About the S M L XL Ship classification business

[Sparky Sparkycorp]

On S/M/L :

Shortly after this thread was created, CBJ confirmed that the XL group is currently being retained from XR too (in line with Lino's earlier comment on sizes). That doesn't of itself address your points but I thought it would help to mention in the thread.

Q1 : Will X4 have ship designations like M5, M3, TL, TS, M1, M2 back to easily identify different types of ships without having to memorize all ship names?

Q1: At the moment we are still using the S/M/L/XL designations. Whether this will change or not remains to be seen.

https://forum.egosoft.com/viewtopic.php ... 79#4674879

[birdtable]

Or perhaps we could have a row of emojis floating around signifying size, function and intention...

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

The old M classification was arbitrary and confusing.

Might as well have used a classification based on pre-decimal UK coins

i.e. farthing, half-penny, penny, threepenny, sixpence, shilling, florin, half-crown.

A classification system needs to have some relation to the objects it is classifying. It also needs to have a properly organised progression from one class to another.

[CommanderTM]

I think this is a no-win argument. There are people who like one way and others that like it the other way. No amount of explaining will change other person preference. So, i guess it matters what devs like and think is fitting for their game.

[boreas.real]

I would prefer a system based in reality with a few things taken from the M/T system, specificaly the T ones.

For larger ships we just use the role as a class:
BB/BC - Battleship/Battlecruiser
CV - Carrier
CA/CL - Assault (or heavy) Cruiser/light Cruiser
DD - Destroyer
TL/TXL - large/huge Transport
ML/MXL - large/huge Miner
I always thought that the Destroyer as primary warship flawed was, scince it was more like a Battleship. Destroyers are small and nimble, wich use thier speed and small size to attack larger ships.
On to the smaller ships

TM/TS - medium/small Transport
TP - personell Transport
SSF - Space Superiority Fighter (the heavy ones)
INC - Interceptors
SC - Scout
CO - Corvette
MS/MM - small/medium Miner

This way you know wich size wich class is and it is flexible enough to add new classes like:

BOM - Bomber
FRI/ - Frigate
GB/GS - Gunboat/Gunship
MB - Missile-/Torpedoboat

You can even add multiple civilian crafts like:

SC - Shuttlecraft
YAC - Yacht
CRL - Cruiseliner

I know that this will be very confusing at the beginning, but that's what X is all about, right

[ArtilleryWhore]

I would prefer a system based in reality with a few things taken from the M/T system, specificaly the T ones.

For larger ships we just use the role as a class:
BB/BC - Battleship/Battlecruiser
CV - Carrier
CA/CL - Assault (or heavy) Cruiser/light Cruiser
DD - Destroyer
TL/TXL - large/huge Transport
ML/MXL - large/huge Miner
I always thought that the Destroyer as primary warship flawed was, scince it was more like a Battleship. Destroyers are small and nimble, wich use thier speed and small size to attack larger ships.
On to the smaller ships

TM/TS - medium/small Transport
TP - personell Transport
SSF - Space Superiority Fighter (the heavy ones)
INC - Interceptors
SC - Scout
CO - Corvette
MS/MM - small/medium Miner

This way you know wich size wich class is and it is flexible enough to add new classes like:

BOM - Bomber
FRI/ - Frigate
GB/GS - Gunboat/Gunship
MB - Missile-/Torpedoboat

You can even add multiple civilian crafts like:

SC - Shuttlecraft
YAC - Yacht
CRL - Cruiseliner

I know that this will be very confusing at the beginning, but that's what X is all about, right

if i was to be in-favor for changing the classification system away from how it is in XR, this would be what ied vote for. Its straightforward, logical, and widely used thoughout actual military and Scifi not just in X..

That said im still happy as is, like others have mentioned. They already classify things under, trade/fight/build/mine ect ect.
Then you have the ship encyclopedia to tell you even more, AND you can change the name ontop of all that... Part of the fun is learning what every ship does and how well it does it.

Dont forget you also have sites like this https://roguey.co.uk/xrebirth/ships/ that data mine and give you all kinds of really useful info on ships, wares, stations ect ect.

[Kitty]

On S/M/L :

Shortly after this thread was created, CBJ confirmed that the XL group is currently being retained from XR too (in line with Lino's earlier comment on sizes). That doesn't of itself address your points but I thought it would help to mention in the thread.

Q1 : Will X4 have ship designations like M5, M3, TL, TS, M1, M2 back to easily identify different types of ships without having to memorize all ship names?

Q1: At the moment we are still using the S/M/L/XL designations. Whether this will change or not remains to be seen.

https://forum.egosoft.com/viewtopic.php ... 79#4674879

We read that too. With interest. I noted that this is still under discussion. I also noticed that they pretend to offer a better UI for fleet management. For this last point, I think that we need more usable icons on the map than just "S" or "XL". Big guns ships and carriers may have the same size. Bombers and big fighters too. They clearly do not have the same role. We will have no time to open each ship description, or even read their names when they will be numerous.

[Killjaeden]

That said im still happy as is, like others have mentioned. They already classify things under, trade/fight/build/mine ect ect.
[...] Dont forget you also have sites like this https://roguey.co.uk/xrebirth/ships/ that data mine and give you all kinds of really useful info on ships, wares, stations ect ect.

Having specific classification (e.g. Battleship) does not preclude the use of general categories of size (SML) and aspect (fight, trade,...). In fact i think it would be usefull for learning categories.

Having to rely on external information out of the game is very poor game design. Thats like Destiny, where you had to go to an external page to be able to read background information.

[mr.WHO]

I would prefer a system based in reality with a few things taken from the M/T system, specificaly the T ones.

For larger ships we just use the role as a class:
BB/BC - Battleship/Battlecruiser
CV - Carrier
CA/CL - Assault (or heavy) Cruiser/light Cruiser
DD - Destroyer
TL/TXL - large/huge Transport
ML/MXL - large/huge Miner
I always thought that the Destroyer as primary warship flawed was, scince it was more like a Battleship. Destroyers are small and nimble, wich use thier speed and small size to attack larger ships.
On to the smaller ships

TM/TS - medium/small Transport
TP - personell Transport
SSF - Space Superiority Fighter (the heavy ones)
INC - Interceptors
SC - Scout
CO - Corvette
MS/MM - small/medium Miner

This way you know wich size wich class is and it is flexible enough to add new classes like:

BOM - Bomber
FRI/ - Frigate
GB/GS - Gunboat/Gunship
MB - Missile-/Torpedoboat

You can even add multiple civilian crafts like:

SC - Shuttlecraft
YAC - Yacht
CRL - Cruiseliner

I know that this will be very confusing at the beginning, but that's what X is all about, right

Yes, this would be very confusing, but such identification numbers would be useful for ship ID which we already know that is displayed on ship hull.

However Sparky Sparkycorp made a good point that what actually matters for fast reckognition are map icons (while S/M/L/LX size would be more useful for encyclopedia ship categories).
Map icons are already separated from ship size in X-Rebirth. So I don't see any problem with having different icon fo Carrier, diffrent for destroyer while both would be classified as XL-size.

[StormMagi]

Replying from work so didn't have time to read past first page But I think it would be better to use something closer to the WWII designations.

Something along the lines of:

F(ighter) - Hull Type
B(omber) - Hull Type
I(nterceptor) - Hull Type
FR(eightor) - Hull Type
IND(ustrial) - Hull Type
C(arrier)V(ehicle) - Hull Type
C(ruiser)A(armored) - Hull Type
DD(estroyer) - Hull Type
BB(attleship) - Hull Type

and so on. This would allow for quick situational awareness, even if this is just on the map (or maybe on the target info window), when entering a sector or combat.

For hull variations it could be done F - Nova, Heavy or IND - Hull, Gas.

[Rei Ayanami]

However Sparky Sparkycorp made a good point that what actually matters for fast reckognition are map icons (while S/M/L/LX size would be more useful for encyclopedia ship categories).
Map icons are already separated from ship size in X-Rebirth. So I don't see any problem with having different icon fo Carrier, diffrent for destroyer while both would be classified as XL-size.

Admittedly in XR I can't rapidly estimate numbers ships per class via the list of ships as well as in X3 (fewer entries and less info per ship) but since I personally favour positional info, I use the map-icon combo in X3 more that the list of ships.

Quite often when playing on very hard there are so many ships bundled up on the same spot where it's hard to tell what types there are.

As an example:
http://imgur.com/a/n4whf

Without looking at the ship list, can you immediately tell what type all of these ships are and if there is a destroyer hiding in all these red icons?
And that's not even a real battle situation. I can't even imagine how it would look like in an actual battle with capital ships of different factions launching smaller ships, it'll be an indistinguishable mass of red.

It's not like people want the size-based system to go away, it's a nice category system, it'd be just nice to have additional identifiers, which i can't think of how this could be a bad thing.

