Ship Tiers
Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum
-
- Posts: 5095
- Joined: Tue, 9. Jan 07, 22:04
Ship Tiers
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.
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.
This sı not ǝpısdn down.
-
- Posts: 9135
- Joined: Thu, 12. Oct 06, 17:19
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 5095
- Joined: Tue, 9. Jan 07, 22:04
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.
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.
This sı not ǝpısdn down.
-
- Posts: 4447
- Joined: Tue, 2. Dec 03, 22:28
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
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
Irrational factors are clearly at work.
-
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Fri, 25. Nov 16, 02:37
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?
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?
-
- Posts: 176
- Joined: Sat, 20. Oct 12, 00:56
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.treesniper12 wrote: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?
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.
-
- Posts: 9135
- Joined: Thu, 12. Oct 06, 17:19
But you basically end up with X-Rebirth classifiction, just artifically overcomplicated:treesniper12 wrote: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?
(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).
-
- Moderator (English)
- Posts: 8074
- Joined: Tue, 30. Mar 04, 12:28
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.Stars_InTheirEyes wrote:Yeah I suspected it may have originated in Rebirth.
...
Labelling via size is, imo, too basic.
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.
-
- Posts: 567
- Joined: Mon, 20. May 13, 09:18
-
- Posts: 780
- Joined: Thu, 27. Nov 03, 20:43
Just call them for what they are: Heavy Fighter, Light Fighter, Corvette etc.treesniper12 wrote: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
Not every ship needs an exact counterpart in every Race in my Opinion