Jump to content
Thundercraft

Ship class? Frigate / Corvette / Battleship?

Recommended Posts

Looking in the Creations area, I see that several players have started to use terms like "frigate", "cruiser" and "battleship" to describe the size and/or role of the ships they've designed.

 

And this got me thinking: What sort of tonnage or volume constitutes a specific classification like that in a game like Avorion, where we can build ships kilometers across or even to

?

 

I'm not sure that traditional naval ship classifications are appropriate, especially since such classifications are for combat naval ships and often speak as much or more about the role as it does size. But here are some traditional classifications I've been thinking of (in increasing size):

shuttle
gunboat
frigate
destroyer
light cruiser
cruiser
battlecruiser
battleship
dreadnought
mobile fortress
mega-fortress
sd-fortress (super-dimensional fortress)

 

Alternatively, perhaps it would be better to use an arbitrary classification system? Perhaps something like:

Class I
Class II
Class III
Class IV
[snip]...

 

Or, if that's too boring, maybe an arbitrary scale system should convey a sense of size? Perhaps:

Comet
Asteroid
Satellite
Planet
Stellar
Nova
Supernova
Singularity
Constellation
Quasar
Galaxy
Supergalaxy (Yes, that is a thing. Look it up.)

 

Once we've settled on the type of scale, there's the matter of assigning meaningful numbers to them. And should such scales be measured by tonnage or volume? I'm thinking volume, because tonnage can vary greatly depending on the materials and block types, etc. I'm also thinking the scale should be logarithmic instead of linear, so it could meaningfully cover ships even if they are kilometers across. Though, I don't think a scale should go into ridiculous sizes until the last few entries near the end.

 

Thoughts? Suggestions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the game achievements reference "Battleship" so to some extent i think we would have to stay traditional. I don't know what the size category for battleship class is though.

 

Perhaps someone that has unlocked the achievement can shed some light to give us a starting point for the class scale?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...Perhaps someone that has unlocked the achievement can shed some light to give us a starting point for the class scale?

 

Thanks. That is a good point.

 

Another thought: Perhaps the volume at which a ship is too big to fit through a jumpgate should be the basis for another part of the scale? If the game's definition of "Battleship" can fit through a jumpgate (and say 'if' because I don't know), then would "Dreadnought" on my scale be the size at which a ship is barely too big?

 

Or does the jumpgate restriction have more to do with cross-section diameter than it does volume?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im sure it all has to do with volume. Ive heard people saying that their ship doesnt fit through a gate even though it could physically "fit". I'm not sure what it is that decideds the NPC class ships but i have seen a few besides frigate. Nothing as big as battleship or dreadnaught but probably we could find out what they use to categorize NPC ships and transition it to player ships?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going by my Japanese WW2 classification knowledge, it should be like this instead:

(Listed by weight/size from lightest/smallest to the biggest and " | " means it had roughly the same size)

 

Shuttle | Transport
Patrol boat | Gunboat
Frigate
Submarine
Destroyer
Auxilaries | Armed Merchant
Light Cruiser | Aviation Submarine
Heavy Cruiser  | Aviation Cruiser
Battlecruiser | Fast  Battleship | Light/Escort Carrier
Battleship | Aviation Battleship | Fleet Carrier 
[s]Dreadnought[/s]* <--this is a term that non military-minded people get wrong about, more below.
Super-Battleship | Super-Carrier
-----------------------------------------(then fictional)
Mobile Fortress
Mega-Fortress
SD-Fortress (Super-Dimensional Fortress)

 

Yes, i put capitals on em all because a classification/term without them bothers me alot.

 

*Dreadnought is NOT, a class of "Super-Battleship" it is a term for all-centerline turret battleship, in short, all battleships before the HMS Dreadnought has dozens of guns of varying sizes mounted on casemates all around it.

the HMS Dreadnought and the ships after that had big guns turrets mounted on the center of the turrets while smaller secondarries on the middle sides of the ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're going to have a tough time getting anyone to follow a standardized system methinks ^^

 

I prefer using traditional names, and the ones suggested by Arkhanglesk are pretty close to what I would use.

