Technobabble for fun and profit!!

[Tamren Shade]

A light hearted topic here, what kind of cool techy-science-engineering-nonsense do you call different systems or weapon combinations in game? Do you have some kind of nomenclature when you're writing up descriptions for ship?

For example I've come up with some and use of the following

Current Power Gen system = Zero Point Energy Grid with output measured in SMJ (Starmade Mega Joules)

Ion Defensive effect = Hardened Shield Grid

Cannon-Cannon-Punch Turrets = xx mm Autocannon where xx=1/10 of the block count in the weapon. For example, a turret with 750 weapon blocks in a C-C-Pu combination would be a 75mm Autocannon

Likewise, a Cannon-Cannon-Overdrive setup = xx mm High Output Autocannon.

Prow mounted waffled Cannon-Cannon-Punch/Explosive = Plasma Pulse Cannon or just Pulse Cannon

Missile-50% Beam-Punch = Standard Mk xxx ASM/AFM (Anti-Shipping-Missile/Anti-Fighter Missile), with the Mk xxx being equal to the total block count of each output. I tend to use a set of five silos of 200 Missiles, 100 Beams, 200 Punch as a standard missile battery on escorts, or an anti-fighter secondary battery on cruisers.

Beam-Beam-Explosive = Mk xxx Light Particle Beam (LPB) if it's in a turret or a Mk xxx Particle Lance if it's a prow mounted main battery. The xxx is the total block count per output. So a turret with a pair of 250 Beam, 250 Beam, 250 Explosive would be a duel Mk 750 LPB Turret.

Beam-Beam-Ion = Shield Disruptor

That's enough for now, I have some others, but these are the ones I tend to use the most.

 

[Master_chief_150]

I like the idea for it, as I too am a part for writing descriptions for in game properties.
I liked explaining the properties of some things such as the plex doors, as well as how the weapon systems work.

However, the same criticism I got from it is that not everyone wants a set description for items. Such as, they may want their reactor to be Fusion-based, yet the description calls it Zero-point energy. It ruins a little bit of the player's creativity for their own description, since not everyone likes being forced to believe one thing.

I like the idea of descriptions for in game properties, but I also agree with freedom to the player in choosing how they want their ship to work. It's a tricky balance to get right.

 

[Coyote27]

Those designations are pretty solid, though I would think a 750-block gun would have a far bigger projectile than 75mm.
I'd call a cannon/ partial cannon / punch a "QF gun" (for quick-firing) - it's an obsolete British term, but it makes them distinct from full-on autocannons.
Cannon/beam/x is a "railgun".
A beam/beam/punch would be just a "small/medium/large laser", whereas a beam/cannon/pierce would be a "cutting beam".
Missile/x/pierce could be "HEAT warhead" while missile/x/explosive "HE-GP".
I rarely use any missiles that aren't 100% beam secondary, and am somewhat interested to know why you would go with a 50% ratio.

Any naming convention is entirely up to the player or their faction to define, of course - it's hard enough to determine what would count as a "destroyer", "frigate", "cruiser", or "battleship" by any other criteria than by its intended role.


EDIT:

Such as, they may want their reactor to be Fusion-based, yet the description calls it Zero-point energy.

My ships are powered by 300-kilohamster wheel drives, what is this "fusion" you speak of? Hamster-based wheel drives are the state of the art, far more efficient than human galley slaves that row the ship with oars the way most new players set their ships up.

 

[Scratchmort]

nothing quite as fancy as yours, but when designing main / secondary turrets for my ships I name the turret blueprints based on how many blocks wide the barrel is in inches and how long the barrel is in meters, for instance, the guns on the cruiser I'm building atm are 1 block wide and 30 blocks long, so I named them "39/30 Battery" (as in 39in wide, 30m long), the cruiser's secondaries are 39/9s , so 1x2 guns of the same length would be 79/30s, 2x2 would be 157/30, etc. etc.

I dunno, it just makes sense to me

 

[Tamren Shade]

I like the idea for it, as I too am a part for writing descriptions for in game properties.
I liked explaining the properties of some things such as the plex doors, as well as how the weapon systems work.

However, the same criticism I got from it is that not everyone wants a set description for items. Such as, they may want their reactor to be Fusion-based, yet the description calls it Zero-point energy. It ruins a little bit of the player's creativity for their own description, since not everyone likes being forced to believe one thing.

I like the idea of descriptions for in game properties, but I also agree with freedom to the player in choosing how they want their ship to work. It's a tricky balance to get right.

I'm not saying we have to come up with a standardised terminology for everyone, quite the opposite! I think everyone should be free to describe their own ship in any manner they see fit. I just wanted to hear all the different fun sci-fi technobabblic terminology others use for personal builds !

My ships are powered by 300-kilohamster wheel drives, what is this "fusion" you speak of? Hamster-based wheel drives are the state of the art, far more efficient than human galley slaves that row the ship with oars the way most new players set their ships up.

