Voxels Versus Creative Freedom

[Valiant70]

Voxels are meant to provide creative freedom, but on some level they're working against it instead. In this thread I want to try to explore why, and search for ways to increase creative freedom. For the sake of discussion, I'll be using the old power system that everyone is more familiar with.

The main restriction to creative freedom is the drive to be competitive in PVP and effective in PVE. Certain design decisions are more effective. Now, that in itself is not a bad thing. It's a very good thing because a ship's functionality is art too. It only becomes a bad thing when optimal decisions have very little variety and generally don't look good or leave room/mass/etc. for decoration.

There is one basic principle biting Starmade in the butt. That's minimalism. A solution that is smaller and lighter but does the same thing is superior. It's cheaper and a smaller target. As any seasoned builder knows, this plays out by maximizing systems, minimizing surface area, and possibly using spaced armor. This generally leads to ships being full of systems that look like they were squirted into every available space within the ship's hull like so much expanding foam. This is known as "system stuffing."

There are several reasons and possible reasons for this, including:

• Having more armor than is necessary to cover your systems doesn't really help you.
• There's no reason not to add one more block; more is always better.
• Systems are amorphous blobs. Concentrating them into shapes and decorating them is impractically heavy and prevents ships from being competitive in PVP.
• It's hard to hit small things in space.
• (Economics are only a theoretical factor. In the current game they don't play into much of anything.)

The whole stabilizer mechanic was created to try to prevent system stuffing, but it's clear that it has done more harm than good. We know that. Go beat the dead horse in another thread.

In case it's not clear why the current form of minimalism is undesirable for creativity, I'll go over it briefly. Builders like to decorate ships, inside and outside. We also like to build ships in different shapes to make them more interesting. Minimalism works against this by driving us to use as few blocks as possible, including minimizing surface area to reduce the amount of armor needed to cover what's inside. Reducing block count means fewer feasible options for decoration. Reducing surface area means smooth shapes with few or no projections, and optimally little texture. It's not a hard-and-fast rule, but that's how you build optimally, to get the best stats. Additionally, even if you wanted to separate out your systems and make them look like big machines that you see in science fiction or real life ships, mass makes this disadvantageous.

It seems that a complete lack of value in the shape systems are placed is at least a contributing factor. Place blocks anywhere you want however you want! Infinite possibilities? Nope. Only one: put blocks everywhere. Thus, some carefully thought-out meta-restrictions might be in order. What I mean by "meta-restrictions" are things that make something less optimal without disallowing it entirely. The stabilizer distance mechanic is a meta-restriction, but many players dislike its effects. A positive meta-restriction might push systems slightly apart and/or into shapes. Also, it would be better to do this indirectly with mechanics rather than adding a buff/nerf based on shape/distance of system groups.

The ship HP system (aka power 1.0) at least did a passable job of minimizing the disadvantage of having more armor and decoration blocks on your ship. They're a buffer and make it take longer to kill you. In my opinion this is still not enough to make the extra blocks worthwhile, but it helps.

At this point you might be thinking "we just need crew to make interior viable!" ...but what about exterior? Crew doesn't change the viability of interesting exterior shapes with any kind of additional surface area. There are more factors at play here.

There are going to be tradeoffs, but they're going to have to be carefully weighed and tested. Otherwise we'll end up with a horrible meta like what we have in the pre-releases.

 

[Zoolimar]

but what about exterior?

Easy - you need systems that must stick out. Weapons, sensors, those sorts of things.

 

[Brokengauge]

Honestly, I don't think that pvp'ers building generically is an issue. PvP and rp players don't tend to congregate into the same servers.

Regardless, I know that a few of the pvpers who have tolerated being on the docks usually tended to have very nice looking designs.

I believe this is a non issue, but am open to convincing.

 

[GDPR 302420]

Voxels are meant to provide creative freedom, but on some level they're working against it instead. In this thread I want to try to explore why, and search for ways to increase creative freedom. For the sake of discussion, I'll be using the old power system that everyone is more familiar with.

The main restriction to creative freedom is the drive to be competitive in PVP and effective in PVE. Certain design decisions are more effective. Now, that in itself is not a bad thing. It's a very good thing because a ship's functionality is art too. It only becomes a bad thing when optimal decisions have very little variety and generally don't look good or leave room/mass/etc. for decoration.

There is one basic principle biting Starmade in the butt. That's minimalism. A solution that is smaller and lighter but does the same thing is superior. It's cheaper and a smaller target. As any seasoned builder knows, this plays out by maximizing systems, minimizing surface area, and possibly using spaced armor. This generally leads to ships being full of systems that look like they were squirted into every available space within the ship's hull like so much expanding foam. This is known as "system stuffing."

