| (2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 56: | Line 56: | ||
Yeah, I guess that's the better question, and it feels like the difference between Dee's Races and your at-a-glance list. Some people want a historical record of every ship class that's ever been built, while the more use-based viewer would be looking to see which ships he could buy tommorrow. Both seem valid, but I might want to cater more to the latter. As for the definition of origin, I'd say design, as we're talking about ship classes, not individual ships, but again, it depends on what you're looking for. [[User:Wik|Wik]] 20:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC) | Yeah, I guess that's the better question, and it feels like the difference between Dee's Races and your at-a-glance list. Some people want a historical record of every ship class that's ever been built, while the more use-based viewer would be looking to see which ships he could buy tommorrow. Both seem valid, but I might want to cater more to the latter. As for the definition of origin, I'd say design, as we're talking about ship classes, not individual ships, but again, it depends on what you're looking for. [[User:Wik|Wik]] 20:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Table Formatting=== | ||
| + | {| width="95%" align="center" style="background: transparent;text-align: center;" | ||
| + | |class="MainPageCenter" width="90%" rowspan="1" valign="top" style="border: 0px solid #000000; padding: .4em .4em; margin: 1em; background-color: #797876; -moz-border-radius: 10px;"| | ||
| + | {| class="wikitable sortable" width="100%" align="center" style="font-size:85%; background:#FFFFFF; -moz-border-radius: 10px; padding: .4em .4em; border: 3px solid #ffffff" | ||
| + | |- scope="col" style="background: #dddddd; -moz-border-radius: 8px;" | ||
| + | ! | Ship | ||
| + | ! | Origin | ||
| + | ! | Manufacturing Faction | ||
| + | ! | 'Role' | ||
| + | ! | Class | ||
| + | ! | Status | ||
| + | ! | Shipstat1 | ||
| + | ! | Shipstat2 | ||
| + | ! | Shipstat3 | ||
| + | ! | Shipstat4 | ||
| + | ! scope="col" class="unsortable" | Ship Description | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | | Fiachrinn Scout || Hiverspace || Pyracan || Civspec || Scout || Discontinued || 1 || 2 || 3 || 4 || 40 meter hand-made large shuttle or scout, discontinued but legendary for its reliability and resale value. | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | | Keant || Hiverspace || Svajone || Civspec || Station || Active || 4 || 1 || 2 || 3 || Mid-sized space station designed for residential and research use. | ||
| + | |} | ||
| + | |} | ||
| + | |||
| + | It looks nice, but I'm worried about the additional space it takes up. [[User:Sergeytov|sergeytov@yahoo.com]] 18:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 13:07, 4 June 2011
Are any of the civilian classes still accurate as is? I know they were made for HSpace, and several of them'll probably need reworked for the new system. That and they're so painfully generic. :/ sergeytov@yahoo.com 16:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Talk to Col. Not sure how far we want to go in retconning ships, but you're right, these were made with HSpace in mind, which may not be the same paradigm as Colchek's Space, so they may need alteration. Wik 18:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I'll poke at him when I think of it. If anything, all the ships need to be reconfigured to the new systems anyway, most of these classes only seemed to exist as OOC designations anyway, so in many ways they never 'really existed', as strange as that may sound. sergeytov@yahoo.com 02:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Word from Colchek - There will be stock ship classes, but none have been designed and he has no attachment to the current civilian listings. Additionally, since stock classes can be added at later times, this shouldn't be a big deal. sergeytov@yahoo.com 12:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Okay, so once we have an idea of all the systems there are to balance, we can at least propose tropes to fit under. Wik 14:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
If I had any really big complaint about the listed civilian classes (other than their super generic nature) is the 2/4 man crew business being specified. I'm fine with ships being able to operate on small PC crews, but it's kind of silly to say in many cases 'the ship is too small for you to build your RP group/org'. sergeytov@yahoo.com 14:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
