Art Director

13»

Comments

  • Enderguy059Enderguy059 Australia Join Date: 2015-10-15 Member: 208486Members Posts: 626 Advanced user
    I just want the Draconis. I'd like it longer than the cyclops so i can fit both the exosuit and the seamoth.
    Politics are... pretty terrible.
    I mean, they always seem to get people into fights and encourage irrational behaviour.
    I'm fine with making a compromise and sticking to the middle road, thanks.
  • CoranthCoranth Join Date: 2015-06-02 Member: 205160Members Posts: 719 Advanced user
    Subnautica Co=Op, with that Sub as a massive mobile base / research hub, with one player as Pilot and other players as drop in / drop out crew...

    Tempting...
  • CoranthCoranth Join Date: 2015-06-02 Member: 205160Members Posts: 719 Advanced user
    Also, I'd love to see 'ads' like these, but for the Subs...

  • papragupapragu Home Join Date: 2015-03-23 Member: 202455Members Posts: 25 Fully active user
    Also, here's a sketch sheet showing some old designs for the small sized sub. Would have been something between a Seamoth and the Cyclops, with a cockpit and about 1 additional room https://www.dropbox.com/s/k2k2nkcun2cfvzo/SmallSub_NEW_Set01_highRes.jpg?dl=0
    We were looking at #6 as a possibility for the small sub. Keep in mind, these were very early designs to start the initial sub visual exploration.

    Omg your cruelty knows no limits. How can you post that link? XD Look at those nice concepts. O.O Damn look at #2. #3 reminds me at a ship from EvE online and #7 kinda looks like the Alderaan cruiser from SW.
  • Kouji_SanKouji_San Sr. Hινε Uρкεερεг - EUPT Deputy The Netherlands Join Date: 2003-05-13 Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue Posts: 15,780 Advanced user
    Oooh, number 2 and 3 are pretty neat, they have that speedster/maneuverable look to them with this thrusters on 3 and rear wing on 2 :open_mouth: Their design in general is coolsies

    Guardian of the "magic cookiejar" 

    Retired forum Admin, I mostly used a flamethrower tank for disputes... Mostly

    Retired EUPT Deputy | Moral Support | Squad 5 Blue | 102 1HP Skulk escapes and counting

  • EverReddyEverReddy UK Join Date: 2016-05-23 Member: 217355Members Posts: 203 Advanced user
    As cool as these subs look, they seem far too big to be deep see exploration vessels IMO. Given the way Subnautica includes elements of real world physics with bases and hull integrity (the bigger, deeper and more complicated they are, the harder it is to keep the water out), then deeper you go, the smaller your sub should need to be.

    That said, it would still be cool to have them in game in some capacity, maybe as a launch/command base for smaller deep sea exploration vessels.
    Would rather lose by an inch than win by a mile. If you have to win to have fun, you've already lost.

    Member of Gamers Respawn - Mature gaming community for gamers aged 21+. We are a friendly bunch who like to have a laugh, chat about gaming, share banter and game together when we can. If you are bored of gaming alone feel free to check out our forums and say hello at www.gamersrespawn.co.uk
  • Kouji_SanKouji_San Sr. Hινε Uρкεερεг - EUPT Deputy The Netherlands Join Date: 2003-05-13 Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue Posts: 15,780 Advanced user
    Pretty much the reason I was advocating having the big subs act as a mothership/carrier.

    However, we are takinga bout future tech, maybe the bigger the boat the more power it has for hull integrity force fields (dangerous route to take, imagine a powerfailure *POOF* you're gone :D)

    Guardian of the "magic cookiejar" 

    Retired forum Admin, I mostly used a flamethrower tank for disputes... Mostly

    Retired EUPT Deputy | Moral Support | Squad 5 Blue | 102 1HP Skulk escapes and counting

  • ech0gh0stech0gh0st CA Join Date: 2016-05-11 Member: 216637Members Posts: 208 Advanced user
    Heh, wow, you guys really are getting into this, especially with all that size comparison stuff. If it helps in any way, the Draconis was designed and intended as a medium sized sub. BUT the Cyclops was also considered a medium sized sub, with the shark like one a large sub. So, the Draconis would have been about the size of the Cyclops, but probably a bit longer.

