StarSide Blood and Steel: Season 2

[Nauvran]

Personally that type of stuff doesn't matter to me. I only care about the fight. I never wore a flashy gui or decorated any of my fire arms or other weapons. I don't even display my families registered coat of arms. I never cared about letter jackets or any of that type of crap while in school.
I never seen appearance as far as looking good ever win a fight looking intimidating that works but looking good only works for things like attracting friends and women. But when it comes to a fight it is useless.

I don't buy a gun because it looks cool I buy my weapons based on functionality and performance. You seen those real nice looking polished steel swords take one into combat and watch what happens. they are high on carbon and will shatter when put against a blade designed for fighting.

The way I look at it is 10 blocks put toward appearance could be 10 blocks spent on cannons for 100 dps.

You sound like a really boring person.
Guess we should start removing all details from everything everywhere.

 

[GRHayes]

You sound like a really boring person.
Guess we should start removing all details from everything everywhere.

No, just different values. Aesthetics has its place in my life just when it comes to certain things I value performance over appearance.
What good is the appearance of something if it doesn't do the job it needs to do.
Granted right now in this game there isn't a reason to care if you really win or die. At most you can claim you won the competition in this.

It comes down to it which counts more to you winning the match or having the nicest looking ship? Or maybe it is an issue of mental state where the person says I have this much chance of winning the match but at least I can ensure my ship looks great.

 

[Nauvran]

No, just different values. Aesthetics has its place in my life just when it comes to certain things I value performance over appearance.
What good is the appearance of something if it doesn't do the job it needs to do.
Granted right now in this game there isn't a reason to care if you really win or die. At most you can claim you won the competition in this.

It comes down to it which counts more to you winning the match or having the nicest looking ship? Or maybe it is an issue of mental state where the person says I have this much chance of winning the match but at least I can ensure my ship looks great.

So what you are basically saying is that you can't build pretty things, gotcha.

well if you know how to build then you can easily find a good mix of aesthetics and performance, hell just look at some of the popular builds, as long as they don't have a big ass interior then they perform just as good or even better than those ugly cubes.

 

[Matt_Bradock]

It's an additional challenge for me, one I gladly take, to build something both aesthetically pleasing (or at least looking good enough so you don't want to gouge your own eyes out upon spotting it) and well-performing in a PvP situation. It's something that actually requires skill. Anyone could throw together an efficient brick of systems after spending some time on the wiki and playing the game for one week (or less). Building an efficient spaceship with a pleasing interior and exterior, though, that is a whole other story.

 

[Leanson]

Can you imagine how effective navy ships would be if they cared about appearance?
Of appearance is that big of issue I want nothing to do with the competition I only have in interest in a competition is based on performance. Its the only thing that matters in a real fight.

Personally that type of stuff doesn't matter to me. I only care about the fight. I never wore a flashy gui or decorated any of my fire arms or other weapons. I don't even display my families registered coat of arms. I never cared about letter jackets or any of that type of crap while in school.
I never seen appearance as far as looking good ever win a fight looking intimidating that works but looking good only works for things like attracting friends and women. But when it comes to a fight it is useless.

I don't buy a gun because it looks cool I buy my weapons based on functionality and performance. You seen those real nice looking polished steel swords take one into combat and watch what happens. they are high on carbon and will shatter when put against a blade designed for fighting.

The way I look at it is 10 blocks put toward appearance could be 10 blocks spent on cannons for 100 dps.

Navy ships are made to be effective but they are like the new American destroyers made to look sleek and good. As they are balanced to what the ship and crew needs. They need a place to eat and sleep, and not not be traded for ship performance. I assume you have never been on or live on a navy ship. Those who pull out references or ideas out of their ass should smell them first.
Each ship created is a reflection of its creator. If it looks like shit, guess what..

Winning is not everything, it's how you win. Cheap tricks and shots make you a cheap person. And a ship that doesn't meet a level of performance and looks if you do win, you won't have the respect from winning from the competition you faced. No one likes fighting a doom brick. If you think you can win with just a focus on performance, then you already lost lol. There are more fact you factors that you need to account for. Like human factors.

 

[Crashmaster]

Navy ships are made to be effective but they are like the new American destroyers made to look sleek and good.

