Countering the Death Cube

[Snk]

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, just because it's automated doesn't justify the lack of a crew. Aircraft carriers, for example, have 4-5 thousand crew members.

 

[Keptick]

Spoiler

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

Yea, I kinda got that by now ^_^

 

[Qweesdy]

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).

Actually, just because it's automated doesn't justify the lack of a crew. Aircraft carriers, for example, have 4-5 thousand crew members.

Wow, they must have a massive bridge if there's 4 to 5 thousand crew members in it!

 

[Mortiferum]

Nah, bridge being big or small is not an issue. If crew = Ants, I can fit 500,00 no problem.

 

[Snk]

Wow, they must have a massive bridge if there's 4 to 5 thousand crew members in it!

What? I meant, 4-5 thousand in total. I'm not sure how much on the bridge, but it's probably a decent amount of people. They'd all certainly have things to do, and the same for a Star Destroyer which is much more complex than an aircraft carrier.

 

[Ithirahad]

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.

This is actually a really, really good idea; I was kind of thinking of having a mechanic like this, at least for things that aren't missiles. However, I suspect that @Calbiri (or Schema) already has a solution for this whole problem thought up...

 

[Snk]

ALL HAIL AZEREIAH, FOR HIS IDEA IS KING

 

[Tomino_sama]

In a sandbox game, you cannot prevent min/max design without placing restrictions on the creativity of a player. In essence there will always be Cubes as it represents the first steps in a learning curve leading (if they play long enough) great ship designs that are inevitably not Cuboid.

As far as I know anyone using cubes becomes unsatified by these hollow victories meanwhile becomeing villified for not "trying hard enough". These Cubes are very unpopular with players. I think it's because everyone knows that cubes win, but they look boring and uninspired in 90% of cases.

So Imagination get's points, players respect effort put into a ships design more than the Stats.

 

[Megacrafter127]

In a sandbox game, you cannot prevent min/max design without placing restrictions on the creativity of a player. In essence there will always be Cubes as it represents the first steps in a learning curve leading (if they play long enough) great ship designs that are inevitably not Cuboid.

As far as I know anyone using cubes becomes unsatified by these hollow victories meanwhile becomeing villified for not "trying hard enough". These Cubes are very unpopular with players. I think it's because everyone knows that cubes win, but they look boring and uninspired in 90% of cases.

So Imagination get's points, players respect effort put into a ships design more than the Stats.

This may likely be the only time I give you a rating.
And it even is an agree rating.

 

[Winterhome]

In a sandbox game, you cannot prevent min/max design without placing restrictions on the creativity of a player. In essence there will always be Cubes as it represents the first steps in a learning curve leading (if they play long enough) great ship designs that are inevitably not Cuboid.

As far as I know anyone using cubes becomes unsatified by these hollow victories meanwhile becomeing villified for not "trying hard enough". These Cubes are very unpopular with players. I think it's because everyone knows that cubes win, but they look boring and uninspired in 90% of cases.

So Imagination get's points, players respect effort put into a ships design more than the Stats.

Villification isn't enough for some.

Cubes aren't always the product of newbies. Cubes are sometimes the product of a veteran player trying to gain an edge in combat.