Will one efficient design suppress all creativity?

[quantin]

Only the lazy people who lack creativity will choose to copy a design. If a person has enough creativity and resources, he should challenge the strongest and become stronger.

Agree your mind,but so many games are break by "the best craft",wish the balance not too bad.

 

[FranklinZ]

Agree your mind,but so many games are break by "the best craft",wish the balance not too bad.

Maybe. But this one is a MMO while games like robocraft and crossout are matchmaking combat games. Transports and miners can have weird shapes and not affect much function. I just wish they have some sort of cosmetic armor that is very light weight and very low hp, to wrap around the ships so that they look cool without compromising function.

 

[Cannon Machine Ballista]

Agree your mind,but so many games are break by "the best craft",wish the balance not too bad.

I hope so.

Maybe FB needs to give us more modules and parts so that we can be creative.

 

[Cannon Machine Ballista]

Maybe. But this one is a MMO while games like robocraft and crossout are matchmaking combat games. Transports and miners can have weird shapes and not affect much function. I just wish they have some sort of cosmetic armor that is very light weight and very low hp, to wrap around the ships so that they look cool without compromising function.

The existing steel plate should be in this position, because it is very fragile, and the real armor should be made of osmium or other heavy metals.

 

[FranklinZ]

The existing steel plate should be in this position, because it is very fragile, and the real armor should be made of osmium or other heavy metals.

Are steel plates light enough to not affect much weight?

 

[Cannon Machine Ballista]

Are steel plates light enough to not affect much weight?

Compared with osmium, steel is very light and thin.

 

[CalenLoki]

Actually bastium (the most basic ship building material) is not much lighter than oninium (the toughest available armour). It's just 30% difference. So I wouldn't use bastium for decorations. It's useless as armour as well. It's good pretty much only for frames, devices and further alloying.

 

[Cannon Machine Ballista]

Actually bastium (the most basic ship building material) is not much lighter than oninium (the toughest available armour). It's just 30% difference. So I wouldn't use bastium for decorations. It's useless as armour as well. It's good pretty much only for frames, devices and further alloying.

I mean that, but maybe there is something wrong with my translation software.

 

[cranky corvid]

In addition to the standard armor plates, there's also some thin "decor" plates which can be used for decorative spacecraft skin. Unfortunately they don't have the same variety of shapes and sizes as armor plating.

 

[FranklinZ]

In addition to the standard armor plates, there's also some thin "decor" plates which can be used for decorative spacecraft skin. Unfortunately they don't have the same variety of shapes and sizes as armor plating.

Too bad

 

[FranklinZ]

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.

Before RC went moba, there was a lot of variety in design. Less efficient design can still work in a 12 vs 12 ELM match or even a 8vs8 BA, but those designs are not allowed in the later 5vs5 moba styled BA. In a match like that driving a non-meta meant loosing.

So, it's not really the mechanics of the game, but rather the "intensity" of the game that suppresses creativity. If not having the most effective design means no game experience, then nobody tries to make different designs. In RC creativity is greatly reduced once you can buy other's creations. In SB this is already a built in feature. This means if we want people to create, we need a very tolerant game environment where less than optimal designs can still function and profit, although maybe less efficiently. If piloting a non-meta ship you built yourself means getting jumped and inst-killed by a pack of meta drivers, then the game will be not creative anymore.

 

[roix]

Before RC went moba, there was a lot of variety in design. Less efficient design can still work in a 12 vs 12 ELM match or even a 8vs8 BA, but those designs are not allowed in the later 5vs5 moba styled BA. In a match like that driving a non-meta meant loosing.

So, it's not really the mechanics of the game, but rather the "intensity" of the game that suppresses creativity. If not having the most effective design means no game experience, then nobody tries to make different designs. In RC creativity is greatly reduced once you can buy other's creations. In SB this is already a built in feature. This means if we want people to create, we need a very tolerant game environment where less than optimal designs can still function and profit, although maybe less efficiently. If piloting a non-meta ship you built yourself means getting jumped and inst-killed by a pack of meta drivers, then the game will be not creative anymore.

