StarMade Mandatory Ship Aesthetics

[NeonSturm]

Also: "Restrictions are not evil if everybody has the same." "we accept the restriction for the sake of fairness and beaty"

Restrictions in a sandbox game will lead to a loss in beauty and creativity, not a gain in it, because it will harm the people who like to get creative with their stuff, and only push more people away from the game who can't build to a good standard. I like having the creative freedom to say "Hm, I think I should put most of my weapon in the back of the ship, and have a part that leads to a frontal output through my shielding system" and not get penalized for it.

Something that restricts the creativity of this game to stop a very minor and easily controlled problem should not be allowed. Restricting the game, means restricting what beauty people can make, so that ships will all look very similar to one another, and who the hell wants that?

Not the game, but the server.

The admin decides, not the dev. But he should be able to.
All peoples playing on that server are expected to accept these restrictions for the sake of no trolls to join and build battle-cubes.​

I am talking about an OPTION.

If there are 2 countries,
1 in which communists control your PC and delete programs as they wish + you are forbidden to install a pirated but free counterpart of the operating system.
And another in which you are free to have any program you want but can not sell your awesome piece of software as good as possible in the other.

In which do you want to live? It's the same question.​

EDIT: After finding images on a thread with a similar topic, I'd like to show you some very nice ships you're basically make burn in hell because of restrictions;

No, just equal strong instead of stronger because of lower volume or more combat systems than 16% of your ship (a somewhat good ratio)

 

[CaptainTaz]

Not the game, but the server.

The admin decides, not the dev. But he should be able to.
All peoples playing on that server are expected to accept these restrictions for the sake of no trolls to join and build battle-cubes.​

I am talking about an OPTION.

If there are 2 countries,
1 in which communists control your PC and delete programs as they wish + you are forbidden to install a pirated but free counterpart of the operating system.
And another in which you are free to have any program you want but can not sell your awesome piece of software as good as possible in the other.

In which do you want to live? It's the same question.​

If we're talking about a configurable, and custom option that is not on by default, then fine, i don't see as much of a problem, but it's still not a necessary thing at all. And stopping trolls in doomcubes is what (Most) admins are supposed to/already do. If your server doesn't that's not the game's problem, but the admin's.

 

[NeonSturm]

If we're talking about a configurable, and custom option that is not on by default, then fine, i don't see as much of a problem, but it's still not a necessary thing at all. And stopping trolls in doomcubes is what (Most) admins are supposed to/already do. If your server doesn't that's not the game's problem, but the admin's.

And it's the game's problem if admins don't have a tool to enforce this rule. And can't make it because it's proprietary with no API.

Server-Rules which can't be enforced are rules which restrict these which follow the rules - restrict more than others which don't follow.

If you build a doom-cube, blow somebody's station and remove the systems, which admin can tell that this was a doom-cube without having to spend enormous amounts of time in log-files?

 

[jstenholt]

And it's the game's problem if admins don't have a tool to enforce this rule. And can't make it because it's proprietary with no API.

Server-Rules which can't be enforced are rules which restrict these which follow the rules - restrict more than others which don't follow.

If you build a doom-cube, blow somebody's station and remove the systems, which admin can tell that this was a doom-cube without having to spend enormous amounts of time in log-files?

Speaking as an admin, the problem is not a difficult one; accessing the logs is not at all time-consuming. If you want to quash people's playstyle, I find it highly gratifying that the game requires these extra steps. If somebody wants to make a mod to do it for you, great. For now, let the devs create an actual sandbox, don't bother them with creating an option to fit the game to your style.

 

[Asvarduil]

Speaking as an admin, the problem is not a difficult one; accessing the logs is not at all time-consuming. If you want to quash people's playstyle, I find it highly gratifying that the game requires these extra steps. If somebody wants to make a mod to do it for you, great. For now, let the devs create an actual sandbox, don't bother them with creating an option to fit the game to your style.

Alternatively, the OP could just spin off his own mandatory aesthetic ship server.

 

[SeCor]

EDIT: After finding images on a thread with a similar topic, I'd like to show you some very nice ships you're basically make burn in hell because of restrictions;

Read carefully and watch closely. This ship is beautiful. And it is a completely viable ship in my system, as it has a lot of free space inside, which is exactly how i propose to nerf doomcubes.

