test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Art Of The Intelligence Ships

1567810

Comments

  • venkouvenkou Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited September 2014
    I'll just add my 2 cents here since I was heavily involved with the community back when Perpetual was developing STO and I was responable for actually compiling alot of Eaves and Dennings concept sketches back in the day on my blog for the community to see. (I even created a 3d model of one of the ships for Eaves).

    John Eaves and Ryan Dennings were contracted to create concept art of ships for STO. As is normal in the industry, you don't get to plaster your name on the work you create since the people you create it for own it (They are paying for it afterall, you don't see photographer or artist credits on movie posters either remember). When Cryptic took over STO they inherited all of the assets from PE, as such we actually have several ships in STO right now that are based on those concepts.

    As in normal in the industry when concept art (or any other art for that matter) is shown, there is no obligation to say which artist in the team created it since the company owns it. So yes, John Eaves and Ryan Dennings very well did create many awesome ship sketches, but they were created (and paid for) to be used in STO. The artwork is produced to promote the IP, not the individual artist, which is why names are usually not present.

    Hope that clarifies things a little? :-)
    tacofangs wrote: »
    No where on the page does it say "Concept Art by Hector Ortiz" either. That's not how these blogs work. When they show a screenshot of something I made, it doesn't say so. We (Cryptic/PWE) own all rights to the works shown. Credit need not be given.

    That said, I have 0 control over the blog or it's format. So I couldn't add credit if I wanted to.

    Eaves' concept is there to illustrate where the inspiration for these ships came from. Just as Qziqza pointed out earlier in this thread.
    If you both knew anything about art history, you would know that your statements are both true and untrue. Even though many artists do contract work, they are also given credit for their creations. As someone who has studied several levels of art history, as well as worked in the design industry, I can assure you that there is a flaw in your logic.

    Paul Rand will always be credited for creating the original IBM logo.

    Matthew Carter will always be credited for creating Microsoft's fonts Georgia and Veranda.

    Even though they have been paid, Paul Rand and Matthew Carter get creative credit. You can find billions of corporate designers who get notoriety.

    Art and design history books, taught at the college level, proves that you know nothing about the industry.

    Its a tradition.

    Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and Raphael were all commissioned artists. While they may have done work for other people, those artists were given credit for their work.

    When I do work for a magazine and/or newspaper, I am always given credit in the first few pages.

    So, yes. You owe your artists some recognition.

    Don't take your artists for granted.

    *red-hot angry*
  • jeffel82jeffel82 Member Posts: 2,075 Arc User
    edited September 2014
    venkou wrote: »
    If you both knew anything about art history, you would know that your statements are both true and untrue. Even though many artists do contract work, they are also given credit for their creations. As someone who has studied several levels of art history, as well as worked in the design industry, I can assure you that there is a flaw in your logic.

    Paul Rand will always be credited for creating the original IBM logo.

    Matthew Carter will always be credited for creating Microsoft's fonts Georgia and Veranda.

    Even though they have been paid, Paul Rand and Matthew Carter get creative credit. You can find billions of corporate designers who get notoriety.

    Art and design history books, taught at the college level, proves that you know nothing about the industry.

    Its a tradition.

    Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and Raphael were all commissioned artists. While they may have done work for other people, those artists were given credit for their work.

    When I do work for a magazine and/or newspaper, I am always given credit in the first few pages.

    So, yes. You owe your artists some recognition.

    Don't take your artists for granted.

    *red-hot angry*

    I'm gonna take a wild guess and suggest you're not a lawyer.

    Work for hire
    A work made for hire (sometimes abbreviated as work for hire or WFH) is a work created by an employee as part of his or her job, or a work created on behalf of a client where all parties agree in writing to the WFH designation. It is an exception to the general rule that the person who actually creates a work is the legally recognized author of that work. According to copyright law in the United States and certain other copyright jurisdictions, if a work is "made for hire", the employer—not the employee—is considered the legal author. In some countries, this is known as corporate authorship. The incorporated entity serving as an employer may be a corporation or other legal entity, an organization, or an individual...The actual creator may or may not be publicly credited for the work, and this credit does not affect its legal status.
    You're right. The work here is very important.
    tacofangs wrote: »
    ...talking to players is like being a mall Santa. Everyone immediately wants to tell you all of the things they want, and you are absolutely powerless to deliver 99% of them.
  • venkouvenkou Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited September 2014
    jeffel82 wrote: »
    I'm gonna take a wild guess and suggest you're not a lawyer.
    David Gaider, BioWare, got noticed for his dialogue writing in the 'Dragon Age' franchise.

