安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
0 
举报此帖
About every 2 or 3 years is another classification standard that nobody will follow.
That sounds meaner than I intend, but have fun trying to get players to conform to it. It can be the best thing in the world, but if I don't want my ship classed a battleship even though it fits all the criteria. Its defining rules for other players.
On a related note : Depending on the server setup, a lot of the heavier ships cannot be made due to server PCU limits.
When > 75% of the workshop is labelled as a ship when it isn't even a ship or part thereof, I think any attempt at improving it is a lost cause.
First of all, thank you very much for your reply!
Limiting the number of blocks for each ship type does not make sense for servers. This also helps players in the workshop to better compare ships and create their own ships.
A CPU restriction does not make sense in this regard, as gyroscopes, cockpits, programme blocks, etc. also require a lot of CPU points and you are immediately restricted here as well. Therefore, we must appeal to ‘common sense’ here. Very few people favour a ship that is simply cluttered with weapons.
First of all, thank you very much for your comprehensive answer!
I would first like to address real life. Not adhering to the designations is not the standard. There are countries such as Japan that are not allowed to have aircraft carriers (prohibited by America after the Second World War), which is why Japan then builds a smaller one and calls it a helicopter carrier. But these are rarities in order to maintain a higher military strength without breaking treaties.
My table is based on ship types from the United States, Russia, China and Europe. These ship types were converted into block counts and adapted for Space Engineers, as otherwise the block counts would be beyond the scope of this discussion.
I took the data for the ship types from the period between the end of the Cold War and the present day. But perhaps you could help me more by explaining exactly what you mean by new classification standards, because I don't know anything about them.
I don't think it sounds mean at all! It's not about imposing rules on players. Something like this can only be established if over 60-70% of people say, yes, I think that's a good idea and I want to adopt it.
Regarding the statement: ‘[...] but if I don't want my ship to be classified as a battleship, even though it meets all the criteria.’
No one can stop you, but there would also be no contractual penalties for naming it accordingly ;)
Actually, I don't know how far the server settings are always limited. The limitations I used in the table are based on the possible limitations when creating your own world and performance stability.
I am particularly interested in the table for myself and the fleet I would like to build. I already find it very difficult to build ‘beautifully’, but even more so to classify the ship (according to real fleet classification).
Most people don't even see the 75%. It's about those who make an effort. Creating their own fictional factions, inventing ship value companies, or finding their way into the workshop to build ships themselves and seek inspiration, or becoming part of this group and posting quality content.
If more than 75% of the workshop is referred to as a ship, even though it is not even a ship or part of one, I consider any attempt to improve this to be futile.