Author Topic: Ship class? Frigate / Corvette / Battleship?  (Read 27975 times)

SageThe13th

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Status:
    Offline
    Posts:
    306
    • View Profile
on: February 09, 2017, 03:45:51 AM
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.



Salminar

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Status:
    Offline
    Posts:
    75
    • View Profile
on: February 09, 2017, 06:13:08 AM
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.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2017, 08:57:32 PM by Salminar »



Mobiyus

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Status:
    Offline
    Posts:
    38
  • Sandbox is love, sandbox is life
    • View Profile
on: February 09, 2017, 11:14:25 PM
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 :)



Snoweh

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Status:
    Offline
    Posts:
    28
    • View Profile
on: February 10, 2017, 01:12:58 AM
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.




Salminar

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Status:
    Offline
    Posts:
    75
    • View Profile
on: February 10, 2017, 01:58:01 AM
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.



Snoweh

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Status:
    Offline
    Posts:
    28
    • View Profile
on: February 10, 2017, 03:41:45 AM


-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.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2017, 04:31:19 AM by Snoweh »



SageThe13th

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Status:
    Offline
    Posts:
    306
    • View Profile
on: February 10, 2017, 04:53:28 AM
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?



CitizenCake

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Status:
    Offline
    Posts:
    75
  • EVERYTHING is relative in space
    • View Profile
on: February 10, 2017, 08:29:48 PM
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.



DivineEvil

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Status:
    Offline
    Posts:
    220
    • View Profile
on: February 10, 2017, 08:44:24 PM
Quote
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:
Code: [Select]
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.
Your subconscious brain is currently busy identifying these words and their underlying meaning by the standards of the language. Your consciousness has no role in that process, just as it does not in anything you do. Frankly speaking, what you consider to be yourself is but a passive observer.



CitizenCake

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Status:
    Offline
    Posts:
    75
  • EVERYTHING is relative in space
    • View Profile
on: February 10, 2017, 11:07:35 PM
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?



Snoweh

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Status:
    Offline
    Posts:
    28
    • View Profile
on: February 10, 2017, 11:47:01 PM

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.


oh, you're right. I guess when I read 'classic sciFi class' what popped into my head was just naming it whatever sounds cool. But you're right

I apologize Mobiyus. I misunderstood you.

Maybe that's what I was confused about?

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?

From the steam forum:
Quote
Its based on mass and firepower. I got the achievement last night when I slotted my 20th turret at over 300,000 tons. Now does this mean that's the number? I don't know. I'm just sharing how I got it.

If I had to guess, it has more to do with number of turrets, or omnicron, than mass. I also havent tried this myself, (don't have the funds QQ) so can't be 100% sure.



cy414

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Status:
    Offline
    Posts:
    158
    • View Profile
on: February 11, 2017, 06:02:02 AM
~~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.
that is actually a remarkably robust yet concise system.
i hope this gains traction as the system to be used.



SageThe13th

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Status:
    Offline
    Posts:
    306
    • View Profile
on: February 11, 2017, 07:13:48 AM
~~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.
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.



Thundercraft

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Status:
    Offline
    Posts:
    251
    • View Profile
on: February 12, 2017, 01:34:48 AM
~~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.
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...

I'm liking these suggestions and the way this discussion is going. But, yes, the 'number soup' thing is something to be concerned about because it would probably discourage use. It probably needs to be fairly simple, if almost intuitive, to have a chance of catching on.

For right now, I'm tempted to stick with using "Class {x}" (where x is the number of module slots) to describe size. But I will totally start using those two-letter abbreviations for primary material. And I may yet switch to that material-module slot class system. It seems simple enough.



SageThe13th

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Status:
    Offline
    Posts:
    306
    • View Profile
on: February 12, 2017, 04:17:38 AM
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.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2017, 06:57:07 AM by SageThe13th »