The Cube Meta and How You're Helping To Enforce It

[SageThe13th]

So, before I get into this I have to say a few things.  One is that if you support the cube meta I want to hear from you.  The whole crux of my argument is that people always seem to be complaining about the cube meta.  And really, I've never seen anyone step up to defend it.  It might be interesting to hear what they have to say.  Also, as you read this you might get the idea that I dislike engineering games since I'm going to be speaking against a lot of engineering game mechanics.  This is not true.  I love engineering games.  I love From the Depths, one of the most detailed vehicle design games ever made.  It's just that if you want an engineering game you have lots of options.  This is just my opinion, but I would like to see Avorion go in a different direction.

 

Well, lets talk about the cube meta then.  I'm going to say(write) this point blank.  You can't avoid the cube meta.  To understand this you have understand what causes the cube meta in the first place.  It has to do with human nature and geometry.  In a general sense people, the player base, like it when things are easy.  This isn't everybody mind you, but the average player wants to achieve as much power as possible as easily as possible.  If this weren't the case the answer to every game imbalance would be to tell the player not to do things that make the game boring.  But players can't help themselves.  If there's an easy way to win most of them are going to use it.  Thus, the cube meta is a result of this behavior and the fact that cubes and rectangular cuboids are very powerful easy to build shapes.  If you don't know what I mean by a powerful shape the rest of my talking points should make this more clear.  But basically, this means there will always be a cube meta.

 

However, the cube meta has some drawbacks.  The biggest one seems to be that people don't like the way these flying battle boxes look.  So the best way to counter the cube meta is to design systems that promote aesthetic building or at the very least don't punish aesthetic designs.

 

Point 1: The need to win causes the cube meta

 

Players like to win and players like to look cool.  Preferably, while winning.  Though given a choice of one or the other more players will choose to win rather than choosing to look cool.  As I stated before the average player likes it easy.  Building a cube ship is easy.  But, so is downloading a ship from the forums and using it.  However, the ease of using someone else's design doesn't counter the ease of building a battle box if the downloaded ship is quantifiably weaker than a cube ship the player could make in fifteen minutes.  So what makes aesthetic ships worse than cube ships?  Well, lots of things.

 

Point 2: Real world design principals enforce the cube meta

 

Real world design principals promote utilitarian designs and the most utilitarian design for a spaceship is a cuboid, a spheroid, or a pyramid.  You get the cube meta because cuboids are the easiest to build.  Taking it a step further Avorion has mechanics that make cubes even more desirable.

 

Cubes, spheres, and pyramids are good because they have a lot of internal volume for their surface area.  Since more internal volume means bigger components and bigger components = more power these shapes have a good power to surface area ratio making them powerful shapes.  Ships with bad volume to surface area ratios are weaker because the extra surface area forces you to thin out your defenses.  In Avorion large singular armor plates are better than a bunch of little ones and it's easiest to build a cube out of large armor plates so...

 

This cube is better...

 

Than this sphere...

 

This pyramid...

 

And this ship.

 

Point 3: Ship Hp, shields, and integrity fields counter the cube meta

 

Local damage promotes a cube meta.  Look at the blue parts of my ship picture.  Those blue armor blocks weight the ship down the same as the red armor blocks.  Yet, they are less likely to get hit by enemy fire and so they aren't as useful as the red armor blocks.  The cube doesn't have these inefficiencies and is thus more desirable.  Also the more complex the shape of a ship the more complex it's local damage model becomes.  Rather than worrying about where the armor should made thicker and where it should be made thinner a player can avoid all that hassle by making a cube.  Then the local damage model is reduced to simply being front, back, top, bottom, right side, and left side armor and those armor plates are going to hold up better than more complex shapes make out of smaller blocks.

 

Ship Hp, shields, and IFGs make the local damage model of a ship matter less.  If we could turn a ship into just an Hp bar the way we used to with the old IFGs then aesthetic ships would be on nearly even footing with cube ships.  Now, I'm not saying all ships should work like this by default.  My proposed solution, which you can read in more detail here, was to have it so that the old IFG block or some other block that worked like the old IFGs would be unlocked at a high material tier.

 

So there you have it.  The typical engineering mechanics you find in a lot of these games leads to the cube meta.  Is this a bad thing?  No.  It's just human nature and geometry at work.  However, I feel Avorion can find a different niche.  One that promotes aesthetics.  If the devs decide to ease up on some of the ship design aspects.

[Duncan Idaho]

If I understand correctly, integrity field blocks used to promote aesthetics by tying the block HP to the ship's total HP, thus making it so that only the total HP is important irrespective of geometry. The new approach, while less OP, does seem to promote building boring borg cubes (can't spell boring without borg!). Perhaps there is some change to the integrity field that could strike a compromise between the two?

[Reggiereggie]

If I understand correctly, integrity field blocks used to promote aesthetics by tying the block HP to the ship's total HP, thus making it so that only the total HP is important irrespective

 

even with integrity field, after receiving continous enemy fire my ship lose a few blocks

[SageThe13th]

If I understand correctly, integrity field blocks used to promote aesthetics by tying the block HP to the ship's total HP, thus making it so that only the total HP is important irrespective

 

even with integrity field, after receiving continous enemy fire my ship lose a few blocks

 

They used to work that way.  They don't currently.  They just provide a flat 10 times bonus to block Hp.

[icyplace]

Cube meta?

 

I believe that is why shield appears in this game. Basically I rush to get shield materials unlock right away. Because after I get shield, I don't need to worry about too much about shape. However the collision damage to rocks or other ships are still very high.

But I don't do PVP. So it is another story.

[Michigo]

This only comes into play in PvP, and PvP isn't the focus of Avorion anyways.

 

How does the op intent to stop players from feeling the need to win in PvP?

It's normal to use everything that can provide you an advantage in PVP, some asshats even cheat or use exploits just to win even harder.

[Fidtz]

The current successful system for designing PvP games it to continuously change and re-balance them and trying to attain a good "current meta" that the players from pro to wood league all like. PvP sucks resources out of a game. This happens IRL too, most major sports have seasonal rule changes, responding to changes in technology and tactics by players and teams.

 

I would hope that PvP will remain a sideline in Avorion as all the above is a huge development sink.

[SageThe13th]

Cube meta?

 

I believe that is why shield appears in this game. Basically I rush to get shield materials unlock right away. Because after I get shield, I don't need to worry about too much about shape. However the collision damage to rocks or other ships are still very high.

But I don't do PVP. So it is another story.

 

Shields are not a perfect defense.  But, you're right the majority of the time your ship is safe behind it's shields.  My argument is aimed more at people who want weaker shields, no IFGs, and for local damage to matter more because it adds depth in their opinion.  I just feel like these people are making their suggestions without realizing that it causes the cube meta that most people also claim to be boring an uninteresting.

 

This only comes into play in PvP, and PvP isn't the focus of Avorion anyways.

 

How does the op intent to stop players from feeling the need to win in PvP?

It's normal to use everything that can provide you an advantage in PVP, some asshats even cheat or use exploits just to win even harder.

 

You can't stop them from wanting to win.  That's why I said there will always be a cube meta.  Cubes will also always have some advantages and will always be a viable option.  However, you can still avoid the dominance of a cube meta if other viable alternatives are presented.  I'll use Starmade as an example.  In Starmade cube ships are good.  And not just good, supremely powerful.  I built a ship that looked like a jet once.  Then, I built a cube ship that had roughly the same block count and roughly the same mass.  The cube ship turned faster, had double the shields, and three times the firepower as the jet ship.  That's a solid cube meta.

 

Also, if someone is using cheat or exploits the devs attempt to fix them.  You can fix the cube meta the same way.  Avorion doesn't really have this problem.  Yet.  These kind of build games always seem to trend towards making ship design more and more a focus of the game.  This in turn leads to the cube meta.  I'm just warning people about it now.

 

The current successful system for designing PvP games it to continuously change and re-balance them and trying to attain a good "current meta" that the players from pro to wood league all like. PvP sucks resources out of a game. This happens IRL too, most major sports have seasonal rule changes, responding to changes in technology and tactics by players and teams.

 

I would hope that PvP will remain a sideline in Avorion as all the above is a huge development sink.

 

PvP shouldn't be a focus of the game.  Though, it shouldn't be ignored either.  And if the solutions to balancing PvP help everyone then that's a win win.

[Fidtz]

From a development point of view, I think it would be relatively "easy" to destroy a cube meta by making shield strength (and some reflective component of armour if necessary) depend on exposed surface area, making the efficiency of a cube or sphere work against itself.

 

Leaving propulsion and energy dependent on volume makes a trade off and heads off the opposite "thin stick" meta  :D

[Duncan Idaho]

From a development point of view, I think it would be relatively "easy" to destroy a cube meta by making shield strength (and some reflective component of armour if necessary) depend on exposed surface area, making the efficiency of a cube or sphere work against itself.

 

Leaving propulsion and energy dependent on volume makes a trade off and heads off the opposite "thin stick" meta  :D

 

So people would just build cubes with loads of spikes on them? Fractal borg cubes are just as boring IMO.

 

I guess the devs have to decide if they want the game to be focused on engineering, where the practical design of the ship is king, or instead to focus on a simplified model that gives players freedom to build cool-looking ships without having to worry too much about the laws of physics.

 

[Michigo]

So people would just build cubes with loads of spikes on them? Fractal borg cubes are just as boring IMO.

*imagines a hedgehog-like Cube*

 

*buahahhaha*

 

Yeah, that's pretty much what would happen.

[icyplace]

So people would just build cubes with loads of spikes on them? Fractal borg cubes are just as boring IMO.

 

I guess the devs have to decide if they want the game to be focused on engineering, where the practical design of the ship is king, or instead to focus on a simplified model that gives players freedom to build cool-looking ships without having to worry too much about the laws of physics.

 

Totally agree to this.

 

If the game focus on building practical, everything will look like a ball or a cube. There are no need for all other difference shapes of cubes. In fact no need to build anymore. It all comes down to who has a bigger cube wins.

 

I have been playing another game that get across the same argument. The developer try to cater both styles, practical and freedom builds. Updates after updates, the gaming environment getting worse and worse.

 

Lucky Avorion does not have this problem and hope this problem will not arise in future.

[LordMaddog]

 

I have been playing another game that get across the same argument. The developer try to cater both styles, practical and freedom builds. Updates after updates, the gaming environment getting worse and worse.

 

Lucky Avorion does not have this problem and hope this problem will not arise in future.

 

Ya it dose already in the beta forums this argument is  quite prevalent and the dev seems to agree with both sides.

 

Personally I HATE CUBS it really feels like a sign of laziness and ineptitude on the players side but it is without a doubt the best way to go.

 

Whats worse I also love complexity. My fav idea for IFG is for them to stop collision damage(according to there size) and make it so parts that are broken off can be repaired by your mechanics. This however would just compound the Cube making meta as well.

 

There are a few ways I can see slightly fixing this tho.

 

1 make it so NPC stations sell designs that the player can buy in game.

 

2 make a model converter that lets players import .obj and have them converted into blocks. (this one would take a lot a lota work and many new block shape types)

 

3 An aesthetically pleasing crew moral boost that make's all systems 25% more effective. I know if I worked on a wicked looking ship that just bespoke awesomeness I be like HECK YA we can cream that lame block of a ship over there!

This however gives rise to the question of how do you determine what is good looking.

 

4 make all components peaceable in all block shapes.

