Do my ships suck?

[MattDavidS]

This isn't necessarily about my ships, but more about what makes a ship bad in general, is it exposed systems, blocky forms, or bad colors? And is there a way for the builder of a ship to objectively tell when their ship is bad, because I can build a ship and think its great, but then it gets torn apart in the reviews, and I doubt that anyone would post something to the dock if they thought it was bad, so how can a builder be objective about their creations?


Voice your opinions down below.

 

[EricBlank]

I'm guessing we're talking aesthetically from the criteria you mentioned, not in terms of capabilities, right?
Aesthetically, too much exposed systems is usually unattractive, partly because the blocks themselves make things look busy, messy even, like the object is a big blob of vomit. Now you can expose some systems as decorations, and it will definitely work. For form and shape, objects that are all one shape, either as a single monolithic structure or lots of identical structures, are less interesting to the eye. Color theory is its own big thing you can learn all about in art classes. Or wikipedia.

 

[_Scooter98_]

Ships in Starmade are like taste in music. There are all kinds of different tastes, yet none are wrong or 'suck' as you say.

If your ships theme is industrial, then maybe a blocky form with more exposed systems will work much better than a ship with a theme of, medical per se.

Colours you'll just have to experiment with.

With armour and armament, some configurations are better than others, and other configurations on other ships are better then others. For eg. a "standard" (usually a small) roleplay science cruiser isnt going to necessarily go well with a planet buster weapon system, due to power drain and size, whereas small weapons and defence turrets will (unless the lore for your ship says the race that built the ships is technologically superior).

In a ship built for combat, with shields you can decide what type of hull you want to use without sacrificing your ship, without shields you would want the best type of armour with a thick shell with bulkheads probably for best chances at surviving. You would also want a power system that produces power whilst moving and firing multiple weapons and turrets.


You yourself as the builder have your own opinion whether your ship is 'good', 'meh' or 'shit'. If you think you've made a good frame, hull, start, save a blueprint and keep expanding on it.

Reviews can be genuine thoughts by the downloader and their own opinions, or trolls just trying to ruin peoples days.


People do post 'bad' ships on the dock, sometimes on purpose, sometimes for fun. Reviews just 'help' thin the heard of ones that are bad jokes and ones that deserve recognition. I've looked through your community postings, your ships do look genuinely great, but aesthetics and purpose are 2 different things.


Hope this helps. Hope i havn't droned on too long and gotten off topic too much. I tend to do that.


_Scooter98_

 

[splatthecat]

I make ships that have some exposed systems but not like the interior of an Isanth VI! Some are like this on purpose, like my Dimension 2 Stealth Scout. Others would work well without the hull blocks but to me, wouldn't be a viable space craft.

I build for RP and tend to go towards aesthetics rather than anything else. Yes, my ships could have more power, more shields, more thrust, etc but they wouldn't fit within the confines of what I am building.

I also like a few distinct features or even eye candy to break up a plain side of the ship.

The fleet competition is a good example. Some fleets I liked and some i didn't! Even when the same builder released several different fleets, I liked some better than others.

 

[OmegaGame]

This isn't necessarily about my ships, but more about what makes a ship bad in general, is it exposed systems, blocky forms, or bad colors? And is there a way for the builder of a ship to objectively tell when their ship is bad, because I can build a ship and think its great, but then it gets torn apart in the reviews, and I doubt that anyone would post something to the dock if they thought it was bad, so how can a builder be objective about their creations?


Voice your opinions down below.

In my experience with the SM community. I've noticed that the general preference is high detail with lots of variation (but not overly so that it becomes cluttered)..
At least two tones of hull color being utilized in a tasteful pattern to break up the monotony of a single color tone.
A shape that is aesthetically pleasing which can be difficult to learn how to achieve at first. But i would recommend watching a few speed build from the "greats" to get an idea of how they go about deciding on a shape (generally through trial and error and not always just accepting the first attempt at a wall or vent..etc).
Then in the feature set such as nice looking and effective turrets that follow similar traits as the ship. Impressive engines that catch the eye with their uniqueness, Nice cockpit/bridge layout...etc. Subtle but attractive lighting placement helps as well.

