When we are saying that the X4‘s ship is ugly, what are we talking about?

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

...

As a player ship the Thresher was probably the worst of the lot due to only being able to fire once (maybe twice) every few seconds. The Tiger and Cerberus were not bad but the Deimos and Aegir arguably were the best (for different reasons).

The Frigates are drone frigates... their primary role is basically a baby carrier and their main strength is in the drones they can deploy and carry.

Combat in X4 is balanced very differently from X3 and IMO that is a good thing... it is more like X2 in some ways which arguably was the best of the older X-games where combat is concerned. In X4, the balance is (at v1.60 and prior) more tactics biased IMO rather than the attrition bias that contaminated X3.

This has little or no bearing on the aesthetics though.

[GCU Grey Area]

The turret arrangements on ALL the frigates/bombers/corvette/scavenger are anything but random regardless of opinions of their placement. If you are going to use any ships as surface turret supplements for a carrier the Gorgon is probably the best choice with the Osprey being a close second. The reason for this is the better placements of turrets in that situation.

Main reason I went with Peregrines aboard my Colossus last game was because in some circumstances it effectively gave me 2 batteries of 6 turrets - one angled towards the front of Colossus, the other angled towards the rear. Often this meant that they could target 2 enemy fighters at once. I considered 12 turrets on Gorgons all firing at the same targets to be slightly overkill (also IMO docked Gorgons didn't look quite as good - Paranid design aesthetic clashed with the Argon).

For the Condor I'm using in my current game I've got Osprey Sentinels as auxiliary turrets - because they're docked parallel to the main axis of the ship (rather than perpendicular as with Colossus) they provide a lovely band of continuous coverage all around the ship - since they provide pretty much all of the anti-fighter defences for the ship good coverage is critical.

Tried the Teladi Frigate and Bomber and they are too slow and unwieldy, they do not handle well at all IME and IMO are worse than the other options.

Agree with respect to the Osprey - too damn slow & cumbersome for me to use personally (flown a few on Teladi Trade Guild retrieval missions). Peregrine though is another matter entirely. Vanguard variant in particular has decent enough speed & handling to start with, but also responds very well to modification. After modifying chassis & engine got mine running at 576m/s (5.8km/s travel) & handling's now not far off that of a fighter (indeed slightly superior to an unmodified Falcon V with mk3 combat thrusters, which was what I was flying right before I got my first Peregrine). More than good enough for my purposes. Would not remotely describe this ship as either slow or unwieldy.

[mr.WHO]

The Peregrine is an ugly POS, it is boxy and lacks any redeeming aesthetic features but it is very Teladi like. The Paranid and Argon equivalents are by contrast sleeker and more pleasing to the eye.

Which part of Minotaur is sleeker and less boxy than Peregrine? Comparing to Minotaur Peregrine is a beauty.
I don't count Nemesis as it's technically not a bomber.

The matter is subjective, but IMO the Teleadi ships are the worst looking from an Aesthetic perspective, the Argon ships are the best, and the Paranid Vessels come in a close second.

In general I agree that Teladi designs are inferior to Argon, but the case of Minotaur-Peregrine is exception - Minotaur is a cancer, while Peregrnie might be in fact the best looking Teladi ship (I also fancy iconic Falcon that goes back to X1 and X2 design).

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

Which part of Minotaur is sleeker and less boxy than Peregrine? Comparing to Minotaur Peregrine is a beauty.
I don't count Nemesis as it's technically not a bomber.

The matter is subjective, but IMO the Teleadi ships are the worst looking from an Aesthetic perspective, the Argon ships are the best, and the Paranid Vessels come in a close second.

In general I agree that Teladi designs are inferior to Argon, but the case of Minotaur-Peregrine is exception - Minotaur is a cancer, while Peregrnie might be in fact the best looking Teladi ship (I also fancy iconic Falcon that goes back to X1 and X2 design).

We will have to agree to disagree, to me the Peregrine is far from being an exception - it is as ugly as the Osprey from an aesthetics standpoint, certainly is not better than the Minotaur though the Minotaur is not the best looking Argon ship either.

[sh1pman]

I think that everything looks OK except frigates. Flying landing pads. Should be reworked to have launch tubes and small internal docks for drones, like in X2/3. Maybe implement an external “dock” for a single fighter, like what corvettes had in X2.

[Sergeant Centurius]

In my opinion the X4 ships are not ugly, they are not what we were expected, as for me, X and LX class needs to be redone. in my opinion it would be nice to add Titan or other capital ships from X3 and make them as battleships that would be bigger and more powerful than the existing behemoth for example. ( sorry for my english, it is not my native language

[mr.WHO]

I think that everything looks OK except frigates. Flying landing pads. Should be reworked to have launch tubes and small internal docks for drones, like in X2/3. Maybe implement an external “dock” for a single fighter, like what corvettes had in X2.

