Top-comparation no.2 of current and new models set.
Pepes reactions on changes (set v2):
(+) overall look very nice (-) good Andrejs hint that airship has usually its command centre and bridge in middle of the ship or closer to the back. I think its good design idea (-) ship is not using most of the space as landing area. its wasting a bit. There are places in the front and in the back, that are not used for planes and it does not make sense if it is "air carrier". I dont know carrier that is not using all space on main deck for planes. (+) bridge model look nice, so only it can be moved on better place (doesnt matter how it was at old model) (?) It looks that airship is the biggest ship. I makes sense, im not against it, maybe there should be done some gameplay change, if we agree with this solution (?) unused space around side AA guns, maybe the ship should have so kind of baskets only for AA and on other places ship can be more thin
(+) Bigger guns i think looks better (in comp. with current model they are the same) (-) theres still no size difference beetween main gun and secondary guns. Should be there? Tell me. (?) bridge and main gun maybe can moved a bit back... i uderstand that overlap of main and front secondary gun looks cool, but center of gravity of the ship should be a bit closer to the back of the ship, no preciesly in the middle. So main gun and bridge left a bit, maybe front gun, too, so overlap of weapons stay? What do you think? (its only my ship esthetic feeling and i see something similar in current BC model)
--------------------------- Crusier class
(+) all three models have nice same hull model (?) im not sure if bridge type should be same.. i have some pro- arguments and some against
- no issue
(-) weapons looks ugly
(?) thers big change in size of the ship. Modeler should have in mind base difference beetween ARM and CORE navy. ARM ships are one_purpose ships, so they are as small as it is possible for its task, CORE ships are more multitask weapons, for example CORE rocket ship is still quite good front fighter, ARM one shouldnt be. I think Crusauder hull is too small for rocket waponary, but with cruiser hull rocket ship looks like stronger than it is (ARM rocket is much less dangerous than CORE one in most of the situations ... thats why it cost less)
Crusauder and Excalibur
(-) Im still not satisfied with armor plating, additional hull.. It looks strange, current models still wins (+) new models wins with nice weapons
(?) Im not sure if new subs models are variants of one attack sub or models for both subs. They are big, if the scale is the same in comp. with ships.
File comment: thumb
ships-comparation2_small.PNG [ 23.71 KiB | Viewed 860 times ]
File comment: Top-Comparation2 of current and new shipset ships-comparation2.PNG [9.78 MiB]
Downloaded 2 times
I'm not an active nota developer anymore, but here's my thoughts anyway.
Excalibur: Will the AA guns and torp launchers be able to rotate? The back sam launcher also appears to be missing. Crusader: Looks great. Railgun Cruiser: I love the ultra-modern look. Great improvement over the original model. AA cruiser: This isn't the modeler's fault, but it seems kind of incongruous to have that modern hull type for a ship that uses low-tech WWII style flak. Perhaps it should have an older-looking hull design? It's already much cheaper than the railgun cruiser in-game so there's no reason why it has to share the same hull design. I also agree that the design of the guns themselves could use some work. Missile Ship: I like the design. It looks much more like a real ship than the original model. The stats for the unit would have to be changed to match the new model: not such a slow move speed, more powerful gun, higher price etc. It would decrease some of the difference between arm and core, but in this case that doesn't bother me too much. The arm missile ship in current version is such a big advantage for arm, and arm are already used so much more on ship maps, so this model might actually result in a better arm/core balance. Battlecruiser: Looks great. Carrier: Looks nice. The original model was inspired by WWII escort carriers, whereas this is more of a full carrier. It looks really good, but from a gameplay perspective I'm not sure if this design would be viable without giving it a really low cost. The Core carrier for example is this size and it has about as many flak guns, a super long range powerful AA missile, an anti-nuke, and a cruiser gun. It's priced relatively low for its size, I think. And it's still rarely used. The reason of course is that the main function of aircraft carriers, refueling airplanes, is in-game just a convenience: it saves your planes some time going all the way back to base. It's not a necessity as it is in real life to project air power. You can add value through stronger AA or other things as with the Core carrier, or you can balance it by lowering the price, but at some point it feels wrong if a big carrier costs about the same as a cruiser. And the more value you add through AA power, the more the carrier role infringes on the AA cruiser role. So this model could work, but I would still consider changing to the smaller escort carrier design.
I can say its nice ship. The textures, the most of them, i like the metal parts (we will see later, if this modern metal can beat oldschool metal plating with rivets of current models). Only three things I want to change maybe.
(-) i dont like secondary color of guns, it looks like a desk, wooden texture. We dont want IKEA ships . (?) im not sure with some windows, mostly with with side ones on front gun. Its spaceships style for me - the shape. BUT i like the window texture (2nd one, but dark windows were great too), i love windows on the bridge, i like windows on hull in the front. Thin windows-sectors are better for this frontline battleship I think, you can use such wide windows (spaceship style :) on some tactical ship (rocket, jammer, airship). (?) I like more the morning variant of teamcolor texture (that long line copying ships hull). I think its not only matter of esthetic or fact, that I am old conservative guy - the reason is simple: teamcolor should not receive more attention than its needed, but its still recongnizable, for which team ship fight. Its important part of unit desing to dont use teamcolors for making unit interesting.. team color should copy the design of unit, not create own features on the surface.
Edit: Oh yeah. And radar. I thought it will be thin in final model and not team colored - is it planned? Size of radar doesnt matter for me, be it should not be teamcolored i think.
Edit2: Btw as Melvin told me, theres no problem to balance brightnes of textures (if much dark in game).
Edit3: What about to use teamcolor as guns secondary color? But maybe not on so much places as secondary color is used now. Its only idea, not issue.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum