SageThe13th

Looking back at it, my previous argument was misguided. Avorion will clearly have updates in the future that will flesh out fleet control and player factions making empire building much more achievable. In fact, I'm looking forward to it. That other games don't have a particular mechanic is not a proper argument for the removal of that mechanic in Avorion.

Last I checked this was about acquiring Avorion. You can't even claim sectors what makes you think this a game about building a space empire?

I always blow up stashs after looting them. Helps to avoid confusion.

The design itself is a little too boxy. I'm really digging those gifs though.

Your Planet Killer rocks! The Doomsday Machine is my favorite Star Trek: TOS episode. So it's really cool to see the Planet Killer in Avorion.

The Mammoth has a very pleasing design.

I've seen a few threads talking about how powerful crafted turrets are. If it's hard to gather the items you need for them it seems more balanced to me. It shouldn't be easy to just buy that kind of firepower.

I agree with all of these. Most of these sound interesting. But I'm thinking some of it might be a little infeasible. Such as the ones that violate how the building grid works. On point 7 though I have a question. With the ability to scale blocks which also lets you stretch them into all kinds of different shapes. What additional triangle shapes are you wanting? Because, I'm pretty sure you can make just about anything you can think of using the current system. Even sphere's are possible.

Here are two topics that take different approach to the issue suggesting player have the option to sort turrets and systems into different folders. http://www.avorion.net/forum/index.php/topic,1386.msg6578.html#msg6578 http://www.avorion.net/forum/index.php/topic,1546.msg7273.html#msg7273 I'd like to add to these ideas. My suggestion is not only the ability to sort turrets and system cards into folders, but also the ability to create new folders as well. This way I can have different turret load outs in different folders. Put all my mining turrets in one folder, put the armed turrets I'm planning on using in one folder, maybe even have a second folder for an alternate weapons configuration, have a sell folder, a research materials folder, put all my hyperdrive systems in one folder, and my combat systems in another, and on and on. You get the idea.

I myself have suggested the ability to favorite turrets in the past. In that topic some else also suggested that it would be nice to be able to tag turrets and systems as "trash" things you are definitely going to get rid of. Another way to approach the same issue which that has been suggested multiple times, is a system where turrets and system cards can be sorted into different folders. For example, unsorted, keep, sell, and research. Here's my topic: http://www.avorion.net/forum/index.php/topic,1067.msg4815.html#msg4815 Here's one from last year that thedamngod even posted in suggesting the ability to favorite: http://www.avorion.net/forum/index.php/topic,470.msg2712.html#msg2712 Here are a bunch of others: http://www.avorion.net/forum/index.php/topic,1386.msg6578.html#msg6578 http://www.avorion.net/forum/index.php/topic,1546.msg7273.html#msg7273

It's not about realism. It's about balance. If I pay 10 million to get a ship in the first place and then it costs me almost nothing to maintain it. Then the next time I have 10 million I just buy a second ship and soon I have a massive fleet of large ships. If then, say the ships only cost 8 million but are much more expensive to maintain then my only concern is not whether or not I have another 8 mil to blow on a new ship, but also what it's going to cost me to maintain that ship in addition to the one I already own. At a certain point owning to many large ships all at once puts me at risk of not being able to make money fast enough to keep the crews. Which, is the only thing keeping me stock piling massive ships. As for your "problem" just stock pile credits before doing things that aren't going to make you money. I've done this multiple times when I wanted to chart sectors and not get distracted by anything. It's pretty easy to get myself enough money to pay the crew for a solid 12 hours or more. And you know what? I actually ending up with more money than I started with because I was charting sectors and finding those large asteroids that you can claim and sell huge sums of credits. You have to be trying really hard to not be making any money at whatever the heck you are doing.