 

There is an ingame mechanic that sorts ships based off of size, in a way. The system/module slots. Maybe it would be interesting to classify ships based on how many slots they have, before computers are put into the calculation? Though, because of the exponential growth, it wouldn't be a very fined tuned system. Still, might be interesting.

 

Another way it could be done is based on their omnicron. I'm pretty sure that's how the game does it internally.

 

Altho, basing it off of their intended role and size, may ultimately be the best way to do it. And seems to be what most people in the creations area does, with a heavy leaning towards intended role of course ^^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Going by my Japanese WW2 classification knowledge, it should be like this instead:

 

That probably is more historically accurate. I will admit that "Destroyer" should be considered a bigger class than "Frigate". It was hard to judge from the WII data I was looking at. I'll also admit that "Carrier" is mostly about role and doesn't really say much about size. As such, it should probably be limited to describing a ship's role.

 

But we're talking about terms to describe space-faring vessels in a sandbox space sim. We don't have to be historically accurate.

 

Dreadnought* <--this is a term that non military-minded people get wrong about, more below.

Super-Battleship | Super-Carrier

 

I don't doubt that "Dreadnought" is often misused and misunderstood. However, it is already in common use in fiction to describe absolutely enormous ships. I think it's only fair to continue this mis-use, especially considering how epic it sounds. "Super-Battleship" just does not have the same ring to it.

 

You're going to have a tough time getting anyone to follow a standardized system methinks ^^

 

Unfortunately, you're probably right. But I'd still like to see some of us agree on a scale and hope it somewhat catches on. After that, perhaps someone would create a mod to incorporate it.

 

I prefer using traditional names, and the ones suggested by Arkhanglesk are pretty close to what I would use.

 

But there are problems with using the traditional naval classification:

  • It's already in common use by Avorion players. But players have their own ideas about how they should be used and what size they are supposed to designate (assuming they even believe it should denote size).
  • Even if some of us could agree one what the scale should mean in terms of size, such distinctions are meaningless because we can't know whether or not a given player is sticking to the agreed on size chart.
  • Being traditional and a carryover from historical navies, the terms come with certain connotations and implied meanings - particularly about ship role and armament. This makes it difficult for us to come to an agreement, as this thread has already shown.

 

As such, I propose that a new scale be formed from invented terms. Because:

  • An invented scale does not have to stick to tradition. The terms can mean whatever we want them to mean.
  • It can use terms not currently used by anyone. As such, when it starts to see use, it is clear to everyone that they are using this agreed-upon size scale.
  • Without much in the way of connotations or preconceived notions, it should be much easier for us to assign numbers to the terms.
  • Using invented terms to describe size allows us to continue using traditional Transport / Battleship / Carrier labels to describe a ship's role.

 

There is an ingame mechanic that sorts ships based off of size, in a way. The system/module slots. Maybe it would be interesting to classify ships based on how many slots they have, before computers are put into the calculation? Though, because of the exponential growth, it wouldn't be a very fined tuned system. Still, might be interesting.

 

Another way it could be done is based on their omnicron. I'm pretty sure that's how the game does it internally.

 

An omnicron-based scale could be useful to easily convey a ship's destructive potential. I can imagine using it. However, it does nothing to describe noncombat ships like freighters or miners. And because it relies heavily on the number, type and quantity of turrets and systems, it does not truly describe a ship's size.

 

However, classifying ships based on available module slots is pretty clever. I remember reading that Reddit on Block size and scaling with that beautiful chart. Having a scale increase exponentially is not necessarily a bad thing. The only problem I see is that it scales up a bit too fast.

 

For right now, let's say that a decent invented scale would be "Class {x}", were {x} represents the number of module slots:

1 =  Class  I = 0 m3

2 =  Class II = 51,000 m3

3 =  Class III = 128,000 m3

4 =  Class IV = 0.32 million m3

5 =  Class  V = 0.8 million m3

6 =  Class VI = 2 million m3

7 =  Class VII = 5 million m3

8 = Class VIII = 12.5 million m3

9 =  Class IX = 19.764 million m3

10 =  Class  X = 31.25 million m3

11 =  Class XI = 43.065 million m3

...

