Will one efficient design suppress all creativity?
- Thread starter Commissar Awesome
- Start date
I'm not sure where so many people are getting the idea that box shaped is best is coming from... with special references to other similar games like SE which is the only sandbox ship building game I've personally played. A literal cube, like a borg cube, is nowhere near being an *efficient* design. Merely a durable one that's easy to build. As others have said, a cube has a much larger mass burden to deal with than other shapes, which makes them slower. As well, large flat expanses make it really easy to destroy turrets. It also severely lessens the amount of firepower you can output in any given direction as compared to smarter designs, and limits the angles of fire making it slightly easier to avoid shots at the same time.
You can have "boxy" designs that avoid those flaws to varying extents by adding some shape to them, but there's definitely non-boxy shapes that are viable,.. and at some point you've added enough shape to your ship that it's hard to call it a box anymore. With smaller ships it's a bit harder to avoid having somewhat boxy shapes, just because you really want to minimize the profile of a fighter. In SE, it's literally possibly to avoid practically an unlimited amount of firepower coming from any one ship if you have good enough acceleration and a small enough profile on your fighter. It also allows you to cram more fighters into a smaller space, which lets you have bigger fighter wings per sqm of carrier. You can still get some benefits from having some shape that allows you to fit more weaponry in, if you can do so while not adding excessive mass or making you too much easier to hit, which mostly means something like having a thin sort of wing or such. It will still be easier to hit, but may be worth it in some cases.
Another thing to bear in mind is that no matter how much armor you have, once you have no more weapons operational you're effectively mission killed. And if Starbase is anything like Space Engineers, it will be at least an order of magnitude easier to strip a heavily armored ship of all its weapons/thrusters than it will be to actually kill it. So being insanely durable is not necessarily that big of an advantage unless you have a good way to quickly repair and rearm a ship and get it back into a fight.
You can have "boxy" designs that avoid those flaws to varying extents by adding some shape to them, but there's definitely non-boxy shapes that are viable,.. and at some point you've added enough shape to your ship that it's hard to call it a box anymore. With smaller ships it's a bit harder to avoid having somewhat boxy shapes, just because you really want to minimize the profile of a fighter. In SE, it's literally possibly to avoid practically an unlimited amount of firepower coming from any one ship if you have good enough acceleration and a small enough profile on your fighter. It also allows you to cram more fighters into a smaller space, which lets you have bigger fighter wings per sqm of carrier. You can still get some benefits from having some shape that allows you to fit more weaponry in, if you can do so while not adding excessive mass or making you too much easier to hit, which mostly means something like having a thin sort of wing or such. It will still be easier to hit, but may be worth it in some cases.
Another thing to bear in mind is that no matter how much armor you have, once you have no more weapons operational you're effectively mission killed. And if Starbase is anything like Space Engineers, it will be at least an order of magnitude easier to strip a heavily armored ship of all its weapons/thrusters than it will be to actually kill it. So being insanely durable is not necessarily that big of an advantage unless you have a good way to quickly repair and rearm a ship and get it back into a fight.
Yeah, and I forgot to mention earlier but the multiple damage types in SB have a strong potential for preventing any one design from becoming completely optimal. If you have a laser, for example, it burns through plates in a steady way and would be stopped best by having a thick layer in the way. Whereas if you get hit by something that does shatter damage instead, it might be able to cause more damage relatively to one solid chunk of armor like that, and it might be desirable to have layered armor with an airgap to defend against it. And that could lead to radically different armor and design types for different roles of ships.
The reason you will see Box ships is because it simplifies design and development (which is complicated in the game). Somebody who wants to design their own ship, but doesn't want to be any effort into it, will make a Box ship. The only real advantage is maybe a smaller surface area means thicker armor. Though even other regular polyhedra are superior in that particular regard.
The reason you won't see many box ships is because designing a ship will take time, and due to its complication, there's no reason to just do a poor job of it and build a box. You might as well - if you're not going to put the effort into it - just buy someone else's pre-designed ship that is really good for the purpose you want. The downfall of the box design is that it is good all-around, but not better at any one thing.
