Arcen Games
General Category => The Last Federation => Topic started by: x4000 on January 27, 2014, 04:44:14 pm
-
Hey everybody! So, we've got a variety of ship classes in the game, but we need better names for some of them. The problem with some of the current names is that they are based on naval sizes, which really aren't appropriate here because the differences in ship scale are not high enough. Before anyone suggests it: They also really should not be named after their guns, because a lot of the various pilots bring their own equipment and will be able to do things like swapping out guns.
So what I am really looking for are names that speak to the role of the ship in combat, which is something that does not change regardless of what sort of pilot you put in there. How that ship fills the role might shift dramatically or subtly, but the general role is still the same either way.
Here are the ship names, with the problem ones flagged:
Basic Ship Progression From Smallest To Largest
1. Interceptor - these are basically like fighter jets, in a lot of ways. They are blazing fast, but have only so-so guns. They come in big swarms, and they have to do strafing runs. They get a bonus to their deflection when moving at speed, so strafing runs are not actually a disadvantage. They are tiny and have very weak hulls compared to all other ships.
2. Frigate (problem) - These are frigate-sized, Keith informs me, but really this does not speak to their combat role. A lot of the ships are frigate-sized, but fill very different combat roles. This "frigate" is kind of a slightly larger, slower, fighter with larger guns and lower speed. It's built for punching into larger targets at a measured pace, as opposed to swarming larger targets. Doesn't do well against large swarms of stuff. Frigates really are kind of like half-tracks in ground combat, but calling them that might be kind of odd. I don't know. Possibly calling these Terrapins might get the idea across better in terms of them being armored and slower, although they are still not THAT slow; overall, they are a middle-speedy sort of ship, honestly.
3. Destroyer (problem) - So, these aren't really destroyer-sized in the naval sense. These are more powerful than frigates in this game, and they come in lower numbers, though. Destroyers are a solid midsize ship that are particularly after large hulls and shielded targets. The destroyer is really about punching holes in big things. So, let's go with something like that. We get a chance to use some fairly obscure words that do actually have a proper meaning for these things, I would say. So we could use Poniard, in this case. Though that is perhaps something with too little meaning to be recognizable quickly. Thoughts on that?
3. Cruiser (problem) - Cruisers are an upper-midsize ship that are, one the one hand, built for specialty situations like fighting around obstacles or hitting targets that are hard to track, etc. But beyond that, they are kind of a "good all around" ship that is beefier than a destroyer, but not super specialized at anything. These are kind of the workhorse of the late game in some ways. Cruisers on the one hand remind me of a kris knife with their curved shots, but that is getting a bit specific, because probably some pilots might used shots that are not curved. Garron is kind of an interesting name that might work. Sthenia is also cool, though hard to say. Bracer is pretty nice.
4. Aegis - Aegis are giant and armored and slow, and are what we used to call Battleships. They are the largest non-centerpiece ships, by far. They are particularly aimed at clearing masses of smaller ships. Their shots are pretty darn ineffective against things like flagships and other centerpieces (shields absorb the Aegis's energy shots pretty well), but these can help you dominate so that your smaller craft swoop in.
Pirate Ship Progression From Smallest To Largest
1. Pirate Interceptor - A more powerful version of the regular interceptor, with a few unique traits.
2. Pirate Frigate (problem) - A more powerful version of the regular frigate, with a few unique traits.
3. Pirate Lancer - A midsize ship with gravity lances as a central aspect of its role. You can't define its role without keeping the lances, so that makes this easy to keep the same.
4. Pirate Sniper - A midsize sniper ship.
5. Pirate Destroyer (problem) - A more powerful version of the regular destroyer, with a few unique traits.
Centerpieces (All Fine, But Just In Case You Are Curious)
Flagship
Freighter
Troop Ship
Orbital Bomber
Armed Spy Drone
Pirate Flagship
Thoraxian Exterminator
Acutian Executor
Peltian Solar Fortress
Skylaxian Battle Carrier
Burlust Longship
Boarine Tusker
Evuck Herald
Andor Suppressor
Manufacturing Outpost
Science Outpost
Military Outpost
Pirate Base
Ideas are very welcome!
-
Maybe when we get our mitts on the beta, we will be able to give names!
I'll come back if I get any brainstorms tonight though.
-
To some extent I don't want people to get too attached to the way that the ships handle in terms of weapons in the early alpha, since we will likely add more pilots to spice up what the ships can do. And in those circumstances, the name still needs to be appropriate.
