[Classification] =Unofficial= TheImperialDonut's DMSCS (Damascus)

[MossyStone48]

Original post by TheImperialDonut on Tue, 10/01/2013 - 01:38

DMSCS - Unofficial Modular Ship Classification System [NEW]


10/2/2013 - Added the new automated sheet thanks to Raichor.

10/1/2013 - Overhauled a bunch of things with MichaelSeph's input.

10/1/2013 - Changed CIC coding to be much more recognizable.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alright folks, here's a brandnew ship classification system for you; it's modular, it's awesome and it finally takes the things that matter on your ships and stuffs it into a cool code and/or class name.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

-= CIC coding =-

The most important aspect of the system is the CIC codes (or Class Indentification Codes), that take several stats and the type of your ship and combine those into a logical and ultra-compact string of about 8 characters to provide other players and yourself with instant info on your prized creation.

Although they might look a bit daunting at first, with even a tiny bit of practice, it should be childs-play to read the CIC codes, once you realize that most of the symbols are ascending ranges and have distinct formats.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

-= Naming System =-

Now, for those of you who think a bunch of seemingly random characters just don't sound cool enough, we also have a class naming system. By combining the mass of your ship with its cost and specific role, you get two words out of the table, combine those and find the name of the class your ship belongs to, more advanced ships equal more badass names!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

-= Downloads =-

Here's the full .xlsm automated file (don't forget to enable editing and features if asked):

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12530493/DMSCS.xlsm

If you don't have or dislike using MS Excel, here's an image file with the same info:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12530493/DMSCS.jpg

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

-= Thanks =-

If you like it, spread the word, just start using it and hopefully the rest will follow.

If you don't like it, that's fine, it's why we have a comments section down there.

Special thanks to MichaelSeph for valuable input on mainly balancing and Raichor for automating the excel file for much easier use.



Enjoy classifying your ships, and fly safe!

-----
I thought this worth saving. Using this as a guide to add CIC to ships when uploading would make sorting through them easier for those who know this system. -WarSong

 

[AndyP]

Nice idea,
sort of remember those short names from X³
The first few hours they were just cryptic codes, meaning nothing like a "license number" on cars.
But after a few days, you can easily see the number and exactly know what type/class that ship has, and additionaly no need to think a second to know you can beat it, or not.

I'll try to use this from now on.

- Andy

 

[jzimmerman4]

Here is my slightly modified version designed for the Brotherhood Republic.

Spoiler: Republic classification system

 

[MossyStone48]

Sample posting:
http://starmadedock.net/content/scavenger.214/
With a bit of tweaking just a little info can go a long way.

Having an energy efficiency rating would be nice tho. Because the Scavenger is intentionally under powered it cannot thrust, fire AMC and recharge the shield simultaneously. My other fighter designs have similar flaws albeit to lesser extents. But there's no CIC fragment yet that indicates poor to excellent rector/thrust/cannon effectiveness.

 

[generalBLT13]

sounds cool

 

[Keptick]

I love it!!!
It can easily be modified to suit a faction or a servers needs. It's also EXTREMELY inclusive (it has pretty much every element you'd want).

May I suggest possible adding damage output related to size (like you did with cost)?

 

[AndyP]

Output in damage is hard to calc and compare.
Due to the current limit in energy, and thus limited weapons permanent power, you are then forced to add information about the time the ship can support that damage.
Or need to put in something like 'long term damage' but to measure this, you need to be math expert.

And also:
How to count rockets?
Their damage is not comparable to AMC, and with the upcoming change in weapons all names are getting obsolete :P

- Andy

 

[MossyStone48]

Destructive capability of all onboard weapons would require a proper calculation on each weapon system plus some other means of averaging those numbers out to an easy to read number rating. Such an undertaking is deserving of its own spreadsheet.

