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

[Madman198237]

No, but a builder who builds doomcubes is probably not going to enjoy the game, because every time they go fly somewhere, they realize that all they've ever built is a very large, Star Destroyer White (Most likely) space brick. With no purpose.
Another appropriate way to say what Chckn said would be, I think, this: A ship that doesn't please its builder (And hopefully others as well) has no purpose, and there is no reason make something without a purpose.

 

[Dire Venom]

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

Its entirely up to you.
Your the one that chooses what the function of your ship is.
The builder is the one who gives his/her creation purpose.

 

[HorribleHedgehog]

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

Depends on what you're looking for. Most people want a mixture of looks, performance, RP capabilities. etc. If you only wanted performance, sure, a doomcube is a viable option - but it raises a question: If all you want of your ships is performance, why are you playing Starmade in the first place? This game is not centered on win-at-all-costs competition. This game is an exercise in creativity more than anything else. I dare say that by forgoing aesthetics completely you're missing out on many of the features that make Starmade such an enjoyable experience.

 

[sayerulz]

[philospy} Why does Zektor keep insisting that building a good looking ship that is also functional is impossible, and that asthetics are not important?

 

[ZektorSK]

[philospy} Why does Zektor keep insisting that building a good looking ship that is also functional is impossible, and that asthetics are not important?

Spoiler: Have you ever readed my arguments ?

 

[Chckn Wildstyle]

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

A builder must TRY to build something that is both pleasing to the builder and is effective.

 

[Nauvran]

But what do you then do if your systems are bad and you always end up disliking the ships or stations you build?

 

[sayerulz]

Spoiler: Have you ever readed my arguments ?

Yes, I have, and all of them hinge on the incorrect assumption that it is impossible to make a ship that looks good and is also as effective as an ugly one. You claim ugly ships are more effective, and everyone here has clearly explained that they are not, or if they are, it is by a meaninglessly small margin. Now stop posting irrelevant anime images.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

But what do you then do if your systems are bad and you always end up disliking the ships or stations you build?

You try again until you learn. If that doesn't work, you get help. If that doesn't work, you can either be a stubborn, determined little Temmie and keep trying until you get the hang of it or you exercise your right to cognitive dissonance and claim that if something you want is beyond your grasp, that it is not worth doing/having.

 

[virtue1987]

Do you think that 100k mass ship will have more systems then a cube ? You must be stupid to think that

So, we do insults now?

Im sorry youre not able to read correctly but i talkd about the same amount of mass, not the same box dimensions. Im Aware that a box has more mass than a propperly desinged ship, if they share the same box dimensions.
Besides, i like how you picked the only thing in my argument that made you think you can make me looks stupid, and failed, hard.

Greetings Baikal

 

[ZektorSK]

So, we do insults now?

Im sorry youre not able to read correctly but i talkd about the same amount of mass, not the same box dimensions. Im Aware that a box has more mass than a propperly desinged ship, if they share the same box dimensions.
Besides, i like how you picked the only thing in my argument that made you think you can make me looks stupid, and failed, hard.

Greetings Baikal

I picked the one, I had answer to

 

[Madman198237]

Zektor, that clearly means that you've not got counters to the rest of the points raised against you.
Since this should be regarded as a decent, logical debate, your case is clearly inferior.

To be clear: You've lost AND gotten the answer you apparently started this thread for. The community clearly agrees (And can successfully argue) that both effectiveness and appearance are important in the construction of a ship.

 

[ZektorSK]

Zektor, that clearly means that you've not got counters to the rest of the points raised against you.
Since this should be regarded as a decent, logical debate, your case is clearly inferior.

To be clear: You've lost AND gotten the answer you apparently started this thread for. The community clearly agrees (And can successfully argue) that both effectiveness and appearance are important in the construction of a ship.

No, I disagree with some points, but when I don't have a important argument then there is no point, of saying anything.

 

[Madman198237]

If you have a counterargument to the points for good-looking and functional vessels that have been raised, then you have lost.

If you can't successfully argue against (Come up with reasoned arguments about why a ship can't look good and yet function at the same time, or whatever it is you're arguing) your opponents, you clearly lose the debate, as the others have presented a better argument. For the sake of the debate, that means that ships that look good and function (Even at a slightly reduced rate) are superior to system bricks.