There are several reasons and possible reasons for this, including:

• Having more armor than is necessary to cover your systems doesn't really help you.
• There's no reason not to add one more block; more is always better.
• Systems are amorphous blobs. Concentrating them into shapes and decorating them is impractically heavy and prevents ships from being competitive in PVP.
• It's hard to hit small things in space.
• (Economics are only a theoretical factor. In the current game they don't play into much of anything.)

The whole stabilizer mechanic was created to try to prevent system stuffing, but it's clear that it has done more harm than good. We know that. Go beat the dead horse in another thread.

In case it's not clear why the current form of minimalism is undesirable for creativity, I'll go over it briefly. Builders like to decorate ships, inside and outside. We also like to build ships in different shapes to make them more interesting. Minimalism works against this by driving us to use as few blocks as possible, including minimizing surface area to reduce the amount of armor needed to cover what's inside. Reducing block count means fewer feasible options for decoration. Reducing surface area means smooth shapes with few or no projections, and optimally little texture. It's not a hard-and-fast rule, but that's how you build optimally, to get the best stats. Additionally, even if you wanted to separate out your systems and make them look like big machines that you see in science fiction or real life ships, mass makes this disadvantageous.

It seems that a complete lack of value in the shape systems are placed is at least a contributing factor. Place blocks anywhere you want however you want! Infinite possibilities? Nope. Only one: put blocks everywhere. Thus, some carefully thought-out meta-restrictions might be in order. What I mean by "meta-restrictions" are things that make something less optimal without disallowing it entirely. The stabilizer distance mechanic is a meta-restriction, but many players dislike its effects. A positive meta-restriction might push systems slightly apart and/or into shapes. Also, it would be better to do this indirectly with mechanics rather than adding a buff/nerf based on shape/distance of system groups.

The ship HP system (aka power 1.0) at least did a passable job of minimizing the disadvantage of having more armor and decoration blocks on your ship. They're a buffer and make it take longer to kill you. In my opinion this is still not enough to make the extra blocks worthwhile, but it helps.

At this point you might be thinking "we just need crew to make interior viable!" ...but what about exterior? Crew doesn't change the viability of interesting exterior shapes with any kind of additional surface area. There are more factors at play here.

There are going to be tradeoffs, but they're going to have to be carefully weighed and tested. Otherwise we'll end up with a horrible meta like what we have in the pre-releases.

TLDR
Looks are completely subjective, you are not being forced to build effective ships, you are not being forced to build good looking ships and it is perfectly possible to build good looking ships that are still top-tier preformers. If players are struggling to make "meta ships" that look good then that is the fault of their own personal lack of knoweldge and/or skill, not the fault of the game and its balance.

I honestly dont understand this "Meta designs must be able to look good" meme that the PvE crowd has created. Meta designs "not looking good" is not an issue in any way shape or form.

Firstly, allow me to make this point clear: Nobody is forcing you to build to the meta, nothing is stopping you from building a "good looking" ship and using it in multiplayer.

Got that? Ok good, now allow me to deconstruct this post an explain why meta pvp designs not looking good or not allowing for variety is a non-issue.

1. The statement that "Meta designs do not allow for much variety" is a factually incorrect statement, plenty of designs are avaliable to high end meta builds, restrictions do exist but not nearly as much restrictions as the OP is trying to imply.
2. The statement "Meta designs prohibit ships from looking good" is also a factually incorrect statement, it is 100% possible to make a highly compedative meta-tier design that still looks amazing and has been done several times.
   
   Factions such FCM and players such as kulbolen have had no issues creating ships that look amazing on both interior and exterior while still being top-tier, if players cannot make meta designs look good when they try to, they only have themselves to blame.
3. Looks are 100% subjective and are not based in fact, what you think looks good someone else thinks looks like a turd, you cannot balance around "looks" when the thing you are balancing around is subjective and varies based on personal opinions, unlike combat effectiveness, looks cannot be measured or rated with numbers and/or mathamatics.
   
   Looks are completely subjective and therfor to balance around them (or attempt to at least) is a waste of developer time that could be spent fixing bugs or improving features that matter to everyone.
4. As I said above, nobody is forcing you to build to the meta, you are not required to build to the meta to play StarMade, you are not required to have a meta level ship to launch starmade and play it.

We understand this? Good.

