Ships function vs form

[Dogdard]

NOTE: prepare for text wall... and please give feedback! I want to hear what you have to say and welcome input. But I ask that you leave silly comments to yourself such as "this is gay" "you an idiot" "your wrong and dumb" etc etc.

Hello all!

I wanted to start a little discussion here as I have seen many posts on the forums regarding the subject of how Starmade's system of building ships be it; balance issues or, the "i have to place giant blocks of power tanks to get anything" ,or "my titan can be killed by a fighter", or whatever, limits the esthetic options of ships. Particularly when said ship is a replica of another ship.

As a builder I often focus more on function than making it look "good" (which this is a completely subjective and therefore arbitrary word). However, I will concede that I don't prefer a "battle box" to fly around in and as such I do spend some time trying to make it look at least decent as far as I'm concerned.

But what I really wanted to say is that for those who complain and gripe against the boring borg cube boxes (which i will assert that this is a perfectly valid build style as the Borg do exist within the Star Trek universe and as such should not IMO be disqualified as "unoriginal" or "stupid") destroying their "beautiful" creations is that, it isn't that your ship isn't powerful, its that it lacks CONTEXT.

WTF does that mean?? Glad you asked.... What I mean is that you're basing your ship off of the "realism" of other sci-fi universes, whether it be starwars, startrek, stargate, battlestar galactica, etc etc (and of course these are all fictional and as such many, MANY of the things portrayed are made for effect rather than for realism). I feel as though we should base a ships "look" and it's effectiveness on the "reality" or in other words the CONTEXT of the game itself.

Take for example the Enterprise. It was capable of great feats in the show/movies. But what if it were to be placed into the battle against the Death Star at the end of the star wars saga? Would it be an impressive ship? Would it suck and be destroyed instantly?... The answer? Well there isn't one. Why? because the Enterprise doesnt BELONG in StarWars. It was not created to fight imperial death stars. It was supposed to fight klingons and the borg etc etc.

The same goes for this game. IF you make a perfect replica of the Enterprise, Millenium Falcon, Daedalus, Ori Mothership, Romulan warship, Kilngon bird of prey, Moya from farscape, a Hyperion battlecruiser from SC.... etc etc.. then said ship MAY NOT "work" within the CONTEXT of the game. Why? well this isnt star trek. or star wars or stargate or farscape or starcraft or whatever... It's Starmade. It has its own pricnipals its own "physics" its own look, feel, design. It has it's own context!

With that said, however, I will say that yes you should attempt to make your ship look good. Yes you should spend more than 5 minutes building your ship yes it is lame if EVERYBODY used the SAME ship design... But make it look good in terms of what starmade's context says can be done.

I hope I've made sense and that you will flatter me with a response. I don't mean to come over as a jerk or that the replica ship you spent hours and days, weeks even, (and for the record I have in fact done this) sucks. It may look fantastic. It may be spot on. But please stop griping and asking for the the game to change so that you can fly around in the USS Enterprise and take on any ship in game. How about make a ship that looks cool AND works in the game itself?

 

[Evilchicken]

I post a thread about increasing complexity in ship systems, to try get away from the bigger blocks or long lines, etc. With systems that need a more well defined shape a thruster or reactor core, it would help stop people building battle box\'s as the more complex systems wouldn\'t fix well into such a layout.

For example thrusters needing exhuast vents and other blocks to work, instead of one block that you add to get more thrust. Or a reactor that you need inject fuel and extract energy from.

 

[Nootau]

 

[Nootau]

Won\'t make a difference, the point is ships made for efficency to the rules of dimentions will always be better than those who are made for looks. This is unavoidable. Changing the rules only changing the shape of the \'battle block\' vessel.

 

[MisterVec]

this is simply a way to impose an arbitrary design aesthetic on folks because their ships don\'t look/feel like how a particular individual thinks they should. Which is lazy, arrogant, and fails to address the underlying issues or take into account how the game engine itself actually works.

The whole issue of form vs function within the context of Starmade is actually a complete non-issue outside of the context of competitive multiplayer. So I will say this: BUILDING A BIG GUN BOX IS NOT THE WRONG WAY TO PLAY THE GAME. People really should stop acting like it is. Attempts to \"nerf\" simple, easy-to-build designs that make optimal use of of the game\'s current mechanics and how they scale for entirely personal and arbitrary reasons are universally terrible. People playing that way are not a problem. Stop treating them as though they are.

The whining about it comes entirely from folks who\'s pretty ships do not have giant numbers and is egged on by folks who think that a ship without giant numbers is stupid and dumb. But why does it matter? If you\'re playing single player, you will not encounter flying gun boxes unless you put them there. If your\'e playing multiplayer, then you\'ve put yourself in the position of needing to adapt. End of story. Why the hell, in a game where you construct your own play space, would you be resentful of people who do not play by your rules?

Play starmade however you want. Build your ships however you want. Build your personal play space to your own tastes. Do the things within that space that interest you. Play with the people that you want to play with. That\'s how you play starmade.

*EDIT DUE TO CRITICAL VECORDEAN REPLY FAILURE*

 

[Dogdard]

So say we all! lol a little BSG reference. But yes this is essentially what I\'m saying. The problem everyone has is \"but in the tv show/movie the such and such ship was able to obliterate entire planets with 1 shot!\" Well yes IN THE MOVIE or IN THE TV SHOW where said ship has CONTEXT within said universe. But in starmade such ships dont have the same appearance.

 

[War Dog]

I personally only fly giant gunboxes because it\'s efficient and cheaper... and I suck at ship design. However, I understand that half the fun of the game is design; I really don\'t see a reason to punish players who don\'t want to fly boxes.