 

[Matt_Bradock]

I can't vote on this for the same reason Chckn Wildstyle didn't. It's not about building for performance OR building for aesthetics.
It's about building for performance AND for aesthetics. You can build ultra-nice looking hulls for fun, and you can build fugly doombricks for hardcore PvP but an EXPERT BUILDER finds the balance between the two and builds ships worth showing off AND flying into a PvP battle.

If you think that nice looking ships can't win in PvP, I recommend you to watch the 2 Blood and Steel tournaments. There were some doombricks, but they didn't get too far. The winners were not only great in performance, but also had well thought out aesthetics AND interior (also expert piloting and teamwork. Hats off)

 

[ZektorSK]

I can't vote on this for the same reason Chckn Wildstyle didn't. It's not about building for performance OR building for aesthetics.
It's about building for performance AND for aesthetics. You can build ultra-nice looking hulls for fun, and you can build fugly doombricks for hardcore PvP but an EXPERT BUILDER finds the balance between the two and builds ships worth showing off AND flying into a PvP battle.

If you think that nice looking ships can't win in PvP, I recommend you to watch the 2 Blood and Steel tournaments. There were some doombricks, but they didn't get too far. The winners were not only great in performance, but also had well thought out aesthetics AND interior (also expert piloting and teamwork. Hats off)

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

 

[Winterhome]

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

Compete in Blood and Steel, then come back and say that.
Deathcubes are downright awful. Brickships are consistently also downright awful. Undecorated ships are no different from decorated ships of the same shape, for that matter, in terms of system to block count ratios - the decorated ones just look far, far better.

 

[Matt_Bradock]

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

Again, watch the Blood and Steel videos. Doombricks bled out, extremely quickly. Everyone had to build in the same total mass, so logic dictated the best use of that mass was wasting no blocks on interior detailing or exterior design. And yet, people still did it. People put their best damn skills into building those ships, using logic, effects, automated swarm missiles, docked drones, weapon combinations of all sorts. Season 2 had even crazier contraptions like docked shield chargers and power injectors, docked hull with armor reinforcing effects... but what they had both in common, is that the bricks died the moment they faced off with a skilled builder's pretty ship. They might have won the first round, but the bricks never got past the 2nd match and nowhere near the finals.

So you can cry yourself to sleep saying "It is impossible to build pretty AND efficient" but it's not only possible, it has been witnessed, streamed and recorded.

I rest my case.

 

[virtue1987]

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

Of course there can be, 7 pages of people explaining that to you, an entire game full of evidence and you still ignore all of it.
I dont have every post in mind but, i cant remember you giving us an reason that says a ship cant be build to look good and be optimized, you simply claim ist not possible yet i have to hear why. Again, maybe you did, cant remember.
As i wrote before, you have to compare ships of the same weight, not box dimensions, because even difficult and complex shapes can be made efficient.
Let me get back to my example, you have two ships, both the same mass, one got a shape to it, and interrior wit fully optimized Systems, the other a box of Systems, both ships would preform the same or similar at least, only differenc is the look and one eprson made some effort.
You dont sacrifice anything by making a ship look good, if you know what to do with Systems and palcement, you can preform as good as a any other ship in the same weight.


Greetings Baikal

 

[ZektorSK]

Of course there can be, 7 pages of people explaining that to you, an entire game full of evidence and you still ignore all of it.
I dont have every post in mind but, i cant remember you giving us an reason that says a ship cant be build to look good and be optimized, you simply claim ist not possible yet i have to hear why. Again, maybe you did, cant remember.
As i wrote before, you have to compare ships of the same weight, not box dimensions, because even difficult and complex shapes can be made efficient.
Let me get back to my example, you have two ships, both the same mass, one got a shape to it, and interrior wit fully optimized Systems, the other a box of Systems, both ships would preform the same or similar at least, only differenc is the look and one eprson made some effort.
You dont sacrifice anything by making a ship look good, if you know what to do with Systems and palcement, you can preform as good as a any other ship in the same weight.


Greetings Baikal

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...