Kilo-Hamster! Love it!
[doublepost=1505845947,1505844471][/doublepost]

rarely use any missiles that aren't 100% beam secondary, and am somewhat interested to know why you would go with a 50% ratio.

A few reasons
1. higher rate of fire, and 50% beam is fast enough to catch most targets anyways.

2. I use vertical launch missiles a lot and with 100% beam support they move too fast to reliably engage targets inside 3000 meters. They have to loop around the target 3-5 times before they hit, which leaves them very open to AMS fire for an extended time and my missiles are big enough that having them loopback and pass near the firing ship is a little unnerving.

3. My favorite build size is 100K blocks or less, and I like my ships fast. I usually devote around a quarter of my internal volume to thrusters. Having full beam support with missile batteries on a ship that small and fast requires a prohibitive amount of capacitors with the current power system.

My larger ships, that can afford the capacitors, will usually have a set of 6-10 forward firing Missile-Beam-Punch/Explosive "Plasma Torpedoes". The speed at which full beam support missiles move is fantastic for manually aimed "dumbfire" attacks. Inside a few hundred meters, the time from launch to impact is so short, I can usually land the hits before the target's AMS turrets even have time to skew around to track the incoming fire.

 

[Scratchmort]

I use vertical launch missiles a lot and with 100% beam support they move too fast to reliably engage targets inside 3000 meters.

And just like that I figure out why all my vertical / side launching missiles have been doing nothing but giving my targets wonderful light displays

 

[Dr. Whammy]

Nice.

Here's a few I throw around every once in a while.

Weapons
Cannon/Beam/Punch: Gauss Cannon - Sabot rounds
Cannon/Beam/Explosive: Gauss Cannon - Thermite rounds
Cannon/Beam/Ion: Gauss Cannon - Compressed Ion charges

Support
Cloaker: Gravimetric distortion generator
Jammer: Electronic Warfare System
Scanner: Multi-spectral navigational sensor
Astrotech: Nanotech Arc Welder
Salvager: Molecular Siphon

Systems
Power reactor: Plasma cell conduit
Power capacitors: Plutonium carbide batteries
Aux Power: Antimatter containment banks

Other
Faction home base protection: Wide area defensive matrix.

 

[Coyote27]

A few reasons
1. higher rate of fire, and 50% beam is fast enough to catch most targets anyways.

2. I use vertical launch missiles a lot and with 100% beam support they move too fast to reliably engage targets inside 3000 meters. They have to loop around the target 3-5 times before they hit, which leaves them very open to AMS fire for an extended time and my missiles are big enough that having them loopback and pass near the firing ship is a little unnerving.

3. My favorite build size is 100K blocks or less, and I like my ships fast. I usually devote around a quarter of my internal volume to thrusters. Having full beam support with missile batteries on a ship that small and fast requires a prohibitive amount of capacitors with the current power system.

My larger ships, that can afford the capacitors, will usually have a set of 6-10 forward firing Missile-Beam-Punch/Explosive "Plasma Torpedoes". The speed at which full beam support missiles move is fantastic for manually aimed "dumbfire" attacks. Inside a few hundred meters, the time from launch to impact is so short, I can usually land the hits before the target's AMS turrets even have time to skew around to track the incoming fire.

Okay, that's a pretty reasonable thought process, and I understand now. I'd been optimizing my missiles for maximum range and speed, and not really thinking of more close-in use except for the odd missile/cannon direct fire rack. I do like oblique launchers, though, so I'll definitely consider partial-beam missiles for those in the future.

One thing that might set me a little apart is my preference for pierce effect on missiles - I'd rather be firing many smaller missiles than a few large ones due to both AMS and the way explosive effects scale, and pierce seems like the best effect for ripping off chunks of hull and armor to make holes for my other weaponry. Larger explosive-effect missiles, if they can reach their target and not waste too much energy, would certainly be better at tearing up the blocks on the inside.
However, despite liking many small missiles, I practically never use heatseekers out of fear that they'll hit my own ships, allies, or a neutral that would turn hostile and join the fight against me. If I played single-player it might be different, but as it is, if I'm getting into a fight intentionally I expect it to be more than a 1v1.

 

[Blakpik]

I remember early on calling Cannon / Cannon weapons 'Storm Cannons', in reference to the horrendous thundering sound that played whenever I fired them at close range. I never really thought of anything else, perhaps I will now.

 

[Top 4ce]

I personally use the naming conventions from Homeworld.

Cannons = Mass Drivers
Beams = Ion Beams
Missiles = Missiles

I'll give'em some made up manufacturer and name thought, I like that stuff.

Spoiler: Examples

 

[Zekester81]

300-kilohamster wheel drives

Beautiful. I have a station, that may never be finished, with an RP power generator that spins two directions but I haven't thought of a name for it. I think it qualifies as something like this.