    Also, here's a sketch sheet showing some old designs for the small sized sub. Would have been something between a Seamoth and the Cyclops, with a cockpit and about 1 additional room https://www.dropbox.com/s/k2k2nkcun2cfvzo/SmallSub_NEW_Set01_highRes.jpg?dl=0
    We were looking at #6 as a possibility for the small sub. Keep in mind, these were very early designs to start the initial sub visual exploration. The Cyclops and Shark / Draconis were more refined designs as part of the second phase of the sub concept pass.

    While the shark sub is certainly cool, it is a bit hard to imagine it driving around the world without obnoxiously bumping into every bit of terrain around. But it would make for a great sub if we decided to add co-op, since the Cyclops might get a little tight for more then one player at a time.
    my only problem with the cyclops is the terrible viewing from the front, I just drive using the cameras nowadays, and lack of space. Your adding so much stuff into the game and I cant fit it all onto my sub.
    That's kind of the point. There should be a reason you need to establish bases, in addition to having a Cyclops. If it was big enough to fit everything AND had mobility, then why build a base?

    Ok I really think you guys should add one of those small subs sometime. [#1 is my Favorite] They all look really good and it would be nice to take something down with room for storage and moving around thats more easy to get through smalle spaces.
    "Wait What?" -Me
  • zetachronzetachron Germany Join Date: 2014-11-14 Member: 199655Members Posts: 1,189 Advanced user
    @Squeal_Like_A_Pig If you want to give bases a reason, then docking to refill the sub resources (power, air, torpedos) or exchange world data (map or object data from scanning new regions) would be the best use. Another exclusive to bases would be resource pipes from drill/harvesting stations in the deep, needing a base to do the job and acting like a harvesting node.

    If you really plan to add new subs at a later time you might want to think about a flexible docking solution to dock different mid to large sized subs, like Sub #6, the Co-Op Shark and not only the well known Cyclops. I don't know how to dock the Shark other than from below and Sub #6 would probably dock from the side. What's your docking plan for the future?
  • RainstormRainstorm Montreal (Quebec) Join Date: 2015-12-15 Member: 210003Members Posts: 1,050 Advanced user
    edited May 2016
    But it would make for a great sub if we decided to add co-op, since the Cyclops might get a little tight for more then one player at a time.

    All of your ideas and diff subs concepts are all pretty cool, altho i would refrain from using those .... words ''That shall not be named'' like ''Co-op'' and ''Docking larger subs'' as the simple reference to them tends to open rifts in time and space, thus calling down the Holy Flames of Judgement upon us, poor mortals :dizzy: :trollface:

    papragu
  • Trollolol07Trollolol07 France (Jellyshroom Biome) Join Date: 2016-04-16 Member: 215840Members Posts: 91 Fully active user
    these subs are awesome!
    i'm trying to stop screaming at the peepers face when they flee.
  • papragupapragu Home Join Date: 2015-03-23 Member: 202455Members Posts: 25 Fully active user
    Rainstorm wrote: »
    ''That shall not be named'' like ''Co-op'' and ''Docking larger subs'' as the simple reference to them tends to open rifts in time and space, thus calling down the Holy Flames of Judgement upon us, poor mortals :dizzy: :trollface:

    haha this made me laugh so hard.
  • MerandixMerandix Netherlands Join Date: 2016-01-05 Member: 210951Members Posts: 40 Fully active user
    My main issue with the Cyclops is that its bottom half's only function is there to annoy me. Here we have a sea-floor oriented game, and our sub is surface oriented. The large and useless chin and entire bottom section is what annoys me. Yes, I like its general look (and I like the Cyclops as is way more than posts like this may seem to imply)... but it's just off. There's an impracticality about its shape that holds my dislike. I mean, here we have that big chin that already annoys me. I can take the Seamoth being a bottom-docker, but the general main entrance being at the bottom... no. A practical sub would have it on the top.

    In the posted concept art, I like 2, 3, 4 and 5 best, and perhaps 7. Based on their practicality. Design wise I don't really like seven, but it has GREAT visibility. I honestly think 5 would have been a good alternative for the current Cyclops. Pretty much the same line, just without the slightly useless bottom part.

    For a medium sized exploration sub (possibly carrying an exoskeleton, but that thing turned out WAY bigger than I imagined) I think I like 2, 3 and 4 best.

    Unfortunately, I can fully understand the time that goes into the cyclops, so please keep improving it, I'll always have a love-hate-relationship with the Cyclops, because I still think it's a beautiful sub.
Sign In or Register to comment.