Dman's Ship Classifications

[ltmauve]

I have an uncompleted ship, massing about 28K right now. Fits more of a role of battleship or maybe light dreadnaught.

 

[Lecic]

I think my ship (frigate) is quite overweight now, though.

 

[Dman1791]

A Juggernaut\'s decription basically just means a really big battleship. (At least I think so) It\'s fine if you just totally disregard the mass anyway, I once built a Titan-sized battlecruiser. Does this help?

 

[onetimetac64]

i like the system but as with all guides lakes internal information like engine rooms and such and yes i understand that not all have interiors but if you are a person that doesn\'t have an interior what do you wont with a class designation so just an idea why not add room listings for the ship sizes to give a ship noob an idea of what it should have in it e.g. A fighter has only 1 cockpit in most cases. A bomber has 1 cockpit and a bomb bay. A corvette has a cockpit or a small bridge and a engineering bay with access to engines, Shields and weapons with a small cargo bay. i mean if you don\'t like this that is fine I\'m just giving the feedback you asked for ok

 

[ridik_ulass]

I don\'t like this system at all, you jump to naming everything with big ship names, and get bogged down naming small ships.all your supercapitals I\'d regard as battleships. this is the defination of giving some runner up in a race a participation medal for a non accomplishment.

 

[Dman1791]

The thing with rooms on a ship is the builder can decide what rooms they want. Take a bomber for instance. I build them only with a main room, but someone else might have a cockpit, bomb bay, and engine room. And yes, I do add some rooms in my larger ships.

 

[Dman1791]

These are the general rules I classify my ships with. If you disagree with them, well, there\'s other classification threads. Bold represents a class. Italic represents sub-classes, which are a different verson of the previous class. These are not official in any way, and you don\'t have to use them if you don\'t want to. If you don\'t like them, don\'t post about you not liking them unless you are going to give ideas on how to improve the classes.


Apparently you did not read the first paragraph.

 

[ridik_ulass]

I read it, don\'t be so assumptive.



but you posted this in a public forum and I am venturing my opinion. if you don\'t like it don\'t post in public simple. I\'m not trying to dig at you but if you didn\'t want opinions then why post it in public, if you don\'t like critisim and are just fishing for compliment then the compliments are hollow and lack merit and the whole endevor becomes redundent.

 

[Dman1791]

I specifically stated that you COULD post criticism, but only CONSTRUCTIVE criticism. And posting in public doesn\'t have anything to do with you posting a non-constructive, negative reply when I said, specifically, for it to be constructive if negative.

 

[ridik_ulass]

How is my critisim not constructive, I said the reason I didn\'t like it, and that was very specifically why I made the post, it was that you call small ships big ship names, and don\'t leave enough space at the end of your ship naming convention to deal with the largest of ships.

 

[Dman1791]

I don\'t like this system at all, you jump to naming everything with big ship names, and get bogged down naming small ships.all your supercapitals I\'d regard as battleships. this is the defination of giving some runner up in a race a participation medal for a non accomplishment.


That is not constructive criticism. In no way did you tell me how to improve my classes, all you did is state why they were bad. Is that constructive? No.

 

[ridik_ulass]

incase there was a misunderstanding, usually the best way to fix a defined issue, is to not do that.



forinstance, your ships don\'t accomidate larger ship sizes, and focus to much on very small ship sizes, naming small ships grandous names like titans.



the way to fix this, In my humble opinion, would be to not do this. starting with maybe naming those titans and super titans, less supstancial names, and pushing the naming brackest up.



Bomber: 50.1-75 mass thats 750 blocks max, thats 25% less then a 10x10x10 block which is 1,000 blocks you have 4 diffrent ship types for this very small amount of space, I would have trouble coming up with more then 2 ships with that much space, never mind 4 diffrent catagorys.



you have another 7 ships under 10,000 blocks. lets pretend that the full 10,000 blocks are used, and to make room for more ship systems we use a cubist form, we have 10x10x100



thats 2 sides of 10x10 and 4 sides of 10x100, thats 4200 hull used before you even place power and trusters, for a 1:1 mass you are going to need 1000 trusters and accompaning power. lets say power is 10 rods going the length of the ship thats another thousand blocks thats 6200 blocks before shields and power storage and hallways. you basically have classifications for random arbitary amounts of mass, with out justly thinking how a ship actually needs to be to do anything.



does a bomber have enough space for systems to actually bomb? should a bomber not be defined by its actions and not its mass? what if I have a ship of 100,000 mass or 1million blocks that drops bombs would that not be a more sutible and deserving ship of the name bomber?



I just honestly feel you made this list with out building or flying a single ship, the classing seems arbitary and redundant in a lot of areas. I admire the effort, the content of the post looks great and the layout is good, it just reads as something that \"headoffice\" would send down to general staff setting rules and design conventions that lack hands on experiance and have barely any reason.

 

[Dman1791]

I don\'t see why a 10,000 mass (that\'s 100,000 blocks!) ship doesn\'t deserve the name Titan. And by the way, I\'m using sci-fi (mostly) classes for this, NOT the super-huge (maybe) game-breaking ships that people build in star-made. I see bombers and fighters as small bees on the hive of a carrier. Your point of a cube is also mostly irrelevant, as most ships I see are not guncubes, but actual ships with at least a small point of aesthetics in them. A bomber could be 30 blocks long, 5 blocks tall, and 10 blocks wide in a non-prism form, instead of a 10x10x10 cube as you suggest. And yes, 750 blocks is enough for a bomber to accelerate (within a sane amount, not the Star-Made mentality of 0-50 in 1 second), fire missiles, have AMCs (Decent ones at that) and provide power to decent shields (for its size) and weapons while moving. Oh, and...


I just honestly feel you made this list with out building or flying a single ship


That is just offensive. You think that I made these classifications without building or flying any ships? How could I play Star-Madde and not do that? How could I know that 10 blocks is one mass if I hadn\'t built any ships? I suggest you look here if you think I have not built anything: http://star-made.org/content/ussf-shipyard-recruiting-builders