    Chris Avellone, Obsidian Ent, got noticed for his work on 'Knight of the Old Republic II' and 'Neverwinter Nights II'.

    Drew Karpyshyn, BioWare, got credit for his dialogue writing in 'Knight of the Old Republic I' and 'Star Wars: The Old Republic'.

    Don't tell me that artists, writers, and coders can't get credit.

    Its a lie.
  • hravikhravik Member Posts: 1,203 Arc User
    edited September 2014
    Credit or no, in my opinion they should have just went with those Eaves designs instead of the polygon messes we got.

    Those ships might have actually made me think, you know what, I'll buy that pack after all. But the ships we have? No way.
  • qziqzaqziqza Member Posts: 1,044 Arc User
    edited September 2014
    Dogs + Bones :(

    /10char
    tYld1gu.gif?1
    TOS style icons used with the kind permission of irvinis.deviantart.com ©2013-2015
  • jeffel82jeffel82 Member Posts: 2,075 Arc User
    edited September 2014
    venkou wrote: »
    David Gaider, BioWare, got noticed for his dialogue writing in the 'Dragon Age' franchise.

    Chris Avellone, Obsidian Ent, got noticed for his work on 'Knight of the Old Republic II' and 'Neverwinter Nights II'.

    Drew Karpyshyn, BioWare, got credit for his dialogue writing in 'Knight of the Old Republic I' and 'Star Wars: The Old Republic'.

    Don't tell me that artists, writers, and coders can't get credit.

    Its a lie.

    Whatever you say. You're obviously the one with a copy of Eaves' contract with Perpetual. :rolleyes:
    You're right. The work here is very important.
    tacofangs wrote: »
    ...talking to players is like being a mall Santa. Everyone immediately wants to tell you all of the things they want, and you are absolutely powerless to deliver 99% of them.
  • jaturnleyjaturnley Member Posts: 1,218 Arc User
    edited September 2014
    venkou wrote: »
    David Gaider, BioWare, got noticed for his dialogue writing in the 'Dragon Age' franchise.

    Chris Avellone, Obsidian Ent, got noticed for his work on 'Knight of the Old Republic II' and 'Neverwinter Nights II'.

    Drew Karpyshyn, BioWare, got credit for his dialogue writing in 'Knight of the Old Republic I' and 'Star Wars: The Old Republic'.

    Don't tell me that artists, writers, and coders can't get credit.

    Its a lie.

    Getting credit isn't going to help an artist get work. Nobody goes "wow, that was some quality work, who did that? Let's hire them right away" in the corporate world.

    The people that do the work are free to add it to their resume/portfolio, and that's where it matters. They don't own it, but unless the company added a confidentiality clause to the work, they are usually allowed to keep a copy for their personal use. It's not likely that someone is going to come here, see those concept sketches, and reach out to Eames for a job; he/his agent/a headhunter/someone he knows at the company would need to see a job listing that he met the requirements for, and then he would have to submit his portfolio, resume, and CV for evaluation when he tries to sell himself for the job during the interview process like everyone else and hope that they find it appealing enough to get the job.

    Even if he WAS given credit and someone noticed him he would still have to go through that process at most places; almost every company has rules about job listings to allow for things like EOE and discrimination protection. And that process is NEVER a throw-away; even if the CEO was the one who brought you in and your best friend was the director of HR, you won't necessarily get the job for any number of factors. All it takes is for you to say one answer in the process someone doesn't like, and you are out. I've been there; one job I didn't get because I focused too much on pay, which I did because the one before that I didn't get because I didn't seem ambitious enough in my askings - you literally never know what will get you kicked out.

    Welcome to how hard it is to get a job 101. Hope you enjoy the lessons.
  • daveynydaveyny Member Posts: 8,227 Arc User
    edited September 2014
    This conversation is kind of a mystery to me...

