[Philoshopy] Why do we keep trying to build something pretty ?

[MrFuz]

Im not sure what you people mean by good systems, could someone help clarify?

 

[ZektorSK]

Im not sure what you people mean by good systems, could someone help clarify?

Placement of shields, energy etc... Energy also have some build styles, that add some bonuses

 

[Madman198237]

To clarify "good systems"---A system that effectively accomplishes its intended task or tasks. Shielding that can't stop a cannon round from a 2-block point-defense turret is not effective. Shielding that can stop a million-damage nuke strike is fairly effective. A power system incapable of support the ship's weapons is not useful. A power system capable of operating under full combat drain while being hit with EMP is effective (Highly effective, in fact).

The biggest difference is that a ship built by the sort of person who will content themselves with a doombrick is that the systems will be unimaginative, the array of tricks and improvements limited, if not nonexistent. The doombrick maker will put no thought or energy into their ship (And therefore come out with a doombrick), and so have no new ideas for ways to utilize weapon combos, no clue on how to use something to give their ship an edge.
It takes only a little effort to make a ship look better. A doombrick is NOT natively better. A terrible-looking ship is NOT better than a good-looking ship.
Here's what you can do, Zektor: Ask somebody to build some sort of good-looking PvP ship and fight it in whatever sort of brick you make, or watch a competition like BnS, do something other than sit here and whine at us (Without explaining why) that a ship cannot be both effective and good-looking. Any ship that has had time put into it can be both effective and good looking.



Good job, by the way. You've successfully started a large argument, where the only one on your side is you. I hope that that was your intention. You seem to be stoking a lot of fire right now through this thread.

 

[virtue1987]

At least you give me some reason, while you may be right, on some aspects, if a ship is big enought, you can reach the Limit of 2 mill e/s easy.
Even if you cant use the L style, you wont notice a line or two more in your build, compared to the total ammount of blocks . You claim that ship with shapes, even complex ones have no space, mostly they have, and it takes a good palyer to optimize it to the max, even if what you say is true, the difference you talk about would not be noticable, it would come down to the use of weapons, passive effect, palcment of system blocks, balance of shield cap and recharger and most important, the guy who flys that thing.

 

[Master_Artificer]

Spoiler: Have you ever readed my arguments ?

I appreciate the effort you took in putting it in a spoiler.
I am also disapointed in myself and not seeing that comming. You got me, dangit.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

Hey ZektorSK,

My challenge still stands. Build an 8,000 mass brick. Put anything you want in it then come fight me one on one. I'll bring My pathfinder.

- If you focus on damage output, I'll shred you like tin foil for neglecting your defenses.
- If you use an Ion beam, my armor will stop your cannon rounds cold.
- If you try to nuke me, my point defense will make you look like you aren't even trying.
- If you use swarmers, my point defense will make you cry like a baby.
- If you focus on armor tanking, I'll slowly grind you to bits while you struggle to keep up with me.
- If you focus on shield tanking, well... I have a present for you...

 

[Madman198237]

Dr. Whammy, if that happens, make a video. I want to see it.

Actually, make any video of one of your ships in action. I wanna see if they're really all that they sound like.

 

[Tshara]

I just wanted to throw in my two cents. In my opinion the choice presented is too black and white.

The Blood and Steel tournaments mentioned before are a prime example. Battles where not won or lost because of aesthetics. They were decided by how inventive the builder was in designing there ships.

The first tournament was all about missiles. So the second tournament point defence system where a lot more present as a counter.
A doom cube without point defence would have been mauled in both tournaments.

In the second tournament the power of speed was shown. And the overall winner build an astatically pleasing ship that was running rings around the opposition.

Again very little to do with looks and more to do with the systems the builders equipped.
Perhaps next time people will build ships to counter it.

A quote comes to mind. “Armies always fight the last war.”
Meaning the tactics from the last war might not be as effective in this war.

One additional point. Assessing the ‘worth’ of a ship purely because of combat efficiency seems like a false choice. It might be important to you but not all builders have that as their main focus.

Some builds are sacrificing effectiveness for more detailing and roleplay orientated roles. That’s fine and a choice the builder made.
Just don’t assume that all astatically pleasing ships fit that same criteria.

 

[Winterhome]

You certainly sacrifice more energy for having lot of hull on a ship... more hull = need more thrusters = need more energy = need more space. There is the problem, that detailed ships often have very interesting shapes, but then, energy can't be build effenciently (no space for it right ? You can't build the "L style") and you need to think on where you are going to place the systems... that makes the beatufil ships complicated for making them work, and that means less effecient...

The L style is no better than the line style.

 

[Master_Artificer]

People seem to forget how much hitpoints armor blocks can bring to the table.
Doomwedges with long tapered slopes (more like deathneedles) are currently the meta for PVP combat due to the inherit superiority of the design, blocks placed to armor the top also are used when being shot at from the front, instead of being dead weight to drag around. Literally sloped armor is a thing guys.


However, back before the HP update, their was a thing called coring.
People put an equal amount of blocks around their core and it was the most efficent design back then. However, the counter of brick ships, which were rectangles instead of squares, put most of their mass in front of the core instead of equaldistant. Therefore, if 2 identical mass ships were fighting, one cube and one brick, if the brick is attacking (aka facing the target) it would always win (70% of total blocks between enemy and core) while the cube ship (18% of blocks between enemy and core) would always lose.
This is an obsolete method, and literally unless the server restricts lenght of ship instead of mass of ship would be better.
Otherwise, because hull blocks add more health than shield blocks (but shields regenerate. Balance!) and because hull blocks also add to the armor bar, it is not a disadvantage to have a lot of surface area. Shield capacitors add at a maximum 55 shields per block, and decrease after that. An advanced hull brings like 2000 EHP with effects, and adds 100 armor to the armor bar. However, if shields were buffed more and armor was not, then yeah surface area would be disadvantagious.

