Classing Ships for Fleets

[MacThule]

There are some older ship class guides out there, but the game has changed a lot since then. Also, I'm not sure that mass is the best basis for classifying warships, since mass is no indicator of function or relative ability. Function (i.e. drone carrier) could be a means to determine relative class, but classing by function gives no indication of firepower or shield capacity (a fighter can be 50 mass or 50K mass, serve a similar role in battle, and have an impact upon battles that is worlds apart, so knowing the function is not irrelevant, but more... secondary than knowing a ship's power).

Power regen is a pretty good indicator of relative ability, IMO, since firepower, shield regen, thrust, and other abilities are at least indirectly limited by this number (it can be offset with large power storage, but if you redline it you'll eventually be limited by it and it affects time to charge, etc).

So I've started classing my ships based on power gen within the 2M single entity cap, and for now this is the initial approach I'm taking to my fleet planning.

>=2M Dreadnought
1.5M-2M Battleship
1M-1.5M Cruiser
500K-1M Destroyer
250K-500K Frigate
100K-250K Corvette
<=100K Fighter

I've excluded adjective-classes (i.e. battle-cruiser) since I feel they are essentially sub-categories of another class.

I've also excluded the common "carrier" class, since in Starmade even a small ship can carry, and dedicated carriers can come in any shape or size.

I've not scaled to include docked-power ships because 1) I think that once fleets are fully integrated they will become obsolete except in special cases, 2) they tend crash clients and servers and therefore aren't properly "functional" ships that can legitimately engage in group battles, IMO. They just hump AI rats or jump onto players and lag them into paralysis while automated turrets shred everything in range... and I strongly doubt that such a mode of gameplay is the long-term goal.

This classing method seems to fail for stealth ships, since they require absurd amounts of power while dealing relatively small damage and mounting only light shields. Of course their stealth ability if properly used can cause major changes to the outcome of a battle, so in terms of indicating the ship's impact on battles, I think it may be arguable whether or not it works for stealth ships.

 

[terra mining corp.]

basing class on function would work best I think because in most sci-fi series tech is different from race to race thus size for same abilities(hopefully races become a factor in smsome were more armoured some more shielding some better firepower or more advanced systems,would add to roll playing in future. m2c

 

[MacThule]

A lot of people seem to favor role/function as defining class. I'm curious as to what that would look like. As in, an example of a relatively simple, understandable schema for classifying ships by role.

*EDIT: Sorry - the reason I find this to be a challenge and went with power is that not every role can be defined up front. If nothing else SM allows & encourages outside-the-box design and application. I worry that a classification system needing to be updated every time an innovator discovers a new role for an unusual ship type would be unsustainable. Also that role-based names would constrain creativity in ship design for newer players. But it does seem a relevant basis for classification...

 

[Kaelani Revyruun]

If we made a standardised BASE system for defining a ship's class but left it open for HYBRID classes then that would result in a much better system that everyone could agree on :P Also maybe have it so that mass effects the subclass of the ship (example a fighter with minaly shields and maneuverability and a little firepower being a light fighter but one designed to pack a punch being named a heavy fighter) but not the overall type. Example:

My own capital ship:

Finished estimated class type: Supernova-Class heavy war cruiser (faction name for class)
Finished power and shields: >500 million cap and regen
Firepower: Dual supercannons running the length of the ship, with full cannon support on the cannons, and single damage beam on the missiles, as well as shield and power drain and supply arrays
Role: Heavy carrier/flagship.

It's simple but also true to the ship lol

 

[Sven_The_Slayer]

My system is based entirely on RP systems so it has not changed very much over time. The biggest change that my classes has seen is from the mass update as they will have different armor ratings. A corvette or a cruiser has more speed and less armor than say a gunboat or a destroyer.

 

[MacThule]

thanks for all the input

 

[aRottenKomquat]

I voted for classifying ships based on role. However, ship classes even in real life aren't terribly informative anymore, there is so much overlap because of advancing technology and miniaturization that apart from subs and carriers everything else is pretty similar compared to how 19th century warships were differentiated.

A classification system that is based on damage output and armor could be useful. Those are often used in tabletop wargames (like BattleTech) to help balance the teams and in StarMade, if someone could think up a good system, could be used to predict a likely winner in a battle between two ships regardless of size and power output.

 

[Shadar]

So, the power regen cap is now at 2M? I thought it was around 1.3M. Did it change in a recent update?

 

[MacThule]

So, the power regen cap is now at 2M? I thought it was around 1.3M. Did it change in a recent update?

Over a month ago, aye.