No.
Four billion dollar destroyers are not designed to 'look good.' Hull design is dominated by the currently most important feature for naval engineering; radar signature. Performance is sacrificed in some ways even to acheive this.

I can't imagine you have any experience in real conflict if you are worried about what the enemy's opinion of your tactics and how pretty your ship is.

So maybe you should check you ass references as well.

 

[GRHayes]

Navy ships are made to be effective but they are like the new American destroyers made to look sleek and good. As they are balanced to what the ship and crew needs. They need a place to eat and sleep, and not not be traded for ship performance. I assume you have never been on or live on a navy ship. Those who pull out references or ideas out of their ass should smell them first.
Each ship created is a reflection of its creator. If it looks like shit, guess what..

Winning is not everything, it's how you win. Cheap tricks and shots make you a cheap person. And a ship that doesn't meet a level of performance and looks if you do win, you won't have the respect from winning from the competition you faced. No one likes fighting a doom brick. If you think you can win with just a focus on performance, then you already lost lol. There are more fact you factors that you need to account for. Like human factors.

I'm an X Naval Nuclear Reactor Operator also known as an ET-RO. ET standing for Electronics Tech.
After that I worked for DOD/DLA 7 years. That's the department of defense and defense logistics agency.

Their design isn't about looks at all its about reducing radar cross section. Their angles that make them look sleek are designed to reflect radar up in an angle rather than send back a strong signal. It also reduces drag and makes wind resistance lower.
In short nothing about current Navy ships has crap to do with looks it is all about performance.
The same goes for modern fighter aircraft. I can say that also because I worked on a number of them as well.

Suggest you look up things like Navy 18 hour days, hot racking... navy ships aren't built for comfort they are built for function!

To bad for you you had to open your mouth to someone who actually know what the hell they are talking about unlike you!
[DOUBLEPOST=1446059906,1446059848][/DOUBLEPOST]

No.
Four billion dollar destroyers are not designed to 'look good.' Hull design is dominated by the currently most important feature for naval engineering; radar signature. Performance is sacrificed in some ways even to acheive this.

I can't imagine you have any experience in real conflict if you are worried about what the enemy's opinion of your tactics and how pretty your ship is.

So maybe you should check you ass references as well.

Exactly correct

 

[Lecic]

Well, in Starmade, the most efficient ship for these sizes would be a wedge shape, since you'll pretty much always have your gun on your enemy due to fast turning and it gives you a smaller surface area that needs thicker armor plating compared to, say, a brick or cube. So, basically, when you say "you can't build aesthetically and still be practical," all anyone who knows this hears is "I am unable to even decorate a basic wedge shaped ship." Which just sounds lazy as fuck.

 

[Leanson]

You are proving my point. The balance of building a navy ship that looks modern, a balance of performance, crew maintenance and needs, radar signature, ship performance, crew mobility, and structural integrity. All factors are balanced and combined to produced a plane, ship, tank. Other equipment. Also note that the builder of these ships are selling a product to the navy that they designed and build. Their product have to be what the navy wants to buy. It's a balance as I said.
I don't think you know what you are talking about, since you have not designed any navy ships. As a ET you are qualified to speak on navy equipment and electrical components. But not on ship design. There's alot more to it than you think.
Remember to smell before you throw btw.

 

[Crashmaster]

[HYPOCRICY INTENSIFIES]

 

[GRHayes]

You are proving my point. The balance of building a navy ship that looks modern, a balance of performance, crew maintenance and needs, radar signature, ship performance, crew mobility, and structural integrity. All factors are balanced and combined to produced a plane, ship, tank. Other equipment. Also note that the builder of these ships are selling a product to the navy that they designed and build. Their product have to be what the navy wants to buy. It's a balance as I said.
I don't think you know what you are talking about, since you have not designed any navy ships. As a ET you are qualified to speak on navy equipment and electrical components. But not on ship design. There's alot more to it than you think.
Remember to smell before you throw btw.

Maybe you should look up what DOD/DLA. Again you are talking out your rear and have no idea at all about my back ground.
The Navy builds a list of criteria and then contracts companies to have it built. DLA (Defense Logistics Agency) You know those people who do the contract development and ordering! They don't produce a product as other businesses do an see if someone wants to buy it.