    We all know because of the internet, who did those renditions, what more credit do the artists need??
    STO Member since February 2009.
    I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born!
    Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
    upside-down-banana-smiley-emoticon.gif
  • druhindruhin Member Posts: 7 Arc User
    edited September 2014
    jeffel82 wrote: »
    Whatever you say. You're obviously the one with a copy of Eaves' contract with Perpetual. :rolleyes:

    And here I thought it was you who held that copy of his contract, since you seem to be in the know just as much as any of us.
    daveyny wrote: »
    This conversation is kind of a mystery to me...

    We all know because of the internet, who did those renditions, what more credit do the artists need??

    The point of the conversation, is that Cryptic/PWE in one form or another, is taking credit for another mans work. Taco said it himself, when he said "These are not Eaves designs. We have our own, in house, concept artist.". He wasn't referring to any one image on the blog, he wasn't specifically referring to "their" designs (the Intel ships). Effectively, he said all of the artwork on the blog belongs to THEM, with no credit whatsoever to John Eaves.

    John Eaves is incredibly more talented than any of the ship designers at Cryptic could ever hope to become. That's the truth. The Cryptic ship designers can do good Alien ships, but their work on Federation ships leaves much to be desired. I could point at any number of community modelled Starship, and say that they look more Federation than any of the Cryptic ships, and a hell of a lot better to boot.
  • venkouvenkou Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited September 2014
    jeffel82 wrote: »
    Whatever you say. You're obviously the one with a copy of Eaves' contract with Perpetual. :rolleyes:
    Its not a question about ownership.

    Its a question about recognizing talent. Instead of acknowledging that Eaves created the sketch, Taco blatantly came out and denied his involvement. Sure, the sketch now belongs to Cryptic. I am not arguing about ownership.

    Its a time-honored tradition to acknowledge talent.

    Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and Raphael were recognized for their artwork. Even though their work was commissioned, the artists of antiquity got recognized for their creations.

    Paul Rand (IBM), Matthew Carter (Microsoft), Drew Karpyshyn (BioWare), Chris Avellone (Obsidian), and David Gaider (BioWare) also got notoriety.

    Virtually every designer in the publishing industry gets recognized. Within the first few pages of a magazine or newspaper, you will find a list of people who worked on a publication. Within the end credits of every single-player game, you will find a list of people who worked on a title.

    What bothers me the most is that Taco straight out denied everything. Someone else from the company came in and said, "it does not matter".

    It does matter.

    Why can every developer recognize talent, but Cryptic has a problem with the practice?

    Its not about legality. Its about honor.
    druhin wrote: »
    John Eaves is incredibly more talented than any of the ship designers at Cryptic could ever hope to become. That's the truth. The Cryptic ship designers can do good Alien ships, but their work on Federation ships leaves much to be desired. I could point at any number of community modelled Starship, and say that they look more Federation than any of the Cryptic ships, and a hell of a lot better to boot.
    Absolutely. I completely agree.
  • vivenneanthonyvivenneanthony Member Posts: 1,278 Arc User
    edited September 2014
    They could have made a Defit/San Paulo Superfit(aka super retrofit) and it wouldn't have made better sense including built in cloak like a new experimental. Then one day grace the Defiant to use the ship with more hull and shield. Players would have thrown money at Cryptic.

    Instead the Federation get butt ugly ships.
    http://fsd.trekships.org/art/defiant.html
    http://www.trekplace.com/l1d_probertambassador.html


    This would be a nice Romulan carrier superfit of the Ar'krif carrier warbird
    http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2009/346/f/a/Romulan_D__shara_Final_1_by_Galen82.jpg

    I think Cryptic failed to recognize not all stealth ships have to be so boxy and weird. I think the wells ship could have been a good base design.
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/YF-23_on_taxiway.jpg
    http://previous.presstv.ir/photo/20130403/Baqeri_d20130403232519763.jpg

    Oh well!
  • jeffel82jeffel82 Member Posts: 2,075 Arc User
    edited September 2014
    druhin wrote: »
    And here I thought it was you who held that copy of his contract, since you seem to be in the know just as much as any of us.



    The point of the conversation, is that Cryptic/PWE in one form or another, is taking credit for another mans work. Taco said it himself, when he said "These are not Eaves designs. We have our own, in house, concept artist.". He wasn't referring to any one image on the blog, he wasn't specifically referring to "their" designs (the Intel ships). Effectively, he said all of the artwork on the blog belongs to THEM, with no credit whatsoever to John Eaves.

