Countering the Death Cube

[Lecic]

Incorrect.
Show me some pictures of these "compact" doom cubes that you say are ruining the game for you.

In the mean time, here's what the majority of doom "cubes" look like:

You're upset because people who put little effort into how their ship looks are kicking your ass. These ships are built using the exact same rules that your ships are built by and winning because they're better at combat. It's not a problem with the game, it's a problem with your ships' designs.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, GIT GUD.

I'm not complaining about ships like that. They're basically my own ships, minus hull and a light interior. People still use Doom Cubes, or more recently, Doom Vertical Rectangular Prisms, because of the higher turning speeds. The ship you've shown off here are still subject to the same turn speeds and whatnot as my own ships. Doom Cubes, while having the same mass, same weapon power, same everything, can spin circles around me, because a 100m cube can turn much faster than something 350m long.

Give me ONE reason why turning shouldn't be changed to mass instead of dimensions, besides "It's not realistic!" (realism can be abandoned if it adds to the game) or "git gud, n00b"

 

[Proxima_Centauri]

besides "It's not realistic!"

How is realism not a valid reason exactly? People intuitively expect things to react like how they do in the real world and when someone's stick ship is out-turning a ship 10 times shorter than it then it makes no sense at all.

If you have 10km long ships spinning around just as fast as a 50m ship then it runs into things and causes server lag.

 

[Lecic]

How is realism not a valid reason exactly? People intuitively expect things to react like how they do in the real world and when someone's stick ship is out-turning a ship 10 times shorter than it then it makes no sense at all.

If you have 10km long ships spinning around just as fast as a 50m ship then it runs into things and causes server lag.

Realism is a valid point right up until it stops making things enjoyable and damages balance.

Also, that point is moot. Turning speed maxes out at around 350m. A 10km stick can already spin around and cause server lag.

 

[Crashmaster]

Why not use both mass/blocks and dimensions?

Turning speeds are based off a ship's box dimensions and then are modified by a percentage based on how much of the ships total possible box dimension volume is filled with blocks.

 

[Lecic]

Why not use both mass/blocks and dimensions?

Turning speeds are based off a ship's box dimensions and then are modified by a percentage based on how much of the ships total possible box dimension volume is filled with blocks.

That would also work. My main point in arguing for mass based turning is that decorative antennas and the like put you at a disadvantage in turning, even though they weigh a fraction of a percent of the ship.

 

[Winterhome]

Incorrect.
Show me some pictures of these "compact" doom cubes that you say are ruining the game for you.

In the mean time, here's what the majority of doom "cubes" look like:

[SNIP]

You're upset because people who put little effort into how their ship looks are kicking your ass. These ships are built using the exact same rules that your ships are built by and winning because they're better at combat. It's not a problem with the game, it's a problem with your ships' designs.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, GIT GUD.

"Better at combat" doesn't apply when the targets are both so large that one is not capable of missing.
It becomes a sheer numbers game, and generally the ship that didn't waste 20% of its mass on useless things like "hull" or "not looking like vomit" will win by firepower alone.

 

[Keptick]

How is realism not a valid reason exactly? People intuitively expect things to react like how they do in the real world and when someone's stick ship is out-turning a ship 10 times shorter than it then it makes no sense at all.

If you have 10km long ships spinning around just as fast as a 50m ship then it runs into things and causes server lag.

Because space ships made out of blocks that fly in a vacuum subject to fluid dynamic are realistic? Oh please...

The reason why Doomcubes are so good is because they pack so much in so little. Take for example a 200x200x200 meters doomcube, the thing will turn at the exact same speed as my 200m cruiser, except that it has the mass of a freaking capital ship (700k mass, or 7 million blocks). Now, the turning system does take mass slightly in consideration, but it's not enough.

No matter how well designed that 350m ship is (my guess is that it's between 50 and 100k mass), it'll still get obliterated by the doomcube that has better turning and 7 to 14 times the amount of shielding and guns that the cruiser has.

Ps: make a 1000m long stick ship (1 block line), it can still turn pretty fast.

 

[Qweesdy]

For realistic turning; the calculations are complex and (even though it's not prohibitively expensive if done right) Schema has more important things to do than to significantly change everything. Adding mass to the current "overly-simple" calculation would be easy and would make it more realistic. Taking thrust into account would also be easy and would also make it more realistic.

However, if we're going to look at realism...

Let's look at an Imperial class Star Destroyer (from Star Wars):

Spoiler

This ship has huge thrusters on the rear, but none on the front. When it's moving forward, how does it slow down?

This ship also has a nice aerodynamic shape. Why? How much air is there in space anyway?

This ship is fairly flat. Why? Is it so that it creates a huge target for enemies above and below it, or so that it's thin and easy to punch a hole through it?