Curious : For the sake of the argument please lets ignore the fact that in the old M/T system M6~8 being larger than M5 is nonsensical, since that can be fixed by using a better identification system (like F, C, T, for fighter, capital ship and transporter).
My question is :
Do you think X-T, X2 and all X3s, instead of it's clear categorization of ships (fighter, bomber, destroyer, carrier, small transporter, etc) would be better with a generic S, M, L, XL system and not let the player know at all what kind of ship type he is targeting or what types of ships are on the contact list, unless he decides to dig in the encyclopedia entryof each ship?

@ Rei Ayanami: "Well the Stromvok is desginated as a fight class ship in X:R. Did that designation stop you from using it as a freighter instead of a fight craft? No."

Sorry, I was talking about when you the player come across a new ship type for the first time. I don't want to be told that this freighter-looking ship target is in fact a potentially-hostile warship armed to the teeth until I get close enough to passive-scan it and so maybe get inside its weapons range too.

Similarly should a new powerful-looking NPC destroyer type turn out to be an armed merchant tasked to transport an immensely attractive cargo.

Well, just because a ship being a freighter it doesn't mean that it shouldn't be able to have huge weaponry.

One solution could be that ship types are unknown at the beginning ("??") and the player can reveal said type designation by either scanning a ship of that type or look up the sales list of a shipyard that sells that ship, and from that point on all ships of that type have that designation.

[mr.WHO]

@Rei Ayanami:
I see your point with "The big red Blob of death".
However I think this is more of a problem in how the map objects list is displayed in X-Rebirth, rather than having anything with Mx or S/M/L system.

To be honest I hate the "tree list" logic in both map view and property view and despite so long I never saw anything good in it other then creating squad hierarchy.

Map wise "big red blob" would be unreadable in both XR and X3. What makes a difference is that X3 had object list instead XR object tree.
If I rememebr correctly X3 also sort object by size and hostility which allow you to quickly see how big ships are in the zone withotu these dozens of fighters obscuring the list.

If we would have the same in X4 then it would be working like in X3 while still having XR S/M/L size classification.

[ajax34i]

My preference would be to have two ship classifications:

- A size / docking port classification: S M L XL
- A military threat classification: M3 M4 M5, M6 M7 etc.

It should be relatively simple to include both classifications in the in-game spec sheets for each ship, and even give an option to sort things by size/docking or by threat. Even on the map, should be possible to toggle between size icons and Mx icons or symbols.

I call it military threat, by the way, because there's plenty of time (in theory) to assemble your own fleet from whatever ships you feel like assembling, so when you look at the map searching for those M icons, you're not searching for "what can I do with my ships", you're searching for threats, what kind of threats are present on the map.

And it's perfectly natural to assign threat levels to civilian ships; in my mind a naval force that sees a civilian ship armed with certain size cannons and missiles, even if they're civilian registry or clearly put together in someone's boat shop, that civilian ship would still get a military classification, for its threat.

[Sparky Sparkycorp]

Quite often when playing on very hard there are so many ships bundled up on the same spot where it's hard to tell what types there are.

As an example:
http://imgur.com/a/n4whf

Without looking at the ship list, can you immediately tell what type all of these ships are and if there is a destroyer hiding in all these red icons?

I pity the folks living in Heartache Mist and Dormant Bear...

Taking a look now, while out-of-game, I can tell they're all fighters/S because Drostans have the fatter icon shared with Katana and Daito. But if I was in-game under pressure, I take your point - I wouldn't know that at first glance. For capitals, I'm not sure as their icons are relatively big.

Having said that, pirate capital diversity outside of missions is rather low. I can tell at first glance there are no Titurels, for example. But if Suls or Balors could feature in mix, maybe their icons could be obscured. Which leads into your next point for X4, which I agree with.

And that's not even a real battle situation. I can't even imagine how it would look like in an actual battle with capital ships of different factions launching smaller ships, it'll be an indistinguishable mass of red.

-------------------

It's not like people want the size-based system to go away, it's a nice category system, it'd be just nice to have additional identifiers, which i can't think of how this could be a bad thing.

Curious : For the sake of the argument please lets ignore the fact that in the old M/T system M6~8 being larger than M5 is nonsensical, since that can be fixed by using a better identification system (like F, C, T, for fighter, capital ship and transporter).
My question is :
Do you think X-T, X2 and all X3s, instead of it's clear categorization of ships (fighter, bomber, destroyer, carrier, small transporter, etc) would be better with a generic S, M, L, XL system and not let the player know at all what kind of ship type he is targeting or what types of ships are on the contact list, unless he decides to dig in the encyclopedia entryof each ship?

I'd be happy if changes to the names of ships in the list on maps were made to include codes, and I don't want S/M/L/XL added. Sorry if I seemed to be objecting to adding codes. I probably shouldn't have quoted "why shouldn't be there any classification for ships in the maps ship list or the target info screen on the radar? That's the problem. " as it could have came across as disagreement.

