Universal Reference Categorization System

[҉]

If you've posted your entire idea cohesively then you should be able to copypaste it. If you can't, then you haven't and should organize it completely before we proceed. If you're not willing to work with me, you're not getting anything.

1. Or, you know, you could just read it.
2. Why the hell should he have to work with you? This is the first post here that's felt to me like the attack Tiel was describing a couple pages ago. The argument had cooled off and become pretty reasonable, and I think the last post Tiel made is more or less acceptable to everyone, and now you suddenly smash you way in here and say you don't like our 'direction'. Try putting your * back into your pants and working with us before making statements about how lack of cooperation with you will result in this whole thing falling down.

[Chairman_Tiel]

Thank you Jedi, but in keeping with your point that we need to cooperate to prevent this from all falling down I'll oblige.

This is my prior post on the matter.

My new proposal for the categories and their name takes heavy inspiration from LJS's post and Error's expansion of it a few pages back and is as follows:

Strikecraft: If you have a ship with one-to-three crew and is supposed to be deployed en masse, it is categorized as a Strikecraft.

Harrier: Any class that's too large to be deployed effectively as a Strikecraft but too small to be used as an Escort.

Escort: Classes that fulfill the function of a multi-role, utility vessel while being both larger and (in most cases) better armed than the Harrier category.

Lancer: Anything bigger than a Heavy Escort but smaller than a Lineship; used almost exclusively for direct combat.

Lineship: Comprised of mid-tier classes that form the backbone of a fleet element's "line" when in conventional engagements. Tend to be mid-tier; may also serve as the centerpiece of Lancer/Escort task forces depending on the faction and commander.

Juggernaut: Any class larger than a Lineship, and/or designed with the ability to take punishment first and foremost. Serve to anchor battle lines, draw enemy fire, act as command ships, be the most effective carriers, etcetera.

Experimental: Any class exceeding the mass of a faction's largest contribution to the Juggernaut category is probably extremely expensive and thus Experimental. Note: Must be at least semi-mobile.

Modifiers can probably stay the same - that is,

Weight classes (can be combined with below)

Light: Designed for maneuverability in mind, with little in the way of armor.

Medium: Balances speed and defenses admirably; the 'default' if not specified.

Heavy: Damage sinks possessing much armor but very cumbersome.

Tactical: Ships torn down to fit one explicit role and nothing else, usually to minimize costs in maintenance and/or construction.

Super: Denotes a 'super-sized' variant of the hull class. May be combined with Heavy, Medium, or Light plus those below (total of three).

Pocket: The opposite of Super; ships falling under this are small for their class but in most cases pack just as much punch. Can be combined with Heavy, Medium, or Light in addition to those below.

Role Modifiers

Recon: Maximizes sensor ability for the purposes of gathering intelligence (not necessarily offensively)

Support: Any vessel that fills a niche role such as long range fire support or medical ships.

Command: Similar to Support, though only applicable in scenarios where a starship is designed solely for the purposes of coordinating fleet movements and battles.

Strike: Ships in this category are fast and manage to pack a punch; typically used for hit and run actions.

Escort: Anything extensively fitted to combat a particular threat, eg. strikecraft.

Assault: Designed for protracted conflict - opposite of Strike.

Missile: A ship in which no less than 2/3rds of the armament are dedicated to slow-moving projectile weapons such as torpedoes and rockets.

Carrier: A ship carrying less weapons and/or armor for the capacity of transferring and deploying a substantial amount of vessels of lesser classes. Note that the correct formatting for this would be as a postfix, eg. 'destroyer-class carrier'.

Attack: Fusion of Carrier and Assault, balancing the innate support role of the former with the combat prowess of the latter.

So we're clear, these are not ship classes.

Ship classes are presumed to vary by faction; these 'categories' just serve as containers for those that serve the same function and/or size. So for instance, my Pathos-class Frigate would be considered an Escort, whereas one of CvN's battleships might be considered either a Lineship or Juggernaut depending on whether any larger ones for the faction are made. The idea is to create these umbrellas so that you can see at a glance what a ship does, how it stacks up to the rest of a navy's lineup, etc.

[Error]

I see no issue with the above post.

[Ivan2006]

I think that Tiel's system is very fleshed out and the combination of roles, weight classes and modifiers allows for a lot of different possible classes while not creating confusion at all.
I like it.

[Chairman_Tiel]

Thanks guys. You have no idea how vexing posting in this thread was up to this point.

[Error]

However, I'm still calling a battleship a battleship.

But this works great for roles.

[Ivan2006]

However, I'm still calling a battleship a battleship.

Which you totally can, as mentioned in the section of Tiel's post after the quote, but you propably already got that one...

[cats]

If you've posted your entire idea cohesively then you should be able to copypaste it. If you can't, then you haven't and should organize it completely before we proceed. If you're not willing to work with me, you're not getting anything.

1. Or, you know, you could just read it.
2. Why the hell should he have to work with you? This is the first post here that's felt to me like the attack Tiel was describing a couple pages ago. The argument had cooled off and become pretty reasonable, and I think the last post Tiel made is more or less acceptable to everyone, and now you suddenly smash you way in here and say you don't like our 'direction'. Try putting your * back into your pants and working with us before making statements about how lack of cooperation with you will result in this whole thing falling down.

I'm the lead designer and compiler of all of the standards that go or will go into the RP. I have a lot to do in a short amount of time if I don't want to let the RP fall back into the pile of shit that it was. If I don't have everything directly in front of me where I can nail it down, it'll slip under the rest and just lead to a source of argument later down the line.

Frankly, I don't have time to put up with anyone's shit right now, particularly about something inconsequential like bickering about the standards of ships. So if you'd not try to tick me off, that'd be just super.


Thanks, Tiel.
The major problem I see with this is that the categories, in the first section, have no solid standards and will interfere with the factions' classes. They're just frigate, destroyer, cruiser, etc. with different names. The other sections are modifiers (role, weight class) and have some conflicts. I'm not quite sure how the three can be used together to create a universal standard. I can see how it could work if you increased the sectionalism and solidified the functional boundaries between the terms in different categories to outline the aspects that needed to be known. For instance, the list of role modifiers should be purely role modifiers and have no impact on the weight or size.

E: Bad example, the role modifier list looks okay, the weight classes are a little hairy though.

[Chairman_Tiel]

I don't suppose you could provide an example of what you're talking about? Gotta admit, just got home a while back and I'm reading your words but they're not sinking in.

[Ivan2006]

I think he means that your weight classes are confusing in regard of non-linear classes such as 'tactical', 'super' or 'pocket'.
As for confusion about the main categories, harriers, escorts and lineships may propably be of concern. Their description directly contradicts the 'tactical'-modifier (which, btw, fits better into role modifiers than weight classes IMO), so what would normally be an escort in terms of size but has properties of the 'tactical'-modifier can not be applied to any category, as the definitions of both 'escort' and 'lineship' are in direct contradiction with that.

[Chairman_Tiel]

The only real reason tactical is in there, along with super/pocket is because you can combine them with roles in a similar fashion. IE: Tactical Support Frigate, or Super Heavy Harrier. I guess we could remove pocket & super and shift Tactical down to roles, seeing as the former two aren't going to be utilized much and thus probably don't need an explicit category.

What really concerns me is

The major problem I see with this is that the categories, in the first section, have no solid standards and will interfere with the factions' classes

seeing as I've done my best to make this system the opposite; to make it easy for it to coexist with everyone's different preferences for class names. If you could elaborate on this cats that'd be great.

[Ivan2006]

I think Cats wants a definition that is less likely to produce border-groups that you can't properly assign to anything while complaining about your namings being counter-intuitive for most players.
For example, when I read your description of an escort, I was like 'oh, a frigate'.
While I think your standpoint of calling them more generic terms is valid, using the terms 'corvette', 'frigate' or 'cruiser' would help a lot. And you can still make 'interstellar role standard' and 'class' seperate, wheras IRS would be what the unified system would call it and the Class would be what you call it.

[Chairman_Tiel]

Of course, but remember that only served to confuse everyone in the thread for the past 6 or so pages as to the difference between a category and a class. In retrospect it seems like a much better idea to segregate the names and so make clear there's a difference between the two.

As far as border groups, I can't think of any role that couldn't be covered by some combination of the two parts.

[Ivan2006]

As you said, I honestly would like an example by cats on that one at this point.
The only thing I can think of are specialized frigate/cruiser-sized ships, as mentioned in my previous post...

[cats]

I think it would be best to just get rid of the first section and replace it with a series of size categories that range from single ship to hypermotherfuck and change the weight class group's purpose to weight/size/armament modifier (which it already kind of is). Then we'd have a base (size) and two modifiers so there's specificity and flexibility.