 

[BJammin]

There is no real balance between those two... you can decide, if you want more pretty ship, or more effective.... but there is no way of having it 50 50

False Dichotomy (Dilemma) { Philosophy Index }

You probably missed it the first time, so I guess I'll have to make a direct reply for you to see it. In fact, here's a few more if you don't like that particular source:

False dilemma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
False Dichotomy
False dilemma - RationalWiki

It is fallacious to think that that two are mutually exclusive of each other. Here you have a multitude of people telling you otherwise, providing irrefutable evidence to support their claims. Additionally, if it is so incredibly impossible for you to take them at their word, then there is an entire 243-page library of community content just waiting for you to take a look at. I'm absolutely certain there are hundreds of examples in there that do exactly what you say is impossible.

One more thing: anybody who truly cares for philosophy must always be ready to to listen with an open mind to what others say, and give equally supported counter-arguments if they happen to disagree. No more of this, "you obviously didn't read what I said." (We did.) Or, "that's impossible. The two can never be balanced." (We told you how they can, and why that frame of mind is flawed.) Or my favorite, "anybody who thinks that a ship meant to look good can perform better than a cube is dumb." (Seriously? I'd post even more links about ad hominems, but I'll save those for later.)

 

[Master_Artificer]

Every time someone says "a cube is better than ___" im triggered a little inside.

 

[Madman198237]

Hehehehe, it's starting to sound like the run-up to my AP English Language exam. Logical fallacies, ah the fun. Covering satire was also fun. Mostly because we read Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal, which, for those of you who don't know, is one of the most sarcastic works in history...while also being a hilariously accurate satire.

But yes, ZektorSK should definitely read the post about false dichotomies, and should then cover ad hominem and straw man, just to cover the basics. Red herrings might be a good one as well.

 

[BJammin]

But yes, ZektorSK should definitely read the post about false dichotomies, and should then cover ad hominem and straw man, just to cover the basics. Red herrings might be a good one as well.

And cherry-picking/ 'Texas Sharpshooter'

 

[TheWurm]

So a builder HAS TO BUILD SOMETHING BEATUFIL or it is not worth it ?

Depends on the builder, and on what you mean by beautiful
There is beauty in power, etc. Let's say that a ship has to please it's builder to be worth it.

The biggest difference is that a ship built by the sort of person who will content themselves with a doombrick is that the systems will be unimaginative, the array of tricks and improvements limited, if not nonexistent. The doombrick maker will put no thought or energy into their ship (And therefore come out with a doombrick), and so have no new ideas for ways to utilize weapon combos, no clue on how to use something to give their ship an edge.

I'm not going to let this stand without comment. Even putting aside concept builds for a moment, this is patently absurd. Your argument is the logical equivalent of saying that poets must be good painters, since both require creativity. If someone has a very clever idea of how to structure their weapons, and that is the reason they're building the ship, what is wrong with building their complex system into a simple shape? If they aren't interested in aesthetics, why shouldn't they build in gray? I know why I don't, but I don't belittle people if they do.

To be clear, I don't think that effectiveness has to be compromised for beauty, but I do think the above quoted paragraph is at least as fallacious as anything the OP has said. Also, now I want to build a brick just to prove you wrong.

 

[Reilly Reese]

Philoshopy

 

[Heillos]

The biggest difference is that a ship built by the sort of person who will content themselves with a doombrick is that the systems will be unimaginative, the array of tricks and improvements limited, if not nonexistent. The doombrick maker will put no thought or energy into their ship (And therefore come out with a doombrick), and so have no new ideas for ways to utilize weapon combos, no clue on how to use something to give their ship an edge.

I'm not going to let this stand without comment. Even putting aside concept builds for a moment, this is patently absurd. Your argument is the logical equivalent of saying that poets must be good painters, since both require creativity. If someone has a very clever idea of how to structure their weapons, and that is the reason they're building the ship, what is wrong with building their complex system into a simple shape? If they aren't interested in aesthetics, why shouldn't they build in gray? I know why I don't, but I don't belittle people if they do.

To be clear, I don't think that effectiveness has to be compromised for beauty, but I do think the above quoted paragraph is at least as fallacious as anything the OP has said. Also, now I want to build a brick just to prove you wrong.

I'd contend that Madman is right, by and large: any individual who has the gameplay knowledge/experience to build anything cunning or innovative, 9 times out of 10, is someone who also wants a ship that isn't a brick. The players that care/know enough to design effective ships also, as a rule (not an absolute one, naturally) desire ships that don't look horrendous.

 

[blalblagoo]

I am trying to build a ship that is almost completely optimized. It is a perfect cube (until the turrets are deployed )but i still try to make it look at least a little good and follow a theme (Still can't do interior right, what little i have). Besides turrets are the way to go if you want deadly. In the end its a game have fun with it, if you like building "DOOM CUBES" build them, if you like building pretty ships do that.

 

[Winterhome]

completely optimized

Well now, that's a pretty fun buzz word.

I've found that 90% or more of players who say 'completely optimized' aren't able to optimize a bookshelf, much less a ship.

 

[AtraUnam]

I am trying to build a ship that is almost completely optimized. It is a perfect cube (until the turrets are deployed )but i still try to make it look at least a little good and follow a theme (Still can't do interior right, what little i have). Besides turrets are the way to go if you want deadly. In the end its a game have fun with it, if you like building "DOOM CUBES" build them, if you like building pretty ships do that.

You realise as has already been mentioned a cube is far from optimal. Even ignoring apperances you'd be far better off with a star-destroyer style wedge or a sphere.