You are either severly underestimating the developer, or severly overestimating the workload of the said feature.
And given how merely client-sided visuals bother you so much, which would affect you in no way at all, nada, and that’s Objective, this reeks of jealousy. But I wonder why, if having client-side model swaps is a problem, then why have a market for SKINs whiel at it?
Cause that’s what’s the matter here, in contrast all the variating SKINs are bigger load to the game, than a client-side change which isn’t even processed on the server. Did I already mention there might be some envy if someone else has a “prettier” ship you’re not aware?
I work as a dev for a living and I have a background in game dev. I’m pretty sure you’re underestimating the work required for new DB, backend, client, and UI work. This isn’t even something that could be built on top of an existing feature or leverage existing work. It’s something completely new and separate from both the SKINs system and subsystems.
Oh and lets not forget how completely whacko and buggy T3 rendering has been in years past. So we’re also risking toppling that jenga tower with all of this mucking about with subsystem rendering, so maybe make that a 2.2 multiplier on the estimate.
Nope, no jealousy here, just professional criticism and a desire to see dev time spent in a way that benefits more people and the game more generally. Honestly no idea where you got this unless you really can’t imagine someone objecting to your idea for anything other than completely selfish reasons…
First off, your original concept here was a server side change. Second, CCP has shown zero inclination to allow client side only graphics tweaks. Third, I have no idea where you got this jealousy thing from, it sounds like you’re insulting someone in 9th grade.
Lastly, SKINs aren’t a huge load on the client, they’re entirely texture based where as you’re talking about changing model rendering.
Wrong and wrong. It’s not a game. CCP might occasionally call it a game and even I do out of laziness, while in fact it contains several games but as a whole it is surely not a game and indeed somewhere close to a simulation, which is not - as you wrongly assume - “to recreate a real life situation”.
Hm that’s harsh, but okay, let’s go that way.
*Edit: Wrongly accused you of being part of the Game Theory School of thought, ignore the following part. Citing your professor as a source is still weak and esp. with such a quote which says nothing.
Also you are still wrong. You assuming that people “play” EVE is incorrect. It is EVE that plays them for the most part. And being unable to define a game you cannot just call everything a game. Well you can and it is not wrong, but it is as banal as true, so it doesn’t add to understanding EVE.
#ignore from here
So, Game Theory. You know what: first, the term Game preceeds the pseudo-science called Game Theory, Furthermore it will exist after this quasi esoteric system of belief is done. Lastly citing your Professor with such a bathroom calendar like quote, that’s sad. Send me your professor to explain to him why Game Theory is lame and why it’s self-proclaimed name is already fake (a smart one, politically, that’s for sure). But for you, a tiny hint: it is an economical theory that neglects the basics of the economic system in which it came to exist (Capitalism) and tries to hide these massive holes within a form of Mathematics that I can only call Numerology. It is unable to question its own basic system of belief, making it a religion rather than a Science.
Starting any argument with “Clearly you don’t have any experience…” does not really help you. Even worse it seems to cloud your mind for thinking about what other people say and trying to learn something. Let me help you out: currently people are setting up a POS, which they have to visit every so often to refuel and - more time-sensitive - and this is what you seem to not see: moon mining profits come from running reactions and they need much more care.
All in all I’d wish you not only refer CCP, your Professor or “players I know” as your sources of truth, but take the time to think a moment and try to understand things with your own head. Sure, you couldn’t perma-post in every topic on the entire forum, but it would improve the quality (probably). Because right now you sound like the people who tries to defend the teacher who isn’t even under attack and honestly mate, it is getting weird.
P.S. some Mod should put our two-sided discussion in some dark hole on the forums, because this has gotten completely off-topic since a few posts already.
Which companies and projects, your word is just a word. I’m not asking your name or address, just your CV.
Never had those issues, so I can safely assume I’d neither have issues with a custom model. Check your own GPU for malfunctions would be my asnwer.
Since it’s not jealosy, why is it such a issue for others to be able to choose freely how their ships look like? What difference does it make do I paint my apartment walls back, while the standard is white by default. You will not be seeing it.
Don’t tackle on it; my ship looking different on my end and your ship looking different on your end, and neither of us would see the difference, yet everything is ‘normal’ on the server. Which is an issue to you why?
True my original suggestion wasn’t a client side, but this one is. Hell, I’d even pay for custom models if CCP would implement it themselves, like SKINs.
Also true, SKINs aren’t a huge load on the client, but I didn’t say they were a huge load. I said they are bigger load since they are uniformly rendered to everyone on the server, whereas my suggestion would be purely client side, which means no load on the server, just the client.
You should understand the difference bethween client- and server-side loads if you are a developer yourself.
