+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Discovery Development (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Forum: Discovery Developers Forum (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=183)
+---- Forum: Discovery Unofficial Development (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=389)
+----- Forum: Discovery Mod Content Submissions (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=33)
+----- Thread: BHG-Krakken Class Battleship (/showthread.php?tid=129706)
RE: BHG-Krakken Class Battleship - Wesker - 05-27-2015
The 3rd one all the way
RE: BHG-Krakken Class Battleship - Cælumaresh - 05-27-2015
(05-27-2015, 09:03 PM)Punisher5431 Wrote: The 3rd one all the way
RE: BHG-Krakken Class Battleship - Chuba - 05-27-2015
(05-27-2015, 10:28 PM)Caelumaresh Wrote:(05-27-2015, 09:03 PM)Punisher5431 Wrote: The 3rd one all the way
RE: BHG-Krakken Class Battleship - jammi - 05-28-2015
Not a huge fan of the open carrier bays. For starters, the ships don't actually fit through the internal bay doors, and practically speaking having entire fighters included inside the actual ship model just needlessly bloats the poly count. Just include a clearly denoted exterior hangar door that's flush with the outer hull, maybe with some hazard stripes around the perimeter or something. That'll also avoid having needless hollow spaces in the ship which will either be poorly hitboxed or cause problems with the hitbox.
I also somewhat suspect that the combination of 'forward cannon' and 'carrier' isn't going to go down well, making it a bit of a lame duck, balance wise. Forward guns are more aggressive, for siege cruisers or heavy capital ships like dreadnoughts. Contrarily, carriers seem to be intended to be more passive, making the two concepts fairly incompatible. Honestly, you might be better off just shedding the bays and trying to turn this into a larger, more aggressive capital ship.
That said, the third model is head and shoulders above the previous two. The design actually looks functional, with the random wings and prongs toned down so they're stylistic variations on components that would've been there anyway. That's good. I've never really imagined the Core as the sort to go for needless decoration, i.e. fish fins/wings.
RE: BHG-Krakken Class Battleship - Wesker - 05-28-2015
(05-28-2015, 02:04 AM)jammi Wrote: I also somewhat suspect that the combination of 'forward cannon' and 'carrier' isn't going to go down well, making it a bit of a lame duck, balance wise. Forward guns are more aggressive, for siege cruisers or heavy capital ships like dreadnoughts. Contrarily, carriers seem to be intended to be more passive, making the two concepts fairly incompatible. Honestly, you might be better off just shedding the bays and trying to turn this into a larger, more aggressive capital ship.
This new ship would be made to counter the other BATTLESHIPS not to siege bases and what not, also not all carriers are passive, it depends more on the person flying, look at the geb, Atlantis, and elbe, those are all carriers well capable of taking down their battleship counterparts. Generally the BHG ships tend to have less armor, the mako is the weakest BS in the game, this new model might have the stats of a lib dread with an FG and 2 cerbs as Matilda told me, a larger ship is a bad idea given all the other large ships in the omicrons are garbage, I wouldn't want this adding to the dumpster.
RE: BHG-Krakken Class Battleship - Echo 7-7 - 05-28-2015
Jammi was on target with his feedback - the latest revision is a big improvement, but it could use some more refinement. Hitboxing open launch bays isn't a problem, it'd just be covered over as if there was no opening; but the ships and other details are really just excess polys which would be good to remove. I would suggest a single hatch on either side, slightly recessed, and a more square shape instead of the narrow rectangular slit (ie. wide enough for one ship at a time that isn't necessarily a BHG fighter).
For consistency, I would suggest having the windows around the launch bay slightly recessed; though the aft windows probably don't need to be quite so deeply recessed.
Textures: not perfect, but a decent improvement. Stretched textures on the coaxial gun and other tubes and pipes is still a cheap technique to achieve the desired look, though, so some creative thinking and/or alternative textures may be in order here. Of course, since I'm not actually a modeller myself, you might need to ask someone with experience with the process for specific techniques to improve your model.
