesigns?
A point I don’t disagree with, but I never said the current hulls were “pretty”. I said they were “distinct and decent”. Which I believe they are. As far as ship designs go, they seem immensely plausible and functional as they are. I don’t see any value in remaking them into lesser-looking Bowheads.
those badger designs are like a year old. why didnt they have them out last year when they were first shown.
also why are they changing the navitas? it looks good as is. i dont want to just be a tiny vexor.
i miss when the navitas was an entry level mining a ship and not just a logi ship that had no other use outside of support.