That's fair. I guess it was meant as an incentive to buy a bigger ship if you had a bigger group, and thus leave small groups of newbies with something they'd be better at than the big guys; namely, size-based agility. Obviously making people rp things is always problematic, but it feels like there should be some kind of space limitation. I guess there's plenty of incentive already to buy the biggest ship you can, but that may just be an artifact of OSpace, where big ships have the ability to be the best at everything. Wik 15:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Maybe that was the intent, but it doesn't even look like the core classes went beyond 4-man crew. - I don't have any emotional attachment to ship size, and there is a place for small ships in the OS universe (look at your trying to make Pyracani fighters work). Perhaps a better question is 'what purpose do ships serve?' And I think the answer requires more than a limited 2 or 4 man crew. Though with the potential for a variety of ship classes of varying sizes and costs, I think we can handle such issues with little trouble. sergeytov@yahoo.com 15:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
They never went beyond a 4-man crew because they were originally made for a promotion (the get-your-own-ship thing), upon which I found the limitations and frustrations of the HSpace system while slogging through the spacing of Outverser ships, and stopped making new classes. So yeah, it isn't an intensional thing that we only have tiny Hiverspace ships. I think our number of ship classes is only limited by the ability for people to make reasonable descs and playtesting Col's point-build system enough until we find and fix any major exploits. We may even be able to code the creation of ship classes, not sure. But yeah, I think ships can serve any purpose the players need them for; I'm not terribly interested in limiting that. Wik 16:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
The good news is we can set up the classes to be organized in a table that can be selected for a variety of sort types. Which means we just need to make a table and make a ship list and then the user can sort them how they'd like. To the best of my understanding. Though I'll probably focus on ship size classifications when talking about stuff on the talk page just for sanity at this point. sergeytov@yahoo.com 14:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
That sounds like a really cool idea. And would probably also help out with the balancing. Good deal. Wik 15:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
| Ship | Origin | Manufacturing Faction | 'Role' | Class | Status | Shipstat1 | Shipstat2 | Shipstat3 | Shipstat4 | Ship Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fiachrinn Scout | Hiverspace | Pyracan | Civspec | Scout | Discontinued | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 40 meter hand-made large shuttle or scout, discontinued but legendary for its reliability and resale value. |
| Keant | Hiverspace | Svajone | Civspec | Station | Active | 4 | 1 | 2 | 3 | Mid-sized space station designed for residential and research use. |
A sample sortable table with a sample entry. sergeytov@yahoo.com 17:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
You could even sort them by base stats, considering there won't be that many. Wik 17:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
4 core stats, right? Slots added for 'em. If we're going to do a table, we need to know what goes in it before we start adding, if only because otherwise it'll be a real pain later. sergeytov@yahoo.com 17:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
That's Col's domain. No clue if he's expanded from there. There's also the possibility that size might be a straight number that interacts with these stats though again, not sure if he's moved beyond that. Wik 18:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Changed a couple things on the chart. Took out origin (since it seems purely academic) and added status to show if it's still being made/used or is a relic of the past where only one or two are left. sergeytov@yahoo.com 20:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, that'll be important if we decide to put the huge list of old Normalspace ships on that list. Should we break it up into two tables, or can the table handle that? Wik 20:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
The table can handle it. It's just a question of 'do we want to?' *adds origin back in* The problem, which seems kind of overly obsessive, is something like: What defines if a ship class is 'Hiverspace' or 'Normalspace' based? Location of design? Where it was built? Who built it? - And yeah, those questions might sound strange right now, but there's already a valid case that this designation is not as binary as one might think. sergeytov@yahoo.com 20:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess that's the better question, and it feels like the difference between Dee's Races and your at-a-glance list. Some people want a historical record of every ship class that's ever been built, while the more use-based viewer would be looking to see which ships he could buy tommorrow. Both seem valid, but I might want to cater more to the latter. As for the definition of origin, I'd say design, as we're talking about ship classes, not individual ships, but again, it depends on what you're looking for. Wik 20:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Table Formatting
|
It looks nice, but I'm worried about the additional space it takes up. sergeytov@yahoo.com 18:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)