Practicality vs. Coolness. Where do you stand?

Leftharted

Learned-to-sprint endo
Joined
Dec 4, 2019
Messages
23
#1
I wanted to open a discussion about “Practicality” vs. “Cool Factor” of ship Shape, in relation to the mechanics/physics that we’ve seen. Obviously, take everything below with a grain of salt; as none of us have actually Played the game… on top of that it’s early enough that these details are still likely subject to change, if deemed necessary by the Devs. Most of the questions/points could be resolved by in-game experimentation… but since we cant do that, lets daydream a little!

I’ve read/seen that the physics of ‘thrust’ are much more detailed than comparable games, like Space Engineers; in that, the engine cares very much where your center of mass and center of thrust are located. I believe I’ve seen discussions stating that if you were to have unbalanced or ‘one-sided’ thrust on a ship, its likely to not fly very Straight, and may Yaw slightly, when the only input your giving is forward thrust. Space Engineers, doesn’t really care (*unless you Mod it). You can make an shape of ship with all your thrust all on one side, and it will still fly Straight. Your CoT will automatically mirror your CoM, and the only thing that matters is if you have enough power/torque to overcome your weight/mass.

At this point, I’m not sure how I feel about this. Part of me is excited that ship building won’t be idiot-proof, and will take some quasi engineering to balance your ship… However, part of me is worried that this will make Asymmetrical ships a nightmare of frustration to balance and pilot, and there will be nothing but symmetrical in-line ships. I may be worried for nothing, and maybe it won’t be all that hard to balance an odd shaped ship.. After all, I’m not too sure I understand exactly how the FCU/MFC relationship works… I understand that they essentially control all thrusters; but is it as simple as cable them ALL together and the MFC figures it out? I’m doubting it. Maybe you need an FCU for each direction, and each one needs to be networked to the thrust pointing in said direction? Not sure…

To add, akin to most ‘build stuff’ games, there is a community concern over a PVP Meta forming; and something like Borg Cubes dominating all space. I personally feel that things like the lack of third person camera, and lack of a camera ‘item’ will help combat this, to a degree… But, it’s a double edged sword; because those same points also cut the practical usage of an Asymmetrical ship…

And then, theirs the “Cool” factor. IMO, everyone, whether consciously or not, cares about their ships Coolness. If they didn’t, they’d commit to the rectangle/cube, and be content; which I’m betting (hoping?) that few and far between will settle for a box shaped ship. Im assuming that a healthy chunk of people (like me) will be willing to sacrifice some efficiency/viability for things like obscure shape, decorative topography, rotating gizmo, telescoping whatsit, pop-out thingies, famous replica, etc., in hopes of getting people to “Ooo, Ahhh” at my ship; and vice versa. I wont care to stop and inspect the latest cube; but dude over there with the unfolding landing gear Must be friended.

Take for example, the Millennium Falcon. Its famous, and iconic.. Because of this, its highly likely we’ll see several replicas, and tons of ships that used it as inspiration. But, if we put the notoriety aside, and pretend we’ve never heard/seen it before, is it Practical? Is it Cool? IMO, its somewhat practical, except for the cockpit. The asymmetrical cockpit is somewhat exposed, and would make flight take some getting used to, since your view is not from the center of the ship. Otherwise, the pancake shape might actually be effective when you’re being pursued, since you have less surface space to hit. 360° by 180° turrets on either side give quite effective coverage. Wide placement of maneuvering thrusters (in theory) would allow for very fast pitch/yaw/roll. Now, if I had never seen it before; I’m not too certain I would call it Cool; unless we are able to manipulate hull parts to get a similar ‘industrial’ looking texture; and not be very bare/flat on any given surface.

Now, what about something like Boba Fett’s ship, Slave 1? IMO, very impractical design… maybe decent if you are doing the chasing; but the minute someone gets behind it, they have a HUGE surface area to hit. The landing-on-the-back gimmick is pretty cool; but in order to function in starbase would likely require YOLOL to level you out, and then Pray you are in the right position before descending. However if I had never seen/heard of it before; I’d probably consider it quite stylish.

How about the ship Serenity, from the movie of the same name, and Firefly series. More of a dedicated cargo/smuggler ship given the lack of weapons; but IMO, has some ying-yang synergy between style and practical use. Cool shape, easy access cargo area that could have a cool hinge hangar door, but if the nacelles/rear engine might be easy pickings in a dog fight. Maybe with some tactical weapon mounts and a rear facing turret; this sucker might be pretty kick arse.

Regardless of the answer to every concern or point ive made above; I’m still very excited for the release of Starbase… this thread is more in hopes of having some constructive discussion about the ships/shapes you hope to achieve, and why.. a healthy starship debate while we wait for EA.

