Ship class names (Wait, where are you all going? Guys?)

[TheWurm]

Hear me out you guys/gals, I swear this is not the thread you think it is. So something that has been bugging me (for what I'll admit is no good reason) is the whole ship classification discussion. Specifically, I'm not convinced that spaceships would use the same naming conventions as naval vessels. And, because I'm a major nerd, I started thinking about what we might someday call them. So, this is just a silly little list of names for ship types/sizes in SPACE! Chime in with your own, or to make fun of mine. Mostly I just enjoy the attention.

REAL SMALL SHIPS (fighters)

-Tagalong-

When preparing for the first manned mission outside the solar system, We took a page from the early days of space exploration and prepared a small vehicle for planetary landing and exploration. The design proved so useful that soon we saw hundreds of imitations being carried along for long voyages. Many of the larger ships had several for use as emergency escape craft. When the war broke out, it was quicker to weld weaponry onto existing vehicles than to construct new ones, and the Tagalongs were soon seeing even more uses...

-Screamers-

Once artificial gravity was perfected, some clever engineers worked out a way to directly counteract the force of acceleration on the body with an opposite force of artificial gravity. The uptick of all this is that it was now possible to pilot small ships with truly ludicrous maneuvering capabilities, which were difficult for conventional tracking systems to follow. These ships are used for close quarters bombardment, fielding extremely cheap armaments with practically no computer guidance to speak of , because when your fifteen meters from the surface of a StarJumper, You really don't need to aim...

LESS SMALL SHIPS (frigates)

-Planet Skipper- or -Skipper-

A space shuttle like all in one lander/launcher/explorer, this class got it's name due to a tendency for novice pilots to come in too shallow on planetary descents, 'skipping' off the atmosphere and reentering space. Some younger pilots like to try this maneuver while on a date, though it should be pointed out that that sort of behavior voids warranties...

-Roider-

Named after the workhorse of the Belt Miners, These ships are built for pure vacuum, generally having a bulkier appearance heavier loadout than the Skippers.

JUST RIGHT SIZED SHIPS (destroyers/ cruisers)

-AtmoBuster-

While it is theoretically possible to fly one of these ships in the lower atmosphere without causing a major catastrophe, it is illegal to try on almost all inhabited planets.

-Stella Nova-

Named by an amateur astronomer who attempted to report a distant supernova during an early engines test.

BIG SHIPS (Battleships, juggernauts, etc.)

-Void Eater-

The first self sustained, indefinite travel, super colonies pioneered the use of ramscoops, using magnetic fields to funnel the minute particles of space into their fusion engines, thus the name.

-StarJumper-

The interstellar luxury travel industry boomed in the late 23rd century, creating a demand for cheap accomadations that they were eager to fill. One company made the mistake of including a small colony with a spectacular view of the Gas giant it orbited as a stop for the tourists. The colonists referred to that event as "the eleventh plague," and were forced to abandon the colony, many starving as they traveled back to the planet they'd come from.

LUDICROUSLY HUGE SHIPS (Titans, the Death Star, etc.)

-Eclipse-

Pretty self explanatory, actually.

******************************************************************

That's it for me, how about you guys?

 

[StarWars1981]

No. Just no.

 

[TheWurm]

I'll take that under advisement. You know, for this thing that I'm not in any way implying should be officially recognized in any way whatsoever.

 

[Keptick]

 

[russweis]

... Interesting. Just interesting.

 

[StarWars1981]

See, the thing with this is, we have class names, and they're not so ... odd.
My first post was something of a joke. Should've said that. Sorry.

Also, I made a text wall on the class naming subject awhile ago, and I'm selfish.
MINE'S THE BEST, ALWAYS! NO COMPETITION!

Plus, we'd need more names than this. It doesn't really cover the nuances or tell us much. And also ... there's not enough options, because they need to tell us more about ships themselves if they're going to be helpful to us all.

 

[Master_Artificer]

I heared the word "puddle-jumper" a bunch for small shuttle craft either to take small amounts of passengers from one planet to another or be stationed in ships.

pud·dle jump·er
noun
NORTH AMERICANinformal

1. a small light airplane that is fast and highly maneuverable and used for short trips.

Okay looks like again it was borrowed from something that already exists.

Then again, we use most classifications (except galleons and the like) from a long time ago to classify ships that don't even use boarding and an armored prow as a main method of attack, but use missiles that fly for a hundred miles and helicopters to attack targets that the crew cannot even see (need to use radar and other systems for that).

Maybe humanity is more favorable to familiarity, and the names just sound good to people.

