Ship Tiers

[Stars_InTheirEyes]

I saw most of the livestream and picked up Bernd referred to ships as "S", "M", "L", which I assume means Small/Medium/Large.
Does this mean that the traditional tiers; M5/M4/etc are not in use? Because I personally thought the old tiering system was really good and I had hoped that X4 would take it, expand upon it and more deeply define ships in those tiers so they all have a role and a place in battle.

[mr.WHO]

I think we are more or less stick to X-Rebirth S-M-L-XL which is OK.

The old M1, M2 system was too convoluded when new stull appeared like M6, M7 and M8 becasue number order doesn't inicated the size order anymore.

With S-M-L-XL you no longer have problem because the class and size wil be something diffrent (eg. XL size destroyer, XL size Carrier).

IMO I can complain about many thing in X-Rebirth, but the size based system is not among them.

[Stars_InTheirEyes]

Yeah I suspected it may have originated in Rebirth. I wouldn't know as I played about 30 seconds total of that.

Well, I really liked the old tiers. Going up a tier gave that nice feeling of progression and I didn't mind how frigates and bombers became bigger numbers. Labelling via size is, imo, too basic.

[Sandalpocalypse]

the important distinctions between ships are roles and docking class, and docking class is the more important one there as ships can have multiple roles. With ships able to dock to other ships again docking class is going to be even more important.

Since they are having interiors for every ship its a lot more effort to add lots of ships, for x3 they couldn't even manage cockpits (which x2 had.) I doubt whether races will have enough ships to warrant the distinction. More likely classification will be like:

Nova: Small / Fight / Argon

and that's all you'll need to know really

EDIT:

I do remember that the other important size distinction was number of crew slots. Ego stated/implied that S only had room for you and the pilot, but even M class ships could carry 3 (or more?) crew members

[MegaJohnny]

I like it, personally. It wasn't exploited much in XR, but in theory I think you can create more unique stuff if the class is only "XL" and not "M2 Destroyer".

[treesniper12]

I think it would be better if they simplified the M system, maybe rewrite it to be less confusing to new players, so ships go from largest to smallest.

M1: Carrier Ships
M2: Capital Destroyers
M3: Frigates
M4: Corvettes
M5: Heavy Fighters/Bombers
M6: Medium Fighters
M7: Light Fighters/Scouts

Tradeships could probably be kept the same. The only real downside to changing the classes to a class like this is that it would throw off veteran players, maybe change M to something else (maybe S?) to differentiate?

[kolimbo]

I think it would be better if they simplified the M system, maybe rewrite it to be less confusing to new players, so ships go from largest to smallest.

M1: Carrier Ships
M2: Capital Destroyers
M3: Frigates
M4: Corvettes
M5: Heavy Fighters/Bombers
M6: Medium Fighters
M7: Light Fighters/Scouts

Tradeships could probably be kept the same. The only real downside to changing the classes to a class like this is that it would throw off veteran players, maybe change M to something else (maybe S?) to differentiate?

Basically, the M# system would only work if it is reverse order. ie. larger ships have bigger numbers. Otherwise you run into the problem of having to resort to adding +s to indicate bigger ships or the even more absurd M0 styling for the biggest ships.

This is an issue of power/size creep in sci-fi games where every iteration inevitably brings about a more 'powerful' and thus bigger ship. You can always increase the number, but you can't go much below 0.

[mr.WHO]

I think it would be better if they simplified the M system, maybe rewrite it to be less confusing to new players, so ships go from largest to smallest.

M1: Carrier Ships
M2: Capital Destroyers
M3: Frigates
M4: Corvettes
M5: Heavy Fighters/Bombers
M6: Medium Fighters
M7: Light Fighters/Scouts

Tradeships could probably be kept the same. The only real downside to changing the classes to a class like this is that it would throw off veteran players, maybe change M to something else (maybe S?) to differentiate?

But you basically end up with X-Rebirth classifiction, just artifically overcomplicated:

(XL) M1: Carrier Ships
(XL) M2: Capital Destroyers
(L) M3: Frigates
(M) M4: Corvettes
(S/M) M5: Heavy Fighters/Bombers
(S) M6: Medium Fighters
(XS) M7: Light Fighters/Scouts

Most of people, especially new one would not know what M1, or M7 mean, but S-size, XL_size is self explenatory.
Not to mention if you want to add something really big, you add XXL class (aparently there will be ships bigger than Arawn in X4).

[Sparky Sparkycorp]

Yeah I suspected it may have originated in Rebirth.
...
Labelling via size is, imo, too basic.

This topic is a really good example of the added complexity created by iteration on a base game not designed for features added in the future.

X:BtF had M1-M5, with size correlation with numerical order (I can't comment on whether it was intentional).
X2:TT has M6, which breaks the established correlation but only a bit.
X3:R introduces an M7 and some M3+ that could have had a unique number.
X3:TC adds M8s.

In other words, the X3 games were based on a size-name correlation too but it just got lost over time. X4's not based on Rebirth in a sense that Rebirth was different, X4 and Rebirth are based on the same concept used in previous games.

[CommanderTM]

I like XS-XL way more than the M1 and all that. It was very confusing in earlier X games as a newcomer.

[KreXx]

I think it would be better if they simplified the M system, maybe rewrite it to be less confusing to new players, so ships go from largest to smallest.

M1: Carrier Ships
M2: Capital Destroyers
M3: Frigates
M4: Corvettes
M5: Heavy Fighters/Bombers
M6: Medium Fighters
M7: Light Fighters/Scouts

Just call them for what they are: Heavy Fighter, Light Fighter, Corvette etc.

Not every ship needs an exact counterpart in every Race in my Opinion