Are you hyper critical of efficiency like a Borg? Are you more concerned with making Battlestar Galactica replica’s? Somewhere in between? What’s your inspiration?

Thoughts? Concerns? Maybe suggestions of other famous-ish ships that we can collectively google and speculate upon?
 
Joined
Nov 16, 2019
Messages
13
#2
Hello,

I think

That the question is not there.

An airplane is not beautiful, it is functional
A tank is functional, it is not beautiful

A car . . . Is functional, but why are some beautiful?

Because the beauty attributed to the object does not question why it was designed.

Put caterpillars, and you will not go far
Put some goings, and you will not go far.

Just as the car meets certain standards to be in this category.

This will also apply to spaceships.

If it is designed for combat, it will have constraints, once it is completed, you can arrange it as desired, as long as what it was designed for works.

Fighting ships are more restrictive than a carrier.

A carrier, even armed, will not make it a fighting ship.

Have a nice day
 

Leftharted

Learned-to-sprint endo
Joined
Dec 4, 2019
Messages
23
#3
A car . . . Is functional, but why are some beautiful?

Because the beauty attributed to the object does not question why it was designed.
Tanks? I agree with you. They are a box, and designed for ax specific task, and are efficient at said task.... by a military.

But airplanes and cars? I respectfully disagree... there are tons of models of both that efficiency was sacrificed for Style and comfort... let alone, the exterior doesn't govern what's "under the hood"....

you can arrange it as desired
And that's precisely my point. You design the the placement/parts for a purpose, and then generally design your exterior "as desired" ... well, what if someone desires it to resemble a large Whale? (Already a thread on this, fyi, heh)

I believe your train of thought is a little bit militant. Only a military faction will uphold efficiency above all else.... and, understandably.

Starbase will have "militant" factions, sure. But given the safe zone mechanics; I'm pretty certain it's safe to say that a healthy chunk of the player base will Not have a militant mentality... and, as I said above, will sacrifice efficiency for Style....
 
Joined
Nov 16, 2019
Messages
13
#4
Tanks? I agree with you. They are a box, and designed for ax specific task, and are efficient at said task.... by a military.

But airplanes and cars? I respectfully disagree... there are tons of models of both that efficiency was sacrificed for Style and comfort... let alone, the exterior doesn't govern what's "under the hood"....
Even though it is less effective, it is secure, protects against bad weather, and rolls at speed standards.

That it is more comfortable for less power without breaking their base does not contradict my thinking.


And that's precisely my point. You design the the placement/parts for a purpose, and then generally design your exterior "as desired" ... well, what if someone desires it to resemble a large Whale? (Already a thread on this, fyi, heh)

If the goal is to look like a whale. There is no problem.
But if the whale does not meet the conditions of the warship, then it will be a beautiful whale. nothing more.

People can sacrifice efficiency for the sake of beauty in a battleship, as long as the foundations of the battleship are kept. They can look like a pony.

The other roles of vessels are less restrictive and allow more fantasy in their design.
 

Atreties

Veteran endo
Joined
Aug 9, 2019
Messages
110
#5
A car is a box with some minor aesthetic flourishes.

A tank is a box with no aesthetic flourishes, with a big gun attached

Most planes are big tubes with wings, with some minor aesthetic flourishes.

---

Efficiency always, always wins out in the end. Once you get close, then you have some wiggle room for minor aesthetic flourishes.

If you think (good) SB ships will look anything like sci fi spaceships, you will be very disappointed.
 

CalenLoki

Master endo
Joined
Aug 9, 2019
Messages
741
#7
I build for efficiency. But it can look nice, without any sacrifices to function.

Selkie5.png


The challenge to encourage people to build nice things lies in devs hands.
People will build as efficiently as they can, within the game rules. So the rules need to reward non-bricks in some way.

I.e. module that needs external access from two sides would encourage building wings.
Heat propagation mechanics would encourage external thruster and weapon pods.
Lack of cameras encourage cockpits with good field of view, internal corridors, rear cockpits.
Cargo beams (would, with slightly different mechanics) encourage building ships with arms.
Making modules very fragile compared to armour requires playing with angles and shapes to hide them from enemy fire.
 

Recatek

Meat Popsicle
Joined
Aug 9, 2019
Messages
286
#8
I'll make my ship look like an amorphous blob if that's what the PvP meta decides.

I'll probably also have a cool looking luxury yacht that never leaves the safe zone though just for fun.
 

Vexus

Master endo
Joined
Aug 9, 2019
Messages
280
#9
A lot of people don't realize that practicality looks really cool. A Tesla car looks awesome and is just a battery with an electric motor and some wheels that kids can make in their highschool electronics class. Overall it is extremely practical and looks great.

Then they make the truck version but that's another topic.