 

Most player ships that I've seen would fall between Class 1 and Class 5. I have seem some extremely large ships reach Class 10 or so, though. But there's a huge difference between a 5,000 cubic meter ship and a 50,000 cubic meter ship, though both would be Class 1.

 

...would be nice to come up with a nice system that sounds cool while at the same time being somewhat accurate.

 

How about my scale of "comet" through "supergalaxy"? I could tweak it so it would have 15 categories to represent up to 15 module slots:

1 = Comet
2 = Satellite
3 = Planet
4 = Stellar
5 = Nova
6 = Supernova
7 = Nebula
8 = Constellation
9 = Singularity
10 = Quasar
11 = Galaxy
12 = Supergalaxy
13 = Cosmic
14 = Hyperdimensional
15 = Multiverse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

How about my scale of "comet" through "supergalaxy"? I could tweak it so it would have 15 categories to represent up to 15 module slots:

 

 

Naw I am sorry to tell you but that sounds lame and kinda sucks.

 

I really like the scout-fighter-fright on up type thing

 

more like

 

1 = Scout
2 = Light Fighter
3 = Medium Fighter 
4 = Heavy fighter
5 = Frigate
6 = Freighter (yes I have seen big big cargo haulers in game :)
7 = Destroyer
8 = Light Cruiser 
9 = Heavy Cruiser
10 = Battlecruiser
11 = Battleship (first capital class)
12 = Dreadnought 
13 = Super Dreadnought
14 = Star Destroyer
15 = Super Star Destroyer
20 = Death star :P

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Naw I am sorry to tell you but that sounds lame and kinda sucks.

 

Really? But Nova, Nebula, Constellation and Galaxy are actual ship classes used in the Star Trek franchise.

 

...
14 = Star Destroyer
15 = Super Star Destroyer
20 = Death star :P

 

Not that this doesn't make a certain amount of sense, but that's blatantly Star Wars. Wait... Are you saying that Star Wars is bigger? Is this a Star Wars vs. Star Trek thing?  :o ::) ;D

 

On a more serious note, I noticed that Dashychan mentioned here in the "Can't use Jumpgates" thread that upgrading his ship to 10 slots prevented him from using Jumpgates. And dookiejones mentions here in the "Jump gate ship size limit" topic that his ship of 35.66 million m3 is unable to use them. That's not exact, especially if the game goes by length or something else. But it maybe be enough for a rough ballpark to keep in mind that 9 is probably the limit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, nice post Thundercraft, you're actually putting a lot of thought into this. Maybe I need to step up my game ;)

 

First I should clarify that I withhold any promises of actually using any system put forth. I realize the usefulness of a universal class system. But I have a small non-conformist streak lol

 

 

Anyway, I see you point, of not being able to distinguish someone using the naming system or not. That's actually a really valid point I hadn't thought of. So I'll take it into consideration for my next batch of suggestions.

 

I could be wrong, but I think the most important parts of a naming system, are that it conveys intent, scale and sounds cool. Knowing if a ship is 20000cm3 is great, but it doesn't help if you don't know if it's a warship or a civilian ship. The opposite is also true. (your point about omnicron made me think about this)

 

I also personally think it should sound cool, otherwise no one is going to want to use it for their own ships.

 

So what this gets me thinking of is a little bit different from a hull classification. More like, a compound tag you can give your ships. It would combine the intent and size of the ship.

 

For example, using Navy Hull Classifications (http://www.militaryfactory.com/ships/us-navy-ship-classifications.asp) and the slot scale you could get a ship name like.

 

{12AK} [HMS] Majesty

 

And know from a  glance that it's a supermassive cargo ship, owned by the HMS corp, called Majesty.