This entire "issue" the OP has put forward is a non issue and everything the OP has problems with can be solved by two simple words:

Git Gud



Yours truly

RedAlert_007 ~ Community Mentor and StarMade Veteran.

 

[MacThule]

It's an interesting & thought-provoking analysis.

I'm not entirely sure I agree with all of the premises or conclusions, but the observations about design pressures exerted by combat were very good.

Here is my divergence; characterizing this pressure as biting SM in the ass seems to rely on the premise that the goal is a game where we see ships from various familiar space fictions duke it out. The problem with this is that it's more than possible - it's probable that the vast majority of such ships were designed (by artists, not engineers, as well) without any but the most speculative notion about what the pressures of space combat would result in in terms of design evolution.

The pure fact very well may be that things like narrow profiles and streamlined hulls are literally inevitable design choices for entities that wish to be successful in a zero-viscosity, 3D combat venue without a lot of terrain.

One of the really powerful features of voxel sandboxing is the simulation factor. We are, in essence, tinkering with a rough space combat simulator. I don't know if benchmarking our results against popular fiction is actually productive.

That said, the system shapelessness issue is real. It's extremely unlikely that, for example, a shielding system, would ever be IRL something you could just "pour" into every available open space within a streamlined hull. For a multitude of systems to operate optimally with complete lack of shape or coherence is definitely not helping anything and not reflective of anything real. Being able to space-fill systems is extremely valuable in-game right now because every can... so everyone should. If no one could though, then of course pouring function into every viable cubic voxel of volume described by an optimally low combat profile wouldn't be as compelling.

To me the real issue here is how we look at systems. Not their dynamics or relationships, but what a system block is even supposed to signify.

It leads me back to ideas very similar to my ideas about the new chambers; I believe that the function of almost every large system in game now shows that these system blocks represent a volume that should include what we would see on a real vessel as both equipment and the space around it that permits crew to access, maintain, calibrate and operate such equipment.

Anyway - good food for thought, man. I get the feeling I am going to have more thoughts about this later today when I've fully woken up...

 

[MacThule]

I absolutely love how the same people who scream "but our whole reason for being here is to provide critical feedback!!1" see even a mention of "mah PevePeeeeeeee" and don't bother to read any further, automatically assume it's some kind of attack, and shout "you will like this even if it's broken!!"

I guess voicing critical feedback is only important if you frame it explicitly as "pro-PvP" otherwise it will be assumed to be "anti-PvP."

Even if it isn't.

Because "us-v-them." If you're not loudly and unswerving "with us" then you are clearly and obviously "against us," and an enemy! Actually, living in the US, this sounds like presidential-level thinking...

I don't think the OP was remotely critical of PvP building, but I don't always read things the same way others do and tend to find most people to be pretty nuanced (as opposed to pure black and white). I hope others actually read the OP independently before jumping onto a knee-jerk-defense bandwagon against a perceived critique that isn't there just because someone threw up a pevepy flag.

 

[The_Owl]

If stuffing is "meta" then spaghetti ships wouldn't be a problem. And yet, Despite this spaghetti ships are the best meta?
Seems you got the wrong meta mate.

 

[GDPR 302420]

I absolutely love how the same people who scream "but our whole reason for being here is to provide critical feedback!!1" see even a mention of "mah PevePeeeeeeee" and don't bother to read any further, automatically assume it's some kind of attack, and shout "you will like this even if it's broken!!"

I guess voicing critical feedback is only important if you frame it explicitly as "pro-PvP" otherwise it will be assumed to be "anti-PvP."

Even if it isn't.

Because "us-v-them." If you're not loudly and unswerving "with us" then you are clearly and obviously "against us," and an enemy! Actually, living in the US, this sounds like presidential-level thinking...

I don't think the OP was remotely critical of PvP building, but I don't always read things the same way others do and tend to find most people to be pretty nuanced (as opposed to pure black and white). I hope others actually read the OP independently before jumping onto a knee-jerk-defense bandwagon against a perceived critique that isn't there just because someone threw up a pevepy flag.

So disagreeing is bad, got it

Its almost like we have a new Dr. Whammy

 

[YamiHikari]

I have to say that I'm a bit torn on this post.

For one, I kind of like the shapeless systems for the reason that they can be fitted to any build. The disadvantage is that they are a little too shapeless. When there are no restrictions on shape, people will tend to use whatever is advantageous to them, hence the number of meta builds. With the new power came structural integrity, which I personally like but also have some concerns about. With structural integrity, you don't have complete freedom over system placement, but you end up being a bit too constricted at the same time. Whenever I try laying out shield systems, they end up being very boxy once they get past a certain size due to the integrity mechanic. I think this is a good start but still needs work.