 

[Ranakastrasz]

This is why I wanted integrity fields to be local shield generators. Let you cover fragile details, but still let local damage occur. A compromise. Without throwing out all aspects of a physics simulation, Anything but a cube is going to be less effective without some advantage to counter it.

 

 

 

On this subject, my thoughts on surface area based scaling, but requring LOS seems like it might contribute to a solution. Essentially I wanted solar panels and thrusters to have only surfaces with LOS out of the ship to be effective. This was to make stacking less effective, while still using surface area for calculations.

However, making more surface area better might counter this meta. After all, if you need more surface area for faster movement (or manuverability), or can use it for cheap power (as in, more power per mass and price, if not exactly volume) then suddenly, the death-cube would lose out to ships with higher surface area.

 

 

Still, that would optimize towards relatively flat planes or circles (flattened cylinders) so I am not sure. Still, if you are already stuck in the middle of two extremes, where something between solid shapes and flat shapes, you might end up with a solid body with your volume-based components and large relatively flat wings or antenna or other details which provide surface-area based effects.

 

Just make sure that both sides compete with each other, or you will go to far the other way.

 

 

[LordMaddog]

you might end up with a solid body with your volume-based components and large relatively flat wings or antenna or other details which provide surface-area based effects.

 

Just make sure that both sides compete with each other, or you will go to far the other way.

 

Naw you will just end up with boxes that have long flat UGLY wings. And the end result would be players would have even less design choices dramatically increasing the number of Cube ships. 

[Fidtz]

Ok, so hedgehogs aren't appreciated  :D

 

In that case, how about the effectiveness of  blocks decreases with their centre's distance from an exterior surface. This effect could  make a "swiss cheese" type ship the best option but if the minimum X,Y or Z of an individual block were important too, that would be mitigated since a "swiss cheese" construction would have small blocks in at least one direction.

[Xira]

This. So much this. I left Starmade because of the 'cube meta'. Big boring borg blocks blowing each other to bits. I spend 20 hours building a ship, it was even pretty compact, and so pretty. Blown out of space by a boring borg block half it's size.

 

I agree with the OP's assessment of the integrity field generator. The most straight-forward way to allow pretty ships is to provide some way to turn them into bars of HP so their exposed surface area and under-exposed interiors that still need armor do not make them less effective.

 

You can fiddle around with a lot of other things to alter the optimal ship shape but in the end it's still going to be ugly unless you make shape not matter. So, make shape not mater and revert the IF change.

[Thundercraft]

I get what is being said about the efficiency of the cube, less surface area, less armor required to protect the ship, etc. I really do. And I agree with the sentiment that the importance of shields should help mitigate this.

 

But, there is one aspect the "And this ship" design has that gives it preference over a cube or any other shape. Depending on how they're constructed and placed, those wing/nacelle combinations can be quite effective locations to put thrusters.

 

I say "depending" because the effectiveness boils down to three things:

1. [*]Distance from the center of mass

[*]Directional thrusters vs. regular Thrusters

[*]If Directional thrusters are used, how perpendicular they are to the center of mass

The benefit of the distance from the center of mass is obvious and I think most players are aware of this and at least try to keep this in mind when designing.

 

What is not obvious is how the directional approach of Directional thrusters works differently from regular Thrusters. Directional thrusters achieve maximal efficiency when pointed forward (to increase both Brake Thrust and either Yaw or Pitch) on long leverage arms that are perpendicular to the center of mass. But if the same Directional thrusters on the same leverage arms are located at the back or front of the ship, then a lot of that force is directed the wrong way and, thus, wasted. Brake Thrust remains the same, regardless of whether leverage arms are located in the back, the middle, or the front. Roll also remains the same. But Yaw and Pitch only achieve max efficiency when they're located in the middle.

