Criss' Thread

[jstenholt]

I too put way too much time into my ship naming conventions. If you guys rename my fleet submission I'm going to cry.

 

[jzimmerman4]

I still believe that the ships should at least have a letter somewhere in the serial number, if anything so players can remember them a little better.

Bahtra 105-10 = Drone... Bahtra D-10, D being obviously for Drone.
Bahtra 113-6 = Fighter... Bahtra SF-15, SF for Space Fighter (in case there are atmospheric fighters later, and to distinguish from the actual F-15 Eagle)
Bahtra 122-17 = Bomber... Bahtra SB-17, or SF-17
Bahtra 190-17 = Frigate... Bahtra LSS-190, LSS for Light Starship

Crusa 110-11 = Shuttle... Crusa T11 Swift (T for Transport)
Crusa 140-8 = Salvager... Crusa M13 Harvest (M for Mining vessel)

Tak 188-14 = Freighter... Tak H110-XS (H for hauler, 110 is just a model number, XS for Extra Small)

I second this. Great idea!

 

[Madman198237]

Ithirahad's suggestion is more reasonable---no bureaucracy would ever risk confusion in such an inefficient way. A numeric rating system for dissimilar vessels is unlikely, while a numeric system based on "in what order were these developed?" would be fine (F-16, then F-18, then F-18E/F, then F-22, etc.). The letter should be included. The TG knows what each ship's going to be doing (Fighter, bomber, corvette, destroyer, frigate, cargo ship, blockade runner, etc.), therefore they'd probably include the letter (Or even number-based for all I care) code that tells you what it is. Give me the full name of any modern US warship or aircraft, and I'll tell you its roll in life. (DD, BB, CV, CL, CA, F/A-18, F-16, B-2, EA-18, AC-130: Destroyer, battleship, fleet carrier, light cruiser, heavy cruiser, fighter-bomber, fighter, bomber, electronic warfare plane, death itself).

Why would the TG be less efficient? You can tell me that it's an Iowa-class, Raptor, Montana-class, Gerald R. Ford-class, whatever, and I might not know what it is (Doubly so if it's just the "22" (F-22 Raptor)), but if you tell me it's BB-63 Missouri, I know that it's a relatively late-model US battleship named Missouri (And can then probably figure out it's the Missouri of the Iowa class).

The TG might do away with individual vessel names (Though that'd be unlikely. Their computers and statisticians might track them as "BB 63" but most people know it as the Missouri), but they would certainly have an intuitive (Relatively) system for the ease of tracking what's what.

 

[AtraUnam]

I remember there being talk of fleet creators providing updates to their fleets? If this is still open then I would like to do so. There are a few updates my second submission could use.

 

[Criss]

I remember there being talk of fleet creators providing updates to their fleets? If this is still open then I would like to do so. There are a few updates my second submission could use.

We are not accepting fleet updates. It would be a nightmare getting that sorted from the 60+ submissions. I believe that even more were accepted. We already have issues getting correct update files from the previous station contest, this would only compound the problem and significantly slow us down.

 

[AtraUnam]

We are not accepting fleet updates. It would be a nightmare getting that sorted from the 60+ submissions. I believe that even more were accepted. We already have issues getting correct update files from the previous station contest, this would only compound the problem and significantly slow us down.

Perhaps once they are implemented and most of the initial hassle is over then?

 

[Kingofanime]

I like the trade guild naming convention you're going for. I appreciate the effort you're putting in it. I feel, that if I was a new player, I wouldn't understand it at first, but over time I would understand the number patterns without anyone telling me. I love that the TG ship names alphabatize so well in the navigation panel.

But one thing concerns me. Currently all ship names must be unique. Does that mean that the future TG ships, when spawned in the game, will have a name such as "Bahtra 190-17-123456"? Because it will need the additional numbers at the end so it has a unique ship name? Currently 2 ships can't share the same name. If it stays that way... you might want to think about dropping the version number at the end... because that would be a lot of numbers. Or change the game so ships can have the same names.

 

[Madman198237]

Or change the game so that when a ship is destroyed, everything in the game recognizes the name as no longer taken, instead of how it treats them now.

 

[kiddan]

-snip- It would be a nightmare getting that sorted from the 60+ submissions. I believe that even more were accepted. -snip-

Wasn't it 104 or something?

 

[jzimmerman4]

How big of ships are you planning on building in these fleets? And for the players that are selected to expand their fleets, how big will they be allowed to build?

 

[Criss]

How big of ships are you planning on building in these fleets? And for the players that are selected to expand their fleets, how big will they be allowed to build?

I am prepared to build up to 1000m in length. However it is to be seen whether the game would utilize anything above 700 meters naturally. Players that expand their fleets with the community votes would likely not be going over 500-700 meters in size.

 

[jzimmerman4]

I am prepared to build up to 1000m in length. However it is to be seen whether the game would utilize anything above 700 meters naturally. Players that expand their fleets with the community votes would likely not be going over 500-700 meters in size.

Okay Perfect!!! Thank you! :D

 

[kiddan]

Kilometer-long ships could be really good for the Trading Guild, allowing players to dock while they move and stuff would be really interesting.

 

[Lecic]

700 to 1000 meters!!? Jesus christ, man, think of people's computers. Not to mention balance... I thought we were trying to get away from gigantism.

 

[Criss]

700 to 1000 meters!!? Jesus christ, man, think of people's computers. Not to mention balance... I thought we were trying to get away from gigantism.

They will likely be rare. We can control that.

 

[jstenholt]

700 to 1000 meters!!? Jesus christ, man, think of people's computers. Not to mention balance... I thought we were trying to get away from gigantism.

One day you'll have to accept that gigantism is inescapable.

 

[Lecic]

One day you'll have to accept that gigantism is inescapable.

Gigantism is an issue that can and should be countered by proper balancing. Get your defeatist garbage out of here.

 

[Criss]

We don't want the large vessels to be purely combat oriented. The TG for instance, their capital would be dedicated to mobile hangars and logistics. The Outcasts will focus on Salvage barges and on-ship factories.

 

[Napther]

Gigantism is an issue that can and should be countered by proper balancing. Get your defeatist garbage out of here.

Gigantism is the only solution for moving large amounts of resources, entities, players, and crew around in 1 go. People dont make small carriers, people make big carriers to carry drones, fighters, 1-2 corvettes depending on size classifications, as WELL as all the RP Interior required to make that ship functioning. 1000 metres doesnt have to be all combat-fit, it can be large, empty areas linked to hangers for repair and what not.

And as Criss said, these things will be rare as ... IDK.

Gigantism for a Warship is a bit unesscessary for AI which can pilot multiple ships together with ease compared to a human, Gigantism for logistics makes sense, like Carriers.

 

[jstenholt]

Gigantism is an issue that can and should be countered by proper balancing. Get your defeatist garbage out of here.

ACCEPT YOUR FATE.