Alright, so we at the Coalition have a problem our ships are to brickish for our liking and we want them to be lighter, smaller faster. We want ships that are more designed for Hit-and-Run instead of prolonged standing fights. We have been informed that our current ship models will not support the ideaology of speed over defense.
Our requests are as follows:
a New Partisan Model
a New Insurgent Model
a New Revolution Model
Current pot:
750 million Credits ( Credits will be awarded upon Submission and acceptance by Devs)
(If you wish to endorse us and add to the pot send cash the SCRA|CPS-Plenty)
(02-02-2015, 05:24 AM)Vulkhard Muller Wrote: [ -> ]Alright, so we at the Coalition have a problem our ships are to brickish for our liking and we want them to be lighter, smaller faster. We want ships that are more designed for Hit-and-Run instead of prolonged standing fights. We have been informed that our current ship models will not support the ideaology of speed over defense.
Our requests are as follows:
a New Partisan Model
a New Insurgent Model
a New Revolution Model
Current pot:
750 million Credits ( Credits will be awarded upon Submission and acceptance by Devs)
(If you wish to endorse us and add to the pot send cash the SCRA|CPS-Plenty)
1: Manueverability and smaller size is what allows fighters to last longer in combat, you guys either have no idea how pvp works or are trying to make it seem you like you don't want ships that are simply better, which is what you're asking for.
2: A ship used for "hit and run tactics" is a ship that can deal a large amount of damage in a short amount of time but isn't good for extended fights, like a Titan.
3: I can't speak for everyone else but I have no desire to make models and be paid only if they're accepted into the game given the devteam's fickleness. You should at least offer a reward for attempts as well, something like 100 mil for a quality shipline that gets denied for whatever reason.
Uhm... I remember that alvin clearly pointed out that the current Coalition Snub line was actually supposed to be very good with the current models so I don't realy know what better you could request?
Also I remember that I requested a coalition snubline and it got rejected by devs, so good luck with that. All the Snubs need is some fixes on shield bubble and probably agility.
Jinx´s models were perfect. They just need to be optimized polygon-wise. It would only take one dev to give feedback on anything else than the poly count for him to do it. Devs, your move.
Models seem fine to me, but they're horrendously balanced currently
I'd say just focus more on that for now.
To make things a bit clear here is what expected of the models:
- Polycount within reasonable limits of the ship class. Here are approximate numbers to aim for:
- ~1-3k for fighters
- ~3-5k for gunboats, cruisers, medium to large transports
- ~6-9k for battleships, large transports
Unique ships can go a bit higher than that, but again within reasonable amount and where it actually noticeable and not wasted on flat surfaces.
- No duplicate polygons or overlapping polygons that cause z-buffer issues (flickering).
- When reusing vanilla textures set either material names from vanilla .mat files. If you're adding color tint to texture by Dc property, set Dt_name to corresponding texture name from vanilla .mat files and embed material into .cmp/.3db file.
- If your model uses custom textures make sure they are:
- not a rip from another game or any other copyrighted material;
- not from non-free texture packs (also relevant to copyright), unless license permits;
- DXT1/5 compressed (.dds) depending on what you need;
- resolution up to 1024x1024 pixels, preferably balanced in terms of quality to existing content;
- Good uv mapping (texture mapping), generally in the same style vanilla ships are done: nicely tiling along the long surfaces, accents on details by aligning more or less corresponding shapes in texture images to ship geometry details, trimmings, avoid distortion and extremes like 1px of texture stretched to entire polygon surface resulting in kind of solid colored rows.
- Correct smoothing groups. Edges expected to be hard should have adjacent polygons of different smoothing groups. It's really ugly when they're incorrectly set and seeing a clearly circular exhaust tube to have ring polygons not smoothed while a four side ledge to have its polygons unnaturally smoothed.
- Shapes fitting style and aesthetics for the intended faction(s) use. Like rheinland ships are quite blocky-utilitarian, occasional 45deg angles, rigid. In contrast are bretonian vessels with their curves, fish-like elements. For coalition ships perhaps something resembling soviet military style, a bit of a retro touch on purpose. Sci-fi 'soviet' concept arts and well as photos of real vehicles could provide nice inspiration (but not a direct copy, otherwise commissar will have you shot!*).
I'm currently writing a hopefully extensive tutorial covering those topics too and various techniques to help.
* - Twice!
http://i.imgur.com/9ZZQCUr.png
A comparison between Insurgent to Guardian. Doesn't seem too big to me, to be honest. Maybe a slightly longer nose, but that's pretty much about it.
I actually really like how the Insurgent looks. Its stats also aren't nearly as bad as people seem to claim. It's got a big core, lots of armour, decent bots and bats and acceptable agility. It's not all that big either.
The shield hitbox adjustments of .88 should make it even more viable. If it needs buffing, it'd be minor.
Reducing Insurgent's armour by several thousands, changing it's turn-rate to something like 1.1500+ would be the easiest way to make things right.
SCRA guns are also quite specific to use, but they still can use civilian weaponry if needed.
Also don't forget that even though the ships might look a bit bland and "daggerish", both sets of guns are quite special.
Edit: Ninja'd