It is not jealousy, he is always whiteknighting for CCP in the most embarassing ways. It’s his thing and he just found his ways to the new forums. Wait a week and see him in every thread repeating what someone of authority (like CCP) stated before elsewhere.
who cares about the skins, The ships are horrid anyway. Why even have textures for them, it does nothing for game play. I am dumbfounded why someone would care more about a skin on such a practicable ship (well its not anymore but…). Its like saying you care about your paint on a unimog. Why would they bother with skins on T3s? its far too complicated with all the different configs
SKINs are not complicated. Ship models might be, the color pattern you put onto them is not. There was a bug a while ago which proved that in rather obvious ways.
It doesen’t indeed. But if I wanna stretch it and a secondary flag would be purpose, it would be to ensure file checksum, to confirm it’s not a third party modification. But like I said, a stretch.
ok I watched Wingspan’s youtuber ealier and he was pushing 1000DPS with hams and ranges out to over 30km. I fit more extreme for a missile boat with not much safety margin with a measely 18K Tank and moderate hull active fit.
[Tengu, *Rumi Shanti’s Tengu]
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Astro-Inertial Compact Missile Guidance Computer
Astro-Inertial Compact Missile Guidance Computer
Astro-Inertial Compact Missile Guidance Computer
Astro-Inertial Compact Missile Guidance Computer
Large Inefficient Hull Repair Unit
Medium Inefficient Hull Repair Unit
EM Ward Field II
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II
Prototype ‘Arbalest’ Heavy Assault Missile Launcher I
Prototype ‘Arbalest’ Heavy Assault Missile Launcher I
Expanded Probe Launcher I
’Smokescreen’ Covert Ops Cloaking Device II
[Empty Rig slot]
Medium Rocket Fuel Cache Partition I
Medium Bay Loading Accelerator II
Missile Range Script x3
Missile Precision Script x1
Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile x186
Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile x198
This gets me out to 23KM and only 359 DPS (fit of 2 T2 HAMLs due no pwr grid left for t2’s). It tanks 8.8 HP/Sec Hull rep, a 56% Em resist for shield, still wide open armor hole for explosive (10% resists), and maxed rig fitting. This doesn’t have a prop mod but is cap stable at 33% while repping. It could get you enough time to pop some T2 exploration frigs if the pilot panics, and gives you decent ability for fight T1 dessies and cruisers how long you will last with 8.8 hp/sec on hull is anyone’s guess, but if this had a 20M ISK price-tag I would absolutely favor it for one purpose that came to mind while messing with fits: Faction warfare. It’s brilliant because the opposing never really knows what to expect and the fights are usually short and sweet. Covert will get you where u want to be so that you can choose who to engage better and where. If the price drops tenfold I will absolutely fall in love with this ship again for this purpose. Anything else, through it in the trash can and use a Strat. The strat will murder this ship each and every time.
Please tell me that this entire post is a joke. Please…
if not: mate, don’t do that. If you fly that thing you will lose it and people will post your killmail in all kinds of channels and make fun of you. Active Hull-tank modules are currently unable to rep against the fart of a moskito.
I just don’t get it. Wingspan dude was pulling way better with the same stuff. Unless its my skills, (All around L3 whereas he would be all L5s?)
THIS IS THE MAXIMUM DPS FIT I CAN PERSONALLY DO -Other than rapid lights with lowered range and we all know RLM’s are getting another big nerf soon (in rate of fire which means they should rename them “Almost rapid lights”), so I didn’t plan this fit. The difference is I get an even 400 DPS and better application to small ships. Personally, if not for the nerf coming, i would choose rapid lights as my all round weapon of choice for this ship.
I have no intent to ever fly this again unless the price drops to 20M isk for a ship with subs, for faction warfare simply for its unpredictability. Anything outside there parameters I will reprocess my Tengus and figure out something else to do.
What Happened to the Tractor Beam bonus? I come back here after a few days and find that its missing on all the hulls.
No I’m not joking I’m seriously concerned about this. While roaming WH space the tractor beam bonus was useful for pulling wrecks closer to me since I didn’t have the cargo-capacity (and patience) for a Mobile Tractor Unit.
Now all the hulls have increased cargo holds… but not nearly enough to stuff a MTU, a mobile depot, and a can full of mods
Really just don’t try an active hull tank, it does not work. Try to go with shields for the Tengu. There is probably some way to armor fit it (I didnt check the new Tengu), but under no circumstances active hull.
Not trying to be mean here, but it seems you have little experience with the basic mechanics and fits, you should maybe try to go with another ship for now or wait until a bit more theorycrafting has been done and copy a fit that is proven to work with lower skills.
May I recommend a passive shield tanked Drake for starters?
I hope that focus group talks about looking at bonuses based on sec status like citadel rigs so we can get some thing close to t3 resistances back for wormhole side.
My km I posted earlier is probley why so many people hate t3 resistances outside wormholes.
sorry