 

You could use different variations. Maybe instead of using navy designtions, you could make up your own simpler system. Maybe just distinguish between civilian and military ships. Idk, I'm just throwing out ideas.

 

But then designers could give a ship whatever class name they wanted. It could be an excalibur class, or dreadnaught class, or sphagetti class. But then they could also give it a designation, like 5DD, and you would know it's some sort of armed escort ship, with 5 slots.

 

Also, to make sizes a bit more distinguishable, you could divide each slot rating up. Though that might get a bit complex.

 

Sorry if this post is a bit illegible, it's getting late here lol.

 

 

 

Idk, The idea is coming from every ship getting to have a unique designation number, and then it's own name. Like, if you had a a small fleet with 3 cargo ships. You might designate them as HMS05AK01 HMS05AK02 HMS06AK03, breaking down into (HMS) <- your corp tag (05) <- Ship Size (AK) <- ship type/purpose (01-02-03) Ship's ID number. The ID number would probably be unique to that class of ship, but not to the entire fleet. For example you might have a DD01 and a AK01. SInce they're different kinds of ships, their ID's don't collide.

 

But that's starting to get off topic. Sorry. If this is too confusing, I'll make a better post later. I'm a stream of conscious kind of person, and think as I'm writing, so it tends to end up a jumbled mess.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Really? But Nova, Nebula, Constellation and Galaxy are actual ship classes used in the Star Trek franchise.

 

 

 

Not that this doesn't make a certain amount of sense, but that's blatantly Star Wars. Wait... Are you saying that Star Wars is bigger? Is this a Star Wars vs. Star Trek thing?  :o ::) ;D

 

 

LOL No actually I like both however I do slightly like Star Wars a tad bit more.

However I think both are very interesting takes on space.

 

And as for the constellation names it just doesn't sound that awesome when you say I'm flying and nebula.

 

But when you say I'm the captain of a battle cruiser or lookout Dreadnought at 3 o'clock. Or the freighter's docking with the station.

It not only sounds better it also stirs something inside you, gives you a visual representation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen these kind of topics get brought up in other games.  And at the end of the day, people always just seem to use their own system of classification.

 

Naval classes define both ship size and ship role because ships various sizes are better at certain things.  Look at cruisers for example.  They can be about the same size as a battleship in terms of space but their lighter armor is going to make them faster and smaller on the the scale because naval classes are measured in tonnage.  Being so large they can carry a ton of supplies and have room for very large powerful engines.  This makes them fast and well suited for long range missions, much more so than smaller ships.  So in the Navy your fastest long range "scout" ships are actually really big unlike in most sci-fi where scout ships tend to be small.

 

So, if you want to make a universal class chart for Avorion you need to consider what each ship can do at a certain size.  The two things I see that most define a ship in Avorion, are it's volume and it's material tier.  I like the idea that the various size classes are based off of the number of system slots since this is based on volume and has a large effect on what a ship is capable of.  Of course you also need to account for cargo space and the ship's hangars as well.

 

So there are four things a useful size class system needs to describe are.

1. Volume/number of system slots

2. Material composition

3. Cargo space

4. Hangar space

 

Pretty complicated I guess but every other aspect of a ship is highly variable as system cards and turrets can be used to turn a poorly shielded mining vessel into a hardened warship even if no blocks are changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen these kind of topics get brought up in other games.  And at the end of the day, people always just seem to use their own system of classification.

 

Naval classes define both ship size and ship role because ships various sizes are better at certain things.  Look at cruisers for example.  They can be about the same size as a battleship in terms of space but their lighter armor is going to make them faster and smaller on the the scale because naval classes are measured in tonnage.  Being so large they can carry a ton of supplies and have room for very large powerful engines.  This makes them fast and well suited for long range missions, much more so than smaller ships.  So in the Navy your fastest long range "scout" ships are actually really big unlike in most sci-fi where scout ships tend to be small.