This ship has a tall antenna on top of its bridge (the rod between the little balls). Why? We use tall antennas on Earth because the Earth is curved and more height gives us more distance, but wasn't this supposed to be a space ship (and not a building on a planet)?

This ship also has a relatively large bridge; but we already have the technology to automate the daylights out of it and the crew would be one captain, a bunch of maintenance engineers and some lazy pilots that spend most of their time waiting for something to do. The bridge only needs to be large enough for 1 person (but then we already have the technology to do VR helmets too, so the captain could fly the ship while on the toilet with no need for a bridge at all).

This ship has windows along a thin strip down the left/right edges; but none in the top/bottom. When there's no natural gravity and "down" can be anywhere you like, why?

This ship is a completely unrealistic piece of poo. A doom cube would be far more realistic.

What can we do to counter the unrealistic "accidentally built an aeroplane and/or boat" ships?

 

[Lecic]

For realistic turning; the calculations are complex and (even though it's not prohibitively expensive if done right) Schema has more important things to do than to significantly change everything. Adding mass to the current "overly-simple" calculation would be easy and would make it more realistic. Taking thrust into account would also be easy and would also make it more realistic.

However, if we're going to look at realism...

Let's look at an Imperial class Star Destroyer (from Star Wars):

Spoiler

This ship has huge thrusters on the rear, but none on the front. When it's moving forward, how does it slow down?

This ship also has a nice aerodynamic shape. Why? How much air is there in space anyway?

This ship is fairly flat. Why? Is it so that it creates a huge target for enemies above and below it, or so that it's thin and easy to punch a hole through it?

This ship has a tall antenna on top of its bridge (the rod between the little balls). Why? We use tall antennas on Earth because the Earth is curved and more height gives us more distance, but wasn't this supposed to be a space ship (and not a building on a planet)?

This ship also has a relatively large bridge; but we already have the technology to automate the daylights out of it and the crew would be one captain, a bunch of maintenance engineers and some lazy pilots that spend most of their time waiting for something to do. The bridge only needs to be large enough for 1 person (but then we already have the technology to do VR helmets too, so the captain could fly the ship while on the toilet with no need for a bridge at all).

This ship has windows along a thin strip down the left/right edges; but none in the top/bottom. When there's no natural gravity and "down" can be anywhere you like, why?

This ship is a completely unrealistic piece of poo. A doom cube would be far more realistic.

What can we do to counter the unrealistic "accidentally built an aeroplane and/or boat" ships?

Actually, "wedge" ships have the advantage in a frontal assault. They've got a massive amount of armor when they attack straight on, which is what wedge shaped ships are intended to do.

 

[Qweesdy]

Actually, "wedge" ships have the advantage in a frontal assault. They've got a massive amount of armor when they attack straight on, which is what wedge shaped ships are intended to do.

Ah, I understand now - with the pointed front, lack of forward thrusters and heavily armoured side windows; it's designed for ramming the enemy!

 

[Winterhome]

Actually, "wedge" ships have the advantage in a frontal assault. They've got a massive amount of armor when they attack straight on, which is what wedge shaped ships are intended to do.

Ah, I understand now - with the pointed front, lack of forward thrusters and heavily armoured side windows; it's designed for ramming the enemy!

The glory of sloped armor.
Ballistic non-explosives ricochet, and everything else has the problem of penetrating extra armor thickness due to the angling.

In addition to that, all turrets placed on the wedged portion have the benefit of being able to fire directly forwards.

Basic tank combat.

The thing is so full of redundant systems and thick armor (which is thickened by the angle as I stated above) that the only thing that'll reliably disable it is shooting it from the interior, as engine wash will easily disintegrate any missiles fired directly at the rear.

The tower portion is less for visibility and command than it is for adding in non-essential stuff (ie: crew quarters, medical bays, entertainment, and athletics decks). It's easier to shoot off, yes, but it's also the part that can be shot off without stopping the ship from flying and shooting. Basically, they're entirely designed for the part of the fight *after* the shields are destroyed.

 

[der_scheme]

The glory of sloped armor.
Ballistic non-explosives ricochet, and everything else has the problem of penetrating extra armor thickness due to the angling.

In addition to that, all turrets placed on the wedged portion have the benefit of being able to fire directly forwards.

Basic tank combat.

The thing is so full of redundant systems and thick armor (which is thickened by the angle as I stated above) that the only thing that'll reliably disable it is shooting it from the interior, as engine wash will easily disintegrate any missiles fired directly at the rear.

The tower portion is less for visibility and command than it is for adding in non-essential stuff (ie: crew quarters, medical bays, entertainment, and athletics decks). It's easier to shoot off, yes, but it's also the part that can be shot off without stopping the ship from flying and shooting. Basically, they're entirely designed for the part of the fight *after* the shields are destroyed.

