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

[AtraUnam]

No one can make something beatufil, yet still effective and battle worthy.

Someone would like a word with you

Literally invincible to most ships its own mass while still dishing out enough damage to kill them AND good looking. The only things that could ever kill it was gigantic lag spikes and the NFD-B server randomly deciding to replace all the ship data with that of particularly small point defense turret.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

That is not true... You see, SkylordLuke does have one of the best looking ships ever, but I have never seen one to fight a battle and win... Does that mean that vizual is more important to him, them actually surviving in that crate ?

No one can make something beatufil, yet still effective and battle worthy.

I beg to differ. Tell you what; I challenge you to bring your best 8,000 mass ship and fight me in one of my pathfinders. I'll leave the fighters at home. I can guarantee you; you're gonna have a bad time...

 

[TheWurm]

That is not true... You see, SkylordLuke does have one of the best looking ships ever, but I have never seen one to fight a battle and win... Does that mean that vizual is more important to him, them actually surviving in that crate ?

No one can make something beatufil, yet still effective and battle worthy.

Classic logical leap here. At most, your evidence only supports the conclusion that Skylord can't build something both beautiful and battle worthy, which... I don't know, he may agree with you on that.

Most of the decorative elements I've seen in builds have fairly minimal effect on ship effectiveness, especially interiors. Will you lose to a mathematically optimized ship of the same size in a fair fight? Eh, probably. How often do" fair fights" come up, though, really? Short of agreed upon competitions, all fights are unfair for some reason, and block for block efficiency will only do so much against sheer mass of inefficient systems.

The point is, you might argue that aesthetics automatically lower efficiency ( debatable) but the effect is negligible compared to other factors.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

Classic logical leap here. At most, your evidence only supports the conclusion that Skylord can't build something both beautiful and battle worthy, which... I don't know, he may agree with you on that.

Most of the decorative elements I've seen in builds have fairly minimal effect on ship effectiveness, especially interiors. Will you lose to a mathematically optimized ship of the same size in a fair fight? Eh, probably. How often do" fair fights" come up, though, really? Short of agreed upon competitions, all fights are unfair for some reason, and block for block efficiency will only do so much against sheer mass of inefficient systems.

The point is, you might argue that aesthetics automatically lower efficiency ( debatable) but the effect is negligible compared to other factors.

I second this.

@ ZektorSK I've repeatedly offered to help you and I've even shown you a few things. Right now you're coming off as feeling sorry for yourself about your lack of creativity. Stop projecting your insecurity about your supposed lack of aesthetics on to other people. Learn how to build first, then get back to us with which one works better for you.

If you want to fly a brick that can fight like an Abrams tank, great. ...but don't hate on us because we can make that same brick actually look like an Abrams tank and still fight like one.

 

[MossyStone48]

I'd doing a series on builders like darknassius and any others who want to show off ships and discuss their build methods. There's many videos on similar topics on youtube as well. there's not an aesthetic master class. gotta walk before you can sustainably run. take up the offer for help. there's no loss. doc whammie knows the builds used by successful pvpers so you may as well take that offer. the risk far outweighs the gain. dedicate the time.

fact is to get good at anything you need to crank at it for a long time. 10000 hours into practicing and you're practically a pro in most cases. most of us SM vet have 3000+ hours and counting including pre-greenlight. that's easy to catch up on.

 

[ZektorSK]

I second this.

@ ZektorSK I've repeatedly offered to help you and I've even shown you a few things. Right now you're coming off as feeling sorry for yourself about your lack of creativity. Stop projecting your insecurity about your supposed lack of aesthetics on to other people. Learn how to build first, then get back to us with which one works better for you.

If you want to fly a brick that can fight like an Abrams tank, great. ...but don't hate on us because we can make that same brick actually look like an Abrams tank and still fight like one.

We are here to discuss what is more important and why, not discussing my way of building

 

[Dr. Whammy]

We are here to discuss what is more important and why, not discussing my way of building

...and you have gotten your answer. Yet (according to your posts) you don't seem to agree with it. What what exactly do you want from us?

 

[ZektorSK]

...and you have gotten your answer. Yet (according to your posts) you don't seem to agree with it. What what exactly do you want from us?

So your logic is that, when you give me your opinions then it is ended ? No more ? Discussing is about talking with people who "agree" and "don't agree"

 

[Dr. Whammy]

So your logic is that, when you give me your opinions then it is ended ? No more ? Discussing is about talking with people who "agree" and "don't agree"

You misunderstand; both our intentions and your own posting habits.

Nearly every post you've made on this thread seems to argue against the use of aesthetics, almost as if to say, "well, if I can't figure it out, then it's not worth doing". You also have a history of complaining that your builds aren't pretty enough, good enough etc.
example 1
example 2
example 3

This isn't a debate anymore. It's become something else entirely. You have plenty of people here telling you why aesthetics are important to them and you've made it clear that aesthetics are important to you as well; despite the fact that you've been arguing against it. You've had people offer to help you and yet you reject that help. Something is amiss here.

So I'm going to ask you again; what is it that you want from us? ...help at designing? ...a shoulder to cry on? ...someone to tell you that you suck at building?

 

[Tamren Shade]

Few hours ? Building a ship takes days.

With the amount of time I have for gaming, it takes me weeks :P .When I said "build something cool", it's not just about a complete ship, but a nifty logic device, a BA looking turret, or even just detailing an engine nozzle all count in my book

 

[ZektorSK]

You misunderstand; both our intentions and your own posting habits.

