Chris, please explain the quadrangle classes again.

[x4000]

Brawler

I'm against this one since it implies specifically short ranges, which is not the case for that class.

I would remake the Striker and Blitzer groups as two different groups with different names and logic: Brawler and Assassin. (Brawler inherit the quadrangle position of Striker and the Assassin inherit the position of Blitzer.)

I didn't proposed new names. I proposed a new separation of the ships in Striker and Blitzer/specialist. I dislike the "specialist dump group" and find the "striker" nearly worst, as an "everything else dump group". So yes, I proposed the name "brawler" with a brawler theme.

Sorry, there's a lot of stuff in this thread and I missed that.  Thanks for bringing that back to my attention, because that's a good point.  To folks in general: if you think I missed something you said that was a major divergence from the rest of the conversation and that I didn't address, please do poke me about it.  I hate missing things, but I have to read these things with such speed to get anything done that it happens.

To the core idea here:

1. The idea of splitting specialist in general would work for me, although then the relationships have to be redone.

2. However, melee isn't a large enough group to be meaningful.  Nor do I want it to become so, haha.


One thing that could be done is to split that group into something like "black ops" for offensive specialist roles, and "secret service" for defensive specialist roles.

[Pumpkin]

Eh, well. But frankly, the new roles keep the same position in the quadrangle bonuses. The bonuses get even more coherent (IMHO).

Brawler: Loves battle
Fighter, Armor, MRLS, Electric Shuttle, Parasite, Viral Shredder...

Assassin: Avoid battle
Raptor, Raider, Strafer, Infiltrator, Teleport BS...

[chemical_art]

The "fighter" class is giving me fits.

They are like screeners in that they need to go ahead of demolition to clear a path, but that might get confused with things such as shield bearers which actually provide a screening ability.

They are like a vanguard for a similar reason of entering combat first. But that is vague.

Air superiority may sound weird, so why not a variant of it? Tactical superiority, area superiority...

Or can use a synonym of killer: Hunter, slayer, enforcer, duelist...

[chemical_art]

Sorry, there's a lot of stuff in this thread and I missed that.  Thanks for bringing that back to my attention, because that's a good point.  To folks in general: if you think I missed something you said that was a major divergence from the rest of the conversation and that I didn't address, please do poke me about it.  I hate missing things, but I have to read these things with such speed to get anything done that it happens.

To the core idea here:

1. The idea of splitting specialist in general would work for me, although then the relationships have to be redone.

2. However, melee isn't a large enough group to be meaningful.  Nor do I want it to become so, haha.


One thing that could be done is to split that group into something like "black ops" for offensive specialist roles, and "secret service" for defensive specialist roles.

One thing I will caution is making too many ship roles. Three is the standard in many games, but 4 is not unheard of. But after 4 it starts getting murky and leads to exceptions and otherwise just loses its value as a guide. I am not saying five is impossible but there really needs a good reason for it. Already with the current 4 it is a bit confusing to hear on paper.

[x4000]

I like the idea of tactical superiority quite a lot.  If we then had black ops and secret service, it would make sense that those could even take out the tactical superiority group since tactical superiority is otherwise the battlefield ruler, basically.  The anti-lots-of-ships role, anyway.  It would kind of make me not want the cruisers/whatever to get the tactical superiority folks, though, because then there's too much getting them.  I'm not sure what that would do to their role.

In terms of the ship roles having too many things, I agree that 5 is too many if all roles are effective against all roles.  Aka, 3 relationships from each is too many.  But if there's a "core three" and then an "extended two," that might work.  The core 3 could be the main "battlefield units," whereas the other stuff is for other purposes that is somewhat tangential (off-battlefield duties).

One version of this:

Core trio for battlefield use:
Tactical superiority
Cruiser (definitely a rename, and likely won't get the "big scary" stuff anymore)
Black ops (now probably needs a renamed)

Specialty two:
Demolition - anti-building, but not going to win against anything in the core trio on its own.  Can certainly HELP, but it's not going to do it on its own.
Giant killer - goes for the "big scary" stuff, instead of cruisers being able to do that.  Functions like the bomber in that it can help in main battles, but it's not a core battlefield winner.

Other two same as original quadrangle:

Structures: is actually a ship class, and it's what demolition stuff kills.
Big Scary: is also actually a ship class (maybe called Leviathan?), and it's what giant killers are best at dealing with even though these things wreck everything in terms of metal for metal.


This way the quadrangle is simplified in some ways, despite being split into more parts.