It's not that I propose that cuboids are to be burned in hell; it's that they should provide no benefit over cylindrical form for giant ships by introducing intersystem interference (look it up in my original post). Basically, Cubical design grants you extra turning speed in exchange for having to protect this "useless" space inside of your ship. You have to either use that free space to decorate ship or to leave it free; guy you refer to decorated it, and did so magnificently. Cylindrical ships have less "useless" space, because... huh. I'll make a picture now.

cubical ship has to have more shields, as they are local-acting.
cylindrical ship has worse turning rate.
Thus, both designs are viable.

Alternatively, the OP could just spin off his own mandatory aesthetic ship server.

I can't do that in current system. The only way to do it now is to assign a GM who will be making up rules on the go, and that's the farthest you can get from objective and fair gameplay.

 

[Asvarduil]

I can't do that in current system. The only way to do it now is to assign a GM who will be making up rules on the go, and that's the farthest you can get from objective and fair gameplay.

I disagree, you can. That's why servers usually have their own terms of service, or "table rules" as I like to think of them.

On a RP server, for instance, there are certain things expected of you. Your name is usually one (If you go on a RP server as "Captain Crunch", I'm willing to bet the community will gripe you off the server long before it becomes necessary for an admin to ban you.) Your ship is usually one. Certain restrictions on PvP exist.

I think of your idea as a sort of "super-light RP" server. By joining it, you're not enforcing name or behavioral restrictions - Captain Crunch can PK people in the Crunchmobile Mk.37, then steal their frigate and convert it into the CrunchCruiser Mk.1. However, a particular metagame behavior - doomcubes - would be outlawed. You would be artificially enforcing rules that the game mechanics themselves currently aren't set up to allow for (and, in fact, punish to a reasonable degree.)

I can hear the protest now, "but a player community is a democracy!"

Yes, that's right. A democracy is a system where everyone has a voice. The people who join your server would agree that they don't want "doomcubes" or their ilk interfering with how they want to play the game; thus, the community would not build doomcubes, would report doomcube sightings, and would require moderation to keep doomcube schematics off the server. I fail to see how that's different from a RP or Build server, at all.

I say, try it. The worst that could happen is you could be griped at. Who knows, it might even catch on.

 

[Kaamio]

They exist because, like Minecraft, this game is a SANDBOX, and not an MMO, which is a detail you seem to be forgetting. If Starmade were going to go down an MMO-like path, then this idea would have some merit, but it doesn't.

Some people don't have problems with these things or enjoy throwing together something easy so they can do other things that they enjoy better. I know I'd rather be out mining than working on an extravagant house (In Minecraft), The same thing applies to starmade, where some people would rather be able to throw something together so that they can kill pirates or defend them selves from players with titans that threaten their home without spending days working on it just to see it get blown up.

I partially agree that having the ability of quicly and with little effort put together a functional ship is a good thing, though it doesn't necessarily become significantly harder with reasonable system shape restrictions (or should we say enhancements if a certain shape improves efficiency?). However, the real reason for doomcubes is EFFICIENCY. It's the most efficient way of making ships and on top of it, it's fast and easy. There's no need or incentive to build different unless you want to make something just because, and if you do, you are penalised because the shape is not optimal.

Restrictions in a sandbox game will lead to a loss in beauty and creativity, not a gain in it, because it will harm the people who like to get creative with their stuff, and only push more people away from the game who can't build to a good standard. I like having the creative freedom to say "Hm, I think I should put most of my weapon in the back of the ship, and have a part that leads to a frontal output through my shielding system" and not get penalized for it.

and fairness, hah, a game where everyone is equal is boring. then it all comes down to just how good you are at the game, which alienates newer players, for instance, let's take an example. Most Minecraft PVP games have you in a preset class with the same armor and weapons as anyone else. the people with the most PVP experience will pretty much always win, with new players not able to keep up. I don't think anyone would want this for a game that hasn't even left alpha yet. You'll push new players away.

First: how is it ok for anyone thinking, "hmm, I think I should build a ship that's not a cube" to be penalised if your example of having most of weapon module blocks at the back is not? Putting the weapon blocks mostly in the rear probably wouldn't even be impossible, it might not get full benefit from the leading "barrel" blocks but otherwise it could be just fine, maybe 5-10% drop in efficiency for cool factor for the gun only. I don't think that's nearly as bad as the penalties for suboptimal shape atm. It doesn't matter what the ship building restrictions are (and there are some, even now even if you refuse to see them), someone is always getting penalised for not adhering to them.