As for stabilizers, while I agree that favoring a specific build style is counterproductive, the claim that stabilizers do that is actually a myth. After doing some exploring of my own, I found that people make this assumption because they start out by building on a single axis almost every time. This affects what you get out of stabilizers because of the fact that they determine efficiency based off of distance from the nearest reactor block. Think about it. When you move 4 meters along the x-axis, moving 3 meters along the y-axis adds a whole meter to your stabilizer distance without getting excessively far from your core on a single axis. However, when you move 20 meters along the x-axis, 3 meters along the y-axis doesn't do much, hence the assumption that the mechanic favors a single-axis build. Instead of outright believing me or denying me, why not try it out for yourself?

System stuffing is another problem that I do have to recognize as well as disagree with at the same time. Some people like to build big ships, but don't have the kind of inspiration for equally large and elaborate interiors. There have been some great builds with very little interior at all. There are system stuffers who stuff to stuff, meaning that they use all space for combat power specifically because their ship will perform better. There are also system stuffers who stuff the useless space. When you run out of places you'd like to build in and rooms you want to add, it makes sense to put something useful in the space you don't use. I agree that system stuffing is a problem, but it isn't always an issue.

What I particularly like about your post, Valiant70 , is your lack of an immediately-proposed solution. We don't know what will work. None of us do. The only way we can find out what is best is to try everything, see how well we can make it all work, and decide what's best. You can never make a snap decision off of a newly-created mechanic or other addition without seeing what it can do and how you can develop it. Minecraft goes through these kinds of situations all the time. Whenever there is a major update the community groans that the new additions or changes will ruin the game, and eventually wind up being unable to live without them. I'm not fighting for or against stabilizers or anything else, but I would like to see what we can do with the things we try. I won't directly agree with or disagree with this post because individual people and situations are different, but I can say that thinking about what's going on constructively is a step in the right direction.

 

[Ithirahad]

Nobody is forcing you to build to the meta

...Eh? Seems to me that this is only true because there's no actual reason for combat ingame right now.

 

[GDPR 302420]

...Eh? Seems to me that this is only true because there's no actual reason for combat ingame right now.

I mean not really, its not like you cannot play the game without building to the meta

 

[Non]

Having more armor than is necessary to cover your systems doesn't really help you.

No, why should it? When was the last time heavy armor was very effective in combat? No tank benefits from being overly heavy, nor does any naval ship, it just makes them easier targets and slows their ability to respond quickly. A game in which a noob can make an armor brick that properly competes in pvp is not one with much skill progression.

There's no reason not to add one more block; more is always better.

Not at all, adding one more block means I might have to add one more of something else to keep my ratios the same, there are plenty of good reasons to stop adding.

 

[MacThule]

So disagreeing is bad, got it

Its almost like we have a new Dr. Whammy

Not the disagreeing - the you doing exactly what you complain about others doing. Like this:

Git gud?

So discussing how various PvP, PvE, and aesthetic forces affect building with voxels is bad, got it.

See?

He didn't attack your pevepy. He mentioned pevepy as a force causing problems because of the way systems are implemented. Not because of pevepy, because of systems. But without pevepy, the same system implementation wouldn't cause problems. Likewise, with different system implementation, pevepy wouldn't cause problems.

Seriously, Red - Can you understand that? It's not an attack on pevepy, it's a discussion of various factors affecting the game. PvP is a factor that affects the game.

Can people discuss issues that PvP causes within the current without being reacted to as if they are attacking the very notion of PvP itself? For real.

Not every mention of problems associated with a specific system or playstyle is an attack against the thing mentioned. It's almost as if you believe that PvP play doesn't have specific needs and problems that need to be recognized and addressed.

 

[Scypio]

So discussing how various PvP, PvE, and aesthetic forces affect building with voxels is bad, got it.

See?

Because there is nothing else to say. Get better at the game. The fact that "rp ships"cannot be equivalent in performance to pvp is this nonsense idea that made schine develop this crappy power update, nothing more.

If you cannot mix good looking and efficiency then you're not good enough to the game. It has been proved countless times and everytime someone says that they give borg cubes as examples and everytime they are asked to prove they're right they never take the challenge. Nothing else to add.

In other words. Git gud.

 

[Ithirahad]

everytime someone says that they give borg cubes as examples and everytime they are asked to prove they're right they never take the challenge.