    John Eaves is incredibly more talented than any of the ship designers at Cryptic could ever hope to become. That's the truth. The Cryptic ship designers can do good Alien ships, but their work on Federation ships leaves much to be desired. I could point at any number of community modelled Starship, and say that they look more Federation than any of the Cryptic ships, and a hell of a lot better to boot.

    Nope, but I'm pretty confident suricata was telling the truth.
    John Eaves and Ryan Dennings were contracted to create concept art of ships for STO. As is normal in the industry, you don't get to plaster your name on the work you create since the people you create it for own it (They are paying for it afterall, you don't see photographer or artist credits on movie posters either remember). When Cryptic took over STO they inherited all of the assets from PE, as such we actually have several ships in STO right now that are based on those concepts.

    As in normal in the industry when concept art (or any other art for that matter) is shown, there is no obligation to say which artist in the team created it since the company owns it. So yes, John Eaves and Ryan Dennings very well did create many awesome ship sketches, but they were created (and paid for) to be used in STO. The artwork is produced to promote the IP, not the individual artist, which is why names are usually not present.
    druhin wrote: »
    The point of the conversation, is that Cryptic/PWE in one form or another, is taking credit for another mans work. Taco said it himself, when he said "These are not Eaves designs. We have our own, in house, concept artist.". He wasn't referring to any one image on the blog, he wasn't specifically referring to "their" designs (the Intel ships). Effectively, he said all of the artwork on the blog belongs to THEM, with no credit whatsoever to John Eaves.

    The artwork does belong to Cryptic, not to John Eaves. And tacofangs was referring to the design of the intelligence ships.
    tacofangs wrote: »
    These are not Eaves designs. We have our own, in house, concept artist.
    tacofangs wrote: »
    This. There are multiple pieces of concept on that front page. Yes, the black and white image is Eaves', but the rest are all in house. I meant that designs of the actual ships, and the concept art associated with them, were all done by our in house concept artist.
    However, (obviously), we did reference Eaves' work (and plenty of other sources) while coming up with our designs.

    So they had Eaves' STO artwork on file from seven or so years ago, and looked at them (and have probably looked at them many times). I'm sure they also looked at the work of Matt Jeffries, Doug Drexler, and other artists affiliated with the various Star Trek productions. Then the current concept artist sat down and drew some concept art, specifically intended for the intelligence ships.
    venkou wrote: »
    Its not a question about ownership.

    Its a question about recognizing talent.

    Prior to your arrival on the scene, the conversation most certainly was about ownership. Sorry if I assumed you were talking about the same thing.

    If you're suggesting that Cryptic should give some non-legally-binding credit to John Eaves for his old concept art...I can respect that. There's plenty of debate to be had over the ethics of work for hire (look into the history of comic books for the ugly side of that), but legally speaking, Cryptic has done nothing wrong. That was my only point.

    Again, sorry for not understanding your point.
    You're right. The work here is very important.
    tacofangs wrote: »
    ...talking to players is like being a mall Santa. Everyone immediately wants to tell you all of the things they want, and you are absolutely powerless to deliver 99% of them.
  • qziqzaqziqza Member Posts: 1,044 Arc User
    edited September 2014
    what kind of fantasy world some people live in is beyond me, the art of shoe horning thier own words and context into anothers statement, after that 'other' has actually explained the words and context in full is really quite some fantastical thing! add to that the support of another individual who was to qoute 'there at the time compiling' really just adds that certain 'im really crazy and live in my own world with its own rules and reason' kind of edge to this perceived slight. i dont really care what qualification a person holds, there is stupid everywhere, and having a degree in any subject does not, as it would seem, prove common sense or any form of grip on reality. do you know how many names would have to appear on any blog relating to the creative process if they had to publish them? do you actually understand the concept of a business, a team, a project, and the number of individuals that have a part in it? a blog is not an official document. in terms of auditing and professional referencing, everything that is done IS RECORDED and REFERENCED in house. That is part of the process in ANY DESIGN wether it be artistic, modelled or engineered. hence the 'time of compiling' from suricota. you need to get down of that high whatever, understand the reality of business, understand that no offence or slight was ever instigated or meant and see that at no point was anyone trying to take credit for anyone elses work. i think someone needs to take the stick out of thier mouth and appologise to those they have insulted through a total lack of rationality and basic manners.
    tYld1gu.gif?1
    TOS style icons used with the kind permission of irvinis.deviantart.com ©2013-2015
  • tacofangstacofangs Member Posts: 2,951 Cryptic Developer
    edited September 2014
    druhin wrote: »
    There you go again, taking credit for John Eaves concepts. Was his work shown on the blog? Yes. Does Cryptic/PWE own all the rights to the works shown? Hell no, unless John Eaves sold his concept art to Cryptic/PWE.