Nobody is going to force you to certain ship or shape, not in vanilla game anyway... so comparisons to forced gear minecraft pvp is kinda off. This is already a skill based game where you quickly learn that cube is the best shape and looks don't help you in combat.

on top of all this, read how the game is advertised on steam: "StarMade is a voxel-based 3D sandbox space shooter. Play in your own universe or on a multiplayer server. Participate in epic fleet battles, strive to dominate entire galaxies and harness the universe’s resources for your industrious empire or the destruction of others. The universe is yours!"

Not anywhere does it say ships are/should restricted. In fact, it pretty much implies you can do as you wish. This includes building a doom cube.

I think that goes with the description of a game in general. All games have rules and framework in which they work. This one isn't without rules, they just happen to be geared towards minimal ship design right now.

Let's be clear though: You can't force creativity or prettyness upon people, it just won't work. Whatever shape restrictions may in future apply for systems, or some other features of building that encourage building in different styles, there will always be cubeblobs of modules because they are fast and easy to build and probably never going to be so suboptimal it's not worth it in a pinch, and probably some won't bother to build better because they don't want and ultimately need to. However, reasonable requirements for block placement can lead to ships having some sort of shape and encouraging some aesthetics without penalising them as much as it is now.

If a smartly built ship can go toe to toe with a reasonably designed, slap stuff together doomcube 10% bigger and both trounce a badly designed ships, then I'd consider it a pretty damn well designed build system. Smart ship design is probably never going to be very special or frilly, but that's just life. Pretty isn't efficient anywhere most of the time, although functionality can be good looking like the prettified cubes linked above still, those would be better without the flashy stuff...

 

[SeCor]

I disagree, you can. That's why servers usually have their own terms of service, or "table rules" as I like to think of them.

I cannot. I am a programmer. I do not believe in objectivity of ANY biological arbitration entity, be it community, GM, myself or wise men who followed the star. If it can't be enforced through the code, then it can't be enforced at all.

However, a particular metagame behavior - doomcubes - would be outlawed.

Its not outlawed, proceed to view the picture in my previous post. Cubes provide maneuverability, while cylinders provide having to bear less shields for the same effect. It is a balanced option -- to choose cube or cylinder. While as it is now, cubes are damn only optimal design. Anything you create is worse than a cube, because a cube is a theoretically ideal ship right now. And it requires virtually no effort to build.

You would be artificially enforcing rules that the game mechanics themselves currently aren't set up to allow for (and, in fact, punish to a reasonable degree.)

1mil regen cap is artificially enforcing rules. Having to build ship out of cubes is artificially enforcing rules. Having to damage other ship's core is... you get what i mean? That's what games are: a set of artificially enforced rules. All of them, from checkers to footbal, from Go or Chess or Shogi to a call of duty 17:red threat.

The people who join your server would agree that they don't want "doomcubes" or their ilk interfering with how they want to play the game; thus, the community would not build doomcubes, would report doomcube sightings, and would require moderation to keep doomcube schematics off the server.

Again: moderation is impossible. From regulating internet to imposing laws on the outfits of religious women, you just can not moderate everything even in real world. Anything that is not automated is subjective and malicious, and half of that which is automated is malicious too.
And "make is optional" is what are game modes are for. Like survival/creative in minecraft.

 

[vuvko]

Hi, I'm a bit new here, but I cannot stand some thoughts. Sorry, it's just my subjective opinion and everything fine if you disagree with it.

They exist because, like Minecraft, this game is a SANDBOX, and not an MMO

As Skyrim is sandbox, as pretty every game with open world and something to do in it (farming, RPing, just running nude).

hah, a game where everyone is equal is boring.

And what whould you like more? A game, where you have an oportunity to play with everyone thinking on concepts, strategies, tactics and so on, or a game, where no new player can do a think without permission from GMs just because he is new to a game?

it all comes down to just how good you are at the game, which alienates newer players, for instance

Precisely! Believe it or not, in chess more experiensed player beates less experiensed.

on top of all this, read how the game is advertised on steam: "StarMade is a voxel-based 3D sandbox space shooter. Play in your own universe or on a multiplayer server. Participate in epic fleet battles, strive to dominate entire galaxies and harness the universe’s resources for your industrious empire or the destruction of others. The universe is yours!"

Not anywhere does it say ships are/should restricted. In fact, it pretty much implies you can do as you wish. This includes building a doom cube.

You can do cuboic design, nothing wrong with that. In thread you quoted from, hereis another one:

Its not about the cube shape, its about the effort put into it.

So yeah, pretty everyone hates, when you put effort and time in ship design, and it just for nothing. Because somebody just copy-paste 10x10x10 cubes of shields, reactors, weapons, and boomed you to another universe.

