Ship Building Techniques and Tricks, Post them Here!!!!

[Ithirahad]

dint forget to factor in the BAS.. Big ass ship. Normally the bigger one wins if its build correctly and piloted well.

And sometimes even if not piloted well. BAS-tards are king in this game, it seems. :P

 

[Zeno9141]

It pains me that there are so many people who believe it is acceptable to ridicule the ships of others who prefer min-maxing (which typically ends with cubic shapes) while no-one makes fun of poorly-engineered, weak-sauce spess-planes.

I was actually pointing at people who make MASSIVE and totally HORRENDOUS objects of any shape (doomcubes being an example)
Those ships ruin the fun for everyone besides the pilot. Making stuff that ugly on purpose is just stupid.

 

[NeonSturm]

We just need a way to enforce free interior space, hull and not punish players for decoration.

The thing I personally don't like is how even a small ship with hollow walls and ceiling (to have every room separately decorated) and using space between decks for power-stripes and other systems is much too big compared to planets.

You can't fly through canyons with a decent sized ship - which real space ship has 4 metre thick walls and ceiling?

 

[Keptick]

Rule #1 : Do not make a doomcube.

Rule #2 : Choose an adequate shape before you start building, it doesn't have to be complex. Simple shapes can be very elegant.

Rule #3 : If it ends up looking like a cube, please refer to rule #1.

 

[Leanson]

ok from what I have seen on EE there is to much hull bring place that can be replaced in corners so they do not show in the interior and exterior. For small ships this matters because you are trying to limit yourself with your mass and shape. So every block you place must serve a purpose in your building scheme. I always start of with power regen. Make as many straight lines as possible. Or what I like to do with hall ways and room place the power block the corner block of a room or box. Now with weapon design, its all about the ships purpose. Do you want ling or short range and the effect that you may add. You also want to spread your weapon blocks out a bit as when fighting they can be damaged, and always offset your weapon computers from your core. So it gets cored, you may still have all your weapons. For those who do, stop please... Don't build your ship with your core in the front of your ship or the bridge. You want the most blocks between you and you enemy, on all directions. Oh and lastly please use a power layout and not on big block of power blocks as you lose your bonus. If any use it as your frame of your ship as do I.

 

[TheBlueThunder]

I learned some of my new ship building styles from master ArgoContar I believe he should be a master ship builder. You can learn a lot from him.

 

[Rhyunix]

Ribs.
So many ribs.
I make the ship with ribs of its shape, give it all the necessary jazz to my liking, then Build around it. I really like to add onto my ship as I only use one normally (lone wolf ) exterior, i'll be to the point, I am **** at. So grey is the way

 

[whiterhino16]

Also, [Insert deity here] forbid you computers in a nice room face sideways. Weapons fire the way their computer faces which I hope is a feature that gets removed.

Make the ship pew stuff. Go Weapons, Power, Shields (shaping), Thrusters, Shields (fine angles and shyt), Hull(If you want it)

That is the perfect way to create a horrible looking doomcube. You do it power, frame, hull, interior, weapons and fill the rest with sheilds and batterys

 

[Johnathan Dahmnation]

Also, [Insert deity here] forbid you computers in a nice room face sideways. Weapons fire the way their computer faces which I hope is a feature that gets removed.

I hope not, unless another way of making weapons fire in different directions is added in it's place. I'd rather deal with computers facing different directions than not be able to control missile launch directions. New default seems to have some weapon computers backwards anyways.

 

[Crashmaster]

I was actually pointing at people who make MASSIVE and totally HORRENDOUS objects of any shape (doomcubes being an example)
Those ships ruin the fun for everyone besides the pilot. Making stuff that ugly on purpose is just stupid.

I choose to partially disagree. Engineering typically trumps Fine Arts in the areas of intelligence (specifically), practicality and admittedly, ugliness. Myself though, I find well thought out technical design to be beautiful.

I also really like the look of what most other people here do - the results are sometimes just amazing. It is beyond me how some people can do the detailed creative work they do.

It is easy to understand and appreciate apparent beauty and to accept the systems compromises required to achieve it - I have it easy. The technical details of the 'horrendous objects' you describe may not be to your liking, beyond your grasp or detrimental to game balance against 'pretty' ships - deal with it (politely if possible please). Nice-looking ships will always be around, systems balance will presumably in the future make decorative touches and shape less detrimental to ship performance hopefully. I don't expect nor want this forum to change it's preferences but I will still criticize the inflammatory name-calling because I am quite apparently ranting now...

tl;dr - haters gonna hate

 

[Unnamed25]

Rule #1 : Do not make a doomcube.

Rule #2 : Choose an adequate shape before you start building, it doesn't have to be complex. Simple shapes can be very elegant.

Rule #3 : If it ends up looking like a cube, please refer to rule #1.

Rule #1: check


Rule #2: check

Rule #3: *gets stuck*

 

[TheBlueThunder]

Rule #1: check


Rule #2: check

Rule #3: *gets stuck*

Your ships are power over beauty which is cool too.

 

[Unnamed25]

Everyone hates that

 

[Zeno9141]

I choose to partially disagree. Engineering typically trumps Fine Arts in the areas of intelligence (specifically), practicality and admittedly, ugliness. Myself though, I find well thought out technical design to be beautiful.

I also really like the look of what most other people here do - the results are sometimes just amazing. It is beyond me how some people can do the detailed creative work they do.