    My advice by now, would be to stay silent on the matter, and let the non-existent Public Relations team work on this issue instead.

    I'm taking credit for nothing. My understanding is that John Eaves did that particular concept for Perpetual, which means Perpetual owned it. We bought out perpetual, and all of their assets, including concept art, which means, now, we (Cryptic) own it. The other concepts on that page were done by our in house concept artist, Hector Ortiz, and again, no one is up in arms over his not being credited on the page.

    venkou wrote: »
    Paul Rand will always be credited for creating the original IBM logo.

    Matthew Carter will always be credited for creating Microsoft's fonts Georgia and Veranda.

    It may be public knowledge that Paul Rand made the IBM Logo, but you don't see his name on every instance of the logo. When the IBM logo is shown in a magazine, you don't see a footnote telling everyone that he made the logo. The logo BELONGS to IBM, and they can use it any time, any where they feel like, all without crediting Paul Rand. That doesn't mean Paul didn't make it, it doesn't mean we can't KNOW that he made it, it just means that IBM doesn't owe him credit, and 99% of the time won't bother crediting him when the logo is used.

    (Same goes for every single other person you mentioned btw.)

    And again, when a screenshot of something I made goes up on a dev blog, there is nothing stating that I made it. And you know what? I don't mind that one bit. The work I did was done for STO, for Cryptic. They own it, they have every right to show it off. I'm still free to point at it myself and say "I made that." but they don't have to point at it and say, "He made that."

    And what about the person that designed the website? Where's there credit? What of the person that designed the ARC logo? Or the STO logo? Or the Facebook Like Button? Or the twitter logo?

    druhin wrote: »
    And here I thought it was you who held that copy of his contract, since you seem to be in the know just as much as any of us.

    The point of the conversation, is that Cryptic/PWE in one form or another, is taking credit for another mans work. Taco said it himself, when he said "These are not Eaves designs. We have our own, in house, concept artist.". He wasn't referring to any one image on the blog, he wasn't specifically referring to "their" designs (the Intel ships). Effectively, he said all of the artwork on the blog belongs to THEM, with no credit whatsoever to John Eaves.

    John Eaves is incredibly more talented than any of the ship designers at Cryptic could ever hope to become. That's the truth. The Cryptic ship designers can do good Alien ships, but their work on Federation ships leaves much to be desired. I could point at any number of community modelled Starship, and say that they look more Federation than any of the Cryptic ships, and a hell of a lot better to boot.

    Uh. . . actually, I was. As I pointed out in my last post. I was referring to ALL of the other images, every image on that page OTHER than the single Eaves concept. And yes, all of the artwork on that page DOES belong to Cryptic. (See Above).
    And again, again, why are you not up in arms about Hector not being credited?
    Only YOU can prevent forum fires!
    19843299196_235e44bcf6_o.jpg
  • vivenneanthonyvivenneanthony Member Posts: 1,278 Arc User
    edited September 2014
    tacofangs wrote: »
    I'm taking credit for nothing. My understanding is that John Eaves did that particular concept for Perpetual, which means Perpetual owned it. We bought out perpetual, and all of their assets, including concept art, which means, now, we (Cryptic) own it. The other concepts on that page were done by our in house concept artist, Hector Ortiz, and again, no one is up in arms over his not being credited on the page.

    I can see your point of view TacoFangs.

    Still I am finding these ships particularly ugly on the Federation side. I think the Wells ship would have been a better concept to base the new ships on. It maintains a stealthy look.

    On the Federation department between the Dyson Fed and now the Intel Fed ships. Cryptic needs to do a lot of homework!!

    As for the Romulan and Klingon ships, I love the designs althougth I wouldn't get the ships. I rather level up my T5U ships because they look cannon and additionally will less of a huge investment of grinding and time gating by Cryptic. Due to the new dilithium, time, and material sink no can't do.