I have read a little and I do not entirely agree.

It is true that it is difficult to be creative and efficient.
But on RC, I had no difficulty eliminating the "flying boxes"

I had at the time designed "the cruiser", a triangular vehicle with 4 wings.

It was in combat a pearl of pleasure that had combined creativity and performance.

In my old team, there were unique, effective and creative creations.

I don't know what the experience on SB will be. I do not know the game, its components and mechanics. I don't know until theoretical.

--- version original ---


J'ai un peu lu et je ne suis pas tout à fait d'accord.

Il est vrai qu'il est difficile d'être créatif et performant.
Mais sur RC, je n'avais aucune difficulté à éliminer les "boîtes volante"

J'avais à l'époque conçut "le croiseur", un véhicule triangulaire à 4 ailes.

C'était en combat une perle de plaisir qui avait allié créativité et performance.

Dans mon ancienne équipe, il y avait des créations unique, efficace et créative.

J'ignore ce que l'expérience sur SB sera. Je ne connais pas le jeu, ses composants et mécaniques . j'ignore jusqu’au donné théorique.

 

[Cannon Machine Ballista]

I have read a little and I do not entirely agree.

It is true that it is difficult to be creative and efficient.
But on RC, I had no difficulty eliminating the "flying boxes"

I had at the time designed "the cruiser", a triangular vehicle with 4 wings.

It was in combat a pearl of pleasure that had combined creativity and performance.

In my old team, there were unique, effective and creative creations.

I don't know what the experience on SB will be. I do not know the game, its components and mechanics. I don't know until theoretical.

--- version original ---


J'ai un peu lu et je ne suis pas tout à fait d'accord.

Il est vrai qu'il est difficile d'être créatif et performant.
Mais sur RC, je n'avais aucune difficulté à éliminer les "boîtes volante"

J'avais à l'époque conçut "le croiseur", un véhicule triangulaire à 4 ailes.

C'était en combat une perle de plaisir qui avait allié créativité et performance.

Dans mon ancienne équipe, il y avait des créations unique, efficace et créative.

J'ignore ce que l'expérience sur SB sera. Je ne connais pas le jeu, ses composants et mécaniques . j'ignore jusqu’au donné théorique.

However, SB is not as full of restrictions and automation as RC.

SB is more suitable for team operations.

A group of people runs a large ship, which makes efficiency more linked to the ability to cooperate.

The design of the ship determines the upper limit of the team ’s play, and is deciding What wins or loses is the teamwork!

 

[FranklinZ]

I have read a little and I do not entirely agree.

It is true that it is difficult to be creative and efficient.
But on RC, I had no difficulty eliminating the "flying boxes"

I had at the time designed "the cruiser", a triangular vehicle with 4 wings.

It was in combat a pearl of pleasure that had combined creativity and performance.

In my old team, there were unique, effective and creative creations.

I don't know what the experience on SB will be. I do not know the game, its components and mechanics. I don't know until theoretical.

--- version original ---


J'ai un peu lu et je ne suis pas tout à fait d'accord.

Il est vrai qu'il est difficile d'être créatif et performant.
Mais sur RC, je n'avais aucune difficulté à éliminer les "boîtes volante"

J'avais à l'époque conçut "le croiseur", un véhicule triangulaire à 4 ailes.

C'était en combat une perle de plaisir qui avait allié créativité et performance.

Dans mon ancienne équipe, il y avait des créations unique, efficace et créative.

J'ignore ce que l'expérience sur SB sera. Je ne connais pas le jeu, ses composants et mécaniques . j'ignore jusqu’au donné théorique.

RC is in a way better because it's round based, which means you get to test your craft with minimal cost. Also building in RC is very cheap. At the late stages of the game building is basically for free.
Maybe you quit the game before CRF because after you can buy other's creations original crafts almost disappeared.