 

Don't believe me? Try relocating (copy-pasting) Directional thruster (forward-aimed) arms around the front, then remove and try the middle, and then the back. You will definitely see a difference. Since thrusters are described as being more effective the further away from the center of mass, one may assume that thruster arms located at the front or back would be more effective. But that's not the case with Directional thruster arms.

 

This difference is due to how Directional thrusters can only be aimed along one of the three axis at a perfect 90 degrees. To achieve the same (or better, even) efficiency with thruster arms at the front or back, we'd have to be able to aim Directional thrusters at odd angles, like 30 or 45 degrees or some such. Doing so would be at the expense of less Brake Thrust, since they would no longer be facing forward. However, Directional thrusters produce so much excess Brake Thrust that losing 50% (or even more) of that would hardly be missed by such designs.

 

Regular Thrusters apply thrust in all directions. In my testing, their effectiveness is not impacted nearly as much by the location (front/middle/back) of thruster arms. Unfortunately, regular Thrusters do not lend themselves to thruster arms because they are far, far less efficient than Directional Thrusters for such designs. (Actually, they're far inferior in every respect.)

 

My point?

Rather than encourage cube shapes or any creative shapes players can come up with, I believe that the beta changes to thrusters will encourage winged shapes. We'll probably be seeing more ships along the lines of the Babylon 5 Starfury and X-Wing or Y-Wing fighters. Maybe not at first. But as players design more maneuverable ships with far less cost of credits and materials and less crew, they'll probably start to replace other designs. Survival of the fittest, I guess.

[Guswut]

So, before I get into this I have to say a few things.  One is that if you support the cube meta I want to hear from you.  The whole crux of my argument is that people always seem to be complaining about the cube meta.  And really, I've never seen anyone step up to defend it.  It might be interesting to hear what they have to say.

 

Certainly:

 

I support the base (unmodded) game having no artificial elements designed to encourage "ascetically-pleasing-to-the-general-concept-of-what-spaceships-should-be-based-upon-fiction" (because, as you stated, the system in both Avorion and the offline world both make the utilitarian design the go-to design for spaceships) system of thought. You should be able to have a roughly-optimal general design which, for the reasons you described, ends up being a cube for purely engineering reasons. If a person wants to min-max a design without any consideration for the appearance, is that actually a problem? Especially given that the majority of players are playing in single player environments, where the look of their ship matters only to themselves.

 

I rather enjoy making a ship in a perfect cube, and then adding layers to it slowly like some sort of reverse-onion. The construction of a cubic ship can often have many more layers than you'd get with anything that people would find nicer looking, and often times it'll often be more easily expanded and adapted. I'd hate if I had to find a way to stick in some more crew quarters in something more fictional-spaceship-looking without having to tear it halfway apart twice, and completely apart once, just to make it look even mildly acceptable. Instead, I toss on another cube of crew quarters, and armor it up.

 

My creativity is pretty limited, and lacking even more-so when it comes to making spaceships that look like the fantastical representation of what spaceships "should" look like. There is certainly nothing wrong with wanting to make an awesome looking spaceship, but it shouldn't be an element of the game forced onto the players. It should be rewarded in a fitting manner (such as weekly spaceship contents on the forums, multiplayer server praise, perfect chances to make excellent desktop backgrounds, and the like). Simply because it is "easy" shouldn't mean that you need to make it harder, but instead make it rewarding to do it in other ways as well.

 

I really don't have any problem with your proposal (and in fact I've replied to it in support) as it doesn't hurt my ability to make cubic ships, and it would be a great addition to the game as it gives a reason to upgrade your integrity field generator blocks (even for us cube builders, as it'd help deal with collision damage).

 

Also, as you read this you might get the idea that I dislike engineering games since I'm going to be speaking against a lot of engineering game mechanics.  This is not true.  I love engineering games.  I love From the Depths, one of the most detailed vehicle design games ever made.  It's just that if you want an engineering game you have lots of options.  This is just my opinion, but I would like to see Avorion go in a different direction.