Nearly every post you've made on this thread seems to argue against the use of aesthetics, almost as if to say, "well, if I can't figure it out, then it's not worth doing". You also have a history of complaining that your builds aren't pretty enough, good enough etc.
example 1
example 2
example 3

This isn't a debate anymore. It's become something else entirely. You have plenty of people here telling you why aesthetics are important to them and you've made it clear that aesthetics are important to you as well; despite the fact that you've been arguing against it. You've had people offer to help you and yet you reject that help. Something is amiss here.

So I'm going to ask you again; what is it that you want from us? ...help at designing? ...a shoulder to cry on? ...someone to tell you that you suck at building?

Example 1 was completely different topic, which you guys turned into the chat about building.
Example 2 was asking for a tip, how to build better hull types, I admit, I considered aesthetics more important
Example 3 I don't have anything to say

Why do you want to make from this thread, a chat where I can cry how much I suck ? I made a normal question that you can think on, then why are you trying to make a completely different thing ?

 

[Sgtwisky]

We are here to discuss what is more important and why, not discussing my way of building

I think the issue here Zektor, is that most of us do not believe that one is more important then the other. And as noted, many ships that are "Pretty" are very capable of holding their own vs an optimized doom cube. AND the small % difference in systems (We are likely not talking more then 10-15 percent IMO) is not enough to sway most battles. This means, that most people are willing to look bad-ass and feed their own ego for that small loss in effectiveness.

I think your question is based on flawed logic. You claim you can't be functional AND effective, when you can. IF you assume you CAN have both, like some people have argued, then the question would be more aptly worded as follows:

Why do we not worry about the small percent loss in effectiveness, in order to make our ships look good?

The answer to that could be many things. It could be "Because I don't want to look like a noob" or "Because I want my ship to look as destructive as it actualy is" or any combination of arguments as it is totally subjective at that point. And that is where the "Philosophy" can come into play.

However due to your assumption that effective and pretty cannot exist at the same time, you have in effect changed the topic yourself from "why build pretty things" to "I think you can't have both, why do you guys bother". SO the answers you got were "you CAN have both, and this is why we bother".

Instead of "I build good looking things because X".

If you went into this discussion without some preconception that you cant have a ship that can survive PvP AND have it look good I think you may have gotten the responses and type of discussion you were interested in rather then the argument you currently are trying desperately to put out.

But that's just my subjective 2 cents, take it how you will.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

I think the issue here Zektor, is that most of us do not believe that one is more important then the other. And as noted, many ships that are "Pretty" are very capable of holding their own vs an optimized doom cube. AND the small % difference in systems (We are likely not talking more then 10-15 percent IMO) is not enough to sway most battles. This means, that most people are willing to look bad-ass and feed their own ego for that small loss in effectiveness.

I think your question is based on flawed logic. You claim you can't be functional AND effective, when you can. IF you assume you CAN have both, like some people have argued, then the question would be more aptly worded as follows:

Why do we not worry about the small percent loss in effectiveness, in order to make our ships look good?

The answer to that could be many things. It could be "Because I don't want to look like a noob" or "Because I want my ship to look as destructive as it actualy is" or any combination of arguments as it is totally subjective at that point. And that is where the "Philosophy" can come into play.

However due to your assumption that effective and pretty cannot exist at the same time, you have in effect changed the topic yourself from "why build pretty things" to "I think you can't have both, why do you guys bother". SO the answers you got were "you CAN have both, and this is why we bother".

Instead of "I build good looking things because X".

If you went into this discussion without some preconception that you cant have a ship that can survive PvP AND have it look good I think you may have gotten the responses and type of discussion you were interested in rather then the argument you currently are trying desperately to put out.

But that's just my subjective 2 cents, take it how you will.

OMG! This! So much, THIS!!!

EDIT: ZektorSK, please understand that no one here is being malicious. We are merely pointing out that;
1) You can have both.
2) There are those among us who are willing to help you get both.

What you do with this knowledge is up to you.

 

[Master_Artificer]

The brick ship is purly a cosmetic choice now, for the past year the most effecent designs have been vaugly star destroyer in shape.

 

[Dire Venom]

That is not true... You see, SkylordLuke does have one of the best looking ships ever, but I have never seen one to fight a battle and win... Does that mean that vizual is more important to him, them actually surviving in that crate ?

No one can make something beatufil, yet still effective and battle worthy.

You Sir, are awarded Troll of the week!
Enjoy!

 

[sayerulz]

Really, the reason that Skylords builds are usually not very effective is that his non-replica ships always seem to have a huge amount of scaffolding, spars, wingy-bits on the end of scaffold, and other stuff like that. It looks really cool, but it means that you can't fit in that many systems. That's just his style, and it is not one that lends itself well to combat-effective ships.

But as people have shown above, it is totally possible to make a combat effective ship that looks good. Yes, a ship with the exact same block count but 100% min-maxed for effectiveness might be 15% better, but really, who cares about 15%? Just build a good looking ship that's 15% bigger. Or build two of your good looking ship. In the end, the determining factor is more resources available and the skill of the builder than it is wether the ship looks good or not.

Yes, a few years ago, cubes were the best, and asthetics were heavily penalized. But a lot has changed since then. Perhaps most importantly, armor now actually matters. Covering your hull with little greebles is great for absorbing damage.

 

[Master_Artificer]

Dire Venom you can rate my post funny but im not kidding.

 

[BJammin]

False Dichotomy (Dilemma) { Philosophy Index }

Food for thought.

 

[Sgtwisky]

I do love to learn about logical fallacies. I spent too many hours on a site that listed many do to people like you. You have my thanks LOL.

 

[TwoNiner]

It is not impossible for ships to look good and function well at the same time. People who don't know how to build use this as an excuse to make themselves feel better.