As for making your point. You are the clown who thought ships looked good because that was some sort of intent. You haven't spent a single day in the Navy nor worked for the US government in any capacity close to what I have.

Every time you open your mouth you show how ignorant you are. You are absolutely clueless to how real military and government works.

They design ships and all military craft around a role or task or job they need done. Then they decide what is needed to perform that task. What support systems are needed for it. What maintenance is going to be needed. They look into ways of making it more efficient reducing man power. They research what worked and didn't work on previous craft with similar roles... Then they look at things like defensive systems and so on. Ships are designed from the inside out not the other way around.

As for this stupid remark, "There's alot more to it than you think". You are the individual lacking in understanding and knowledge here.

 

[FlyingDebris]

this thread holy shit I'm dying

 

[Raisinbat]

this thread holy shit I'm dying

Don't interrupt, it's hilarious

 

[Creeper__God]

It's so entertaining when people apply logic from real life to video games. Lets keep in mind that you are talking about a Building game, where radar signatures mean nothing, you can breath in space without any sort of equipment, a tiny fighter can pull enough energy out of its ass to clear the atmosphere of a planet and then fly to another one and re enter the atmosphere without burning up, etc... Do I need to continue?

Either way this is still just a game, if you want to build a doom cube, knock yourself out, just don't expect any respect from the rest of the community for anything you do with it. Oh and you might want to consider what happened to the last guy who bragged about his doom cube and it's lack of detailing. (Hint: he had 4 or 5 major factions lining up to kill him)

 

[Leanson]

Maybe you should look up what DOD/DLA. Again you are talking out your rear and have no idea at all about my back ground.
The Navy builds a list of criteria and then contracts companies to have it built. DLA (Defense Logistics Agency) You know those people who do the contract development and ordering! They don't produce a product as other businesses do an see if someone wants to buy it.

As for making your point. You are the clown who thought ships looked good because that was some sort of intent. You haven't spent a single day in the Navy nor worked for the US government in any capacity close to what I have.

Every time you open your mouth you show how ignorant you are. You are absolutely clueless to how real military and government works.

They design ships and all military craft around a role or task or job they need done. Then they decide what is needed to perform that task. What support systems are needed for it. What maintenance is going to be needed. They look into ways of making it more efficient reducing man power. They research what worked and didn't work on previous craft with similar roles... Then they look at things like defensive systems and so on. Ships are designed from the inside out not the other way around.

As for this stupid remark, "There's alot more to it than you think". You are the individual lacking in understanding and knowledge here.

https://twitter.com/grhayes
https://plus.google.com/+GeorgeHayes1/about

Calling me stupid, calling me ignorant, and clueless, makes me laugh a bit. Saying I don't have a clue about how a real military and government work, is funny as well. I don't put the title, or reference of Marines on everything that I do, or use it in a argument just so I can win.. said argument. Now you can simply say that I was wrong and that you did serve. I would have taken may previous statement back,

I assume you have never been on or live on a navy ship.

I did say assume.
Now since I guess you got either offended that I said you didn't serve. It understandable that you come back and say to me that I never served and I know nothing.
Calling me ignorant, stupid, and clueless isn't a way that you win.. this argument. Remember what I said about winning right.
I will not call you names, but I would be a bit smarter to use a name that I cant simply find you.
You did say you went through the naval nuclear school Et/RO, but why don't you say that you made it through the navy, that you served the nation in the navy, or that you been in the DOD/DLA. I would say that is bragging rights. https://plus.google.com/+GeorgeHayes1/about
I will give you the doubt that you did server tho, as I like to give people a hard time. We have a lot in common than you think.

 

[GRHayes]

It's so entertaining when people apply logic from real life to video games. Lets keep in mind that you are talking about a Building game, where radar signatures mean nothing, you can breath in space without any sort of equipment, a tiny fighter can pull enough energy out of its ass to clear the atmosphere of a planet and then fly to another one and re enter the atmosphere without burning up, etc... Do I need to continue?

Either way this is still just a game, if you want to build a doom cube, knock yourself out, just don't expect any respect from the rest of the community for anything you do with it. Oh and you might want to consider what happened to the last guy who bragged about his doom cube and it's lack of detailing. (Hint: he had 4 or 5 major factions lining up to kill him)

Technically we could clear atmosphere with current technology with much smaller space craft if we didn't have the current government limits on what we are and aren't allowed to use to achieve it. Those limits are in place because of safety concerns though. If you look how shitty NASA has been at keeping up its space craft and the accidents it has had over the years its a good thing because if those limits were not in place most of the US would be as habitable as Chernobyl.