[chemical_art]

I agree splitting the roles into a "core" triangle and then two specialty roles is a great way to approach things if five ship classes. However at that point we have to start from scratch in names though *grump*

For example tactical superiority is growing on me. But it if it is part of a triangle it is very deceptive: You would think it can at least match if not conquer everything.

[chemical_art]

I am now actually moving away from tactical superiority or anything of that ilk. The issue I have with it is that the term it is based on (modern aviation) simply does not translate into the game. An air superiority fighter is meant to conquer anything in the air. There isn't balance to consider, they just are. Their greatest threat is other fighters. Cruisers, AA, etc provide potential challenges to these units but are not hard counters by any means. Even then they deny fighters areas to fly in, not necessarily hunt them down to kill them.

However, I find the term could stick but that would involve changing the "cruiser" name to something that reflects this fact. For example "anti-fighters" or "area deniers".  These are units whose strength is denying fighters room to move.

I am not sure that specialists, offensive or otherwise, should be in the triangle. They are more diverse then the demolition class so to balance it as such seems awful.  Demolition class needs to stay in the triangle so as to keep fighters valuable (for what else would a fighter be effective against?). I would consider giant killer a variant within the specialty class.

[Pumpkin]

I'm sorry, Chris. Every time you come up with a new role-space splitting, I don't understand it.
"Tactical superiority"? "Black ops"? What are those roles? What is their strength? What will be their average stats?

Could you, for example, rate with -, = and + the average stats (range, speed, damage, health) and give some emblematic perks for your proposed classes?

[Cinth]

I propose this as a new system.

A,B,C,D,E,F.

A > C+D
B > A+E
C > B+F
D > B+C
E > A+C+D
F >

[kasnavada]

Air superiority => Space superiority ?

Lame, I know, but there's no lack of space =).

Ah, the discussion switched (again).
Well. If appropriate only then.

[x4000]

I'm sorry, Chris. Every time you come up with a new role-space splitting, I don't understand it.
"Tactical superiority"? "Black ops"? What are those roles? What is their strength?

Got it... making a new chart.  I've had a good brainwave on this, I think, too.

What will be their average stats?

Could you, for example, rate with -, = and + the average stats (range, speed, damage, health) and give some emblematic perks for your proposed classes?

That has no relevance to anything at all, for the most part.

[chemical_art]

Got it... making a new chart.  I've had a good brainwave on this, I think, too.

Chris one of the greatest strengths of this project is that we have such a rapid response in terms of bouncing ideas. Just wanted to give kudos for that fact.

Many larger companies I am sure would dream of having a cadre of smart followers who give their advice practically free. Not to stroke my own ego, but the average forum poster here is a bit better then the average beta tester in the larger games. You respond in kind. It is a positive loop (I wanted to say positive feedback loop but wikipedia examples are not very good)

Looking forward to the next step you direct discussion.

[kasnavada]

I am now actually moving away from tactical superiority or anything of that ilk. The issue I have with it is that the term it is based on (modern aviation) simply does not translate into the game. An air superiority fighter is meant to conquer anything in the air. There isn't balance to consider, they just are. Their greatest threat is other fighters. Cruisers, AA, etc provide potential challenges to these units but are not hard counters by any means. Even then they deny fighters areas to fly in, not necessarily hunt them down to kill them.

Ok, brain cleared a bit (been sick for the past 3 days).

- Air (space) Superiority was kind of the idea, a ship class that beats-up other ships (of its size).
- while another ship class beats-up building => demolition.
- the third one beats up golems & large ships => ranged, sniper... whatever. Giant killer I like too.
- the fourth one is the one that does not fit => specialists.

Of course thing changed, so...

Quote
    Demolition
This seems PERFECT.  It gets right at what that group is supposed to do (formerly bombers).  It makes extra sense compared to bombers since it would include MLRS, etc.  I can't express how excited I am by this one.

Thanks, glad you like it =).

[x4000]

Cheers guys, and thanks for the kudos.   I agree that the discourse here is both intelligent and rapid.  A lot of companies would kill for this sort of thing, and you'd better bet I wish I had this sort of thing on projects that are "new IP."  But of course then the design exists only in my head for a long while, and we can't have this sort of discussion right off the bat.  Next project we do, I'm really going to miss that.

Anyway, I've started a new thread for this discussion to move to, with the chart and the results (in general, anyway) from this thread.  I'm going to lock this thread just so that we don't get the next part of the conversation accidentally split in two places.

Here's the link to the new one: http://www.arcengames.com/forums/index.php/topic,19169.msg208342.html#msg208342