HOME | DD

PeterGuzman — Decimator

Published: 2010-10-11 18:38:42 +0000 UTC; Views: 3770; Favourites: 30; Downloads: 124
Redirect to original
Description Here is my entry for the EVE Online Contest.

The Decimator Battlecruiser

Lenght: 469m
Height: 89m
width: 206m

PG
Related content
Comments: 3

lowman-x [2010-10-11 23:16:09 +0000 UTC]

Very nice design! If I knew anything about EVE I'd have a crack at this myself...

One (kinda insignificant) issue: it's a battle cruiser yet I only see 4 weapons turrets. Are there hidden weapons ports? If so, maybe look at indicating them a bit? It looks a little defenseless...

Now that I have a closer look at the schematics are those round objects on the underside weapons? If so, maybe include an underside shot to show them?

I'll be quiet now...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

cadair In reply to lowman-x [2010-10-16 09:02:37 +0000 UTC]

Maybe it would have a 100% Turret damage role bonus? Like a Paladin =o
Use logic

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

lowman-x In reply to cadair [2010-10-21 01:21:14 +0000 UTC]

I'll be honest, I have no idea what you just said in regards to "100% Turret damage roll bonus" and I never played Paladins in AD&D (I personally preferred playing Shadowrun and the original Star Wars RPG).



My comment was more stated about the aesthetic sense and not the 'actual games mechanic' sense. As a battle cruiser I (personally) would have expected it to look a little more 'weapons bristling' than it is (a flying armoury so to speak). I said before I don't actually know much (or anything) about EVE so I don't know the games mechanics, I don't know how the weapons systems work in-game, I don't know anything about the in-game races and their cultural designs for their ships and stuff, I was just making an aesthetically-based comment based on my own expectations. I like the ship, I think it looks cool (Peter always does slick work and I apologise if my comment offended Peter or yourself), I was just wondering why it didn't appear to have more bits that went "boom!". Or, if it does have more bits that go "boom!" (eg. on the underside as I assumed in my previous comment), then maybe Peter could have included a shot of the underside to make this a little clearer to the viewer.

Peace out, dude.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0