[Killjaeden]

If we would have the same in X4 then it would be working like in X3 while still having XR S/M/L size classification.

Ill requote myself:
The icons like you describe already is a classification itself. Wether you assign a code to it or not will not change that. But if an icon has a code they go together hand in hand (and logically should be, otherwise you would have to display icons inside texts whenever refering to the class that is meant with this one icon). Having classification different from icons would be inconsistent, because you would rely on two different systems of classification for map vs. no map.

If the icon has no code or name you would have to refer to it as "the triangle with two bars on the bottom icon" for an X3 M3 icon. If it has a name (e.g. "arkwardly large ship for battle") you might as well assign a code to not write all that all the time, when space for letters is a premium. And if you use names that many people already heard of in other parts of their life or other games and can relate to you make usage second nature.
So you would not use generalisation name like "large ship for battle" but "Destroyer" or "Battleship" or whatever.

Having said that, pirate capital diversity outside of missions is rather low. I can tell at first glance there are no Titurels, for example.

If its not a system that works well in all circumstances it needs to be improved so that it does.

[Cornflakes_91]

One of the roleplaying opportunities in XR was that there were at least three role variants that were in effect hybrid trader/warships: Stromvok, Lyramekron and Phoenix Marauder. The ship descriptions sometimes supported this role as an armed freighter, privateer, or trader escort, etc and also hinted at the possibility of using them either as Q ships to bait and destroy light raiders or to be mistaken for heavier warships to avoid interference.

I would hate for an overt and always apparent ship function designation system to completely void such and similar roleplay situations.

then dont make sensors perfect at first sight.
maybe even assign "similar to x" tags on ships (eg theres a unarmed and a qship variation of a ship) and have the sensor not output the precise ship type name but only a range of ships which fit the "similar to" system.
same effect but without screwing over only new players who simply dont know what ships exist.

This is a false dichotomy for the reason I outlined above. I.e. new players can learn about a finite number of ship icons instead of a finite number of codes. And since XR ship icons convey shape and size, they are more intuitive to the inexperienced than X3 letter coding or map icons.

and how is that better than function and size?
assign the general letter codings equivalent symbols and we are back at at least X3 level functionality but this time with more coherency because theres not half a dozend extra classes shoehorned into the ancient static system
heck, if theres enough variability may just generate the symbols at runtime from the designation codes so that modded ships get proper symbols just from their designations even if that combination never appears in the vanilla game

[Sparky Sparkycorp]

This is a false dichotomy for the reason I outlined above. I.e. new players can learn about a finite number of ship icons instead of a finite number of codes. And since XR ship icons convey shape and size, they are more intuitive to the inexperienced than X3 letter coding or map icons.

and how is that better than function and size?
assign the general letter codings equivalent symbols and we are back at at least X3 level functionality

As I explained elsewhere in the partially-quoted post, shape is synonymous with function in XR:

unique icons for a M5-M3 (S), M3+/M6 (Golem/Katana), M7C (Suls), M7M (Balor), M1/Arwan, M2/Taranis, M2+/Fulmekron?

[RodentofDoom]

There are some answers in the stickied thread re Q&A's

they seem to be sticking with the XR format of
S/M/L/XL

to be honest
I prefer it

far more intuitive, the old m0/m7 format was a non-logical mess that made no sense and had no progressive relationship between the arbitrary class assignments given


Small & Medium
1 man fighters & industry/transports

Large & eXtra Large
multi-crew Cap ships

SEE IT'S SO EASY TO UNDERSTAND

[Killjaeden]

far more intuitive

But not equivalent in function. If you look on the map and see an icon for "hostile medium ship" you don't know if you should command your AI transporter to turn and flee or continue it's path towards it. Is that XL ship in the next sector a destroyer or a super large transport ship? If you only have SMLXL classification you can't know at a glance.

We already had this discussion.
https://forum.egosoft.com/viewtopic.php?t=396250

[Sparky Sparkycorp]

They seem to be sticking with the XR format of
S/M/L/XL
...
far more intuitive

But not equivalent in function. If you look on the map and see an icon for "hostile medium ship" you don't know if you should command your AI transporter to turn and flee or continue it's path towards it. Is that XL ship in the next sector a destroyer or a super large transport ship?

If you look on the XR map, not only will you actually know all that stuff from the icon, you'll also know the direction of travel of ships due to icon orientation (indicating the possible intent of the hostile).

If you only have SMLXL classification you can't know at a glance.

Whilst that would strictly be true, that isn't all you know in XR so isn't really relevant to RodentofDoom's point.