Try this the next time you build a ship.. Make a Sci-fi inspired assault rifle from you fav sci-fi video game into a ship. Then put engines where the gun butt would be. make it at least two tones of color with a lot of detail variations and subtle lighting all over and 9 times out of 10 it will be a hit.

 

[Croquelune]

Well, you seem angry with corners, heptas and tetras. Definetely successions of blocky layers isn't help to reach perfection.
I personally assimillate that at some kind of lazyness (don't want switch in hotbar and rotate blocks). It's way easier and faster to build blocky but the result is often cheap detailled ship. And this is the main criticism found in your reviews. It's a choice to slice, spend more or less time on a build.

The other thing that count also is the creativity. If you do something that isn't, or, not a lot have done yet you have more chance to get positive reviews due to the new things/ideas, the originality that bring in creation community. People will be more lenient because they won't be able to compare your product with some other ones.
But if your ship meets the specifications of the saturated market of the "Human industrial military" things, prepare yourself to be judged against the thousands of other products of that kind found in the CC. And trust me there are already some masterpiece of that kind there.

You can't really be objective on your work but you can compare it with some other similar work already done by other players and try to place yourself in the scale of nice/not nice.

EDIT: OmegaGame ninja'd me.

 

[MattDavidS]

Well, you seem angry with corners, heptas and tetras. Definetely successions of blocky layers isn't help to reach perfection.
I personally assimillate that at some kind of lazyness (don't want switch in hotbar and rotate blocks). It's way easier and faster to build blocky but the result is often cheap detailled ship. And this is the main criticism found in your reviews. It's a choice to slice, spend more or less time on a build.

The other thing that count also is the creativity. If you do something that isn't, or, not a lot have done yet you have more chance to get positive reviews due to the new things/ideas, the originality that bring in creation community. People will be more lenient because they won't be able to compare your product with some other ones.
But if your ship meets the specifications of the saturated market of the "Human industrial military" things, prepare yourself to be judged against the thousands of other products of that kind found in the CC. And trust me there are already some masterpiece of that kind there.

You can't really be objective on your work but you can compare it with some other similar work already done by other players and try to place yourself in the scale of nice/not nice.

EDIT: OmegaGame ninja'd me.

Hey, I love the criticism (not passive aggressive) any ships in particular that you would recommend that I retouch.

 

[Top 4ce]

Hey, I love the criticism (not passive aggressive) any ships in particular that you would recommend that I retouch.

Having worked with your most recent ISD upload, I have to say you need to put some time into wedging and the hepta/tetra. I like the ship, its a good basis for what I want to do with it ( a simple fun to fly ship for my nephew), but there's a sense of "good enough" when you've built it. Now, if you want the extra brownie points in the aesthetic department, details matter, in fact they matter a lot.

A little goes a long way, and making sure you've smoothed and wedge where such is needed makes it look polished and finished. Your builds feel very "almost done" but not quite finished.

 

[Paullus]

Your ships don't suck at all, although one could say you've improved a lot.
I would argue your tactical assault craft is your best work, especially the midsection and interior. The combination of grey tones, depth, and lighting is really good.

The process I am currently trying out to get better at building is to find Lego ships online and replicate them in Starmade. Once I finish a ship, i immediately move on. If you want a really difficult challenge, build a scale sifi gunship/drop ship. those things have such tiny detail angles, that sometimes you need to approximate the look in lieu of accuracy.

 

[Edymnion]

*rifles through your CC submissions*

No, I wouldn't say they suck. They're solidly in the intermediate category from what I can see. You've got the basics down and are doing some interesting things, you're just lacking some of the fine detail work and the like to push them into the really good category.

I'd recommend adding more layering to your ships.