It is easy to understand and appreciate apparent beauty and to accept the systems compromises required to achieve it - I have it easy. The technical details of the 'horrendous objects' you describe may not be to your liking, beyond your grasp or detrimental to game balance against 'pretty' ships - deal with it (politely if possible please). Nice-looking ships will always be around, systems balance will presumably in the future make decorative touches and shape less detrimental to ship performance hopefully. I don't expect nor want this forum to change it's preferences but I will still criticize the inflammatory name-calling because I am quite apparently ranting now...

tl;dr - haters gonna hate

You speak as if I know nothing about function at all. There, you are very wrong. I try to fit the most efficient systems in an adequate package. What I do, is probably way harder than having room and no/little restrictions. My ships are indeed somewhat weaker than others', because mine have 1 tiny layer of hull.

I have several objections towards the big, bland, overpowered ships that are branded as "efficient";
1: They lack personality.
2: They are far more easy to build than something aesthetic.
3: People usually build such ships out of hunger for power, they find 'being better' than everyone else fun.

(On a side note, it is not just me who did minor amounts of name-calling. I find "poorly-engineered, weak-sauce spess-planes." not very nice either. Especially when it is not true.)

(On another side note, efficiency and visual beauty can be combined. Take Valiant70 as an example.)

 

[NeonSturm]

Peoples which build doom-cubes basically forbid others to reasonably play with their nice-looking ships as they request stronger pirates than these ships can handle.

Nothing against a few tiny ugly turrets or dis-integrator-cannons, but the main ship should look somewhat aesthetic

 

[Valiant70]

If I build a doom cube, it'll be approximately 300% more brokenly overpowered than a Borg cube, look at least twice as cool, and have a shuttle hangar and minimal crew room and bridge. Brokenlyoverpoweredness can and must necessarily be beautiful, or I'll call it a noobcube on steroids. Seriously, just find ONE person in your faction who can do detail work. A good aesthetic specialist won't add more than 1% mass to your ship and WILL add many times the visual appeal and "ZOMGIMGONNADIE!" feel to its business end.

We are the Borg. We will burn your eyeballs from their sockets with the incredible wowness of our ships just before spreading your atoms across at least four sectors. Your culture will adapt to death. Resistance is futile.

 

[Zeno9141]

If I build a doom cube, it'll be approximately 300% more brokenly overpowered than a Borg cube, look at least twice as cool, and have a shuttle hangar and minimal crew room and bridge. Brokenlyoverpoweredness can and must necessarily be beautiful, or I'll call it a noobcube on steroids. Seriously, just find ONE person in your faction who can do detail work. A good aesthetic specialist won't add more than 1% mass to your ship and WILL add many times the visual appeal and "ZOMGIMGONNADIE!" feel to its business end.

We are the Borg. We will burn your eyeballs from their sockets with the incredible wowness of our ships just before spreading your atoms across at least four sectors. Your culture will adapt to death. Resistance is futile.

Yes, underling, show them what it is like to face a true systems expert from Spearhead :3

 

[Johnathan Dahmnation]

You speak as if I know nothing about function at all. There, you are very wrong. I try to fit the most efficient systems in an adequate package. What I do, is probably way harder than having room and no/little restrictions. My ships are indeed somewhat weaker than others', because mine have 1 tiny layer of hull.

I have several objections towards the big, bland, overpowered ships that are branded as "efficient";
1: They lack personality.
2: They are far more easy to build than something aesthetic.
3: People usually build such ships out of hunger for power, they find 'being better' than everyone else fun.

(On a side note, it is not just me who did minor amounts of name-calling. I find "poorly-engineered, weak-sauce spess-planes." not very nice either. Especially when it is not true.)

(On another side note, efficiency and visual beauty can be combined. Take Valiant70 as an example.)

That's rather unfairly accusatory don't you think? It also puts a less than reasonable negative slant on competitive ship building. It almost sounds like I and many who build similarly are being called bullies for not having a fully fleshed out interior with heavy exterior detail and instead trying to find the right balance to get the most out of a ship's performance at a certain size.

Not everyone has the skill or patience to fully flesh out the finest detail on a hull, or even the desire, and in my opinion their creations are no less for it as, while high numbers may be easy in a doomcube putting those numbers in the right relation to each other for a specific purpose can be just as involving for them as detailing/aesthetics is for others.

Though really, detailing a doom cube makes it no less of a doom cube and as such it's no lesser of a ship with or without such details.

 

[Aecetym]

Funny how buildstyles and preferences somewhat clash in this thread.

 

[Keptick]

That's rather unfairly accusatory don't you think? It also puts a less than reasonable negative slant on competitive ship building. It almost sounds like I and many who build similarly are being called bullies for not having a fully fleshed out interior with heavy exterior detail and instead trying to find the right balance to get the most out of a ship's performance at a certain size.

Not everyone has the skill or patience to fully flesh out the finest detail on a hull, or even the desire, and in my opinion their creations are no less for it as, while high numbers may be easy in a doomcube putting those numbers in the right relation to each other for a specific purpose can be just as involving for them as detailing/aesthetics is for others.

Though really, detailing a doom cube makes it no less of a doom cube and as such it's no lesser of a ship with or without such details.

Not quite, since you also have to "put those high numbers" in a non-cube ship. Which is actually much harder. Basically, everything is harder.