What kinds of ships are you going to be building?

[Vloshko]

Whatever's the most effective for combat. Likely something spherical or boxy as that will allow the most protection and be the most compact/efficient.

I'll enjoy scrapping all of your RP ships for resources, tho.

A rocket with a chair bolted to it.

 

[Azelous]

Short term: mining vessel
Long term: no clue

 

[Matrix Overclocker]

Judging from this and your other posts you must be fun at parties. Though putting that aside your statement brings up a good point that many games in a similar vein such as Starbase have failed to address, and that is the power of function over form.

In almost all games that allow to build your own ships (Avorion, Emperyion, Starmade, ect.) the player-base quickly devolves in to building battle cubes because they are the most efficient way of combat. However this stifles creativity, not that you seem co concerned with that. This turns off a lot of new players from getting into the game because they see trailers and screenshots of cool and unique ships only to find out everyone is flying around in death cubes and not doing so puts you at a disadvantage.

The only solution is to either implement either "cosmetic" blocks that you can layer over your ship that don't take up power/weight or some way to disincentivize cubes/spheres.

As for the the topic at hand, I'll most likely try to find a certain compromise between more efficient boxy military designs while not looking I'm completely devoid of style. Also a word of warning to everyone reading, if you think most people in this game aren't going to be like Atreties, you're mistaken, put your expectations in check because 9 out 10 times him or someone like him will be there to blow up your "artfully" built ship.

I think there is a way to build good looking ships that pose a challenge to the death cubes. Taking my building methods from Space Engineers, the best way to build ships is to have 2 layers:
1) The internal layer, which will be box shaped, and will be made of strong armour. This layers responsibility is to protect the critical systems of the ship.
2) And the external layer, which is composed of a lighter armour that surrounds the internal layer and is shaped in a creative way to make the ship look interesting.
I like to think of this method as building a death cube in disguise, underneath you have the cube, but on the surface you have an interesting and unique ship to look at. However, of course, we will need to wait for launch to experiment with building to be sure which methods work best.

 

[Spartan Shipyards]

Granted we don't have the game yet to see how ship building and combat will pan out, but given previous trends I'm not hopeful. Even "Pretty" or dolled up death cubes will be fairly boxy or rectangular in shape. But this has me thinking about all the way the creativity of the game will just be ignored for efficiency like in real life. I can imagine large factions just building the most cost effective boxy designs in mass numbers to use as suicide forces because they'll probably be easy to replace. Which brings up another point. Who is going to want to spend time building large intricate ships when a group of guys can get a bunch of barebones starter ships and swarm enmass and destroy your space yacht. EVE has shown games like these will bring out the wort in people.

 

[Garino]

Kamikaze ships of course

 

[CalenLoki]

The only solution is to either implement "cosmetic" blocks that you can layer over your ship that don't take up power/weight or some way to disincentivize cubes/spheres.

Wrong. Such solution would only slightly soften the problem. First, because it's optional, so will be ignored by battle shoebox lovers. Second, because even if you slap some things, in the end it's still a shoebox, just decorated.

The solution is to implement and balance features that favour interesting design.
Example:
1. Heat mechanics. If modules produce heat, that heat is transferred through bolts to other parts, and some modules do not like heat. You naturally force engine compartments out of the box on pylons. Same with weapons.
2. Huge importance of armour with a lot of modules that have to be exposed. So make all the modules very squishy compared to armour (like being disabled in one-two bullet, while armour of the same mass can soak dozens). At the same time you need heatsinks, thruster, guns, communication arrays and sensors facing outside. That forces you to use geometry and ship positioning that will protect them from direct fire. Simple cube is pretty bad shape for that.

Of course both of these will limit designers in some way, as you need to follow the rules. But I'd rather have all the ships with thrusters on external pylons than all of them borg-cubed.

And there are also mechanics that need to be avoided.
FtD gives us example how surface&angle-based drag forces all ships to be long and thin, with 4x slopes in front. Punishing any use of wings, fins, extrusions or subgrids (the have separate drag, even when completely inside).
And the biggest offender to good looking ships are internal thrusters. If it's possible (like in every single game of the genre), the borg shall rule.

 

[Morrgard]

Wrong. Such solution would only slightly soften the problem. First, because it's optional, so will be ignored by battle shoebox lovers. Second, because even if you slap some things, in the end it's still a shoebox, just decorated.

The solution is to implement and balance features that favour interesting design.
Example:
1. Heat mechanics. If modules produce heat, that heat is transferred through bolts to other parts, and some modules do not like heat. You naturally force engine compartments out of the box on pylons. Same with weapons.
2. Huge importance of armour with a lot of modules that have to be exposed. So make all the modules very squishy compared to armour (like being disabled in one-two bullet, while armour of the same mass can soak dozens). At the same time you need heatsinks, thruster, guns, communication arrays and sensors facing outside. That forces you to use geometry and ship positioning that will protect them from direct fire. Simple cube is pretty bad shape for that.