...Except that 'Borg cubes,' or cubes in general, are not a 'meta' design, as far as I've seen - they're more just a lazy design. If there is a common theme I've seen, as far as 'meta' shapes, if anything it's 'doom columns' like Zyrr's thing with (typically floating) turrets on the sides.

 

[MacThule]

Because there is nothing else to say. Get better at the game. The fact that "rp ships"cannot be equivalent in performance to pvp is this nonsense idea that made schine develop this crappy power update, nothing more.

If you cannot mix good looking and efficiency then you're not good enough to the game. It has been proved countless times and everytime someone says that they give borg cubes as examples and everytime they are asked to prove they're right they never take the challenge. Nothing else to add.

In other words. Git gud.

So you didn't read the OP either?

 

[Calhoun]

RedAlert_007

PERfrom. Not PREform.

perform

 

[GDPR 302420]

Not the disagreeing - the you doing exactly what you complain about others doing. Like this:

Git gud?

So discussing how various PvP, PvE, and aesthetic forces affect building with voxels is bad, got it.

See?

He didn't attack your pevepy. He mentioned pevepy as a force causing problems because of the way systems are implemented. Not because of pevepy, because of systems. But without pevepy, the same system implementation wouldn't cause problems. Likewise, with different system implementation, pevepy wouldn't cause problems.

Seriously, Red - Can you understand that? It's not an attack on pevepy, it's a discussion of various factors affecting the game. PvP is a factor that affects the game.

Can people discuss issues that PvP causes within the current without being reacted to as if they are attacking the very notion of PvP itself? For real.

Not every mention of problems associated with a specific system or playstyle is an attack against the thing mentioned. It's almost as if you believe that PvP play doesn't have specific needs and problems that need to be recognized and addressed.

1. Not sure where you got the idea I thought this was an attack on PvP, sounds like you pulled that out of your ass.

2. There is nothing wrong with discussion, I am simply pointing out that the issue the OP has created is a non-issue. Problems the OP has mentioned can be solved by simpltmy getting better at the game.

So you didn't read the OP either?

Sounds Scypio just understands that the OPs "issue" is just a bunch of nonsense.

 

[Zekester81]

There is one basic principle biting Starmade in the butt. That's minimalism.

While i wont disagree, that is actually a player created problem. Players will always min/max to get the most, it's inevitable no matter what design choices are made/forced upon the players. It literally happens in every game that players have pvp and some level of customization. People just want to get the most bang for their buck, and it's not necessarily a bad thing, though sometimes it can be frustrating. I just hope that eventually SM will come to a point that all people(or at least the vast majority) will be happy with the game, and it won't lose too much in the way of boundless possibility of creation, that players of all roles will enjoy. TL;DR, minimalism will never go away, ever.

Also, the fighting between pveers, pvpers, and builders is just dumb. Why can't we be friends, and work towards a better game together.

Honestly, I would like to see multi-shaped systems over formless or single-shaped systems(i dislike brick shaped systems and stuffing, though I have used them too) that maybe give differing characteristics based upon which shape is used and scale. I still like free-form design over that even. But that's just my opinion. And while the current release has it's own problems, it was slightly better design-wise than the dev-builds recently. I haven't had time to get into the pre release yet. Again, my own opinion.

 

[Valiant70]

Minimalism isn't the issue. The issue is specific undesirable results of minimalism:

Builders like to decorate ships, inside and outside. We also like to build ships in different shapes to make them more interesting. Minimalism works against this by driving us to use as few blocks as possible, including minimizing surface area to reduce the amount of armor needed to cover what's inside. Reducing block count means fewer feasible options for decoration. Reducing surface area means smooth shapes with few or no projections, and optimally little texture.

Sci-fi ships are often shaped a certain way because it works in that universe. Take Star Trek for example. If we had highly explosive warp engines in Starmade, we would either see them heavily armored, or placed on nacelles depending on the builder's philosophy in battle. My point is, if we want interesting shapes in Starmade's universe, we're going to need mechanics that call for more than a single, solid mass of machinery.

If Schema adds crew, and either keeps the rest the same or adds the power update minus stabilizers, we will have ships with interior and a fairly similar shape across the board. They will for the most part remain long and thin, which is a very practical shape due to its smaller forward cross section. Some will thicken depending on how much the designer is concerned about orthogonal attacks.

If the community can agree that more than one shape is desirable, mechanics will need to be added that encourage systems to be placed in other configurations, trading small forward cross section for some other, more valuable attribute. However, if not done carefully and tested thoroughly, we'll end up with even more undesirable side effects, like what has happened with power 2.0.