 

[_Scooter98_]

I've been looking through my blueprint archives from a couple of years back, clearly seeing when new updates have come out (one being no more lights everywhere), and I've noticed a trend in my ships. I started building large ships without finishing them and barely any detail. Then I started building medium sized ships, finished many hulls and applied some detailing. Then making small fighters, drop ships, crafts with much detail for their size. Then I started to build medium sized ships again with the skills and techniques I used to build smaller ships, completing most hulls I built with detailing stretched across them. This gives me the satisfaction of creating a good hull to start on, and some detailing that isn't an eyesore. I started to build ships next to mates who are good at building, discovering new techniques for detailing. I started to create medium sized ships with detail strung in an even fashion across the hull.

I am now capable of building large ships and have the ability to apply detail to the hulls. I still haven't got a very good clue of what I'm doing with weapons or systems anymore however.

Sometimes you need to take a step back to take a step forward, try looking back on as much of your previous work as you can to see where you've come from to where you are now.


Probably side tracked or irrelevant info agin, wrote in a hurry.


_Scooter98_

 

[MattDavidS]

I've been looking through my blueprint archives from a couple of years back, clearly seeing when new updates have come out (one being no more lights everywhere), and I've noticed a trend in my ships. I started building large ships without finishing them and barely any detail. Then I started building medium sized ships, finished many hulls and applied some detailing. Then making small fighters, drop ships, crafts with much detail for their size. Then I started to build medium sized ships again with the skills and techniques I used to build smaller ships, completing most hulls I built with detailing stretched across them. This gives me the satisfaction of creating a good hull to start on, and some detailing that isn't an eyesore. I started to build ships next to mates who are good at building, discovering new techniques for detailing. I started to create medium sized ships with detail strung in an even fashion across the hull.

I am now capable of building large ships and have the ability to apply detail to the hulls. I still haven't got a very good clue of what I'm doing with weapons or systems anymore however.

Sometimes you need to take a step back to take a step forward, try looking back on as much of your previous work as you can to see where you've come from to where you are now.


Probably side tracked or irrelevant info agin, wrote in a hurry.


_Scooter98_

No, you're totally on track, The whole post is kinda about how a builder can recognize whether his or her ships are good or bad.

 

[kulbolen]

aethetics are purely subjective. performance has some objectivity involved when comparing raw numbers but a lot of opinions go into what you want your ship to accomplish.

 

[Croquelune]

Hey, I love the criticism (not passive aggressive) any ships in particular that you would recommend that I retouch.

Yeah of course. To be honest, know that my remarks don't come from an excellent designer. I surely have less legitimacy than some of the other players who have already answered you.

But mainly I ticked on the Star Wars Imperial Light Cruiser and Star Wars Executor Class Super Star Destroyer which, I guess, can clearly be enhanced just by using smartly more wedges + corners and tetras for the layers. Same for the The Caverneux , just try to break some edges on this one and right away the result will look less "pixelated".

Like the others, I'm not say your ships sucks (at least esthetically don't know for the systems), they just are improvable. Actually the look of the MS Manibus seems pretty, it's boxy and simple design but it makes the works pretty well from far.

 

[MattDavidS]

Yeah of course. To be honest, know that my remarks don't come from an excellent designer. I surely have less legitimacy than some of the other players who have already answered you.

But mainly I ticked on the Star Wars Imperial Light Cruiser and Star Wars Executor Class Super Star Destroyer which, I guess, can clearly be enhanced just by using smartly more wedges + corners and tetras for the layers. Same for the The Caverneux , just try to break some edges on this one and right away the result will look less "pixelated".

Like the others, I'm not say your ships sucks (at least esthetically don't know for the systems), they just are improvable. Actually the look of the MS Manibus seems pretty, it's boxy and simple design but it makes the works pretty well from far.

Hey thanks, on The Star Destroyer I intentionally used slabs for the exterior, I liked the look of the slab slope better than just wedging the edges like I did on my star trek ships, I thought it looked more intimidating, anywhere else on that ship that isn't wedged probably was a conciseness decision by me about what look I liked best. The Executor is another story, She needs a little love, I built her about a year ago, and as I've progressed as a builder I've tried to update her, but she could use a few for more touch ups. But seriously, thanks for the input, its very helpful to get a second opinion.