Of course both of these will limit designers in some way, as you need to follow the rules. But I'd rather have all the ships with thrusters on external pylons than all of them borg-cubed.

And there are also mechanics that need to be avoided.
FtD gives us example how surface&angle-based drag forces all ships to be long and thin, with 4x slopes in front. Punishing any use of wings, fins, extrusions or subgrids (the have separate drag, even when completely inside).
And the biggest offender to good looking ships are internal thrusters. If it's possible (like in every single game of the genre), the borg shall rule.

I like the sound of that, I would be very sad to see player replicas & boxes/randomnosities in a universe that has its own lore, I endorse creativity, and a nice way to do that is making sure that such designs are bad (I suppose the replicas aren't that bad.. I would prefer that over space animals and cubes)

 

[YakkoForever]

he solution is to implement and balance features that favour interesting design.
Example:
1. Heat mechanics. If modules produce heat, that heat is transferred through bolts to other parts, and some modules do not like heat. You naturally force engine compartments out of the box on pylons. Same with weapons.
2. Huge importance of armour with a lot of modules that have to be exposed. So make all the modules very squishy compared to armour (like being disabled in one-two bullet, while armour of the same mass can soak dozens). At the same time you need heatsinks, thruster, guns, communication arrays and sensors facing outside. That forces you to use geometry and ship positioning that will protect them from direct fire. Simple cube is pretty bad shape for that

Engines must be outside right now (they destroy things that are behind them) and that helps a little bit.

the box meta might appear but we will see. Devs and we should not waste time and energy worrying about some meta thing that might never appear.

 

[Atreties]

Judging from this and your other posts you must be fun at parties. Though putting that aside your statement brings up a good point that many games in a similar vein such as Starbase have failed to address, and that is the power of function over form.

In almost all games that allow to build your own ships (Avorion, Emperyion, Starmade, ect.) the player-base quickly devolves in to building battle cubes because they are the most efficient way of combat. However this stifles creativity, not that you seem to be concerned with that. This turns off a lot of new players from getting into the game because they see trailers and screenshots of cool and unique ships only to find out everyone is flying around in death cubes and not doing so puts you at a disadvantage.

The only solution is to either implement "cosmetic" blocks that you can layer over your ship that don't take up power/weight or some way to disincentivize cubes/spheres.

As for the the topic at hand, I'll most likely try to find a certain compromise between more efficient boxy military designs while not looking I'm completely devoid of style. Also a word of warning to everyone reading, if you think most people in this game aren't going to be like Atreties, you're mistaken, put your expectations in check because 9 out 10 times him or someone like him will be there to blow up your "artfully" built ship.

There's so much wrong with this that it's hard to quantify. But I'll make an attempt.

many games in a similar vein such as Starbase have failed to address, and that is the power of function over form.

Those games haven't failed. There's nothing to fail. This statement is the exact equivalent to "many games have failed to address the issue of the speed of light being too slow". There's no addressing or failing to "deal" with natural laws of reality. Any attempt to do so is the purest form of an exercise in futility that I could ever think of.

player-base quickly devolves in to building battle cubes because they are the most efficient way of combat

Increasing in efficiency and effectiveness is somehow "devolving" to you? That's as backward as antivaxxer mentality.

However this stifles creativity

Right, because it takes no creativity or ingenuity to make things efficiently or to reduce waste, or to address weaknesses. "Creativity" doesn't only apply to frivolous aesthetic flair. Frequently, the designs in games like this that have had the most time and thought poured into them are efficient , "boxy" designs.

This turns off a lot of new players from getting into the game because they see trailers and screenshots of cool and unique ships only to find out everyone is flying around in death cubes and not doing so puts you at a disadvantage.

You are not everyone. For example, I see those "cool and unique ships" from trailers and all I see is pointless frivolity in design. Many of those designs are aerodynamic and/or have hollow wings... in a game set purely in space, without aerodynamics or air resistance. It looks as silly to me as someone flying around a ship that looks like a horse.

-----

Also, this concept that designs will "devolve" into all being the same, or all looking the same is totally false, too. There will be a wide variety of designs, since there will be a wide variety of ship sizes, uses, and strategies. A ship that's designed to carry small fighters will look a lot different than the fighters its carrying, and will look a lot different than logistics ships for gathering, and will look a lot different than a large armored fortresses designed to defend a station. Function will guide the form, and there are a ton of different functions for ships in Starbase. Variety will still be vast and ever-changing.

-----

Lastly, there will still be a place for frivolous aesthetic flair:

Stations.

Since they are naturally defended by safe-zones, they will have much less need to be efficiently designed. I can pretty much guarantee that even heavily no-nonsense warlike groups will have a wide variety of different station designs, and there will be a crazy amount of cosmetic-type stuff going on in the rental lots of stations.

 

[Whiteagle]

player-base quickly devolves in to building battle cubes because they are the most efficient way of combat

Luckily Starbase's limitations on Ship Weapons, specifically Fire Control Systems, means you can't just build Turreted Death Cubes that shoot Targets for you.
Closest we'll probably get is a Hedron with Armor and Laser Cannons bolted to it.