Okay, so what system you want to use is your choice. In fact, it was brought up no less than three times over the course of the previous conversation that no one system will ever be universally excepted. In fact, if a single system ever sees wide spread use it will some kind miracle. That being said, your reasons for disliking my system are objectively wrong. The material tiers are an important part of how Avorion works. I'd say that a ship's material composition is almost the first thing you'd want to know about a ship because it will have a drastic effect on almost everything the ship can do. And also pretty much tells you if can afford it. Material tiers in Avorion also all exist at the same time so it's important to know what a ship is made of because it can be made out of anything. In fact, the reason I suggested the addition of material type is because it's almost always the next thing a designer tells you about a ship after they tell you what ship type it is. Next your example is very poor. If anyone takes a Titanium ship and turns it into a Trinium one, changing absolutely nothing else they've done a half-assed job converting the ship. Different materials have different properties and different block types available. No one's going to go from Titanium to Trinium without adding in a shield generator. Let's get even more detailed. I start with Titanium Battleship, and change it into a Naonite one. It's now much heavier which changes to it's acceleration and maneuvering. It can now have a shield generator and there's no Naonite armor. So, I either have to keep the titanium armor or use Naonite hull instead which exposes certain weaknesses. But yeah, that sounds like the exact same ship to me. /sarcasm. Then going from Naonite to Trinium the ship becomes extremely light and I can have Trinium armor blocks. At this point the better acceleration and maneuvering, even better than that of the first ship, might make the design more qualified to be a Battlecrusier at this point. But hey, it's still exactly the same ship I guess. /sarcasm. Also my Trinium Battlecrusier will probably beat my Naonite Battleship which in turn can easily beat my Titanium Battleship. I think this exposes one of the key problems with defining a ship's role and not much else. Since between my Battlecrusier and two Battleships there is a massive difference in power. Yes, the slot number is there basically just to tell how big a ship is because literally anything else can be changed. Take a Battleship, yank out all the armed turrets and replace them with mining lasers and... Bam! It's a mining ship now! Also, slot numbers are easier to read, understand, and come in a much shorter format than volume numbers which go into the billions of cubic meters and exist on a gradient. Also, you don't have to be a math guy to understand what the slot numbers mean as long as you know a few basics about ship systems and how they unlock. Which, I'd think you'd learn if you were interested in playing the game well. The system number is something pulled directly from the game and doesn't require you to consult some kind of chart to tell you exactly what it means. First, this isn't even part of my system. A USCS code just this (Material)-(Systems). At the longest it's going to be five characters, as in Av-12. And if you work it into your ship class/role/type somehow no matter what the rest of it looks like then you are using the system. Second, a ship's class name is the very definition of it's class. And, it can make sense to use a naval class system because I'm never going to make like 50 frigates. I might make like 5. Besides, people are going to do this anyway because generic Sci-Fi fleets are based off of naval fleets and so use many of the same conventions.

Yes. This is the method I always supported. It made sense to use the surface area. It's just that this also caused game breaking problems. Using volume as a base and adding in the area of each face as bonus to that direction makes the most sense and gives us the best of both worlds.

It does seem like an oversight that you can improve every aspect of hyperspace jumping, except for being able to shorten the calculation times. The lore of the game even states that this is possible because Botan's jump drive takes almost no time to the calculate jump route as stated in dialog and observed in game. I know Botan has a super magical plot drive. But really, I pick a legendary hyperspace upgrade it doesn't actually let me jump any faster just farther.

This only seems fair. I would also like to add that while that mechanics regarding unloaded sectors will change in the future that it may be something that takes awhile. In the mean time, this solution seems like an easy enough quick fix to the problem.

I agree with all of these. Also, these are problems I run into constantly for the most part.

Brilliant!

This is one of things that balances out large ships though by representing the burden of their massive upkeep cost. Other games that don't have systems like this make it hilariously easy to own and maintain large ships and it's really unbalanced.