A classification system that is based on damage output and armor could be useful. Those are often used in tabletop wargames (like BattleTech) to help balance the teams and in StarMade, if someone could think up a good system, could be used to predict a likely winner in a battle between two ships regardless of size and power output.

As a former tabletop wargamer and more recently RTS afficionado, this was actually exactly my thinking. In Starmade, what is the common factor between firepower capacity, shield capacity, and the relationship between armor value & thrust / maneuverability?

Power.

DPS potential is a direct function of power reserve + power regen over time.
Thrust potential is also derived from power, which determines speed, maneuverability, and the weight of armor that can be deployed.
Shield regeneration as well as weight of shield capacitors that can be deployed derive from a ship's power.
Max power of special abilities like Jump Inhibition, Jamming and Cloaking derive directly from power.
Jump drive charge speed (and thereby strategic mobility) is limited by power.

I don't see any elements of a ship that one might compare to predict the likely victor in an engagement that isn't deriving from the ship's power.

Additionally, since I've been applying power-based classing to my ships I've never found myself feeling like several in a series need to be re-classed once complete because their potential exceeds or falls short of expectations relative to their peers - a problem I encountered somewhat frequently before (i.e. having set out to design a small destroyer class ship themed to match an existing frigate, realizing near completion that the model's abilities are more in the cruiser or even battle-cruiser range relative to the model being matched). So in design, anyway, classing off power base already works well for me personally. If I want to design a cruiser, I power it within the range, fill out its potential to the max from there and in the end it feels like a good match to the corvettes and frigates I'm working from.

 

[aNjaSqurl]

I initially voted for a rating system based on mass because the more power reactors you add the more mass you have. When you then add weapons and abilities you also add mass. But after reading I think the power rating system is a good standard and had already started to do some of that with a few ship builds (adding power and then figuring the best way to utilize it) but I hadn't really thought it through any more than that.


I'd say beyond the power system you could then have subcategories to describe function. So Lets say I start building a ship with a 700K generation a second (thus making it a mid sized frigate based on your system. So, now I have a frigate and have to decide what to do with it. Will I deck it out with one massive main weapon to take on stations or capital ships and call it a Battle Frigate? Will I load up on support capabilities and hang back to help out my allies and have a Support/Medical Frigate? Or do I cover the hull in anti missile turrets to help take the load off larger ships point defense needs and call it a Flak Frigate?

Same method could be used for any of the classes really.


The only misleading thing would be building something that has the same 700K generation but is the size of a small moon and is a massive block of capacitors giving it a huge pool of power to draw on in battle with little ability to refill it. Not a good idea, but one that could be explored.

**EDIT**
Also devising a classification for stations would be also be handy.

TL|DR summary
My opinion has been changed and I agree 100% with a rating system based on power generation and sub categorizing them based on function.

 

[Xtremesonicboom]

Mine is based on length, with a suffix based on the function of the ship. It's based on the Anaxas War College classification system from Star Wars.
Fighter/Shuttle <50
Heavy Fighter/Frigate 50-100
Corvette 100-200
Cruiser 200-400
Heavy Cruiser 400-600
Destroyer 600-800
Battlecrusier 800-1000
Dreadnaught/Titan 1000-5000
Mobile Battle Station >5000

A ship can move up and down in class, depending on function.

 

[KillaKrazy]

I may be a minority with my system, but I base mine off of the ships roles/functions. Because I find it ridiculous to build a 1 stop ship that can do everything and I disagree with basing classes off of an arbitrary number, I find that the roles that my ships are built for serve to classify the ship better.

 

[Dire Venom]

Nice post OP!
However unless power storage/regen is significantly buffed docked power will continue to be an optional component of some ships.
The bugs and issues that came along with them have been (mostly) resolved and you can now run a ton of them at once and not have any noticeable impact on server performance.
We need someway of powering our giant doom lasers

 

[Lecic]

Arbitrary classification systems, particularly classification systems that run on something that can vary as wildly as power regeneration, are ridiculous. Block count is the best classifier. Using block count as the constant when comparing different ships lets you more easily compare the strength of different systems between the two vessels.

>=2M Dreadnought
1.5M-2M Battleship
1M-1.5M Cruiser
500K-1M Destroyer
250K-500K Frigate
100K-250K Corvette
<=100K Fighter

My ships with docked reactors start appearing at a miniscule 60k blocks. You can use this system, sure, but a lot of people are going to be confused at why your Dreadnought is smaller than their Frigates.

 

[MacThule]

My ships with docked reactors start appearing at a miniscule 60k blocks. You can use this system, sure, but a lot of people are going to be confused at why your Dreadnought is smaller than their Frigates.

Well this is expected, of course. A few people will be confused, yes. My reasons are given in the OP, though perhaps not all would agree.

Docked reactor ships are not stable. They're experimental toys. They break the game with much greater frequency than ships without. Yes they work... mostly. Yes they are superior to ships without docked power (precisely because of power generation, which only reinforces my point about the single best indicator of a ship's success or failure in battle being power).

I expect they'll be far LESS functional in fleets, since each ship destroyed during a battle would risk crashing a client or even the server. The prospect of a battle between two fleets of 20 ships all with docked power sounds like a Russian Roulette Marathon.

They aren't currently "common" (you encounter far more ships without docked power actually flying in multi servers than ships with). They are more like aberrations or extreme results from pushing the power barrier than any kind of standard ship that can effectively be assembled and deployed en masse.

I believe that, over time, they will become even less common. I believe that part of why the power cap was raised was setting the groundwork for a system where docked power is nothing but a marginalized side-show (monster trucks). Current approach to massing extreme firepower is single-entity, dock multiple reactors, and total output determines how many rounds you can put downrange.

With fleets there will be no need for docked power. Why bother with unstable entities that have buggy assembly processes to field 10M power generation when you can simply manufacture 5 ships each fielding 2M organic power that will act as one fleet anyway? Especially considering the proven combat advantages of fielding multiple entities over single mega-entities. Fleets are very liable to render docked power... not obsolete, just... unnecessary. I'll be able to use a fleet as a single mass-entity incorporating dozens of "2,000,000e/sec generating sub-entities" (or more simply "dreadnoughts") that will move and strike together without all that instability. You keep using docked if you want; I see that as pointless adherence to "the way things are" in the context of a fleet. They're going the way of the mammoth. Fleets are the comet.

Docked-reactor ships (such a clunky 'name'... ) do still fit on my scale - just as dreadnoughts (maybe need a category for such super-dreadnoughts, titans or... mammoths). Which they are relative to ships without docked power. Big, unstable dreadnoughts. So I'm not even excluding them here, just leaving them where I see them - on the margins, as outliers along with those hyper-fast, OD'd micro-scout ships that missiles can't catch and turrets cant track.

Arbitrary classification systems, particularly classification systems that run on something that can vary as wildly as power regeneration, are ridiculous. Block count is the best classifier. Using block count as the constant when comparing different ships lets you more easily compare the strength of different systems between the two vessels.

I think arbitrary classification systems are absurd as well, hence that option in the poll. Most class systems I see thrown about are simply trying to press someone's favorite multi-verse onto the game or apply obsolete nautical terminology because it sounds cool.

Power classing is not arbitrary. I doubt you'd argue regarding the chances of a ship without docked power defeating one with docked power. The reason is more power. It's a clear, effective way to assess a ship's potential. More so than block count. A ship with an asteroid built onto it might have a very high block count and very little combat potential. You know this, this is why your benchmark for a real ship is docked power. Because it's about power.

I've seen ships that were 30-40% hull with garbage for firepower, poor thrust and few to no support systems because of crap power or just poor construction. Classing ships based on mass seems far more arbitrary than on power. Carved Dolom adds mass but adds almost no additional combat value. A ship with 2M power regen may not have great systems, but it at least carries the known potential to have such.

I'm obviously not proposing an "official" class system or anything that would have any impact upon gameplay. I'm looking for thoughts, feedback and input on a system of standardizing reference that I'm working on for myself and any who might be interested in a more precise approach to classifying ships in discussion and planning.

The purpose of this non-arbitrary system is as a thumbnail guide in military fleet composition (it's not meant to apply to primary miners, haulers, omni-ships etc). Of course one can simply throw together a fleet based on appearance, or a collection of various high-powered battleships and ignore the concept of Combined Arms Warfare. Hard to say until we can test whether mono-fleets of big ships will be best or fleets with a balanced variety of role-fillers at different weights - that would be completely speculative. Early on I expect to see many fleets that are composed of someone's remnant omni-hulk escorted by a cloud of cannon fodder, but it's likely that over time combined arms approaches will win out. Regardless of that outcome, there are a variety of potential futures where being able to MEANINGFULLY arrange and classify ships for fleet composition will be useful, and fewer I can see where it won't.

We classify armor as Hull, Standard, or Advanced because it allows us to quickly assess levels of protection it will bring to their ships. Classing ships in terms of the power they represent allows players to quickly assess what incorporating said ship will bring to their fleets in a similar way. This is far from arbitrary; it's handy and facilitates communication.

So I believe that a semi-standardized class system based on power (indicating roughly how much power is being fielded by including a particular ship in a fleet) combined with role names (indicating function or roll within a fleet; i.e. tank, carrier, skirmisher/flanker, striker/DPS, stand-off, support, etc) would make eloquent fleet composition more accessible for the average player as well as facilitating discussion about research and testing between more dedicated players.

Arbitrary classifications are arbitrary. Does this also mean that meaningful classification systems are also arbitrary (A=A so B=A)?

The intent is very far from arbitrary. I believe we need an informed, technical approach that eschews any sort of arbitrary, non-informative naming conventions. Hence soliciting the brainstorm here

 

[Pacific_Jim]

If you're going to have a system based on anything other than function then block count is really the best way to go. Power charge says absolutely nothing about what the power is going towards, be it high thrust, shield recharge, passive systems, high DPS etc. Likewise it ignores ships that focus on capacity based weaponry, such as high alpha damage missiles or whatever.

Though I don't really think any in game class system is useful at all, since pretty much everyone disagrees where the line is drawn for any "class". For determining how the AI fleets a better approach would be to refine the in game rating system to better allow it to assess a ships strengths and weaknesses. Another thing that would help there s better manual organising of AI fleets, so the 5 main AI factions having predetermined fleet set ups, along with the ability for other AI fleets to have that option. Both able to be customised by admins of course.

There isn't really any other use for classifying at all, beyond what the builder decides.

 

[MacThule]

Power charge says absolutely nothing about what the power is going towards, be it high thrust, shield recharge, passive systems, high DPS etc.

And what does block count say about where blocks are going?

You say power is not an indicator of a ship's power, but block count is. Please elaborate.

A 50K mass ship poorly made can barely move, or it can have 2 docked reactors giving it insane weapons and thrust. How do we know the difference?

 

[MacThule]

Look... We've classified and named 950,000 insect species on Earth based on their meaningful characteristics... but people are seriously saying we should resign ourselves to attempting to discuss ships here using a creol of mutually inaccessible, private terms mishmashed with movie, manga & game terminology and a lot of clumsy-but-descriptive phrases (i.e. "a 70K mass ship with docked reactors totaling 6M e/second and mostly very long range weapons" instead of something simple like "Stand-off Dreadnought")?

This is about code... so there will be concrete ways to identify and break down relevant, meaningful attributes of any kind of entity for more streamlined planning and discussion. Moreover I am pretty convinced it would make life easier and improve accessibility of the game, if the classification schema actually reflected the sum of a ship's relevant qualities.

Power, Thrust, Shields, SHP, AHP, DPS - these are all meaningful attributes. Perhaps there is some simple, accessible formula for considering all of these in a system of classification of a ship's capabilities. If so it eludes me, but in a properly built ship the sum potential of all these relevant attributes traces back to total power potential and maximum capability at least can be roughly predicted by knowing only power. Block count is not even a meaningful attribute, just a measure of size.

Reverse the thinking away from our own fleet compositions and consider it in terms of military intelligence. The Art of War. Given the option of knowing ONLY either an enemy's size or his power before going into tournament - which would you chose to know?

"8M e/sec,"
or
"2M blocks"

Which tells you more about what you're facing?

Anyway - I will continue to refine this theory and find better ways to meaningfully describe & classify ship entities in Starmade. Any constructive input or ideas would be welcomed!

 

[Pacific_Jim]

My point is neither are particularly good measures, but block count at least gives you an indicator of the size of the vessel which is where most people go by for ship class. You're also willingly ignoring docked power, pretty much on the grounds that you don't like it, and ships using brute forced power. And capacity based weaponry, and use of things like turrets, and type of armour etc.

And build quality is 100% irrelevant to ship class, a rubbish frigate isn't suddenly a corvette. And given how low the numbers of were the cut off is drawn are, a lot of well built fighters would suddenly be classed as frigates.

And you ignored my point. There's an in game system for determining a ships strengths/weaknesses. While it definitely needs some work to more accurately describe a ships capabilities that would be a much better place to start.
[DOUBLEPOST=1456256312,1456254918][/DOUBLEPOST]

Look... We've classified and named 950,000 insect species on Earth based on their meaningful characteristics... but people are seriously saying we should resign ourselves to attempting to discuss ships here using a creol of mutually inaccessible, private terms mishmashed with movie, manga & game terminology and a lot of clumsy-but-descriptive phrases (i.e. "a 70K mass ship with docked reactors totaling 6M e/second and mostly very long range weapons" instead of something simple like "Stand-off Dreadnought")?

This is about code... so there will be concrete ways to identify and break down relevant, meaningful attributes of any kind of entity for more streamlined planning and discussion. Moreover I am pretty convinced it would make life easier and improve accessibility of the game, if the classification schema actually reflected the sum of a ship's relevant qualities.