    My Ha'feh is my Lady and she will never be replaced for one of my characters.
  • zeuxidemus001zeuxidemus001 Member Posts: 3,357 Arc User
    edited September 2014
    I want to be credited on every stick figure ever drawn because I came up with it.
  • doubleohninedoubleohnine Member Posts: 818 Arc User
    edited September 2014
    ::puts popcorn down::

    Ok, Taco effectively got Cryptic out of that stickiness.

    But what this thread needs is Taco or someone ADMITING they got it wrong on Fed design when 90% of the community is telling you these Fed intel ship designs suck. You'll find out soon enough when your E2 ship pack bombs, when those individual sales of stealth ships BOMB, against the sales you made off the Vesta class 3pack, the Romulan expansion pack, or even the Odyssey 3pack. I hate the Odyssey, but Id put money down on a bet that the stealth ships dont reach 60% of the profit the Odyssey pack made for Cryptic. Sure the Odyssey had a whale gut (that Ive asked for alternate hull parts to be made available and Id consider buying it), but it was more clearly a Fed ship than the intel ships.

    I seriously dont understand why you artists in Cryptic dont just swallow your pride and ask US for help. If I was Deangelo, Id ask for ship submission concepts from the inhouse artists, since thats cheaper apparently, and make an IN GAME Utopia Planetia quickie mission. Make an in game character that is a starship designer. You go to his office, and he asks you to look at his latest designs. You click a console, and then a pop up window of just concept art pops up. Then an easy in game voting mechanic that asks the player, on a scale of 1-5 stars, how likely are you to want/buy a ship based on this design. You click your vote, and the mission ends with the NPC thanking you for stopping by his office. Quick, easy, fun, IN GAME, way for Cryptic to see what designs are going to pull in the most sales if brought into game. They always complain about wasting dev time on unprofitable endeavors. The Fed intel ships, the numbers will eventually show you, were a waste of dev time.

    If I was running that show, Id expect every ship we released to be a homerun with most of the players, not settle for singles and doubles. Its about the MONEY isnt it fellas? And great ships bring in the money. What part of my suggestion do you guys have a problem with? You LIKE wasting dev time? You dislike rolling in the dough on a well received ship design? I dont get you guys sometimes. We all tell you how best to take our money, and you constantly turn your noses up at great suggestions that will help YOU get richer :rolleyes:
    STO: @AGNT009 Since Dec 2010
    Capt. Will Conquest of the U.S.S. Crusader
  • jeffel82jeffel82 Member Posts: 2,075 Arc User
    edited September 2014
    But what this thread needs is Taco or someone ADMITING they got it wrong on Fed design when 90% of the community is telling you these Fed intel ship designs suck. You'll find out soon enough when your E2 ship pack bombs, when those individual sales of stealth ships BOMB, against the sales you made off the Vesta class 3pack, the Romulan expansion pack, or even the Odyssey 3pack.

    I suspect there will be more T6 intel ships flying around than you think.
    You're right. The work here is very important.
    tacofangs wrote: »
    ...talking to players is like being a mall Santa. Everyone immediately wants to tell you all of the things they want, and you are absolutely powerless to deliver 99% of them.
  • jeffel82jeffel82 Member Posts: 2,075 Arc User
    edited September 2014
    valoreah wrote: »
    Personally, I don't believe the whole concept of "stealth" was a good direction to go in terms of designing a new class of ships, so I won't buy them. With that said, as soon as they add a ship I like, I'll happily buy it.

    It's quite simple really. Buy the stuff you like and don't buy the stuff you don't like. Just don't look for them to admit failing when they haven't.

    Stop being so reasonable! :P
    You're right. The work here is very important.
    tacofangs wrote: »
    ...talking to players is like being a mall Santa. Everyone immediately wants to tell you all of the things they want, and you are absolutely powerless to deliver 99% of them.
  • qziqzaqziqza Member Posts: 1,044 Arc User
    edited September 2014
    ...what this thread needs is Taco or someone ADMITING they got it wrong on Fed design when 90% of the community is telling you these Fed intel ship designs suck...