(05-28-2015, 02:32 AM)Punisher5431 Wrote:(05-28-2015, 02:04 AM)jammi Wrote: I also somewhat suspect that the combination of 'forward cannon' and 'carrier' isn't going to go down well, making it a bit of a lame duck, balance wise. Forward guns are more aggressive, for siege cruisers or heavy capital ships like dreadnoughts. Contrarily, carriers seem to be intended to be more passive, making the two concepts fairly incompatible. Honestly, you might be better off just shedding the bays and trying to turn this into a larger, more aggressive capital ship.
This new ship would be made to counter the other BATTLESHIPS not to siege bases and what not, also not all carriers are passive, it depends more on the person flying, look at the geb, Atlantis, and elbe, those are all carriers well capable of taking down their battleship counterparts. Generally the BHG ships tend to have less armor, the mako is the weakest BS in the game, this new model might have the stats of a lib dread with an FG and 2 cerbs as Matilda told me, a larger ship is a bad idea given all the other large ships in the omicrons are garbage, I wouldn't want this adding to the dumpster.
That's not how balance works. The modeller doesn't contribute to the ship's stats outside of some extremely broad parameters such as the ship archetype (ie. if it's submitted as a battleship, it will most likely be implemented as a battleship, but not specifically one subtype unless there are no appropriate alternatives). Secondly, I believe Jammi meant "aggressive" in a thematic sense, not on a player-use level, and he also wasn't explicitly differentiating between attacking bases and other ships. Lastly, no shipline has two ships of the same subtype; the Core would not be receiving a second light battleship if this ship was (hypothetically) accepted; it would have to be a heavier battleship/dreadnought.
All battleships (and larger) in Freelancer/Discovery have a small to moderate fighter capacity, giving them a secondary role as a pseudo-carrier, before the introduction of 'dedicated' carriers. A ship which is a dedicated carrier is incompatible with the integration of a forward gun, but a battleship with a forward gun will still have a landing bay for small craft. In its current form, the ship's profile most closely resembles a heavy battleship or dreadnought. In order for it to be converted into a Carrier, the coaxial weapon would have to be removed completely and replaced with a set of hangar bays integrated with the central hull.
RE: BHG-Krakken Class Battleship - Wesker - 05-28-2015
(05-28-2015, 03:57 AM)Echo 7-7 Wrote: Jammi was on target with his feedback - the latest revision is a big improvement, but it could use some more refinement. Hitboxing open launch bays isn't a problem, it'd just be covered over as if there was no opening; but the ships and other details are really just excess polys which would be good to remove. I would suggest a single hatch on either side, slightly recessed, and a more square shape instead of the narrow rectangular slit (ie. wide enough for one ship at a time that isn't necessarily a BHG fighter).
For consistency, I would suggest having the windows around the launch bay slightly recessed; though the aft windows probably don't need to be quite so deeply recessed.
Textures: not perfect, but a decent improvement. Stretched textures on the coaxial gun and other tubes and pipes is still a cheap technique to achieve the desired look, though, so some creative thinking and/or alternative textures may be in order here. Of course, since I'm not actually a modeller myself, you might need to ask someone with experience with the process for specific techniques to improve your model.
(05-28-2015, 02:32 AM)Punisher5431 Wrote:(05-28-2015, 02:04 AM)jammi Wrote: I also somewhat suspect that the combination of 'forward cannon' and 'carrier' isn't going to go down well, making it a bit of a lame duck, balance wise. Forward guns are more aggressive, for siege cruisers or heavy capital ships like dreadnoughts. Contrarily, carriers seem to be intended to be more passive, making the two concepts fairly incompatible. Honestly, you might be better off just shedding the bays and trying to turn this into a larger, more aggressive capital ship.
This new ship would be made to counter the other BATTLESHIPS not to siege bases and what not, also not all carriers are passive, it depends more on the person flying, look at the geb, Atlantis, and elbe, those are all carriers well capable of taking down their battleship counterparts. Generally the BHG ships tend to have less armor, the mako is the weakest BS in the game, this new model might have the stats of a lib dread with an FG and 2 cerbs as Matilda told me, a larger ship is a bad idea given all the other large ships in the omicrons are garbage, I wouldn't want this adding to the dumpster.