 

So, if you want to make a universal class chart for Avorion you need to consider what each ship can do at a certain size.  The two things I see that most define a ship in Avorion, are it's volume and it's material tier.  I like the idea that the various size classes are based off of the number of system slots since this is based on volume and has a large effect on what a ship is capable of.  Of course you also need to account for cargo space and the ship's hangars as well.

 

So there are four things a useful size class system needs to describe are.

1. Volume/number of system slots

2. Material composition

3. Cargo space

4. Hangar space

 

Pretty complicated I guess but every other aspect of a ship is highly variable as system cards and turrets can be used to turn a poorly shielded mining vessel into a hardened warship even if no blocks are changed.

 

 

I like the idea of including material. It could be good to know what era it's in. The idea of using mass is really interesting too. It could give you an idea of how much armour a ship has, it would be a little complex to add though.

 

I'm not sure how much cargo space, or hangar space would affect things though. If you knew a ship was a carrier or a hauler, and you knew it's size, you could get a rough estimate I would think. It's up to debate though.

 

I think personally I like the idea of Size, Intent and Material.

 

Though, I spose you do make a point when you say any ship can be turned into a warship, if need be, but it's not going to be a very good one. It would be lacking in shields and power, and probably speed. That's three slots right there that can't go into more turrets, just to make sure you're not creamed corn. So I still think the intended purpose of the ship is important, or at the very least, wether it's meant to be civilian or military

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got long used to a pretty old, but reliable classification system, that has been in practice for space games for more than a decade, which goes as such:

1. Fighter/Bomber (small craft)
2. Corvette
3. Frigate
4. Destroyer
5. Cruiser
6. Battleship
7. Dreadnought
8. Titan

Here, each subsequent class is best suited to combat ships a class lower, while also becoming more and more susceptible to the precise attacks by Small Craft. Ships below the Fighter/Bomber class are "space coffins" (which is current status of Fighters in Avorion, unfortunately), and ships above Titan class are not technically ships anymore, but Battle Stations.

 

This system is usually based on raw total weight since its the only parameter, that is independent of ship's intended type or role. However, since Avorion uses several materials, that vary heavily in density and can change the class of a given ship based on materials used, physical volume is a more reliable foundation. Bandwidths for each class can be derived from a global "reasonable size" range, but otherwise are arbitrary and has to be established either by the developers or by popular vote. Each subsequent class should be roughly 5 times larger than the previous one and has about the same difference in crew requirements.

 

Within a given class, Light/Heavy prefixes can be assigned, which designate that the given ship is in lower/higher third of a bandwidth (ex: if we assume, that the Destroyer class lies in 6mil-12mil M3 range by volume, then a ship below 8 mil M3 is a Light Destroyer, while a ship over 10 mil M3 is a Heavy Destroyer). Postfixes can be assigned depending on ship's combat role, i.e. Battleship-class Carrier or Frigate-class Support.

 

This is all that is needed to produce a reliable classification. There are of course popular outliers, that do not actually represent a class:

Battlecruiser - a subclass of a Battleship with reduced armor protection for higher mobility.

Carrier - any ship, that is intended mainly to carry other ships on board. A type, not a class.

Freighter - any ship, that is intended to carry supplies or goods, rather than fight. A type, not a class.

Shuttle - any ship, usually small one, that is intended to carry civilians or crew between ships or stations. A type, not a class.

Gunship - relatively small ship, that has reduced protection exchanged for excessive firepower in order to provide fire support. Type, not a class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps the simplest system would be this.

 

First, choose you ships role.  This would be one of four things:

Starship, general purpose.

Warship, focused on armor and shields or engine/thruster power and shields.

Freighter, focused on cargo space.

Carrier, still a warship, but a large enough hanger overrides it into the carrier role.

 

There may be some other roles you can build for, but I'm having trouble thinking of them right now.  Like, I kind of wanted to split warship into slow/armored warships and fast/light armed warships, but at the end of the day those are both still just survival strategies that somewhat accomplish the same thing through different means.

 

Next, assign a material designation for the ship's type.

Ir for Iron, Ti for Titanium, Na for Naonite, Tr for Trinium, Xa for Xanion, Og for Ogonite, and Av for Avorion.