For example, I see those "cool and unique ships" from trailers and all I see is pointless frivolity in design.

While I agree this is the case with the Dev Faction "Gunships," their Fighters are fairly efficient.
They might be a bit on the large side with lots of cosmetic plating fins, but they have everything a self-powered Fighter needs, and distinct silhouettes are pretty necessary when Dog-fighting.

 

[Spartan Shipyards]

Closest we'll probably get is a Hedron with Armor and Laser Cannons bolted to it.

Ah yes, Death Pyramids...lesser cousins of the Death Cubes.

 

[Vexus]

Like it or not, a car is just a box, with interesting internal features and very slight external features. But if you stand back, all cars are basically boxes.

Likewise, all sea-faring ships in the sea are boxes. They have tapered bottom ends for displacement purposes and for maintaining balance, but if you stand back, all ships are basically boxes.

All aircraft are cylinders. They may have different wing types and some like the A10 Warthog look a bit boxy, while others like the B2 incorporate the wing into the entire body for stealth purposes.

The issue is to not get caught up on your perception from distance at what you're looking at. When you get in close, every car is different and unique with different features and exterior styling. All ships in the sea are vastly different in terms of capability and purpose - for example, a barge might look exactly like a Red Cross rescue/hospital ship, but they are vastly different in application. All aircraft are likewise unique to their purpose and design, where a B52 bomber is a huge cylinder loaded with weapons, and a Boeing 747 looks almost identical but with the purpose of carrying passengers.

It's not about how it looks, but how it performs and what it is meant for. In Starbase, "Space with drag" is the environment. There's no certainty that there is a best design. I would bet that we will have more diverse and unique shapes in Starbase than most other types of sandbox games. The reason is: we need no wheels for cars on the road, we have no water to displace for a ship, and we have no air to streamline through for an airplane. As such, the designs will be extremely varied even when you step back from them. Drag is our opposing force in Starbase, our environment. As such, engine power to ship weight becomes the design goal, making trade offs on power (speed) when you want more weight (guns, hauling resources, transporting players, more armor).

Power to weight is a more pure system than cars, ships or aircraft, lending to an idea that the best ship design is your design, one which you've purpose built for something you enjoy. This means the styles and types of ships will be much more varied depending on their purpose, but over time, each purpose will have more and more details, a more refined look, and you will likely be able to spot a faction war-fighter from a distance based on its look alone. There will be an F14, and a MiG29, and many variations and iterations of fighters leading up to those supreme designs. And as the meta changes, or a new weapon is introduced, you will have old models of designs sitting around and so on.

When I think about ship types, I have to keep in mind - this design is not perfect. It's only good for the purpose I'm designing it for, and there will be some other ship that will be better at other things, or superior to my own ship in certain aspects. If I want to mine asteroids while on a fighter, I'm wasting my time, while someone else more resourceful is scooping up asteroids with a massive bulldozer style ship. So purpose built will win out and it should be a lot of fun seeing everyone's different designs to solve in game problems - harking back to the topic about a shared game world where if everyone could find their best design offline, there would be much less action and interesting ideas in the one live game universe.

 

[NoName]

Like it or not, a car is just a box, with interesting internal features and very slight external features. But if you stand back, all cars are basically boxes.

Boxes can be cool and interesting. Every ship design has its own intricacies whether it be on the inside or the outside.

 

[Brutus]

Why does everyone hate box ships? Box ships are beautiful.

 

[Bloodydavyflint]

Why does everyone hate box ships? Box ships are beautiful.

I’ll build one with you

 

[Whiteagle]

Ah yes, Death Pyramids...lesser cousins of the Death Cubes.

I was thinking more Death Crosses, but the Navidad would be rather Pyramid shaped...

Why does everyone hate box ships? Box ships are beautiful.

It's not Box ships, it's "Death Cube, Turrets, FINAL DESTINATION" mindset from Space Engineers that people don't want to see.
Murder Boxes won't do everything in Combat because Starbase doesn't have Auto Targeting Turrets, so no turtling up in a Cube of Armor and letting your Guns do all the work.

 

[Talla]

Is there a maximum speed for ships?
I've read the FAQ here but didn't see anything about speed limits.

I don't know what my ship will look like. All I know is that I WANNA GO FAST!

EDIT: Since drag is affected by mass (and thus fuel consumption), it'll probably be very minimalist if I want to keep going at maximum speed for an extended period.

 

[[QS] Combustible]

Yes

 

[Stanky]

I wanna build a massive flagship. That's my only goal. I want a big flagship that I'll just fly around in with a support fleet. Makes me feel powerful.

 

[Burnside]

Ugly minimalistic ones with an aim towards making subsystem blueprints that you can bolt together into a whole ship and add custom sections onto to suit needs rather than custom design everything from the ground up. First design goals are gonna be a vasama competitor, a troop bus, and an ultralight fighter for optimal carrier capacity.