That's not how balance works. The modeller doesn't contribute to the ship's stats outside of some extremely broad parameters such as the ship archetype (ie. if it's submitted as a battleship, it will most likely be implemented as a battleship, but not specifically one subtype unless there are no appropriate alternatives). Secondly, I believe Jammi meant "aggressive" in a thematic sense, not on a player-use level, and he also wasn't explicitly differentiating between attacking bases and other ships. Lastly, no shipline has two ships of the same subtype; the Core would not be receiving a second light battleship if this ship was (hypothetically) accepted; it would have to be a heavier battleship/dreadnought.
All battleships (and larger) in Freelancer/Discovery have a small to moderate fighter capacity, giving them a secondary role as a pseudo-carrier, before the introduction of 'dedicated' carriers. A ship which is a dedicated carrier is incompatible with the integration of a forward gun, but a battleship with a forward gun will still have a landing bay for small craft. In its current form, the ship's profile most closely resembles a heavy battleship or dreadnought. In order for it to be converted into a Carrier, the coaxial weapon would have to be removed completely and replaced with a set of hangar bays integrated with the central hull.
His recommendation I meant, and it should be, core need a dreadnought not a carrier, also this may seem somewhat thematic, but in reality its because the mako is close to garbage in group fights, like really, bad armor, a flat side and a turn rate a tad bit faster than a 5ker is not good at all in group fights, and people QQ whenever Core uses threshers or Bottlenoses.
Id say put it in as a dreadnought, a heavier battleship is necessary more than a carrier, with the gunships and destroyers core has bombers aren't all that necessary.
RE: BHG-Krakken Class Battleship - Wesker - 05-28-2015
Note: lots of typos sorry
RE: BHG-Krakken Class Battleship - Tarator - 05-28-2015
(05-28-2015, 04:20 AM)Punisher5431 Wrote: His recommendation I meant, and it should be, core need a dreadnought not a carrier, also this may seem somewhat thematic, but in reality its because the mako is close to garbage in group fights, like really, bad armor, a flat side and a turn rate a tad bit faster than a 5ker is not good at all in group fights, and people QQ whenever Core uses threshers or Bottlenoses.
Id say put it in as a dreadnought, a heavier battleship is necessary more than a carrier, with the gunships and destroyers core has bombers aren't all that necessary.
You've made two statements here that totally contradict with each other. Firstly, no Mako isn't garbage in group fights. As if we assume you'd keep using bottlenose's and threshers, the Mako fits with them just nicely. Not to mention that those two ships are extremely effective against caps.
And as people said, a carrier doesn't go with a fwd, that would also make no sense RP wise, and I'd also like adding something here.
Fwd doesn't usually go with light battleships as well, hence you'd expect the model to have Overlord stats adding a fwd to it is a no go for balance, since Overlord has some of the best stats around.
Also
Echo 7-7 Wrote:the Core would not be receiving a second light battleship if this ship was (hypothetically) accepted; it would have to be a heavier battleship/dreadnought.
That said, I wouldn't see much sense in Core having a heavy battleship neither, one that I'd assume almost nobody would be flying, not to mention that Core have little to no justification for one.
RE: BHG-Krakken Class Battleship - Lythrilux - 05-28-2015
(05-28-2015, 09:51 AM)Bloxin Wrote: I wouldn't see much sense in Core having a heavy battleship neither, one that I'd assume almost nobody would be flying, not to mention that Core have little to no justification for one.What's the justification for the Order having the Geb? Where's the RP that not only introduced it as a BC, but then upgraded it to a BS?
If we're going to start saying that Core doesn't have a justification for new toys like this (even though they do as a light BS just doesn't cut it in the Edge Worlds and they need a heavier battleship), then we can't have double standards in that approach by saying they don't have a reason for it but completely ignoring the shiplines of the other edge worlds factions.
Also how can you be so sure that no one would fly it? Hell, I'd fly a heavier battleship if we got one. I hate the Mako and it's lightness. Unlucky_Soul has done a good job modelling it, so it's already got aesthetics that would make it worthwhile to fly. The only reason I wouldn't fly it is if the stats and in game performance of it suck ass.
In regards to that, it would probably be best to make this a Dread, Unlucky. Feels quite Dready by the looks of things anyway.
You know what, I'll make an infocard for this.