Planning on starting a combat-practice-only alpha tomorrow, though. :)
-
I came across this game a couple of days ago and I'm excited about what I've seen so far so I thought I'd throw in some suggestions.
2. Frigate (problem) - These are frigate-sized, Keith informs me, but really this does not speak to their combat role. A lot of the ships are frigate-sized, but fill very different combat roles. This "frigate" is kind of a slightly larger, slower, fighter with larger guns and lower speed. It's built for punching into larger targets at a measured pace, as opposed to swarming larger targets. Doesn't do well against large swarms of stuff. Frigates really are kind of like half-tracks in ground combat, but calling them that might be kind of odd. I don't know. Possibly calling these Terrapins might get the idea across better in terms of them being armored and slower, although they are still not THAT slow; overall, they are a middle-speedy sort of ship, honestly.
Sounds to me from the description that "Corvette" may be a more appropriate term for this ship. Corvettes tend to be larger, slower fighters with larger guns. They aren't usually meant to swarm because they have the firepower to deal damage without needing huge numbers in combat. If you are looking for something without the naval combat association with it, maybe "Brute" or "Brutus" to suggest how different they are from nimble interceptors.
3. Destroyer (problem) - So, these aren't really destroyer-sized in the naval sense. These are more powerful than frigates in this game, and they come in lower numbers, though. Destroyers are a solid midsize ship that are particularly after large hulls and shielded targets. The destroyer is really about punching holes in big things. So, let's go with something like that. We get a chance to use some fairly obscure words that do actually have a proper meaning for these things, I would say. So we could use Poniard, in this case. Though that is perhaps something with too little meaning to be recognizable quickly. Thoughts on that?
If these are meant to go after larger, more heavily shielded targets then I would suggest taking name ideas from artillery. "Howitzer" or "mortar" may be a little too on point but could work. "Culverin" is another name that sounds interesting and is a early type of medieval European cannon. The "falcon" is another early artillery piece that also happens to share the name of a bird of prey for an interesting double meaning.
3. Cruiser (problem) - Cruisers are an upper-midsize ship that are, one the one hand, built for specialty situations like fighting around obstacles or hitting targets that are hard to track, etc. But beyond that, they are kind of a "good all around" ship that is beefier than a destroyer, but not super specialized at anything. These are kind of the workhorse of the late game in some ways. Cruisers on the one hand remind me of a kris knife with their curved shots, but that is getting a bit specific, because probably some pilots might used shots that are not curved. Garron is kind of an interesting name that might work. Sthenia is also cool, though hard to say. Bracer is pretty nice.
I like the Garron name since this ship is going to be a workhorse of the fleet. Maybe "Stalwart" would also convey the idea of these ships being the backbone of fleet, dependable and strong. I'm a fan of ship classes being named after characteristics so things like Stalwart and Redoubtable appeal to me.
-
3. Destroyer (problem) - So, these aren't really destroyer-sized in the naval sense. These are more powerful than frigates in this game, and they come in lower numbers, though. Destroyers are a solid midsize ship that are particularly after large hulls and shielded targets. The destroyer is really about punching holes in big things. So, let's go with something like that. We get a chance to use some fairly obscure words that do actually have a proper meaning for these things, I would say. So we could use Poniard, in this case. Though that is perhaps something with too little meaning to be recognizable quickly. Thoughts on that?
The first thing I thought of was Penetrator, though that sounds unfortunately sexual. Perforator? GAH! never mind.
Spearhead? Auger? Drill?
I'm not very good at this. :-[
-
2. Frigate (problem) - These are frigate-sized, Keith informs me, but really this does not speak to their combat role. A lot of the ships are frigate-sized, but fill very different combat roles. This "frigate" is kind of a slightly larger, slower, fighter with larger guns and lower speed. It's built for punching into larger targets at a measured pace, as opposed to swarming larger targets. Doesn't do well against large swarms of stuff. Frigates really are kind of like half-tracks in ground combat, but calling them that might be kind of odd. I don't know. Possibly calling these Terrapins might get the idea across better in terms of them being armored and slower, although they are still not THAT slow; overall, they are a middle-speedy sort of ship, honestly.