Just because a ship is designed to be as effective as it can be doesn't mean it will have any specific shape. In fact shape can play a great part in making something more effective. A good example would be the threat on left mouse vs right mouse in general.

It also doesn't limit how the current game functions can be put to use. One might do something like create drop modules that fire swarms reducing the primary ships weight. Those modules could provide continual fire to allow a larger missile to be used or for the primary ship to close the distance and use other weapons.

It all depends on the strategy used as to what the ship will look like what armaments would be used and so on.

As for doom cube the term I assume you mean the ship is just filled out with components. Ever been in side a bomber or jet fighter I have. How about a sub or battle ship or air craft carrier. They don't waste space it has a purpose. So I have no issue if someone wants to use a moronic term like "doom cube" to describe a ship I have. Hell I probably would consider it more of a badge of honor. I guess though if you are won of those people who are bothered by what people call something or you well then yea maybe you should avoid making a doom cube.
I've always been my own person never had to fit in or go with the group. I'm not a sheeple.

"(Hint: he had 4 or 5 major factions lining up to kill him)" Isn't fighting over territory supposed to be a primary part of this game? Yea, right now there is little incentive to fight if that is what is needed to create some fighting then I say good. Is this something you worry about? Seems like it would be or you probably wouldn't bring it up.

 

[Creeper__God]

Technically we could clear atmosphere with current technology with much smaller space craft if we didn't have the current government limits on what we are and aren't allowed to use to achieve it. Those limits are in place because of safety concerns though. If you look how shitty NASA has been at keeping up its space craft and the accidents it has had over the years its a good thing because if those limits were not in place most of the US would be as habitable as Chernobyl.

Just because a ship is designed to be as effective as it can be doesn't mean it will have any specific shape. In fact shape can play a great part in making something more effective. A good example would be the threat on left mouse vs right mouse in general.

It also doesn't limit how the current game functions can be put to use. One might do something like create drop modules that fire swarms reducing the primary ships weight. Those modules could provide continual fire to allow a larger missile to be used or for the primary ship to close the distance and use other weapons.

It all depends on the strategy used as to what the ship will look like what armaments would be used and so on.

As for doom cube the term I assume you mean the ship is just filled out with components. Ever been in side a bomber or jet fighter I have. How about a sub or battle ship or air craft carrier. They don't waste space it has a purpose. So I have no issue if someone wants to use a moronic term like "doom cube" to describe a ship I have. Hell I probably would consider it more of a badge of honor. I guess though if you are won of those people who are bothered by what people call something or you well then yea maybe you should avoid making a doom cube.
I've always been my own person never had to fit in or go with the group. I'm not a sheeple.

"(Hint: he had 4 or 5 major factions lining up to kill him)" Isn't fighting over territory supposed to be a primary part of this game? Yea, right now there is little incentive to fight if that is what is needed to create some fighting then I say good. Is this something you worry about? Seems like it would be or you probably wouldn't bring it up.

The term doom cube refers to a cube of systems. A ship that is entirely full of systems isn't necessarily a doom cube. A doom cube is a ship that is literally a cube (or other boring/plain geometric shape) that is stuffed full of systems. As long as your ship is at least an interesting shape, it's not a doom cube.

For example if you built a ship that was an interesting shape stuffed full of systems it would not be a doom cube.
If you built a cube of hull and stuffed it with systems, it would be considered a doom cube.

 

[Panpiper]

For example if you built a ship that was an interesting shape stuffed full of systems it would not be a doom cube.
If you built a cube of hull and stuffed it with systems, it would be considered a doom cube.

Sadly, the turning mechanics of the game greatly favor just such a cube. You can wedge the edges and corners a bit though, and vary the coloration to make it borg like. Until they fix that turning mechanic however, cubes are still the best thing for pure combat effectiveness.

That said, there are break points in the math, and you can usually mix things up a little bit for a given mass without harming the turn rate. For instance this ship:

...is pretty darn close to a doom cube in terms of how optimized it is with regard to surface area to volume and turn rate, but no one who has ever seen it thought it to be a doom cube. This ship's turn rate would not improve if I smashed all it's blocks into a cube.