Alternatively, the OP could just spin off his own mandatory aesthetic ship server.

Nope, he cannot. Because again, human justice is subjective. You cannot say that your design is not permitted just because GM don't like it. Yes, you can say that there is always another server with better GMs. But hey, you will never get a good server with 100+ players with such rules.

 

[NeonSturm]

I fail to see how that's different from a RP or Build server, at all.

Build servers could disallow combat in a very large sector-cube around spawn, even with current tools.
RP servers could have safe routes along some path in space.
((You have to create a tool that watches the game externally and send admin commands to new sectors dependent on their coordinates))
BUT: This feature should be accessible to everybody (every server), not just the good servers with good programmers.

Yes, that's right. A democracy is a system where everyone has a voice. The people who join your server would agree that they don't want "doomcubes" or their ilk interfering with how they want to play the game; thus, the community would not build doomcubes, would report doomcube sightings, and would require moderation to keep doomcube schematics off the server.

If players want restrictions, why not give an option to them?

Example:

• A newbie joins and forget about some rule.
  • Now he is killing somebody as a pirate.

How should the killed player know that he did forgot some rules and put 50% more weapons or shields in his ship?


Only an option to enforce ships to be built this way allow players to know that the enemy is respecting stats.

• You shouldn't have to enter his ship to check that - Neither as competitor nor as admin!

 

[jstenholt]

I cannot. I am a programmer. I do not believe in objectivity of ANY biological arbitration entity, be it community, GM, myself or wise men who followed the star. If it can't be enforced through the code, then it can't be enforced at all.

I have two questions for you. Are you reading the things you type aloud? Are you currently wearing a fedora?

If you're going to defend your idea, defend it on its "merits," not on whether or not the idea as it currently exists is as enforceable as you would personally like it to be.

 

[Ithirahad]

EDIT: After finding images on a thread with a similar topic, I'd like to show you some very nice ships you're basically make burn in hell because of restrictions;

Nice job, General... You just found the only six or seven existing semi-counterexamples, out of the millions and millions of ships ever built, to people's issues with cubes. And it just so happens that those ships have interiors too, and aren't just solid blocks of systems anyway, so they don't have anything to do with our problem.

...Not convinced.

As for SM being a sandbox, a sandbox is only fun because of its limits. MC is fun because you have to have ways to fend off mobs and have to have some source of food, etc.; Creative mode (without a predecided objective, e.g. "I'm gonna build Minas Tirith!") is really kinda boring after a few hours of screwing around. If in Starmade you have to build your systems within certain requirements, it might actually make things more fun, not less, assuming said mechanics are well-thought-out and well-implemented, and don't limit viable hull shapes.

 

[jstenholt]

As for SM being a sandbox, a sandbox is only fun because of its limits. MC is fun because you have to have ways to fend off mobs and have to have some source of food, etc.; Creative mode (without a predecided objective, e.g. "I'm gonna build Minas Tirith!") is really kinda boring after a few hours of screwing around. If in Starmade you have to build your systems within certain requirements, it might actually make things more fun, not less, assuming said mechanics are well-thought-out and well-implemented, and don't limit viable hull shapes.

You have misappropriated the entirety of Minecraft to support your point. Minecraft has a set of parameters, just like any other game. However, you can still build an effectively functional structure/system in any way or shape that you desire. What the OP is suggesting completely goes against that.

 

[vuvko]

You have misappropriated the entirety of Minecraft to support your point. Minecraft has a set of parameters, just like any other game. However, you can still build an effectively functional structure/system in any way or shape that you desire. What the OP is suggesting completely goes against that.

The only one efficient shape for game in it's current state is cubes. As large as sector and without any holes inside. So no, you cannot build a functional ship in any shape, not convinced.

Maybe we don't understand OP completely. But as I see it, there is no restrictions in whole ship shape. You can build ship with any shape and it will be functional, as long as it has systems in different parts and not interfering with each other.

 

[Asvarduil]

I cannot. I am a programmer. I do not believe in objectivity of ANY biological arbitration entity, be it community, GM, myself or wise men who followed the star. If it can't be enforced through the code, then it can't be enforced at all.

Again: moderation is impossible. From regulating internet to imposing laws on the outfits of religious women, you just can not moderate everything even in real world. Anything that is not automated is subjective and malicious, and half of that which is automated is malicious too.
And "make is optional" is what are game modes are for. Like survival/creative in minecraft.