 

[TheWurm]

See, the thing with this is, we have class names, and they're not so ... odd.
My first post was something of a joke. Should've said that. Sorry.

Also, I made a text wall on the class naming subject awhile ago, and I'm selfish.
MINE'S THE BEST, ALWAYS! NO COMPETITION!

Plus, we'd need more names than this. It doesn't really cover the nuances or tell us much. And also ... there's not enough options, because they need to tell us more about ships themselves if they're going to be helpful to us all.

I was confused, not offended. And while I would receive untold glee if these names somehow caught on in general use, but I really don't think it's necessary to the game.

You're definitely right about the list being too small, although I will point out that it is about double the base that everyone almost sort of agrees upon. I'll once again shamelessly plug for anyone else's ideas for descriptive ship classifications, and I'd appreciate a link to your thread, though I suppose I could look it up later.

I heard the word "puddle-jumper" a bunch for small shuttle craft either to take small amounts of passengers from one planet to another or be stationed in ships.


Okay looks like again it was borrowed from something that already exists.

Then again, we use most classifications (except galleons and the like) from a long time ago to classify ships that don't even use boarding and an armored prow as a main method of attack, but use missiles that fly for a hundred miles and helicopters to attack targets that the crew cannot even see (need to use radar and other systems for that).

Maybe humanity is more favorable to familiarity, and the names just sound good to people.

On the one hand, I completely get where you're coming from. Also, as much as it personally pains me for reasons only tangentially related to the names themselves, using current naming practices is, for clarity's sake, at least as good as the best possible thing I could come up with.

On the other hand, the earliest boat name still in use is the frigate, which is less than 500 years old. all of the older names have, as far as I can tell, completely fallen out of use. We're talking about a game set several hundred years in the future, in outer space, which is vacuum, not water. And here is where the true, deeply irrational, source of my annoyance lies.

Outer space is not the Carribean Sea circa 1745. The future is not the exact same as the past, history does not repeat itself note for note, and for heavens sake space craft are not sailing vessels. And yet every space game coming out seems like a clone of Sid Meyer's Pirates. And I kind of wish it wasn't like that. I kind of wish something would come along with a little sparkle of imagination, of something in the future that is one hundred percent new. And I know that isn't fair of me. But it does bother me to see these arguments over ship classification that try to fit all the infinite possibilities of space into the current state of naval warfare, at best.

I started this thread to let off steam on that. And I truly know that it doesn't matter, at all, to anyone other than me. But maybe, just maybe, if we stopped calling the things frigates, we might stop thinking they have to act like frigates act, and maybe we'll come up with something really creative that simply doesn't make sense in our modern system of warfare, and maybe then it would be useful to have some crazy name for this totally new thing.

/soapbox

On a lighter note, looking back over this list, the rest might be crap but I completely stand behind the name "Screamer" as an awesome general descriptor for small, high speed bombers, and "Tagalong" is instantly evocative of exactly what it is supposed to be. I am pretty proud of those 2.

 

[Sgtwisky]

I understand your annoyance at some of the names, but on the other hand I think people stick with them for a few reasons.

1. The names are familiar. People don't like change
2. Lets face it, some of the names just sound cool. Dreadnought or "galleon" which I'm going to use now LOL.
3. Thinking up new, good sounding names, that are ALSO descriptive of the ships role (within starmade at least) is a little hard.
4. No one seems to be able to agree on any kind of classing.

Personaly I would decide which current/past terms sound cool, then apply them to a "role" then come up with some prefix's and sufix's to denote other things about the ship. For example a "Nova class Missile Galleon". Nova could stand for the ships "Potential Combat Effectiveness" While "Missile" denotes that the ship uses missiles as its primary method of attack and "Galleon" sounds cool, and could denote the role the ship has within its fleet. IF players adopted a system like that, then any faction could change the "Role" names, and "PCE" nick names to their liking, while still being able to "Convert" their lingo into a more common form when talking to people on the forums. Just my 2 cents.

That would solve 1, 2, and 3. But likely will hit a wall at 4.

 

[TheWurm]

Yep, pretty much. I think the only really useful class names would be either A. universally agreed upon, which we've learned will basically never happen, or B. evocative enough to really get across the idea of the ship, which is trickier than it sounds. But beyond that, I'm advocating naming your ships fun things. You probably get a different picture in your head than I do when you read the word "Atmobuster", but I know I want both of those ships.

 

[jstenholt]

There's nothing wrong with naval classifications for space vessels. What's to suggest that spaceships won't someday perform functions similar to their seaborne counterparts?

