Welcome to Keen Software House Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the KSH community.
  1. You are currently browsing our forum as a guest. Create your own forum account to access all forum functionality.

Universal Hull Designations For Space Engineers

Discussion in 'Community Creations' started by CptTwinkie, Nov 8, 2013.

Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.
  1. Xandalis Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    45
    Does a partially finished ship (basic hull complete though) count towards this?
     
  2. Volthorne Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    487
    Can this thread die? Forever maybe? Your ship is whatever class designation you want to assign the damn thing and that's the end of it. No chart can tell you otherwise. Even trying to make a chart is pointless because - surprise! - not everyone has the same definition of how big or heavy or armed (read: on a scale of "none" to "what the f***?!?!" how many guns are mounted to it?) or whatever something should be, not even in real life. If you really want to call your 0.5m ton ship a dreadnaught, and your 100m ton ship a scout, so be it! Done! If someone else comes along and says "no, that's a ____ according to my system", then too bad so sad for them, you're right and they're wrong because you made it, not them.

    TL;DR: You pick your own ship classes. F*** everyone/everything else. End of story.
     
  3. Ravric Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    318
    Pourquoi vous inquiétez-vous? Aussi, je trouve votre déclaration un peu incohérent.
     
  4. Volthorne Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    487
    I care because people keep trying to invent super complex solutions to a a problem that doesn't even exist. This is by far the least screwed thread (mostly because it started off with what is essentially a circle-jerk and only had a few constant contributors). Every other thread on this particular topic has quickly devolved into bickering and arguing over what defines a "light carrier" or "heavy fighter" or... The answer is simple: the creator decides. Everyone else has to live with his decision. If he has a chart planned out for HIS fleet, fine, but I'm not building my ships by his standards. This is also visible in real life where none of the different navies of the world have a consistent class rating (An American frigate is equivalent to an Australian destroyer is equivalent to an Argentinian corvette or something along those lines - it's pretty screwy).

    As for me being "inconsistent", please clarify further where you see said inconsistency.
     
  5. mattryan72 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    128
    I little part of me dies when I see this post on top of the front page!
    :eek
     
  6. CptTwinkie Master Engineer

    Messages:
    4,458
    You know you're on to something when your chart causes people to spontaneously rage :wave:
     
  7. Tristavius Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,368
    Mixed opinions here.

    Mostly I really like this idea, though I think the chart could use some changes in the heavier end as even small size increases can lead to huge weight increases, especially with heavy armor. Dreadnoughts for example seem way too small on that chart. The lower end actually feels really quite right.

    At some stage or another there IS likely to be a need for something 'official'. Lets say the scanning system continues to grown for example and at some point you'll be able to scan for ships in the distance and maybe get some idea what they are there's going to need to be a system. I have to say on a personal note, I hate, hate, hate it when I see something barely big enough for a couple of engineers being called a battleship or something, though I completely respect the rights of anyone else to do so if it makes them happy.

    Guidelines should of course also not be purely on weight but also on the purpose, armaments etc. Rather than 1-10 = A and 11-20 = B the more realistic would be overlap such as 1-12 = A, 9-21 = B and so forth.

    In short, I love standardization and agreed standards (but hell, I'm an engineer and surveyor by trade, so of course I do) but I respect peoples rights to do otherwise.
     
  8. Ravric Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    318
    No one can enforce what people designate their hull but it is nice to have some sort of consistency. This chart I would recommend to reference in classing your ship because it is simple and when it comes to others it lowers the amount of confusion (real world example imperial vs metric). The chart should be a recommendation and it is in no way perfect. Light fighters can be less than 15,000 kg and pods can be heavier than 15,000 kg. Every person can classify a ship whatever they want but others may not see it that way. Example:
    They mostly do and a great example is battleships before WWII.

    If keen comes out with radar that identifies distant vessels then this chart can perish for all care. Because it is not the chart that holds value, it is the way we can come to an understanding with each other. Hence why you may have had to refer to a translator for my initial statement.
     
  9. Volthorne Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    487
    There's standardized class categories. But again, no navy currently agrees on what size or tonnage or X or Q or G defines what class a ship fits into. As I said before, an American XYZ boat is going to be equivalent to an Australian DEF boat is equivalent to an Argentinian FDU boat is equivalent to a Chinese PWG boat is equivalent to... none of it matches up. Just like how the Heavy Cruiser I'm building is equivalent to one of Twinkies' Dreadnaughts/Leviathans on the chart.

    Except they won't because then everyone will be flying around in god knows what arbitrary name they assign, and that's going to make a lot of people unhappy. And if you feel like you need to bring three of your Battleship-class ships (by your scale) to counter my one Heavy Cruiser-class (by my scale), so be it.
     
  10. RabidAnubis Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    32
    I agree with this guy.
     
  11. Xandalis Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    45
    Dude, if you don't like it, don't use it. Simple as that. If you're butt-hurt over seeing... stop reading the thread. Clearly there are people who would like to have a "starting point" for how they classify a design. And then there's the whole bit of the chart itself being a Community Creation.


    So, TL;DR: chill out, and stop ripping on someone's work just because you think it isn't needed.
     
  12. K9K | KaMiKaZuU Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    24
    This list is a very good idea for orientation but i think the range between the classes at Large Ships is to short!
     
  13. Tristavius Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,368
    This whole debate is rather fascinating actually...

    One side says guidelines are good as many people have no idea how most people will see what they have built and want to willingly be part of the system so to speak.

    The other sees this even existing as other people trying to stamp their own views/authority on them.

    Simple answer is for everyone to live and let live. Many people including myself LIKE this kind of guideline and want to be a part of it. On saying that if someone builds a 20 meter long ship and calls it a dreadnought I'm not going to be critical to them about it.