I would say, you will see lots of box ships early on, as people want to build ships that "do it all" - if you look back to the first cars ever made, they were very boxy for example. This will be true in Starbase, the early ships will be boxes because players won't know what kind of thing they want to do best, and don't know how to best achieve their goals, so a generalist box-ship is the best option early on, as it affords the player the most flexibility. Over time, the trend will be away from this basic shape, towards more purpose-driven designs.
I think arguing either side of the point is correct, however only the time frame changes who is 'right'. I would stand on the argument side which states long-term meta will almost never see box ships, as more refined designs will be faster, more armored where it's needed, and provide only the functions those ship designs need. Seeing a box ship after a few months will be like seeing an easy kill, or an unimportant competitor in the marketplace. Like an oil baron seeing someone hauling propane containers in his pickup truck. Or a Ford Model-T compared to a Formula 1 race car. There will barely be any comparison.
I would say, you will see lots of box ships early on, as people want to build ships that "do it all" - if you look back to the first cars ever made, they were very boxy for example. This will be true in Starbase, the early ships will be boxes because players won't know what kind of thing they want to do best, and don't know how to best achieve their goals, so a generalist box-ship is the best option early on, as it affords the player the most flexibility. Over time, the trend will be away from this basic shape, towards more purpose-driven designs.
I think arguing either side of the point is correct, however only the time frame changes who is 'right'. I would stand on the argument side which states long-term meta will almost never see box ships, as more refined designs will be faster, more armored where it's needed, and provide only the functions those ship designs need. Seeing a box ship after a few months will be like seeing an easy kill, or an unimportant competitor in the marketplace. Like an oil baron seeing someone hauling propane containers in his pickup truck. Or a Ford Model-T compared to a Formula 1 race car. There will barely be any comparison.
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2019
- Messages
- 110
someone has probably wrote about this here allready but i havent seen it yet so...
Everything has too be conected by wires!
its not like in SE where everything just magically works. you will need holes in your armor to controll your turrets and thrusters and you will allways be able to be oneshot with a railgun becourse you need some way to see.
if you would build a box you would have severe dissadvantages just becourse you will have easy to hit weakpoints like holes in your hull that connect your lazerturrets with your generator and someone gets a few lucky shots with a autoturret and you suddenly blow up.
most ships will not be the same becourse then your enemy would know where its weakspots are and where to attack to blow you up (there are quite a few explosive items on your ship after all)
Everything has too be conected by wires!
its not like in SE where everything just magically works. you will need holes in your armor to controll your turrets and thrusters and you will allways be able to be oneshot with a railgun becourse you need some way to see.
if you would build a box you would have severe dissadvantages just becourse you will have easy to hit weakpoints like holes in your hull that connect your lazerturrets with your generator and someone gets a few lucky shots with a autoturret and you suddenly blow up.
most ships will not be the same becourse then your enemy would know where its weakspots are and where to attack to blow you up (there are quite a few explosive items on your ship after all)
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2019
- Messages
- 59
S shape is one way to fix important angles ( S armor layout with hull in between ) , edged and layered armor (different types).
Wires can be open slotted or can be used with the wall socket system that goes thru armor ( with S layering "openess" is not a problem )
Penetrating damage is a huge problem with all ships, thus, most ships will explode due to sneaky weapon combos in enemy ships.
Wires can be open slotted or can be used with the wall socket system that goes thru armor ( with S layering "openess" is not a problem )
Penetrating damage is a huge problem with all ships, thus, most ships will explode due to sneaky weapon combos in enemy ships.
Penetration is a problem only for small ships. Because all weapons in game (ATM) have it quite low, coring big ship requires several hits at the same spot at the same angle.
Much better to focus on stripping external modules (weapons, thrusters, radiators, cockpits), then board immobile hull after battle.
According to devs, so far gunship generator never exploded due to external fire. Only boarding/sabotage.
It doesn't help cubes thou. They provide little protection for externals and bad angles for anti-boarding defenses.