Destroyers defend larger ships from smaller ships, carriers carry, and cruisers project firepower. We can argue all day about what ship should be classified as what, but we can all generally acknowledge what role does what, and fit our ships accordingly, regardless of size.

 

[Adonis0]

I will be employing the use of a nomenclature along these lines

Especially the screamer, I quite like that name ^^
(Any and all future drones will be named screamers)

 

[TheWurm]

There's nothing wrong with naval classifications for space vessels. What's to suggest that spaceships won't someday perform functions similar to their seaborne counterparts?

Destroyers defend larger ships from smaller ships, carriers carry, and cruisers project firepower. We can argue all day about what ship should be classified as what, but we can all generally acknowledge what role does what, and fit our ships accordingly, regardless of size.

You... aren't wrong. I'll be the first to acknowledge that this isn't an issue. It really is more for my benefit, just to sort of get it out there. I will say, however, that not all ships can or should fit so comfortably into those niches. For instance, I'm building a fleet that focuses on disabling enemy ships and boarding (coming soon, maybe) to take the ship relatively whole. The biggest ship I've designed for it so far features a ring of Jump Drive Inhibitors as it's main feature, with other stuff that helps run down enemies, and that sort of ship doesn't fit neatly into the current naval system. I could certainly call it an "Inhibitor Cruiser", but I don't see how that's any clearer than saying it's a "_ Class Ambusher", nor how "tactical disruption Frigate" is more clear than "Grapple Boat."

But then again, it really isn't any less clear, is it? I mean these things are all pretty subjective even when we use the same names, which is why I think there's room for a few more...flavorful names as well.

 

[jstenholt]

Yeah, call it whatever you want. People are going to understand the concept, but you could also call that an interceptor or (to borrow a class from EVE), an interdictor (which is just a destroyer or cruiser that sacrifices damage for tackle).

Showing off your own classification scheme is fine, but going beyond that is a little ego-y and more than a little bit attention grabby.

 

[TheWurm]

Yeah, call it whatever you want. People are going to understand the concept, but you could also call that an interceptor or (to borrow a class from EVE), an interdictor (which is just a destroyer or cruiser that sacrifices damage for tackle).

Showing off your own classification scheme is fine, but going beyond that is a little ego-y and more than a little bit attention grabby.

So here I'm reading as implied that I'm doing more than just "showing off my own classification scheme." And if you feel that way, I assume there's good reason for it. So let me apologize if I got a little carried away. Yeah, the reason I was thinking about this was, at the start, to 'fix ship classifications,' because, like most of us, I'm kind of sick of seeing these frankly ridiculous fights over what constitutes a 'frigate' in Starmade.

I realized pretty quickly how stupid that was, just not before I had come up with some names I liked. So I decided to post them. Then I got a little ranty about Science fiction, because I'm a colossal nerd. And thank you, I couldn't think of what the word was. Interdictor.

And if this post comes off as dickish... well it's cause I'm kind of a dick. So... there's that.

I will be employing the use of a nomenclature along these lines

Especially the screamer, I quite like that name ^^
(Any and all future drones will be named screamers)

Cool! If you come up with anymore, feel free to post them.

 

[StarWars1981]

The post is on "Classing Ships for Fleets" and it's currently 2nd page back on "General Discussion". Near the top.
It's a dang LONG wall, but the general idea is this:

We should use standard classifications, maybe plus some, with prefixes and suffixes to give more information.
Such a ship as a "cruiser" has a job generally defined as A. commerce raiding, B. patrolling areas (see Bismarck chase, Norfolk and Suffolk) to watch for hostile ships, and C. supporting a battle line against smaller ships.
In space: a cruiser can be used (eh, more or less, depends on the final scale) to raid absolutely anything that may be carrying cargo (AI only, jumpdrives kinda sink this idea) between sectors/stations.
It can definitely patrol areas, being strong enough to engage anything smaller and fast enough to run from anything bigger (See the British First Sea Lord Fisher's dictum on the "Dreadnought Armored Cruisers", Invincible-class, I think it was: says what I said). Which is the point - it can live long enough to call for backup, escape, do both, or sink the enemy.
Support a battle line: Of course.

See, the jobs are all the same, just somewhat different. So the definitions work, and we already have the names.
Hence my argument.
But I love atmobuster. I saw a large ship kinda bounce off a planet there.

 

[<SCRIPTKITTY>]

Your descriptions are really creative.
Love these, may not use them but hey someone is thinking outside the box in this blocky game.