IMO Cerberus kinda looks acceptable and good looking, but yeah I hate huge coverage blind spot at the bottom for all frigates.

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

In my opinion the X4 ships are not ugly, they are not what we were expected,

Maybe for some, but personally I do not find any of the designs particularly out of place (nor unexpected per se).

The fundamental truth of the matter is at least some people saw X4 as the game title and expected another rehash of X3. There were substantial differences across the board between X2 and X3 and to not expect changes between X3 and X4 is at least a tad ridiculous.

With previous X games the Teladi ships have rarely been considered the most aesthetically pleasing of ships, X4 follows in that tradition really.

Should Boron ships ever be part of X4 they will almost certainly have a biological feel to them, just as the Paranid ships look very alien like, and the Argon/Terran ships adopt designs that are in-line with the broad range of human ship designs in general Sci-Fi. Teladi ships fit generally in-line with the more industrial looking sci-fi human ship designs - with some odd exceptions.

[GCU Grey Area]

I hate huge coverage blind spot at the bottom for all frigates.

When I was flying a Gorgon in my last game rather liked having all the turrets on the upper hull. Not a big enough ship to need defensive turrets, instead their most useful role (IMO) was supplementing the firepower of the main guns. In battle whenever my main guns overheated I'd dip the nose to ensure all 4 turrets had a good clear shot at the enemy. Would not have worked nearly as well if turrets were more evenly distributed around the ship, making it harder to bring all turrets to bear on a single target. In any case never once found having a blindspot beneath the ship was an issue - it's a sufficiently manoeuverable ship that it never took more than a second or 2 to bring an enemy into their firing arcs, even if it started out directly below my ship.

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

I hate huge coverage blind spot at the bottom for all frigates.

When I was flying a Gorgon in my last game rather liked having all the turrets on the upper hull. Not a big enough ship to need defensive turrets, instead their most useful role (IMO) was supplementing the firepower of the main guns.

I must agree with mr.Who on this one, blind spots on the whole whether talking offensive or defensive weapons is never a good thing - they present a tactical vulnerability that can be exploited. With Frigates, this is slightly offset by their drone capability and missile capacity.

The difference between offensive and defensive weapons is more contextual than anything else (example: a small calibre weapon on a small piece of equipment would likely be considered an offensive weapon but on larger kit it would more likely be considered a defensive one - things are rarely that cut and dry in reality and there are almost certainly exceptions to the rule of thumb, but they are exceptions). On all the frigates (and to a degree the bombers) the turrets serve both roles to at least some degree but the real strength of the frigates is in their drone carrying and deployment capability. Defence drones are really mis-labeled - they are really just combat drones. They are probably referred to as defence drones to emphasise their primary role with the larger vessels and stations.

Bombers on the whole are a bit of an enigma where their balance is concerned - However, their turret positions are probably what set them apart due to their relative arcs of fire - with the notable exception of the Peregrine since their turret arcs leave a larger blind arc below than the Argon equivalent. The Paranid Corvette complements the Gorgon quite nicely though.

To me though, the turret positions have little or no bearing on the aesthetics.

[GCU Grey Area]

To me though, the turret positions have little or no bearing on the aesthetics.

Surely turret positions are influenced by the shape of the hull? To me hull shape & therefore turret placement certainly has an impact on aesthetics. One of the reasons I prefer Peregrine to Minotaur is I find the broadly hexagonal cross-section & angled turrets of the Peregrine much more pleasing than the square sectioned Minotaur with it's corresponding turret positions.

As for blindspots, yes, my Peregrine does have one. A blindspot I consider completely irrelevant for a ship which can roll 133.2 degrees in a single second - any enemy ship which tries to exploit that blindspot might have a slight advantage but it's not exactly going to keep it for long. Not going to lose any sleep over that particular 'tactical vulnerability' & certainly not going to fly an ugly Minotaur instead (a ship which also appears to have most of it's hull missing) just to avoid having an utterly inconsequential blindspot.

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

To me though, the turret positions have little or no bearing on the aesthetics.

Surely turret positions are influenced by the shape of the hull?

Only to a limited extend, such things are moot when considering the actual aesthetic aspects since there are many different shapes that could fill the void between turret placements.

From a functionaliy perspective, it is better to have good turret placement than subjectively good aesthetics.

[GCU Grey Area]

From a functionaliy perspective, it is better to have good turret placement than subjectively good aesthetics.

Depends on the degree to which aesthetic choices compromise functionality. In the case of the Peregrine the slight loss of functionality (i.e. the blindspot) is negligible in comparison to having a much more pleasing hull design (at least for people who appreciate the Teladi design aesthetic - do understand that's not everyone). In the case of the Gorgon there's the additional factor that a minor lack of functionality in one area (again blindspot) significantly increases functionality in another (greater ability to focus the fire from all turrets on a single target).