 

Then, assign a number equal to the number of system slots and add it to the ship's type.

 

Last, pick a class name.  What we've actually been discussing in this topic are ship types/roles.  A ship's class is actually specific to a particular build.

 

Now, put all that together in this order, ship class, ship type (material code)-(system number), ship role.

 

So if I had an Avorion tier warship that had 12 slots and I wanted to call it the Warspite class it would be a Warspite class Type Av-12 Warship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer adpting to the univers we are in. And in avorion so far i have seen Corvettes, Frigates, Destroyers, Cruisers and Dreadnoughts.

 

I don't feel that you need more to define more category as you can mix them already with their role.

I mean, ou can have an "anti-fighter frigate" or a "carrier frigate" or even a "multi-role frigate", really don't see what's the issue and what is boring you.

 

And once again, the game already handle this, simply loo, at the NPC's ships they have this kind of classification for the size, the role is up to you. The real only issue is what the game define to be a cruiser. (i think it's more related to number of upgrade slots than directly size or mass)

 

Edit: I'll add that you can't do fighters in this game, as every ship need at least 4 men in a crew, and if you want to have at least 2 guns (The minimum to me) you need at least 6 crew men, that would be definatly the corvette size ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty new here so don't mind me too much, just my lil' two cents.

 

I believe whatever universal class naming system is decided upon, it has little to no chance of being used by majority of players, unless implemented directly by game devs.

 

That being said, it's not impossible to make it popular. Wherever and whenever a ship is shared, just mention you are using the universal ship classification from the forum. Eventually, it will get noticed and most people might start using it too.

 

Regarding the actual classification to use, i agree with DivineEvil three posts above, better to stick with a classification already known and used in SciFi. Anything with original names will not be used. Same if there is too much classes. Simpler is better. 

 

I'd go with the Material prefix + Heavy or light (if applicable) + classic SciFi class + Ship Type (if applicable (IE: carrier, freighter, ect)) + Ship Name or something like that.

 

(though i really like the use of the modules slot level as a basis for classes, sooo, actually on the fence)

 

Whatever it is decided though, i don't mind much, the game is still fun :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty new here so don't mind me too much, just my lil' two cents.

 

I wouldn't worry about it, I would say 90% of the forum atm has less than 50 posts ;) Seeing as it's steam release was so recent.

 

I believe whatever universal class naming system is decided upon, it has little to no chance of being used by majority of players, unless implemented directly by game devs.

 

I have to agree with you there. I'd go as far as to say, that probably nothing will be agree'd on here. But that's alright, people are bringing up good points and ideas. So even if a new class system isn't birthed out of it, it'll make existing ones better. People will start using the ideas in their own classification system, and then one of them might catch on with multiple people, and then we might eventually have a popular naming system ^^

 

Or, who knows, we might eventually have a consensus in this thread? Stranger things have happened!

 

 

I'd go with the Material prefix + Heavy or light (if applicable) + classic SciFi class + Ship Type (if applicable (IE: carrier, freighter, ect)) + Ship Name or something like that.

 

 

 

Hmmm, its not a bad system, But it doesn't tell us much about the scale of the ship. After all, one man's 6 slot is a destroyer, while another man's six slot is a battleship. I think that was the original reason why this thread was made, was because people's ship scales are all over the place.

 

Though, it's not as if scale HAS to be involved, but I really think it should be. Though you basically said as much in the next line ;)

 

 

(though i really like the use of the modules slot level as a basis for classes, sooo, actually on the fence)

 

I think one question we should answer, is if intent of the ship really matters. It's easy enough to give a ship a number or a name based on it's slot size, but a designation for the intent of the ship is a little more nebulus.