Much better to focus on stripping external modules (weapons, thrusters, radiators, cockpits), then board immobile hull after battle.
According to devs, so far gunship generator never exploded due to external fire. Only boarding/sabotage.
It doesn't help cubes thou. They provide little protection for externals and bad angles for anti-boarding defenses.
Look at cars today, more or less similar body styles in every category, most only separated by visuals and cosmetics with pricepoint determined by brand and number of accesories, very few differ by actual performance within each style which tends to be associated by brand reputation. Given that it's a part-by-part game, you're likely to see an initial "pre-cambrian explosion" of variety before the markets settle into efficient designs and stylised outliers, with the most successful outliers being innovators, fashion moguls, or based on a core line of efficient designs which fund the avante garde projects.
Coming from other games with a competitive ship building focus, this is not the case. Ships might have certain archetypes that are more distinct, but it is unlikely that one ship shape will dominate all others, especially with how complex ship building is in Starbase.
Also @HotPotato this is an ancient thread, necroposting is not great.
Also @HotPotato this is an ancient thread, necroposting is not great.
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2020
- Messages
- 1
I mean it's still a relevant discussion, even if the thread is old.
I suspect that the meta will end up as gunwall ships rather than cubes. Put 90% of the armour and weapons on the front in order to cut weight, and hide all components behind that. Almost like a modern tank turret in armour layout, just with thrusters built in.
As long as it can turn fast enough to always stay facing an opponent, it can out DPS/outtank anything of a similar size it fights.
Edit: Mockup diagram of what I think the meta will end up as:
I suspect that the meta will end up as gunwall ships rather than cubes. Put 90% of the armour and weapons on the front in order to cut weight, and hide all components behind that. Almost like a modern tank turret in armour layout, just with thrusters built in.
As long as it can turn fast enough to always stay facing an opponent, it can out DPS/outtank anything of a similar size it fights.
Edit: Mockup diagram of what I think the meta will end up as:
Last edited:
It won't be boxes.. It'll be staggered boxes. With as many guns as possible. Fitted literally everywhere there is a room.
It's gonna be a big staggered box with guns. With a ridiculous amount of power gens, radiators, and ammo.
That's what happened in Crossout and Robocraft.
People made staggered vehicles, with as many guns they could fit. Didn't matter if you could take out their armor, there were just so many guns.
It's gonna be a big staggered box with guns. With a ridiculous amount of power gens, radiators, and ammo.
That's what happened in Crossout and Robocraft.
People made staggered vehicles, with as many guns they could fit. Didn't matter if you could take out their armor, there were just so many guns.
I wouldn't be so sure about it, as there is a lot of difference in core mechanics.
RC doesn't have any internal components, so guns and movement are the only thing that matters. It's DPS vs HP, rather than armour vs penetration.
XO has some internals, but they are so easy to hide under/behind very durable cabin that they aren't usually targeted.
In SB on the other hand internal components are critical for the ship operation. One well placed burst can potentially disable a ship.
Both XO and RC combat happen at relatively short range, due to all available cover. So It's more about how hard you hit. In SB fight can happen over much further distance, ships move faster and less predictable (due to 3rd dimension). So main worry is if you land a hit, rather than how many bullets hit. And for that small fast ship without unneeded gun ballast may be better.
There is also aspect of limited ammo and manual reloading. Shooting way more bullets than is needed increase reloading time, which takes time that could be used for fighting.
We also don't know how volatile gun mags are. Could they chain react if you spam too many?
So rather than RC and XO I'd search for parallels in FtD. Still a lot of differences (FtD doesn't need manual access for repair and reload, and in general is easier to destroy hard to disable). But closer than any other game.
RC doesn't have any internal components, so guns and movement are the only thing that matters. It's DPS vs HP, rather than armour vs penetration.
XO has some internals, but they are so easy to hide under/behind very durable cabin that they aren't usually targeted.
In SB on the other hand internal components are critical for the ship operation. One well placed burst can potentially disable a ship.