The energy efficiency rating would be a good clue for folks wanting a high yield AMC based warship. Missiles, torpedos, fighters, not to mention turrets and larger dockable vessels would have to be factored on their own then smooshed into an overall rating. Which is why we have stars :3

I would like to see a separate star rating for Aesthetics, RP value and Warship rating.
Something like:
Decor: poor, below average, average, above average, excellent (most warships would rate poor while rp and vanity ships would be much higher)
Detail: poor to excellent (only bricks would get poor ratings. a ship with a below-average external detail would be warships or utility vessels)
Power: poor to excellent (the complex calculations could be used for this BUT i'd rather go on user experiences, rp and vanity ships would usually get poor or below average while warships would demand excellence in this stat)

 

[Keptick]

Just get the person to calculate their own dps. If the weapon has a charge up time then add that time to the calculation. Ex: A weapon does 10k dps for 1 sec with a 9 sec recharge. The true dps is 1k. This applies to missiles as much as amcs.

I just feel like it would allow people to access how EFFICIENT the ship they are using is at that role (most likely combat). This may require an entirely different scale though. Or just adding a number or level (ex: Lvl.1 destroyer) or stars, as warsong said.

 

[Keptick]

Needless to say, it can easily be expanded and modified to comprise even more criterias.

This is by far the most ingenious class system to date, you need a modular system in a modular game.

Seriously, +1

 

[Zovc]

My one problem, is the amount of info you give out, but also its too much. I would prefer a breifer one. Ship mass, ship thruster, and ship power. 3 simple things that can dont give out to much. Turret amount is next to useless. Untill we can have modified ranges. The turret one is useless almost. If they have few turrets you will see on the screen. And alot you will know. But nice work.

 

[MossyStone48]

Zovc, I wouldn't advise anyone to take on a ship design unless they had exactly what they wanted or close enough to be satisfied. Simply put with just three vectors for comparison I could easily persuade anyone sitting the fence that one ship was FAR superior to the other and have the opposite be true. Everyone's needs are different and if someone downloads your ship, works up the money to buy it, then finds out that (for their particular needs) it's trash then they will happily dance over to community content and one star your gluteus. I can already hear someone saying 'well they should spawn it in with single player' well a LOT of people won't. Because those three stats had them sure they made an properly educated choice. So they invested the time and effort and now you have a glorious ship that will never break 4.5 stars.

On a side note it's very ill advised to post anything not in .SMENT format and don't even think of putting it anything other than a .ZIP because not everyone uses .HQX .SIT .TAR .GZIP .7Z or .RAR on their computers. Even Mac and Linux based machines have some sort of native pkzip-like file handling. And Windows has supported it as 'compressed folders' since 2000/ME.

 

[Sven_The_Slayer]

While this is a nice robust system because it is unofficial does it warrant being a stickied thread? I am personally against any universal classification systems because this game is a sandbox first and foremost and not everybody builds in the same "universe". Ships may get looked down upon because they don't adhere to a system like this, especially if it is held upon a pedestal such as being "sticky" therefore rendering it more important than other classifications. I could see a sticky thread linking to all the various classifications and let people choose what they desire to follow while the forums stays impartial and not playing favorites.

 

[Zovc]

Ok warsong, I do see that benefit but ingame I dont like it.

 

[Targaryen]

very cool idea, I hope that it will be globalized

 

[BraveSteelDragon]

Hmm, i think i'll add this to my ship's infos when i upload them.

Spoiler: If...

[If only the site would automatically assign a classification to a ship based on the various "official" classifcations it'd be cool... :p]

 

[MossyStone48]

Hmm, i think i'll add this to my ship's infos when i upload them.

Spoiler: If...

[If only the site would automatically assign a classification to a ship based on the various "official" classifcations it'd be cool... :p]

This is strictly unofficial. The only official class a ship can ever have is the one the builder assigns it.

 

[Sven_The_Slayer]

This is strictly unofficial. The only official class a ship can ever have is the one the builder assigns it.

I kind of think making it a sticky makes it look more official. I could see a directory thread linking to the various classifications warranting being a sticky but any individual class system being so seem like favoritism. Of course it is your call, that's just my opinion.

 

[JimmyJamba]

I kind of think making it a sticky makes it look more official. I could see a directory thread linking to the various classifications warranting being a sticky but any individual class system being so seem like favoritism. Of course it is your call, that's just my opinion.

I agree. Unless we have every unofficial classification system stickied I don't think this one should be...

That being said, I do like this classification.

 

[Krazykat]

No account for smaller ships having turrets? it's quite common since AI can usually track better. for instance my K-3 Gunboat would be classified C1b-A1As . Harladen Pillager Breaker, should I just call it a Pillage-breaker to remove redundancy?