The first thing to pop into my head were bombers (in naval terms, torpedo bombers) . Bombers traditionally engage larger targets, but their limited quantity of payload means they can only engage a few. They have armor to repel minor fire that would scorch fighters, but speed enough to avoid capital guns. But after reading below, destroyers should be changed to this. So what to call these? I've looked at fast attack craft, which seem to be craft useful to engage other small crafts. Very fast, not strong enough to engage masses of aircraft, not strong enough to engage capital ships. Cool acronym as well, FAC.
3. Destroyer (problem) - So, these aren't really destroyer-sized in the naval sense. These are more powerful than frigates in this game, and they come in lower numbers, though. Destroyers are a solid midsize ship that are particularly after large hulls and shielded targets. The destroyer is really about punching holes in big things. So, let's go with something like that. We get a chance to use some fairly obscure words that do actually have a proper meaning for these things, I would say. So we could use Poniard, in this case. Though that is perhaps something with too little meaning to be recognizable quickly. Thoughts on that?
After reading this, though, perhaps this is the better term for bombers. Actually, yes, that is what bombers are for. Typcially the smallest package that can wield anti-capital ship weapons. Or you could go with Torpedo Boats or their ilk.
3. Cruiser (problem) - Cruisers are an upper-midsize ship that are, one the one hand, built for specialty situations like fighting around obstacles or hitting targets that are hard to track, etc. But beyond that, they are kind of a "good all around" ship that is beefier than a destroyer, but not super specialized at anything. These are kind of the workhorse of the late game in some ways. Cruisers on the one hand remind me of a kris knife with their curved shots, but that is getting a bit specific, because probably some pilots might used shots that are not curved. Garron is kind of an interesting name that might work. Sthenia is also cool, though hard to say. Bracer is pretty nice.
I don't particularly understand how this is a bad name. For me, cruisers are above-average in size that can fill a role a smaller ship cannot, but is still able to do everything well. This may be colored my United States Navy knowledge though, with their aegis cruisers specializing in missile defense but solid in all roles. (This fact did the below name cause a double check though
4. Aegis - Aegis are giant and armored and slow, and are what we used to call Battleships. They are the largest non-centerpiece ships, by far. They are particularly aimed at clearing masses of smaller ships. Their shots are pretty darn ineffective against things like flagships and other centerpieces (shields absorb the Aegis's energy shots pretty well), but these can help you dominate so that your smaller craft swoop in.
-
Very excellent suggestions, thanks folks. :)
- I do want to avoid the use of bombers in space if it can be avoided, because we already have orbital bombers and use other terms of that nature for basically shelling planets from space. It's limited in scope in the base game, but in expansions we want to expand on that further, so I want to be careful not to have to rename anything later.
- I really like either the term Corvette or Brute for the former-Frigates. Probably Corvette is the most generalized, I don't know.
- The bird of prey ideas around former-destroyers, and all the penetrator/perforator stuff, and the torpedo bombers, all made me think... how about Predators? That is suitably menacing, and they are basically something you have to really watch out for with your capital ships, so that makes sense. But swarming a predator takes it down, so you have to kind of guard them. I like that a lot, actually.
- For the former-cruisers... well, Keith has told me he thinks they are too small to be called that, and that we may well want to introduce something larger sometime down the line that would be called that. Aka not painting ourselves into a corner, again. But honestly I'm really inclined to the name like you seem to be, chemical_art. Garron is obscure enough that people won't really know what it means, so it takes on its own meaning. Which has pros and cons. Redoubtable is good, but I think that tends to be the name of a specific ship, which can be confusing. Same with Stalwart, actually.
Welcome to the forums, by the way, echo2361 -- and thanks for the suggestions! :)
Right now I'm leaning towards:
- Interceptor
- Corvette
- Predator
- Cruiser
- Aegis
I think that actually makes the class size distinctions pretty clear, too. Interceptors and Corvettes are both clearly small, while Predators and Cruisers are very easily imagined to be in the same middle tier. And then Aegis is the big boy.
-
Update: so, we're happy with all of them except cruiser, internally. We'll go with:
- Interceptor
- Corvette
- Predator
- Cruiser (problem -- changes to ???)
- Aegis
-
Keith is suggesting "Hammer" for the former-cruiser. I like that, actually. :)
-
Welcome to the forums, by the way, echo2361 -- and thanks for the suggestions! :)
Right now I'm leaning towards:
- Interceptor
- Corvette
- Predator
- Cruiser
- Aegis
I think that actually makes the class size distinctions pretty clear, too. Interceptors and Corvettes are both clearly small, while Predators and Cruisers are very easily imagined to be in the same middle tier. And then Aegis is the big boy.