Making hull more resilient and/or lighter would greatly increase the function of fancy looking ships; which I\'m hoping will make its debut any day now.

 

[FlyingDebris]

My friend has a borg cube, bit it is a replica of one. It still uaes cube logic, bht at least that is disguised by the asthetic detail on the outer shell. His ship actually looks good, performs well, and is a good middle ground, if you still want a borg cube. If you only want power, then at least make it look decent.

 

[Dogdard]

Many of my ships end up being very basic as well. As I too am terrible with ship design. But I don\'t think those that A) don\'t care how their ship looks or B) don\'t have the design know-how should be \"punished\" by nerfing the game to where someones perfect exact replica of the HMS whatever whatever from some show somewhere can do exactly what it does in the show, in game. I feel as though if you want to make a ship from a show/game/movie but still be good it needs to be adapted to the context or the reality of starmade.



Get me?

 

[Dogdard]

I have seen a few borg cube replicas and I think some of them are actually quite cool. Who says a cube cant be interesting? But imagine if the mechanics dictated that the amc length made it more powerful or width or some incomprehensible sleuth of factors came in to play? As Nootau pointed out earlier... This would simply mean that the \"borg cube\" would change to some other shape and people would then be mad because the mechanics dictate that a ship with an Enterprise hull design were vastly superior or whatever.

So back to my original point is that we should think of ships within the game as just that ships that exist in Starmade.. not some other franchise. And what im really trying to get at here is that the \"lame\" ships in Starmade CAN be cool AND functional.

 

[Dogdard]

Agreed.

I do want to say that in case it was unclear that I was not attempting to imply that a \"battle box\" is a bad thing. I think its totally ok. Its the same with MC if you want to live in a dirt house and just collect billions of resources.. fine... if you want to build a 1/1 scale of the colossus of Rhodes... fine. Thats the beauty of these games!

I was trying to say that I am of the firm persuasion that because game mechanics limit certain ships from being able to replicate their \"feats\" from movies or games etc doesnt mean that they \"suck\".

For example the ship I asked for your input on the other day?.. that is from a tv show.. It\'s NOT a perfect replica because well Im just a crappy builder but B) I wanted it to stil \"work\" in game so i modified it and voila! Its a beast of a ship.... AND it doesnt look too bad.



Simply put I think ships in this game can in fact be BOTH effective AND \"cool\"

 

[Incap]

I think ships which are basically just cubes and cylinders are just ugly and nothing more than just plain lazy. Yeah, yeah, efficiency, whatever. It\'s just laziness.

 

[z1967]

It\'s no secret that cubes are often better than whatever ship your building for style (unless its a mini cube versus a Damocles, but that\'s an exception). The way to comprimise is to use shapes that allow for box dimensions but also allow for some design aesthetic. These are usually taller than they are wide, giving an imposing shape but allowin for box reactors and such. If you want to be bold, a sphere, cylinder, or a combination of any two different 3d shapes to create something that looks nice and performs well. Pyramids are better for those who hate curves (they are a wee bit hard to make in a voxel game) but can be complex if they are rotated 45 degrees to have a forward facing corner instead of face. I may build or take my current designs and show you what I mean by these.

cubes are for function, shapes are for form, creativity is for both.

edit: typed on mobile, probably will edit later on Desktop.

 

[Kaelum]

I applaud your success at summarizing the entire idea of this into something much smaller and more effective. Idiots, this is not star trek. Star trek is not realistic. Also, a theory i have about beaming is you yourself would die, and a new consciousness would exist, for much the same reason that cloning would not put you in the clone.

 

[Bunghole]

Do you want a realistic ship designs on your server? Boost the hull role!
One should edit data/config/BlockConfig.xml to modify the Generic and Advanced Hull Armour parameter.
I personally set them to 90 and 97% accordingly on my sandbox.
This approach forces the player to give his ship a thick hull and thin frontal profile to avoid projectiles.
The ships look realistic after the battle: battered hull with multiple scratches etc etc
Sometimes only the empty shell hangs in the space without any single block inside - it let the missile came through the hull.

 

[MichaelSeph]

Nah, balancing both of these is the best way :P Making a non-tube/ugly warship, and you own your opponents.

 

[jjaquinta]

Building huge gunships is the \"right\" thing because that\'s pretty much all you can really do in StarMade right now. Everyone is solving the same problem, so their designs end up looking the same. If the play options become more diverse, then people will be optimizing for different problems, or seeking median solutions that solve several problems at once. Once it isn\'t simiply a matter of \"bigger is better\", we might start seeing some more elegant solutions.

 

[Sven_The_Slayer]

Aesthetics can only really be forced at the server level. RP servers that require you to build \"realistic ships\" and may choose to punish players who just build warboxes. PVP will always be a game of efficiency, unless set by the server again \"here\'s a stack of materials, build the prettiest ship you can in 10 minutes then you duke it out\"... actually I would much prefer that in the Thunderdome then the box on box combat.

Personally I try to build my ships as if they were real, I put heavy focus on internals, bulkhead doors, airlocks and whatnot.

 

[MichaelSeph]

To that last line comment... are you kidding, or haven\'t you played for a month ?

The last nerfing to the capital ships actually made them pretty much useless and defenceless, and spamming turrets on top that can\'t hit a station are no solution. That\'s actually the biggest \"issue\" now, that many of the epic builders gave up on it due to their stuff just being a show instead of something practical.

 

[EpicFailLord123]

You watch NOVA too!!!:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D