Then my contribution to your idea is at an end, because you've handily noted that you're either asking for the impossible, asking for something no one "could possibly want," evidence to the contrary, or is just wrong.

I wish you luck and hope you can find a way to reconcile behavioral limits in a system with being a sentient being.

 

[Ithirahad]

You have misappropriated the entirety of Minecraft to support your point. Minecraft has a set of parameters, just like any other game. However, you can still build an effectively functional structure/system in any way or shape that you desire. What the OP is suggesting completely goes against that.

Cactus farms have to work a certain way, walls that block spiders have to have ledges, redstone generally can only work if it's set up a certain way, Portals had to be built a certain way up until recently, you have to have light sources somewhere in shaded areas, you can't build floating stuff with sand or gravel, obsidian doesn't move with pistons, there are effectively only a few ways/methods of building a TNT cannon.... But this is besides the point; Starmade's systems already are better in certain shapes. This guy is just recommending changes in the most efficient shapes so it isn't ridiculously imbalanced in favor of uglier designs.

Then my contribution to your idea is at an end, because you've handily noted that you're either asking for the impossible, asking for something no one "could possibly want," evidence to the contrary, or is just wrong.

I wish you luck and hope you can find a way to reconcile behavioral limits in a system with being a sentient being.

Lol, yeah... He has a point with moderation, though. The less we have to rely on said sentient beings (who are, indeed, often malicious or at least excessively subjective) to regulate decent gameplay, the better.

 

[jstenholt]

Cactus farms have to work a certain way, walls that block spiders have to have ledges, redstone generally can only work if it's set up a certain way, Portals had to be built a certain way up until recently, you have to have light sources somewhere in shaded areas, you can't build floating stuff with sand or gravel, obsidian doesn't move with pistons, there are effectively only a few ways/methods of building a TNT cannon.... But this is besides the point; Starmade's systems already are better in certain shapes. This guy is just recommending changes in the most efficient shapes so it isn't ridiculously imbalanced in favor of uglier designs.

All of those examples are just parameters, a cactus farm can be any shape you want, spider walls can have ledges of literally any design or material, redstone is literally just logic in SM. None of those Minecraft features actually influence how things fit into one's fortress, nor do they have to completely inspire the shape of one's creations.

For example, in Minecraft, I can have an open air farm, which is exposed to sunlight and receives water and allows plants unrestricted area to grow, or I can have a subterranean 1 meter high tiered farm which has no sunlight, is irrigated, harvested by redstone, and 50 stories tall. Both are perfectly acceptable farms. Either one could be easily implemented in an existing structure or have a structure built around itself, without limiting the builders choice for aesthetic at all.

 

[SeCor]

For example, in Minecraft, I can have an open air farm, which is exposed to sunlight and receives water and allows plants unrestricted area to grow, or I can have a subterranean 1 meter high tiered farm which has no sunlight, is irrigated, harvested by redstone, and 50 stories tall. Both are perfectly acceptable farms. Either one could be easily implemented in an existing structure or have a structure built around itself, without limiting the builders choice for aesthetic at all.

That's because:

• minecraft farms have too much performance -- as soon as you build your 1x1 farm, you have infinite food. Thus any difference in perfomance is negated
• there are multiple farm designs, from automated to manual. Best possible melon farm is 10% ahead of the worst one in productivity. If you take into account overproductivity of farms, this makes those designs almost the same. But in starmade, any non-cube is penalized. So what's the incentive to design complex ships?
• you do not pvp with farms
• farms in minecraft can be infinitely big with absolutely no drawbacks. Imagine such ship in StarMade: 1x1x1 cube, all properties of which are channeled from the extra dimension. 1x1x1 size is so you can completely negate all the drawbacks of big ship like slow turning rate and big mass. Oh, and no power regen cap. That's what you get when you build a minecraft farm - inspired ship. Ever heard of Pun-Pun? That's what minecraft farms are.
• PvP in minecraft? Is it any good? For the past 4 years i've played MC i got the idea it's either griefFunPvP servers for duels, hungerGames servers, creative servers like WesterosCraft or a bunch of friends making dick statues and collecting all possible sets of armors on private Hexxit/Tekkit server. The latter is fun, and kinda enables RP and RPPvP, but online on such servers is naturally limited around 6-7 players (with the average online being 3). That's also the result of everything being community/gm-subjective.

Because of the points above, i believe minecraft farms are not an example you want to look up to when designing a shipbuilding system.

 

[jstenholt]

It's not my example, it's my counterpoint. You can stop now; your idea is bad.