 

Seeing as how ships can also easily be converted between any of the three civilian jobs (Mining, asalvaging, and a bit harder, hauling). And a military ship is likely going to be able to handle any job reasonable to it's size class, It might be smart to just leave out the actual ship type, and tell us what it's made out of, what size it is, and whether it's civilian or military. That lacks a little flavor though.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm, its not a bad system, But it doesn't tell us much about the scale of the ship. After all, one man's 6 slot is a destroyer, while another man's six slot is a battleship. I think that was the original reason why this thread was made, was because people's ship scales are all over the place.

 

I don't know what is confusing you here. If you look at RL, for tanks or ships it's already the case. You have medium french tanks bigger than german heavy, heavy that are faster than meds, and russian VCB with missiles and heavy canons. For Ships it's pretty much the same, with US cruiser the size of French or Japaneese Battleships.

 

This classification was more for roles and mass than for size. You can have pretty compacts designs while on the other hand you have bigger with many redundancy but in the end sharing the exact same role. I'll add, look at the carriers World Wide on the sea. Compare the Russian, the many US, Brasil and French, the size vary a lot (US:333m - France:261m, it's 22% difference.).

 

The easiest way is simply to give the size when you share your ship, cause even with a classification, you will never know what is it's heights, width and long with a single word. And this is pretty important here cause you can make bricks, long sticks or even flat alien space ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

-edit- I reread part of your post.

 

The easiest way is simply to give the size when you share your ship, cause even with a classification, you will never know what is it's heights, width and long with a single word. And this is pretty important here cause you can make bricks, long sticks or even flat alien space ship.

 

I see what you're saying now. 'You'll never know a ships length width and height in a single word'

 

except you can, more or less. You can know it's volume. Which is a lot more relevant than weather it's a stick or a cube. saying that it's a 3 slot lets you know it' between 128k cm3 and 320k cm3. So 'class 3' or whatever you want to call it provides a lot of useful information about a ship. Namely, it's non-relative size, compared to yours. You can slap on some sort of suffix if you like 'class 3 escort' and it can tell you plenty about it. Then you can even add on it's material type, and you get a really good picture of what sort of ship it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I now personally really like the numerical system that Thunderrcraft suggested, and have been using it to claasify ships im building.

 

For instance right now im flying in a Class 7 Battleship.

 

Someone else might have the same size in volume for their cargo ship (it would be a hell of a cargo ship) and call it a Class 7 Freighter or something. I think its a good scale that keeps the other terms to be used for a more role-specific title.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmmm, its not a bad system, But it doesn't tell us much about the scale of the ship. After all, one man's 6 slot is a destroyer, while another man's six slot is a battleship. I think that was the original reason why this thread was made, was because people's ship scales are all over the place.

 

Though, it's not as if scale HAS to be involved, but I really think it should be. Though you basically said as much in the next line

No, its actually a exhaustive description of any given ship.

 

An example definition of ship would be a Heavy Cruiser-class Carrier "Diadem". Cruiser-class defines the functional volume, Heavy defines the position within a given volume bandwidth, Carrier defines the main focus of ship's structure, and Diadem defines a specific model.

 

A pure technical designation can also be devised, such as SNT_CR-H378/C "Diadem", where SNT is a tag of a developer Faction/Company, CR is a shortcut for Cruiser, H is a shortcut for Heavy, 378 is division of volume(m3) by mass(T) minus decimals, /C is a Carrier type definition.

 

Without much thought, the volume class can be something like this:

Small Craft | 500 - 1000 m^3 (av. 750)
Corvette    | 1001 - 5000 m^3 (av. 3000)
Frigate     | 5001 - 25000 m^3 (av. 15000)
Destroyer   | 25001 - 125000 m^3 (av. 75000)
Cruiser     | 125001 - 625000 m^3 (av. 375000)                      
Battleship  | 625001 - 3125000 m^3 (av. 1875000)
Dreadnought | 3125001 - 15625000 m^3 (av. 9375000)
Titan       | 15625001 - 78125000 m^3 (av. 46875000)

 

Then it depends on how many players are O.K. with such values.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this debate really all hangs on the answer to the question:

 

What triggers the "Battleship Captain" achievement. Once we know what exactly a battleship is maybe we can work out from there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...