If you look at old cars or old planes, or old ships and so on, as they become more practical they also become better looking and more functional. The B-2 Stealth Bomber is extremely practical and looks amazing; practical design that looks amazing because of the advance of technology and the constant creativity of humans. If Starbase allows us the freedom to do this in game, there will never be a shortage of cool and practical ships going around.

I believe your train of thought is a little bit militant. Only a military faction will uphold efficiency above all else.... and, understandably.
This isn't true; the manufacturers are offsetting the loss of efficiency in producing these luxury, inefficient vehicles, by increasing the sales price. It's more efficient for them to sell a $100k car versus a $10k car. Efficiency was not sacrificed, only offset by cost to the buyer. A free market will allow such things to happen.
 

kevinTOC

Active endo
Joined
Aug 9, 2019
Messages
36
#10
Well, if I'm building ships, my first priority will be functionality: make sure it works first. Then, I go to make it look nice without sacrificing too much of the functionality.

A car is a box with some minor aesthetic flourishes.

A tank is a box with no aesthetic flourishes, with a big gun attached

Most planes are big tubes with wings, with some minor aesthetic flourishes.
I don't think tanks are only designed with armor in mind. Of course, I'm not saying that functionality and protection aren't accounted for, I just think that the armor shaping and angling is done with some prettiness in mind, but keeping protection as a priority.

Take for instance the Leopard 2a7, or the T-14 Armata, both beautiful tanks (in my opinion). Don't tell me there aren't some design choices where they haven't thought about how it looked? No one would be proud of their national armed forces of they're driving around in literal wedges.
 
Joined
Dec 11, 2019
Messages
7
#11
Well because integrity exist in game, you can't just make a cool looking ship, so I guess you need have a functional ship than you can play with the overall style to add some aggressive look for example. They did this in WW2 painting things on tanks!
 

Azelous

Veteran endo
Joined
Aug 9, 2019
Messages
100
#12
Practical with a bit of flair. I tend to and will likely continue to create dense builds, but aesthetic is also important. I'm here to build and fly spaceships, not what looks like an uneven potato.
 
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
16
#13
I'd say that I'd design functional parts with the intent that it will look good, and if a part has to sacrifice some beauty to work then I say embrace it and make it beautiful in other ways, likely something functional will end up looking pretty in other ways than you'd expect I guess is what I'm saying is functionality is beauty in a lot of cases and thus having some huge mechanical parts that allow for better functionality could be pretty because Idk, the mechanism moves fluidly and works perfectly. So basically I think its going to be a vary opinionated, some people think tanks are absolute works of art and I agree, anyways I think at the least, its going to be very interesting how people style their ships.
 
Joined
Aug 14, 2019
Messages
102
#14
I think its about proportions so if you got a big ship with like one gun then it might like bad but if you have a big ship with a lot of guns it could look good or have a smaller ship with a few guns might also look good
 

GGExploder

Guest
#15
I think that a lot of practicality can be achieved through non-cubical ships, such as the building of some sort of wing on large ships to let turrets have a large area of fire.
 

Burnside

Master endo
Joined
Aug 23, 2019
Messages
308
#16
Anyone who says tanks aren't cool or beautiful doesn't understand the attractiveness of heavy machinery. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and function is its own form at times. Given the needs between speed, structure, combat profile, and visibility, there are multiple interdependent form-factors going on with every design and the quality of functionality and efficiency will make or break those factors in a heartbeat.

Deathcubes are only practical designs in the more creative builders that lack strong simulations, the closer you get to a 1:1 simulation, the less effective "platonics" get for the metagame.
 
Joined
Aug 14, 2019
Messages
6
#17
I believe that efficiency takes priority over everything, as form always follows function. There is no point in building a good looking ship that is incapable in carrying it's original purpose. If a ship is purely designed for luxury and style, then yes, the aesthetic does get more priority, but a mining ship for example is required to be efficient, and is therefore designed for efficiency, and not aesthetic.
 

Vis

Active endo
Joined
Feb 2, 2020
Messages
38
#18
Is it too much to ask for both?... I plan to design ships that have both efficiency and beauty. I have designed some very cool looking things in other games like Avorion that are also very functional. :)
 
Joined
Feb 12, 2020
Messages
8
#19
It shouldn't be a box nor a cool thing from television. In real life showing up in a fiat 500 at a multi million dollar deal won't make the other company or whatever really belive in you, even if the car is practical. but showing up with a Lamborghini at a practical car contest wich I game can be a space fight, won't make it good. I think you should ask depending on the situation en even then though might differ.

sorry for any spelling errors, currently on phone.
 

Caddrel

Learned-to-turn-off-magboots endo
Joined
Feb 15, 2020
Messages
46
#20
A great design is one that exploits practicalities to create its beauty.

Examples from late 90s and early 00s design include the original iMac and the iPhone.
 
Top