Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mvp7]

I can't think of any naming convention that wouldn't be misleading or confusing somehow. Maybe this is something that players just need to learn the hard way or it could be explained in tutorials/tooltips that ships' technology type doesn't correlate with performance and not all ships of same size are equal.

[SCC]

Alternative naming scheme being confusing was actually a part of what I wanted. It's better to have the user wonder about this and figure an answer, rather than look at simple terms and instantly get the wrong answer.

I don't like either of the naming scheme for the design type. Like others have written, one is vague, and the other implies a quality tier. Ideally the naming scheme should describe the attributes to which the grouping is in. Something that evokes the idea of Armour/ballistic, midline, Energy/shields.  But then there are exceptions like phase ships. Maybe chemical, midline, energy? Durable, midline, flux?

On one hand, it would be the most truthful and the simplest. On the other, it's also the most boring and the most artificial way to do this.

[SafariJohn]

I think the main trouble with Mastery/Core/Expansion is that Mastery and Expansion are too easy to flip-flop. I feel like changing Expansion to something more evocative/on-point would remove the confusion.

Wolf, Tempest, Medusa, Aurora, Paragon - "Mythic", maybe?

[mvp7]

I think the main trouble with Mastery/Core/Expansion is that Mastery and Expansion are too easy to flip-flop. I feel like changing Expansion to something more evocative/on-point would remove the confusion.

Wolf, Tempest, Medusa, Aurora, Paragon - "Mythic", maybe?

Why would the latest and best known era be mythical? That would be extremely counter-intuitive.

In any case if clarity for new players is what is sought then using some lore-based terminology is the worst thing to do.

[SafariJohn]

Why would the latest and best known era be mythical?

The best tech in Starsector is the least known/understood.

[mvp7]

Why would the latest and best known era be mythical?

The best tech in Starsector is the least known/understood.

Mythical means something that is heavily based on description and myth, often something that's imaginary. The high tech ships are everywhere in the Persean sector so they are about as mythical as wireless chargers and folding screen mobile phones.

[Igncom1]

I mean, high tech ships essentially are the best.

Their weapon choices might be shoddy but otherwise they have the best stats overall.

[SafariJohn]

I did not say mythical. I said mythic. As in "mythic hero". But mythical works, too.

What is high-tech about? Super ships with magic-like powers.

To use the ships I mentioned: Wolf - teleports, Tempest - Terminators, Medusa - teleports, Aurora - super speed, Paragon - nigh-invincibility.

Anyways, it looks to me like those three would work pretty well:
Mastery Doctrine -> Big, heavy, straightforward ships with similar, but smaller ships supporting. (Masters and minions)
Core Doctrine -> Fast, flexible cruisers (the core) with specialized destroyers and frigates for support.
Mythic Doctrine -> Super ships with magic-like (i.e. mythical) powers.

[mvp7]

New player wouldn't have the slightest idea of what those three mean or how they are related. Low-, mid- and high-tech might be slightly misleading but at least it's intuitive.

[SCC]

It would be misleadingly intuitive. It suggests that high tech is better than low tech overall, when it's not the case. Intuition in this case is a bad idea.

[mvp7]

One option could be Early-, Mid- and Late-tech. Honestly I don't think there's much to be gained by any change but I would personally never remember which tech which if they had names like "mastery" and "mythic".

[Harmful Mechanic]

To be excessively serious for a sec, I don't think it matters what the words are so long as the game makes more of an effort to explain how the different design lineages work than it currently does. That could take a variety of forms, but part of the reason I like Mastery Era>Core Epoch>Expansion Era is that it doesn't come with as many associations or preconceptions about the value of each particular style.

What the game actually needs is a small paragraph or two explaining that Mastery Era ships are less capable hulls with poorer mobility and flux stats that field more capable, longer range weapons and heavy armor, Core Epoch ships are balanced designs that combine ballistics and energy weapons while balancing shields and armor, and Expansion Era ships are highly capable hulls with excellent shields and flux stats let down a bit by shorter-ranged weapons and lighter armor. How that information is named and presented to the player is vastly less important than actually giving it directly and unambiguously to the player in the first place.

Rant over.

[mvp7]

This entire debate is completely out of proportion... What harm has the current naming system done to anyone? How many people have played the game for dozens of hours having completely warped image of the ship techs? The current system is practical, its intuitive, people are used to it, existing guides and wiki's use it. Any change would cause far more confusion and misunderstanding than what the current names ever could.

[MesoTroniK]

That could take a variety of forms, but part of the reason I like Mastery Era>Core Epoch>Expansion Era is that it doesn't come with as many associations or preconceptions about the value of each particular style.

Exactly.

This entire debate is completely out of proportion... What harm has the current naming system done to anyone? How many people have played the game for dozens of hours having completely warped image of the ship techs? The current system is practical, its intuitive, people are used to it, existing guides and wiki's use it. Any change would cause far more confusion and misunderstanding than what the current names ever could.

Considering a newb player will almost every time think high tech is better than mid tech or low tech? It is a pretty big deal and the opposite of intuitive. As yea if you know little of the game it is a safe bet that high tech would be the best, when in reality every tech level is competitive and there are no flat upgrades which tech levels suggest.

[Sarissofoi]

Newbs will learn as any of us learn.
Its not a big deal and normal process.
Leave the techs alone. REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE