Criss' Thread

[Criss]

You filled in most of the doughnut hole? :C

It was never going to fly without it filled in. Or it could have been a very useless flyable ship. It was even worse on the original design that was smaller.

 

[Jananton]

It's obvious Scavengers don't really like doughnuts. :D

On a more serious note, it can't be said enough, I do like the variety you guys are putting in those fleets.

Greets,

Jan

 

[Dalmont]

The lack of doughnut brings a single sad tear to my face.

Overall loving the direction the scavs are going; they're really starting to pull that "space junk" aesthetic off.

 

[Ithirahad]

I just feel like those wings are a bit too cluttered :u. Might just be me.

They are too cluttered, and the black lines are too symmetrical. IMO.

 

[Nauvran]

Criss, you need to redo those "videos" you're making on the Starmade youtube channel. They are not very usefull when you dont actually tell anything usefull. Now excuse me while I go find my "Im getting tired of Criss not making proper tutorials" key.

 

[Criss]

Criss, you need to redo those "videos" you're making on the Starmade youtube channel. They are not very usefull when you dont actually tell anything usefull. Now excuse me while I go find my "Im getting tired of Criss not making proper tutorials" key.

We will be adding subtitles to the videos.

 

[Nauvran]

We will be adding subtitles to the videos.

And that helps people finding the "rotation" key? and the "howthehellisthisvideousefull" key?

 

[Criss]

And that helps people finding the "rotation" key? and the "howthehellisthisvideousefull" key?

The subtitles can include the default keys. While it is good that we posted those videos, they are little help. We could only tell players the default keys. And while it is nice that they have access to these tutorials on youtube, it is also somewhat unnecessary since they are greeted with them immediately upon entering the game.

Nonetheless I was asked to post them on the channel. I already have discussed creating a more in depth series with others on the team.

 

[Criss]

I have neglected this thread for a bit too long, and so I have two ships to show off today, as well as some information regarding the naming scheme for our Trading Guild ships!

First, we have the Kestros. What's that? It's a scout, and yes, that is it's name! We have begun the naming conventions for not only the Trading Guild, but also the Outcasts and the Scavengers, which means we are close to finishing these ships entirely. More on that in a bit.

The ship is built out of an old large turret barrel. What's left of it anyway. Over time various parts were added to the hull and now serves as a functional ship. Despite once being a weapon, the ship comes with no offensive capabilities. The Kestros is used strictly as a scout. There is a turret mount on the starboard side and we might use it for a turret or additional scanner system. If you have thoughts on that, let us know!

The view from the cockpit is quite interesting. Reminds me of a TIE Fighter .

Next we have the Arma class fighter. This ship is designed to survive missile impacts from enemies.

The Arma is equipped with large armor plates on either side. These are pieces of hull and structure from other vessels that have been attached to the hull. The hull itself is the blasted remains of a more sightly vessel. The hull is heavily braced with additional armor beams.

The armor plates are quite effective at stopping small missile impacts, and in some cases stray shots from cannons. Variations of the vessel come with sturdier armor plating or armor enhancing systems.

Well, now that we've taken a look at the latest pirate ships, let's talk about the Trade Guild. We have currently named all of their ships. Unless we come across a mistake, they are done and ready for the game.

The naming convention for the Trading Guild is likely going to be the most unique among our fleets. The TG is a super conglomerate of corporations, and so it made sense to us to approach it in an efficient and logical way. The TG don't care for cute meaningful names on their vessels. So we decided to take a look at real life examples, and immediately ended up looking at Boeing and other vehicle manufacturers.

Boeing designs aircraft, and each of their planes has Boeing in the name, followed by the model number. We decided to create a few manufacturers for the TG ships to help split them up a bit. This allows us to give them a bit of diversity in aesthetics and purpose despite all being TG ships.

The manufacturers are:
Crusa Corporation - Handle the construction of civilian craft for the TG
Tak Manufacturing - Build the freighters for the TG
Bahtra - Create the military vehicles for the TG

The naming convention is as follows: [Manufactuer][Model number][Variant letter if applicable] - [Version number]
For example, all of the military vehicles will start off as Bahtra. The model number will identify the different hulls. If a hull variant is created, say for cargo, then a letter like C is added. Lastly we have the save number, which means we can save the version of the ship with the name we created.

It probably sounds complex, but below you will see how it stacks up once we start listing them off. Bare in mind, this naming convention is unique to the TG, and we will use more straight forward names for other factions. In-fact, we have already named many ships from the Outcast and Scavenger fleets, but we will save that for a future post.

Anyway, here is the current TG lineup with all their proper names.

Bahtra 105-10
Crusa 110-11
Bahtra 113-6
Bahtra 122-17
Crusa 140-8
Tak 188-14
Bahtra 190-17

It is unclear when we will see these ships make their way into the game. With NPC factions on the way, I imagine they will be included once those updates hit. For now that's it. I have updated the imgur albums in the OP with additional lore if you're into that. Let me know what you think and leave your feedback below! Thanks for reading!

 

[Dalmont]

Totally not going to use trading guild naming meta in literally every ship / ship system from now on... totally not going to do that at all... nope, not me.

The Kestros also makes me incredibly happy. Its so cute and pointy.

 

[Crimson-Artist]

hey Criss are you gonna use sketchfab for ship previews now that SMD supports it? would be really cool if we could get a 3d view of each ship.

 

[Criss]

hey Criss are you gonna use sketchfab for ship previews now that SMD supports it? would be really cool if we could get a 3d view of each ship.

That is a brilliant idea. I will have to take a look at that now that we support it.

 

[Crimson-Artist]

That is a brilliant idea. I will have to take a look at that now that we support it.

nice! Me and a few other ppl have already taken advantage of it. I've found that uploading normal static ships are easy and straight forward but ships with animations require a 3d editor file like a .blend file

 

[jstenholt]

Ayo, aviation happens to be my thing, and I have to say, if that's what you're trying to emulate in your naming scheme, you've failed.

As it turns out, selling jetliners is a big deal, and both Boeing and Airbus were going for catchy, marketable names when they came up with their current systems.

For Boeing, the 7X7 system began when Boeing decided to set aside the 700 numbers for their commercial aircraft, and when they designed their first one, they decided that Model 700 didn't sound very good, and went with 707 because of how catchy it is. They ended up settings aside all 7X7 numbers because of how much they liked the cadence.

With Airbus, the first aircraft they designed was literally going to be called the Airbus, and 300 was the number of passengers it was to carry. Things didn't exactly work out that way, but once again, marketing prevailed and they stuck with the format because of catchiness.

If you really want to make the TG seem like a multinational conglomerate, you should remember that conglomerates are corporations, corporations sell things, and things that are sold are also marketed.

Also, if you're going to add in letters for variants and such, putting the identifier first is like, nearly a worldwide standard. C-40A Clipper (C for cargo, variant A),, F/A-18F Hornet (F/A fighter attack, variant F), E-4 Advanced Airborne Command Post. (E for Electronic) etc...

What I'm getting at is that just because it's a corporations doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to read the name out of context and have some idea of what you're looking at.

And this isn't exactly relevant, but most Boeing models do have official or semi-official names like the Clipper or Dreamliner.


So yeah, the TG should absolutely care about their naming conventions, what you have there is horrible. No offense intended.

 

[Criss]

Ayo, aviation happens to be my thing, and I have to say, if that's what you're trying to emulate in your naming scheme, you've failed.

As it turns out, selling jetliners is a big deal, and both Boeing and Airbus were going for catchy, marketable names when they came up with their current systems.

For Boeing, the 7X7 system began when Boeing decided to set aside the 700 numbers for their commercial aircraft, and when they designed their first one, they decided that Model 700 didn't sound very good, and went with 707 because of how catchy it is. They ended up settings aside all 7X7 numbers because of how much they liked the cadence.

With Airbus, the first aircraft they designed was literally going to be called the Airbus, and 300 was the number of passengers it was to carry. Things didn't exactly work out that way, but once again, marketing prevailed and they stuck with the format because of catchiness.

If you really want to make the TG seem like a multinational conglomerate, you should remember that conglomerates are corporations, corporations sell things, and things that are sold are also marketed.

Also, if you're going to add in letters for variants and such, putting the identifier first is like, nearly a worldwide standard. C-40A Clipper (C for cargo, variant A),, F/A-18F Hornet (F/A fighter attack, variant F), E-4 Advanced Airborne Command Post. (E for Electronic) etc...

What I'm getting at is that just because it's a corporations doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to read the name out of context and have some idea of what you're looking at.

And this isn't exactly relevant, but most Boeing models do have official or semi-official names like the Clipper or Dreamliner.


So yeah, the TG should absolutely care about their naming conventions, what you have there is horrible. No offense intended.

Well, I am sorry you think it's horrible, but I think this is what we are sticking with. This was something we discussed at length among the team, at least for the TG ships. Let's break down one name for one ship.

The TG frigate - Bahtra 190-17

The only two things you see that mean anything are Bahtra, and 190. Bahtra tells you what it is, a combat vessel. The 190 informs you of it's size. That is as simple as we need it, because after that we have the save version, which is mostly for our benefit, and the unique identifier which will generate for the entity as they already do for each spawned ship, the pirates for example. If we make the variant, we want to add no more than a single letter, again, to keep it simple.