 

There is no reason that Avorion shouldn't be another engineering game, and it's actually one of the things that I truly enjoy about this game. If it wasn't an engineering game I certainly wouldn't have purchased it until the modding community "fixed" that, at least. But that aside I believe that Avorion's potential isn't so limited that it cannot be both an engineering game and creativity game. We should both be able to be satisfied with the base game, and the modding community will surely be able to further indulge our different play styles.

[Thundercraft]

You should be able to have a roughly-optimal general design which, for the reasons you described, ends up being a cube for purely engineering reasons. If a person wants to min-max a design without any consideration for the appearance, is that actually a problem?...

 

Do you honestly envision Earth's space agencies launching spacecraft that closely resemble Borg cubes? Granted, space does not have the restrictions we have on a planet like air friction or gravity. But, IRL, there's more to the practicality of spacecraft designs than surface area. Even if it was, we should be seeing spheres as that has far less surface area.

 

I think appearance is a potential problem because it has the potential to turn away a lot of potential players. That is, not just existing players like Xira who quote, "left Starmade because of the 'cube meta'", but also discourage or repulse potential customers who would otherwise buy Avorion. Less customers means less profits, which means less incentive to continue development or, later, release some DLC like landable planets. Less players might even mean the death knoll of the multiplayer community, if too few players are interested in the game.

 

Also, while you may not agree with me, it's a symptom of flawed game design. Forcing everyone to use the same basic shape (and you can't get much more basic than a cube) strongly suggests that the devs were unable to balance things better. It also kills creativity fast, which is one of the main draws of a game having a sandbox feature.

 

...Especially given that the majority of players are playing in single player environments, where the look of their ship matters only to themselves.

 

I'd like to see some statistics about the Avorion playerbase before anyone jumps to conclusions about whether more players are in a single-player vs. multiplayer environment. Regardless, koonschi has been concentrating on making multiplayer more reliable and easier to use and manage. And now we can initiate multiplayer through Steam. Multiplayer use seems to be growing and I predict that it will grow even faster. Multiplayer has to be one of the big features that attracts new players.

[Guswut]

You should be able to have a roughly-optimal general design which, for the reasons you described, ends up being a cube for purely engineering reasons. If a person wants to min-max a design without any consideration for the appearance, is that actually a problem?...

 

Do you honestly envision Earth's space agencies launching spacecraft that closely resemble Borg cubes? Granted, space does not have the restrictions we have on a planet like air friction or gravity.

 

The relationship between practice designs in Avorion are not the exact same as the ones in the offline world, which makes "Borg" cubes a suboptimal design choice. Avorion is not even a somewhat accurate model of the offline world's requirements in that regard, but given that how many spaceships can you name that we've ever launched that were designed to be aesthetically pleasing instead of designed to be functional with aesthetics being a secondary (if even that) concern?

 

You have to remember that space is expensive (even more so given the gravity well that we're dealing with) so making something that isn't designed to be as efficient as possible is not something you can do. Although there could be an argument made that, because until recently all space agencies were publicly funded, they had to make them at least partially appeal to the general mass's desire. That, though, is just another factor that Avorion doesn't model, shouldn't model, and honestly cannot model given the complexity of the problem.

 

But, IRL, there's more to the practicality of spacecraft designs than surface area. Even if it was, we should be seeing spheres as that has far less surface area.

 

To note, Avorion has no way (that I've found at least) to make spheres, so I'm not entirely sure how that relates to the discussion. Personally, I'd love to have a spherical ship, and I'd certainly design it in the same way I design my cubic ships. Giant flying balls of layers of balls, constantly adding new layers for new functionality, etc. That'd be glorious!

 

I think appearance is a potential problem because it has the potential to turn away a lot of potential players. That is, not just existing players like Xira who quote, "left Starmade because of the 'cube meta'", but also discourage or repulse potential customers who would otherwise buy Avorion. Less customers means less profits, which means less incentive to continue development or, later, release some DLC like landable planets. Less players might even mean the death knoll of the multiplayer community, if too few players are interested in the game.

 

I must be grossly misunderstanding the severity of this issue, but I honestly don't see how "cubes are a great design" interferes with your ability to create aesthetically pleasing designs. How, exactly, is it going to "turn away" potential players? Simply put, it is unlikely that any of the popular media sources that'll give people their first-impression about Avorion are going to have only, or even a majority, or cubic ships. Youtubers are going to make ships that look awesome because that is what the majority of their fans will want, the Steam page is certainly going to have awesome looking ships, and it is unlikely anyone on these forums will start a weekly thread for "most cubic design" or whatnot.

 

Please, if there is something obvious that I'm missing, enlighten me! Show me why it is better to force people to have to follow completely arbitrary design constrains that better fit what you (and likely the majority of players) feel are aesthetically pleasing versus leaving that level of creativity up to the player as they see fit.

 

Also, while you may not agree with me, it's a symptom of flawed game design. Forcing everyone to use the same basic shape (and you can't get much more basic than a cube) strongly suggests that the devs were unable to balance things better. It also kills creativity fast, which is one of the main draws of a game having a sandbox feature.

 

No one is forcing you to assimilate with the Borg. You have the choice to use a design that is less-than optimal, and in doing so you'll have to deal with the issues that entails. If you want to take away a person's choice in that matter, you are taking away the very element of the sandbox genre that you stated that you wanted (creativity)! Given that the types of shapes we have in Avorion is already limited to cubes, and a few different types of corner/edge/slope blocks, the diversity that I've seen in ships from Youtubers and on the forum is excellent.

 

And that aside, I don't rightly think there is a possible way to make a forced-creativity-ship-design focused game that wouldn't have the same problem. How do you design it so that cubic ships are bad but ALL other ship designs are good? No matter what, a system needs rules, and those rules are going to have an optimal state. The more complex the system becomes, with more rules and more complicated rules, the more fuzzy that optimal state becomes, but there is still going to be good designs and bad designs.

 

...Especially given that the majority of players are playing in single player environments, where the look of their ship matters only to themselves.

 

I'd like to see some statistics about the Avorion playerbase before anyone jumps to conclusions about whether more players are in a single-player vs. multiplayer environment.

 

I didn't think we needed statistics to support that, but I'd love to see those statistics as well. An hour-by-hour breakdown of how many people are playing in single player, multiplayer but with only one person on the server, and multiplayer but with more than one person on the server.

 

I simply cannot imagine a situation where Avorion has even a tenth of the hours of people playing multiplayer in a server that is actually used for multiplayer (as opposed to someone using the multiplayer option but always playing by themselves, such as I used to do back when I played Diablo 2). But I don't have anyway to back up that statement, so I guess there is nothing more on this end.

 

Regardless, koonschi has been concentrating on making multiplayer more reliable and easier to use and manage. And now we can initiate multiplayer through Steam. Multiplayer use seems to be growing and I predict that it will grow even faster. Multiplayer has to be one of the big features that attracts new players.

 

And while multiplayer is a massively attractive element to games like this (I certainly consider it one of the key elements to why I've bought the game, as someday I'll play with a friend when we get around to playing it together), I still completely doubt that there will ever be even a tenth of the multiplayer hours-of-play that there are single-player-hours-of-play. But, as I said about, there is no way that either of us can prove this, so there is nothing else to state here.

[SageThe13th]

I'm too tried for a serious answer.  But, I wanted to say that I've read what you are saying and this the kind of discussion I wanted to generate.

 

Also, here's a video of Robbaz launching a giant cube into space in KSP.

[Guswut]

[...]

Also, here's a video of Robbaz launching a giant cube into space in KSP.[...]

 

Hot damn, that is a BIG CUBE! I don't think it'd be possible to launch something like that in the stock game, especially not into a low Kerbal orbit given the engines used were likely something using an unbalanced (for the stock game) efficiency level.