Alright. So I've been thing about it some more, and I've decided there's no need to describe a ship's hangar size. Much like with turrets, what fighters a ship is carrying will vary wildly. So, including the hangar number really doesn't tell you anything and makes the designation more complex than it has to be. I also think the system will be easier to use if people just use the ship types they are comfortable with. So here's my proposed final version of what I'm calling the Universal Ship Categorization System (U.S.C.S.). A U.S.C.S. designation is something you put in front of the ship's role/type you were planning on using. It consists of two parts. A material code and a system code. The material code is the highest tier material used in the ship's construction. Material codes: Ir (Iron), Ti (Titanium), Na (Naonite), Tr (Trinium), Xa (Xanion), Og (Ogonite), or Av (Avorion) So, a ship made mostly of Xanion, but with Ogonite armor plating would use code Og. The system code is the same as the number of system card slots with the exception of system code 16. Which, is applied to ships with a volume of 0.3 billion meters squared or above. 0.3 billion meters squared is double the volume required to get the ship's 15th system slot. So this tells you that code 16 ships are way bigger than they have to be to gain the maximum benefit increasing the ship's size. Also, code 16 doesn't have an upward limit. It's use may be something of a warning to investigate the ship's exact size before making assumptions about how big the ship actually is. Though, this somewhat applies to system codes 1 through 15 as well. Since they only describe a range of the ship's possible sizes and things like computer cores can result in ships that are smaller than normal. System code: 1-16 The ship's class is a name used to designate a particular build. The ship's role is anything you think describes what the ship is good at and is often times just something that sounds cool. Then you put everything in this order: (ship class name) class, code (material code)-(system code) (ships's role) So for example: Warspite class, code Av-12 Aether Dreadnaught Edit: I should probably clarify that the example I gave is just how I'd use the USCS. As long as you include the (mat code)-(slot code) it really doesn't matter what rest of it looks like. So some more examples could be: A class Xa-8 battlecrusier. A Type 5, code Tr-6 Battlecrusier. A D-4, category Av-9 attack ship. A Model-Dex, Type Tr-5 Star Ship. This could even help to sort out different replicas. Like say I had a Av-12 Star Destroyer and a Xa-11 Star Destroyer. Well, then it becomes pretty clear which Star Destroyer is going to be more powerful.

that is actually a remarkably robust yet concise system. i hope this gains traction as the system to be used. I'm working a revised version. Unfortunately, it's starting turn into a bit of number soup. Basically, I was thinking about carriers and how you really don't need dedicated carriers at all. If a ship is big enough a max sized hangar is very little investment. Also, fighters are basically just another weapon type that you add on top of your existing weapons. That is to say, a carrier can be as well armed as any battleship if you want it to be. And, it will probably be just as well armored and as heavily shielded as well. However, adding a hangar number code starts to make the destinations to long and busy. Been thinking about other ship types as well. These need to be things that are hard built into a ship's structure. Here's what I've come up with. Star Ship, general purpose and often built for cost. This is a type of ship that tries to do a little of everything. It can be built with cost in mind. With focus on doing as much as possible as cheaply as possible. Or it can break the bank and end being a true go anywhere do anything kind of ship. Warship, whether built for speed or built as a tank, these ships are designed to survive in combat stripping every other system down for increased armor, shields, engine power, and maneuverability. Cargo Ship, the name says it all. These ships are designed with cargo storage in mind. Transport Ship, this is a bit of an odd one, these ships are designed with a lot of extra room for people. I imagine many designers will also give these ships lots of cargo space as well. So, they can be decent at transporting everything. Exploration Ship, designed for long range jumps, this ship type would be focused having a massive hyperspace core. Changes to the game will of course eventually change what ship types you can build for. Like when boarding gets added, it may be worth while to define makes something a boarding craft or that kind of thing could just fall under Warship if it doesn't drastically change combat.

I knew I was going to confuse people when I looked back at this. I was to lazy to edit my original post. It's 10 meter for each side. So a 1x1x1 cube is 10m by 10m by 10m. A 100 unit long pole will reach the station because each unit is 10 meters long. I've actually done this in game.

I'm not even sure Salminar is even in this topic. They said in their first post that they don't see the need for any sort of classing system. So why are they here discussing one? It's like telling a Trekkie to stop discussing the tech specs of a star ship. Sure you might not care, but if Trekkie's enjoy talking about that stuff why bother telling them to stop?

They are different. There are glass blocks (shiny and see through), mirror blocks (shiny and refletive), glow blocks, and hologram blocks (glow and see through).

Then he should have posted in the Mod forum.

I don't really agree with this. For one it makes ship building more complicated having to keep track of some hull to other block ratio. And why? Just so that hull blocks are more useful? This wouldn't really even make them anymore more useful than they are now. Just required. Also, why care about that and not say glass blocks or mirror blocks not really being practical?