    What this thread needs is people to stop pulling facts and figures out of top hats.. 90% of the community!?! This is a Star Trek forum, not a David Copperfield show
    tYld1gu.gif?1
    TOS style icons used with the kind permission of irvinis.deviantart.com ©2013-2015
  • ragnar0xragnar0x Member Posts: 296 Arc User
    edited September 2014
    I kinda like this new ships, and T6 connie? That ugly ship for T6 lol.
  • gizmox64gizmox64 Member Posts: 321 Arc User
    edited September 2014
    hypl wrote: »
    As always, the concept art tends to be better than the final product. At least in my opinion.

    Please tell me you have plans for some of those concept designs. The two resembling a sleeker Vesta class look gorgeous.

    Yea that future looking Sovereign class was the best one of the bunch.
    The others are cool, but damn that one was slick.

    Reminds me of this Galaxy sleek concept.

    http://bayimg.com/pAaKnAAGh
  • illcadiaillcadia Member Posts: 1,412 Bug Hunter
    edited September 2014
    One thing I wanted to comment on is that the fed Sci intel ship is just ugh.

    Like I can see that you've put a lot of work into it, and how it progresses from concept to final art is very clearly laid out: but there's one problem.

    It looks really really LOW POLY.

    That it's a tiny ship contributes to that, meaning that the big geometric angles on it look low poly and low effort since there's not a lot of surface to greeble up or the like. Honestly I was kinda hoping for something maybe more evocative of the Vesta or the Nebula- obviously the choice has been made, but IMO you should maybe take some time and smooth out some of those HEXAGONS on the fed sci intel, so it doesn't look quite so ridiculously low poly.
  • vivenneanthonyvivenneanthony Member Posts: 1,278 Arc User
    edited September 2014
    gizmox64 wrote: »
    Yea that future looking Sovereign class was the best one of the bunch.
    The others are cool, but damn that one was slick.

    Reminds me of this Galaxy sleek concept.

    http://bayimg.com/pAaKnAAGh

    That ship looks sexy!

    I pay dilithium for this too https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzvwmFmfI0o
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,231 Arc User
    edited September 2014
    If I was running that show, Id expect every ship we released to be a homerun with most of the players, not settle for singles and doubles. Its about the MONEY isnt it fellas? And great ships bring in the money. What part of my suggestion do you guys have a problem with? You LIKE wasting dev time? You dislike rolling in the dough on a well received ship design? I dont get you guys sometimes. We all tell you how best to take our money, and you constantly turn your noses up at great suggestions that will help YOU get richer :rolleyes:
    Did you read that thread someone did a few months ago where people discussed what their idea of the perfect Fed ship was? Ask 100 players what they would like to see in a ship design and you'll get 100 different answers.
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • doubleohninedoubleohnine Member Posts: 818 Arc User
    edited September 2014
    When 90% of the forum posters say they hate the Intel ships, thats a pretty good representation of the overall community temperature toward a ship design. Im seeing more consistent hatred toward the Intel ships than I saw towards the Odyssey. Not a good sign.
    STO: @AGNT009 Since Dec 2010
    Capt. Will Conquest of the U.S.S. Crusader
  • qziqzaqziqza Member Posts: 1,044 Arc User
    edited September 2014
    When 90% of the forum posters say they hate the Intel ships, thats a pretty good representation of the overall community temperature toward a ship design. Im seeing more consistent hatred toward the Intel ships than I saw towards the Odyssey. Not a good sign.

    i wuold really love to know where this 90% you are quoting is coming from?
    tYld1gu.gif?1
    TOS style icons used with the kind permission of irvinis.deviantart.com ©2013-2015
  • doubleohninedoubleohnine Member Posts: 818 Arc User
    edited September 2014
    gizmox64 wrote: »
    Yea that future looking Sovereign class was the best one of the bunch.
    The others are cool, but damn that one was slick.

    Reminds me of this Galaxy sleek concept.

    http://bayimg.com/pAaKnAAGh
    That ship looks sexy!

    I pay dilithium for this too https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzvwmFmfI0o

    That future galaxy...daddy LIKE. Those nacelles are sweetness.

    That other ship is trying too hard to be a step between the Galaxy and Sovereign, it just turns me off. But its still 5 times better than an Intel ship.
    STO: @AGNT009 Since Dec 2010
    Capt. Will Conquest of the U.S.S. Crusader
Sign In or Register to comment.