 

And with a bit more digging, it looks like they're from the B9 mod pack which is overflowing with interesting (and not in my cube-loving way, specifically, but in general it's considered a beautiful part pack) parts. Specifically, it's a hard of the HX series, which are as close as you'll get to a "cube" part pack in KSP (Kerbal Space Program (http://store.steampowered.com/app/220200/ is the Steam page for anyone that hasn't heard of it before)).

 

Taking a look at KerbalX (a website designed to allow people to share craft files) with a search looking for ships that specifically state they require the B9 HX part pack (https://kerbalx.com/mods/b9aerospacehx), we get a listing of rather awesome looking ships and nothing that looks too offensive to an anti-cubist (although I could be mistaken/not be harsh enough on some of the designs).

 

Kerbal Space Program is a good game to show the "other side" of the "engineering game" coin. In KSP, because you're dealing with mildly realistic (especially if you play with mods that make things more realistic) variables, you are forced to make ships that are as efficient as you can get them. Inefficiency can mean that making a small mistake can force you to scrub a launch, or be stranded on the Mün (which is likely how the very first Münar landing went for most of us). But even given those requirements, people still find ways to be creative with their designs (even disregarding people playing in sandbox mode, and especially people that use infinite resource cheats/etc).

 

There does not need to be a hard line between creativity games and engineering games, as a great game can span both genres (as I'd say Avorion is doing, or is in the process of doing).

[DivineEvil]

I do not see any "cube meta" in action.

I also do not see how cubes are that much superior. Nothing in the mechanics suggest that to me.

Avorion is the first game of this genre, that actually doesn't seem to has much problem with doomcubes.

Starmade has that problem and for several specific reasons.

If you're lazy, sure, build all the cubes you like. I don't think it will be anyhow better, than a sleek broadsword design with low forward profile.

[Ranakastrasz]

Hmm.

The main issue is that the simulation encourages Cube-shaped ships. Surface area is not important, because no blocks care about being on the surface, not even solar panels or thrusters. Volume cost never changes given blocks, but reducing, not surface area for armor, profile, and increasing interconnectivity to reduce damage taken, all point towards cubes.

 

In real life, cubes alone aren't common We don't drive around cube-shaped cars. They could be seen as loosely cube shaped, but are streamlined because of air resistance. Blocky shapes reduce your speed and increase cost of operation. They have Wheels on the bottom for movement(Can't put them in the middle or on top).They have Windows and Doors. (Door on top might be good for emergencies on buses, and tanks certainly use them, but generally doors on the sides work best). They are bottom heavy, so they don't flip, so you also end up with a bit of a larger shape on the bottom, along with a lot of the components.

 

As a result, these pressures tend to make cars that are car shaped. Admittedly, once someone tries to make a real car with dimples like the Mythbusters tried, their appearance might change significantly. After all, that would be performance over appearance, and obviously some people would want that.

 

Airplanes need wings in specific locations to get lift, and of a certain shape (or set of shapes) for lift. Engines need to be balanced and be spread out to adjust or handle damage. It has ports and windows, and engines and fuel tanks. Ports/doors and windows are surface area based. Fuel tanks are internal, and volume based. Engines are both surface area and volume based, being large but also outside the plane, using up surface area under the wings.

 

What we need is pressures to encourage non-cube designs. Waste heat is probably the simpliest method, where performance suffers if you don't have enough surface area. (Vents on the surface with lots of volume beneath for larger ships as well) Or just force thrusters and engines to be on the surface, along with some other things. Maybe shield generators? Ha, so if your generator can't see the shield bubble, it won't contribute. Gotta build the shield on the surface, and make sure you don't just have one giant generator, but several, spread around the surface area of your ship.

 

 

 

 

Overall, I don't really know how effective this is, but I do know that if you get better performance out of a cube, then people are going to build cubes a lot of the time.