So much this.

Also, that thing is the picture is not of the Imperial-class. Just sayin'.

 

[Proxima_Centauri]

Because space ships made out of blocks that fly in a vacuum subject to fluid dynamic are realistic? Oh please...

Hahaha seriously?
An object's moment of inertia is based on its interaction with the Higgs field. It has nothing to do with "fluid dynamics"
Inertial damping can be turned off in the config options, but I suppose you didn't know that either.

Also do please explain how giving a rod ship a turning advantage is better than giving a cube ship a turning advantage.

it'll still get obliterated by the doomcube that has ... 7 to 14 times the amount of shielding and guns that the cruiser has.

This has nothing to do with shape and everything to do with mass.
Would you care if people were upset about getting annihilated by your titan?

Ps: make a 1000m long stick ship (1 block line), it can still turn pretty fast.

No, there's a turning cap somewhere in the 300-400m range
If it had anything to do with mass, you wouldn't be in this thread complaining about it.

 

[Keptick]

Hahaha seriously?
An object's moment of inertia is based on its interaction with the Higgs field. It has nothing to do with "fluid dynamics"
Inertial damping can be turned off in the config options, but I suppose you didn't know that either.

Also do please explain how giving a rod ship a turning advantage is better than giving a cube ship a turning advantage.

This has nothing to do with shape and everything to do with mass.
Would you care if people were upset about getting annihilated by your titan?

No, there's a turning cap somewhere in the 300-400m range
If it had anything to do with mass, you wouldn't be in this thread complaining about it.

Yes, I know what a f*cking moment of inertia is, that's not at all the point I was making. I was mentioning the fact that the game isn't realistic by nature and stated the dampening effect (which makes ships act very much as in a fluid), WHICH IS DEFAULT, isn't realistic AT ALL, as an example. But sure, if you want to be a little b*tch about the config then go ahead (Do most servers change it? no.).

How does this have nothing to do with shape? The high mass with small dimensions comes directly from the shape of a doomcube. And seriously, what does this have ANYTHING to do with my titan??? There is a big difference between getting killed by a gigantic ship that took hundreds of hours to make and a cube that took 5 minutes to make and gets better turning due to broken mechanics.

I have no idea why you keep mentioning the on the extremes as your only arguments but okay; giving a turning advantage to rods wouldn't matter because they wouldn't have an overwhelming advantage in combat. Also, please explain to me how a 2000m rod is turning much faster than my titan. Let me tell you why, mass is already taken into account The game uses simplified inertia calculations, which while being realistic just don't balance the game well.

You're really hellbent on defending Doomcubes aren't you? Any reasons in particular?

 

[Mortiferum]

Just make is so all exposed system takes ambient damage when traveling.

No more systems only cube.

Then make it so cross section of the ship effects detection range, so you see them before they see you.

Then make it so missile have beyond visual range engagement ability, you see first, kill first. So narrower ships have a purpose to exist.

 

[Comr4de]

Then make it so missile have beyond visual range engagement ability, you see first, kill first. So narrower ships have a purpose to exist.

I'm not seeing how these two facts are related. Also the BVR engagement works both ways; cubes will get it too.[DOUBLEPOST=1414391769,1414391661][/DOUBLEPOST]

Realism is a valid point right up until it stops making things enjoyable and damages balance.

Also, that point is moot. Turning speed maxes out at around 350m. A 10km stick can already spin around and cause server lag.

Spoiler

Proxima Centauri is a known imbecile, arguing with him gets you nowhere.

 

[Mortiferum]

I'm not seeing how these two facts are related. Also the BVR engagement works both ways; cubes will get it too.[DOUBLEPOST=1414391769,1414391661][/DOUBLEPOST]

Spoiler

Proxima Centauri is a known imbecile, arguing with him gets you nowhere.

Well, the things is with the cross section of a cube, you will probably be able to see it earlier. The theory is the more surface area you have exposed, the easier you are detected. So Cubes lose on that.

 

[Comr4de]

Well, the things is with the cross section of a cube, you will probably be able to see it earlier. The theory is the more surface area you have exposed, the easier you are detected. So Cubes lose on that.

That would actually also debuff larger ships in general. I see your point now.

 

[Mortiferum]

That would actually also debuff larger ships in general. I see your point now.

Yeah, it is the only way I can think of though

I hate cubes more than most people here.... xD

 

[Winterhome]

How about small amounts of damage passing through shields when shots hit exposed systems?
Say, directly hitting any kind of power or shield block.

Would be enough to encourage players to at the very least add SOME hull, and the instant they do that, they lose their same-mass advantage.