Power, Thrust, Shields, SHP, AHP, DPS - these are all meaningful attributes. Perhaps there is some simple, accessible formula for considering all of these in a system of classification of a ship's capabilities. If so it eludes me, but in a properly built ship the sum potential of all these relevant attributes traces back to total power potential and maximum capability at least can be roughly predicted by knowing only power. Block count is not even a meaningful attribute, just a measure of size.

Reverse the thinking away from our own fleet compositions and consider it in terms of military intelligence. The Art of War. Given the option of knowing ONLY either an enemy's size or his power before going into tournament - which would you chose to know?

"8M e/sec,"
or
"2M blocks"

Which tells you more about what you're facing?

Anyway - I will continue to refine this theory and find better ways to meaningfully describe & classify ship entities in Starmade. Any constructive input or ideas would be welcomed!

Ships aren't species. There isn't a 100% objective set in stone ship classification system in real life, only what the people who built the thing say it is. There's usually reasoning behind why it's classed as what it is but that reasoning changes depending on who built the thing and when. And as I've said before, it's never based on a linear "This is better than this therefore it's this".

And to answer about how to meaningfully classify ships in Starmade, you can't. Once you get down to it there's going to be almost as many ship classes as ships. The best you're ever going to get is things like "Long Range Missile Frigate" or "Anti-Missile Corvette", given you a quick indicator of what the ship is built for.

 

[Lecic]

Docked reactor ships are not stable. They're experimental toys. They break the game with much greater frequency than ships without. Yes they work... mostly. Yes they are superior to ships without docked power (precisely because of power generation, which only reinforces my point about the single best indicator of a ship's success or failure in battle being power).

I would disagree on them being "unstable" or "experimental." They work fine on any server that isn't complete and utter garbage, and don't cause lag for a long period of time on undock if they're installed properly.

I expect they'll be far LESS functional in fleets, since each ship destroyed during a battle would risk crashing a client or even the server. The prospect of a battle between two fleets of 20 ships all with docked power sounds like a Russian Roulette Marathon.

Correct, but not because of crashing. One ship with 2 mil + 2 mil in gens is less efficient on a per-block basis than 2 ships with 2 mil each. Docked reactors will vanish from the average ship because it's more economical to run separate ships.

They aren't currently "common" (you encounter far more ships without docked power actually flying in multi servers than ships with). They are more like aberrations or extreme results from pushing the power barrier than any kind of standard ship that can effectively be assembled and deployed en masse.

Many solo players don't run docked reactors. This is true. But is it because they're "aberrations," and because they "can't be deployed en masse?" No. Most players who run ships over the softcap and don't use reactors are either
1) Lazy.
2) Unaware of docked reactors/deliberately misinformed that they don't work.
3) Unable to because the server bans them.

Additionally, blueprints exist. You only need to make 1 copy of a ship for it to be able to be assembled and deployed en masse.

With fleets there will be no need for docked power. Why bother with unstable entities that have buggy assembly processes to field 10M power generation when you can simply manufacture 5 ships each fielding 2M organic power that will act as one fleet anyway? Especially considering the proven combat advantages of fielding multiple entities over single mega-entities. Fleets are very liable to render docked power... not obsolete, just... unnecessary. I'll be able to use a fleet as a single mass-entity incorporating dozens of "2,000,000e/sec generating sub-entities" (or more simply "dreadnoughts") that will move and strike together without all that instability. You keep using docked if you want; I see that as pointless adherence to "the way things are" in the context of a fleet. They're going the way of the mammoth. Fleets are the comet.

I disagree that fleets will completely remove docked power. Why? Because stations and capital ships will still need them. A fleet commander is most likely not going to fly into battle in a 20 to 60k block ship at the power limit, just to get vaporized immediately when the enemy fleet focus-fires on the one enemy vessel with a pilot in it. They're going to stay near the back in a larger, tankier, heavily turreted ship, providing fire support and issuing commands.

Power classing is not arbitrary. I doubt you'd argue regarding the chances of a ship without docked power defeating one with docked power. The reason is more power. It's a clear, effective way to assess a ship's potential. More so than block count. A ship with an asteroid built onto it might have a very high block count and very little combat potential. You know this, this is why your benchmark for a real ship is docked power. Because it's about power.

Power classing does not account for turrets, docked subsystems, and capacity based vessels.

And what does block count say about where blocks are going?

Block count itself? Nothing. It's the ratios of blocks that are important, and they show where the power is going, too. Let's say you've got two ships. Simply by comparing ratios of different blocks, you can see how tanky a vessel is, how fast a vessel is, how damaging a vessel is, how much utility a vessel has.