    For the actual topic itself, the more I look into the numbers and various ships people have built the more I like the lower ends of the spectrum, but I feel there needs to be a bigger gap with battlecruisers and a MUCH bigger gap with battleships before arriving at dreadnoughts for example the carrier I'm building now is currently 32,000,000 half built and should weigh in at 45-50 finished and I don't really think it's anywhere near a dreadnought; it's not really that big.
     
  14. CptTwinkie Master Engineer

    Messages:
    4,458
    This was made before heavy armor was available in the game. The mass difference and arbitrariness of how much heavy armor gets used makes the mass numbers entirely unpredictable. That is also why the difference shows up so much more with very large ships.
     
  15. K9K | KaMiKaZuU Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    24
    Ah ok now i understand why, thanks for this information! I started to play when heavy armor was online!
     
  16. zekes Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    214
    Aw hell yea 120 million is like a levithian times 4, IOWA for the win!
     
  17. Vivicector Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    171
    Thread necromancy, man! Not cool.

    With light/heavy armour, all that classifications have no use.
     
  18. Bad_Idea Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    498
    Raising the dead is dirty buisness!
    Even with heavy and light armor i find that these strike true most of the time. It all lies in careful application of the heavier stuff, rather than using it everywhere (something i hate seeing.).
     
  19. zekes Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    214
    sorry, my bad. but it's such a great designation system.
     
  20. Vivicector Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    171
    Nah. Its lower ranges are screwed. And its upper ranges are screwed. Also, survival ships are waaay different. Like, one of my ships weights 2.2 MKG, and is classified by me as light cruiser, since it has gravitation cannon, engine, frontal heavy armour up to 2 layers, production capacity, external light ship docking clamp, tug gears and a good number of turrets. Its survival-built. This table seems only useful for creative mode, since it doesn't cover smaller weights at all.
     
  21. 2468wdwa1 Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    9
    for strictly size this post is absolutely wrong. The biggest ship I've built was 600 meters long, and the world's current largest ship is only 400 meters long, and I know that there a re far bigger ships than mine in the workshop, and for weight, my largest ship is slightly less than half.

    My source: http://www.worldslargestship.com/facts/the-worlds-largest-ship-2/
     
  22. High Ground Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    324
    Ok this might be good in real life but in space engineers we will never see a fuctional carrier that big.

    6-12 Escort Carrier

    12 - 24 Carrier

    Any more than 24 craft would be a waste in my mind. Thats too many eggs in one basket. bet to get another carrier at that point. At least in space engineers.
     
  23. High Ground Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    324
    Here is a "revised" ship classification system that is more practical for multiplayer/tournaments. While this is not perfect and a work in progress, it does give us the ability to create a level playing field under certain conditions.


    [​IMG]

    So for example we are going to have a friendly little game where each opposing fraction builds a ship with in the limits of say a Corvette in this case. so the weight limit is between 500,000-1,500,000 kg. This could lead to some interesting scenarios, for example, if you want your ship to be decked out in weapons you can do that but at the expense of armor or vise versa.

    While I never see everyone adopting this system is nice to have some sort of guide to classify ships under "certain" conditions like a tournament. Another example would be we are having a fighter competition to see who is the best at dog fighting. The rules are 1 rocket launcher, 4 gatling guns and a weight limit of no more than 30,000 kg and only light armor, Now go build a fighter. Now you have to choose between a lightly armored ship build for speed, a balanced craft, or a slow armored ship that can take a beating. No way to say who would win in such a scenario but I makes for a level playing field of sorts. Which is all most of us seek to create.

    And from a historical perspective, weight limits where agreed upon by the major powers in the world at the Washington Naval Conference (Nov.1921 - Feb.1922) which placed limits on how much tonnage each nation could possess and on how heavy a Battleship could be. While the treaty lasted it created stability during the 1920s up until 1936 when the Japanese officially dropped out.
     
  24. Tristavius Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,368
    Only the brave become Necromancers, and only the bravest bring this thread back to life :p

    Still, I always approved of the idea, though I'm now committed to the Phoenix system instead.

    One thing that did cross my mind a lot though. Being as heavy armour can totally throw the weight of a ship, especially when talking about smaller ones; a possible way of judging a ships true class could be a 'light tonnage' system. Use SEToolbox to switch all heavy to light and see what the ship weighs in as on an even playing field.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 16, 2014
  25. CptTwinkie Master Engineer

    Messages:
    4,458
    i'm willing to add this to the op and make it a chart thread
     
  26. Lord Commissar Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    848
    Suffer not the necromancer :p

    [​IMG]
     
  27. Ultra Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    15
    It would be nice to see this next to the antennae designation for a ship, so when something is in range you know what it is before you see it.

    +1
     
  28. Wintersend Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,095
    Bah, lord commissars are not high enough ranked to call down an exterminatus, and they are not members of the inquisition either. :)

    I approve of ship classification, and thank you because I could not remember the size between frigate and patrol craft.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 17, 2014
  29. Admiral Yuki Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    295
    Well I guess since were over the necro...

    This was a very interesting read. http://www.ww2ships.com/documents/doc0002-ship_types.shtml
    I am a bit more inclined to have weights dictate ship class now, but I think we need to set a guideline of how much firepower said ship classes will have. Suggestions?
     
  30. Wintersend Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,095
    If both firepower and weight determined ship class, I've got to be honest, all my ships would immediately move up a class or two just because of the sheer amount of firepower I cram onto the things. Not bragging, just saying I generally put a turret everywhere I can get a conveyor connection and there's flat space.
     
Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.