 

[GRHayes]

https://twitter.com/grhayes
https://plus.google.com/+GeorgeHayes1/about

Calling me stupid, calling me ignorant, and clueless, makes me laugh a bit. Saying I don't have a clue about how a real military and government work, is funny as well. I don't put the title, or reference of Marines on everything that I do, or use it in a argument just so I can win.. said argument. Now you can simply say that I was wrong and that you did serve. I would have taken may previous statement back, I did say assume.
Now since I guess you got either offended that I said you didn't serve. It understandable that you come back and say to me that I never served and I know nothing.
Calling me ignorant, stupid, and clueless isn't a way that you win.. this argument. Remember what I said about winning right.
I will not call you names, but I would be a bit smarter to use a name that I cant simply find you.
You did say you went through the naval nuclear school Et/RO, but why don't you say that you made it through the navy, that you served the nation in the navy, or that you been in the DOD/DLA. I would say that is bragging rights. https://plus.google.com/+GeorgeHayes1/about
I will give you the doubt that you did server tho, as I like to give people a hard time. We have a lot in common than you think.

I'll take your word you served I don't need to look it up. And apologize on that assumption I made.
I called you ignorant. That is different from calling you stupid. One means you have a lack of knowledge the other means you have trouble learning or comprehending the knowledge. I called you ignorant because your comments showed a lack of knowledge in what you talked about. You may be highly knowledgeable in other areas but in what you were discussing you are not.
I did however call one of your remarks stupid. It was. That doesn't however mean I consider you stupid. Everyone says stupid stuff once in a while. Most people have been caught at some point talking out our ass about stuff we really know little about.
While my comments were meant as reprisal for your own lack of respect I will at this point apologize for them here and now. Sorry.

I don't see mentioning ET/RO as bragging rights. Do you see your designation as a bragging right? Probably not. Most the guys I know see it simply as what they did. ET/RO is also a credential and signifies a level of knowledge. If I wanted to brag I could have listed a lot more than just the ET/RO and my work for DOD/DLA. I didn't because they were the only two I considered really relevant to the discussion.
[DOUBLEPOST=1446072792,1446072500][/DOUBLEPOST]

The term doom cube refers to a cube of systems. A ship that is entirely full of systems isn't necessarily a doom cube. A doom cube is a ship that is literally a cube (or other boring/plain geometric shape) that is stuffed full of systems. As long as your ship is at least an interesting shape, it's not a doom cube.

For example if you built a ship that was an interesting shape stuffed full of systems it would not be a doom cube.
If you built a cube of hull and stuffed it with systems, it would be considered a doom cube.

So a Borg ship would be a "doom cube"? But if I make say a half moon ship like a Kilrathi or Cylon it isn't? How about a cone or a cylinder?

 

[Creeper__God]

I'll take your word you served I don't need to look it up. And apologize on that assumption I made.
I called you ignorant. That is different from calling you stupid. One means you have a lack of knowledge the other means you have trouble learning or comprehending the knowledge. I called you ignorant because your comments showed a lack of knowledge in what you talked about. You may be highly knowledgeable in other areas but in what you were discussing you are not.
I did however call one of your remarks stupid. It was. That doesn't however mean I consider you stupid. Everyone says stupid stuff once in a while. Most people have been caught at some point talking out our ass about stuff we really know little about.
While my comments were meant as reprisal for your own lack of respect I will at this point apologize for them here and now. Sorry.

I don't see mentioning ET/RO as bragging rights. Do you see your designation as a bragging right? Probably not. Most the guys I know see it simply as what they did. ET/RO is also a credential and signifies a level of knowledge. If I wanted to brag I could have listed a lot more than just the ET/RO and my work for DOD/DLA. I didn't because they were the only two I considered really relevant to the discussion.
[DOUBLEPOST=1446072792,1446072500][/DOUBLEPOST]

So a Borg ship would be a "doom cube"? But if I make say a half moon ship like a Kilrathi or Cylon it isn't? How about a cone or a cylinder?

Borg cubes are the exception, if they are well made (really good greebling over the entire ship). Cones and cylinders fall under the "boring geometric shape" category.