Both XO and RC combat happen at relatively short range, due to all available cover. So It's more about how hard you hit. In SB fight can happen over much further distance, ships move faster and less predictable (due to 3rd dimension). So main worry is if you land a hit, rather than how many bullets hit. And for that small fast ship without unneeded gun ballast may be better.
There is also aspect of limited ammo and manual reloading. Shooting way more bullets than is needed increase reloading time, which takes time that could be used for fighting.
We also don't know how volatile gun mags are. Could they chain react if you spam too many?
So rather than RC and XO I'd search for parallels in FtD. Still a lot of differences (FtD doesn't need manual access for repair and reload, and in general is easier to destroy hard to disable). But closer than any other game.
@CalenLoki Well, I hope you're right. Always hated playing against those types of vehicles. Was almost always a guaranteed loss.
And never played FtD. (I assume that's From The Depths.) So I can't really make that comparison. I've seen videos tho.
I did watch a tournament of it once, a while back. Where a box thing, with just tons of guns everywhere. Almost won the whole tournament.
And never played FtD. (I assume that's From The Depths.) So I can't really make that comparison. I've seen videos tho.
I did watch a tournament of it once, a while back. Where a box thing, with just tons of guns everywhere. Almost won the whole tournament.
Hope dies last 
I'm not saying that gun boxes won't be meta. Maybe it will be.
I'm merely stating that combination of core mechanics in SB is something that never happened before in video game. So stating that thee meta will be exactly the same as in other games is huge misconception.
FtD favoured boxes. Or pencil-shaped boxes due to drag calculations. That's something we won't avoid in SB, because geometry just favours simple compact shapes for combat vehicles that don't need to be aero or hydrodynamic. So IRL tanks.
Now that I think about FtD, there are a lot more differences. It's purely AI controlled. At least the guns. So their hit rate is way higher than human gunner can achieve, and allows turrets to be spammed all over the place, as each one is independently controlled. In SB manpower is the biggest limitation, so turrets need to be similar enough that slaving them to single gunner allows effective aiming.
It also allows internal thrusters, which work in favour of big ships.
AI also sees everything, so sneaking is not an option.
I haven't played FtD in years. I wonder what is the meta now. They keep working on the game.
I'm not saying that gun boxes won't be meta. Maybe it will be.
I'm merely stating that combination of core mechanics in SB is something that never happened before in video game. So stating that thee meta will be exactly the same as in other games is huge misconception.
FtD favoured boxes. Or pencil-shaped boxes due to drag calculations. That's something we won't avoid in SB, because geometry just favours simple compact shapes for combat vehicles that don't need to be aero or hydrodynamic. So IRL tanks.
Now that I think about FtD, there are a lot more differences. It's purely AI controlled. At least the guns. So their hit rate is way higher than human gunner can achieve, and allows turrets to be spammed all over the place, as each one is independently controlled. In SB manpower is the biggest limitation, so turrets need to be similar enough that slaving them to single gunner allows effective aiming.
It also allows internal thrusters, which work in favour of big ships.
AI also sees everything, so sneaking is not an option.
I haven't played FtD in years. I wonder what is the meta now. They keep working on the game.
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2020
- Messages
- 136
I don't think there will be "best design" in STARBASE, which is like BESIEGE, where there will never be an optimal solution in any free and open game world.
For example, a spherical spaceship can defend against attacks in any direction and interfere with your opponent's judgment, but this can cause you to lose fast-moving moments and enough weapon mounting points.
In Starbase, parts can be cut and riveted. I believe that we can build thrusters beyond the original jet engine, which will greatly increase the upper limit of the ship's combat power, so that it can carry extra decorations without feeling burdensome.
For example, a spherical spaceship can defend against attacks in any direction and interfere with your opponent's judgment, but this can cause you to lose fast-moving moments and enough weapon mounting points.
In Starbase, parts can be cut and riveted. I believe that we can build thrusters beyond the original jet engine, which will greatly increase the upper limit of the ship's combat power, so that it can carry extra decorations without feeling burdensome.