In SB there is a blueprint trading system, and also ships are expensive. If the stakes are high I don't think people will be betting on their own homemade design if that ship is worth a month's grind. So I believe the best way to ensure creativity is to provide more tolerance to imperfect designs and failures. This could come as good insurance policies, low intensity zones, and easier and less costly building.

 

[Cannon Machine Ballista]

RC is in a way better because it's round based, which means you get to test your craft with minimal cost. Also building in RC is very cheap. At the late stages of the game building is basically for free.
Maybe you quit the game before CRF because after you can buy other's creations original crafts almost disappeared.

In SB there is a blueprint trading system, and also ships are expensive. If the stakes are high I don't think people will be betting on their own homemade design if that ship is worth a month's grind. So I believe the best way to ensure creativity is to provide more tolerance to imperfect designs and failures. This could come as good insurance policies, low intensity zones, and easier and less costly building.

In SB, it may be very expensive to test whether your spaceship can carry artillery, because I heard that in the spacecraft editor, it will not simulate the damage of bullets and artillery fire to items, which means that we may need to spend materials and money to make A real target, shipped out of the safety zone, conducted a test shot, and observed the damage, which will consume a lot of energy and money. If this is true, we have to find a way to find a large company to help us test the design.

 

[FranklinZ]

In SB, it may be very expensive to test whether your spaceship can carry artillery, because I heard that in the spacecraft editor, it will not simulate the damage of bullets and artillery fire to items, which means that we may need to spend materials and money to make A real target, shipped out of the safety zone, conducted a test shot, and observed the damage, which will consume a lot of energy and money. If this is true, we have to find a way to find a large company to help us test the design.

Firepower testing is cheap. After all you are only spending money on ammo and a dummy target. However, protection and structure testing will be super expensive, as you need to construct and destroy multiple ships of the one you are testing. If you are building a huge capital ship for your guild, there's likely no extra money left to build another just to test its durability.

 

[roix]

a company ?

I would go to the field to practice testing on real targets.
Even if it means spending energy, in time acquire the combat experience that goes with it.

money won't be a problem because I would find solutions

--- version original ---

une entreprise ?

j'irais sur le terrain pratiquer les tests sur des cibles réelles.
Quitte à devoir dépenser de l'énergie, au temps acquérir l'expérience du combat qui va avec.

l'argent ne sera pas un problème car je trouverais des solutions

 

[FranklinZ]

a company ?

I would go to the field to practice testing on real targets.
Even if it means spending energy, in time acquire the combat experience that goes with it.

money won't be a problem because I would find solutions

--- version original ---

une entreprise ?

j'irais sur le terrain pratiquer les tests sur des cibles réelles.
Quitte à devoir dépenser de l'énergie, au temps acquérir l'expérience du combat qui va avec.

l'argent ne sera pas un problème car je trouverais des solutions

It would be great if you don't loose a lot when your new design or you unfimilarity with the new design failed you. However, If you loose two week's worth of girding every time your ship explodes, most people will just stick with old designs and not innovate and take risks. That would be bad for the creativity of the game.

 

[roix]

I think I understand your reasoning.

It is also valid for construction, if it is tedious, not very ergonomic.

Developers will have fun making their games fun

--- version original ---

Je pense comprendre votre raisonnement.

C'est aussi valable pour la construction, si elle est fastidieuse, peu ergonomic .

Les développeurs vont bien s'amuser à faire de leurs jeux un endroit fun

 

[Cannon Machine Ballista]

I think I understand your reasoning.

It is also valid for construction, if it is tedious, not very ergonomic.

Developers will have fun making their games fun

--- version original ---

Je pense comprendre votre raisonnement.

C'est aussi valable pour la construction, si elle est fastidieuse, peu ergonomic .

Les développeurs vont bien s'amuser à faire de leurs jeux un endroit fun

The point is not whether its design can be used, but whether it is the best.

This requires thousands of adjustments, and each time a new one is used for destructive testing.

I am afraid it is economically difficult to support.

What we want to pursue is not to let the ship fire with kinetic energy, but to let him fly more Faster, more accurate shots, harder to be hit, and harder to be destroyed.