I don't think the TG should care about their names. They are a well oiled machine. They know their part, and while they could sell their ships, these ships in particular are designed for their own use. They sell them to each other, but in massive quantities. The TG span galaxies after all. To them it isn't about the name. They just need to identify it, and process it. In a world of computers, this is not hard. I hope that clarifies things. Schema apparently doesn't want us to go too crazy with this, probably so the universe is still something the player can really mold without getting nailed down with details like this. Personally I would like to include this type of lore into the game, but where and how I am not yet sure.

 

[jstenholt]

Pay me no mind; I'm not actually complaining. Just throwing out some real-world experience. Obviously you guys get to make the game however you want, and I'll save my complaining pants for a serious issue.

 

[jzimmerman4]

Well, I am sorry you think it's horrible, but I think this is what we are sticking with. This was something we discussed at length among the team, at least for the TG ships. Let's break down one name for one ship.

The TG frigate - Bahtra 190-17

The only two things you see that mean anything are Bahtra, and 190. Bahtra tells you what it is, a combat vessel. The 190 informs you of it's size. That is as simple as we need it, because after that we have the save version, which is mostly for our benefit, and the unique identifier which will generate for the entity as they already do for each spawned ship, the pirates for example. If we make the variant, we want to add no more than a single letter, again, to keep it simple.

I don't think the TG should care about their names. They are a well oiled machine. They know their part, and while they could sell their ships, these ships in particular are designed for their own use. They sell them to each other, but in massive quantities. The TG span galaxies after all. To them it isn't about the name. They just need to identify it, and process it. In a world of computers, this is not hard. I hope that clarifies things. Schema apparently doesn't want us to go too crazy with this, probably so the universe is still something the player can really mold without getting nailed down with details like this. Personally I would like to include this type of lore into the game, but where and how I am not yet sure.

Does the number correlate to a specific detail about the size? like the length or mass or is it relatively random?

 

[Criss]

Does the number correlate to a specific detail about the size? like the length or mass or is it relatively random?

It's mostly size. The higher the number, the larger the size. Or, perhaps the larger the performance in a certain area. We tried correlating the number to say, system count, or damage and whatnot but it ended up turning into weird and inconsistent numbers. For now we will use the 100's, 300's, 500's, 700's, and 900's for their size, which should also give them interesting numbers to utilize.

 

[jzimmerman4]

It's mostly size. The higher the number, the larger the size. Or, perhaps the larger the performance in a certain area. We tried correlating the number to say, system count, or damage and whatnot but it ended up turning into weird and inconsistent numbers. For now we will use the 100's, 300's, 500's, 700's, and 900's for their size, which should also give them interesting numbers to utilize.

Okay, well my one suggestion would be to have the smallest of a type of ship in the 100's, the next in the 200's (or 300's since you have a vendetta against even numbers) and so on. This will just allow players to know how powerful the ship is without having to know exactly what the other numbers are to compare it to.

 

[Saber]

Just to give some further insight, as a lot of the specific numbers were determined by me, and Criss and I just focused on the general layout for the naming convention. jstenholt you're completely right in that aviation, such as Boeing does it differently than we did. The original inspiration for our system was in fact boeing, but in how it turned out the system become more like the numbering system for more industrial machinery, like heavy equipment or semi-trucks/lorries.

So to break down the model numbers even further we use a three-digit system for the model numbers. The first digit is the main class size, so because our first TG ships are all "small class" or Class 1 the first digit is one. The second digit is the sub-class size, meaning that it tells you the size of the ship within class one. So a model number that is "10X" is considerably smaller than a ship that is "19X". The third digit, which Criss briefly mentioned in his latest post correlates to something with their systems, could be engine number, number of cargo areas, weapon systems, etc. So the third digit is the most random, and not entirely useful.

The overall goal was to have players able to figure out what sort of ships they might be coming up to from a great distance, even just through the nav menu. If you're planning to raid a TG convoy, and see a lot of Bahtra 190's it's not as good of an idea to continue with the raid than if it was a few 105's.

I hope this can shed some more light on it as it's sort of a mashup of inspirations from multiple real-world sources while also trying to add in our own logic.
[doublepost=1474784668,1474784529][/doublepost]

Okay, well my one suggestion would be to have the smallest of a type of ship in the 100's, the next in the 200's (or 300's since you have a vendetta against even numbers) and so on. This will just allow players to know how powerful the ship is without having to know exactly what the other numbers are to compare it to.

There's really only two reasons for skipping the even numbers for overall class size. One is that it will sound better having a "Bahtra 909" or something than a 500 series, makes it sound even larger. Another reason is that if we decide we want an in-between size, something that isn't as small as a Class 1, but isn't as big as a Class 3, we can "fill in the gaps" later on with a Class 2. Alternatively, we could use those designations for more specialty ships.