Happy to help! If cruiser isn't working for you I have a couple more suggestions. "Sentinel-class" sounds like something middle tier that is a defender of the fleet/workhorse. A sentinel is a noun, not an adjective like stalwart and redoubtable so I think it works better. Following that same thought process I imagine a "Guardian-class" ship might work too.
Or, to just modify cruiser you could go with "light cruiser" which will leave you room to include "heavy cruisers" at some point. Depending on the navy you are talking about, traditionally the size ratio from smaller to larger goes frigate, destroyer, light cruiser, heavy cruiser, battlecruiser, battleship.
-
- I do want to avoid the use of bombers in space if it can be avoided, because we already have orbital bombers and use other terms of that nature for basically shelling planets from space. It's limited in scope in the base game, but in expansions we want to expand on that further, so I want to be careful not to have to rename anything later.
Will comment on other things later, but I would avoid using the term bomber at all for the same reason that cruisers are not used (which I understand). It's a very generalized term, and it'll prevent cornering later on. Stick with shelling and use ship names to that nature, or the many other terms used for it. Plus, later on, if you do decide to expand on this game, you can have bombers builtfrom the ground up that can perform both in combat and in shelling a la Endless Space as a flexible unit.
-
Or, to just modify cruiser you could go with "light cruiser" which will leave you room to include "heavy cruisers" at some point. Depending on the navy you are talking about, traditionally the size ratio from smaller to larger goes frigate, destroyer, light cruiser, heavy cruiser, battlecruiser, battleship.
I really think adjectives to distinguish classes is fine. the same reason why as I posted above you may have naval bombers or planet bombers. Using X + Y nouns can both distinguish role as well as size.
This does bring up an issue though.
For me, I would much rather have a naming convention that goes roughly X + Y, or at least have the option to do so. For example, snazzy names like Aegis is cool. However, having the name suppression battleship makes the role a lot more clear. If, down the road, there are three different ships that have roughly the same size, I would much rather it be X + Battleship rather then memorize more names. I can tell at a glance what the ship does a lot easier.
It wouldn't be fully modular, so you wouldn't have every role work with every size, but it would make things a lot simpler to use, which is going to be very important in a huge game like this. Some memorization is going to be required, but there is little need to make things worst.
This is not like AI War, where every ship has its whole name, because this game doesn't revolve around combat exclusively.
When I read this list, this is what I think:
- Interceptor - Role very defined, great! Size not clear but implied. Good.
- Corvette - Size easy to understand, role not, OK.
- Predator - What is this?
- Cruiser - Size easy to understand, role not, OK.
- Aegis - What is this?
-
Let's just call it the plasma starship. :P
-
The word "sentinel" is absolutely perfect as a better name for "armed spy drone," so I'm going to use that there. That is much more cool and menacing.
As for having something like "light cruiser," that could work, but again that is speaking to size. The size specifications of these various ships really are not in line with what you may be thinking, too -- they don't vary in visual size to the degree that real naval ships would. So going by size I think is tricky. Interceptor and Corvette do work in that framework, though, I think.
Ultimately this is never going to be a clean naming system in terms of being consistent with anything real-world, because this is all made-up stuff and we are intentionally pulling from all sorts of sources, not just doing "naval combat in space." See AI War in terms of what I mean from pulling from all over the place. I really want to reserve the term bomber for orbital bombardment, as that's something that really fits well there and could be a gameplay.
In terms of things that are not immediately obvious, like Predator or Aegis, the main thing is "are they memorable once you do know." Because the tooltip is right there. Ideally it is immediately apparent what is going on, but that's just not always going to be possible. With something like the "Garron," that doesn't work well because it is not memorable. But predator I can create an associative link in my mind for.
I think I'm going to go with these names for now (including hammer for cruiser), and if there are tweaks that come up later, then we might look at them. But I definitely need to focus on other things right now, now that we have serviceable names at least. Thanks tons for the help folks, as the names are way better now.
-
Cool names are fine when they are unique.
However, already now, we have two names that are defensive in nature. "Sentinel" and "Aegis" are both names implying defenders of others. I already strain to separate the two. It is even more confusing then having names about size, because there is no context to distinguish them if you are not familiar with the game. Case in point: Until Chris mentioned Sentinel was for armed spy drone, I had no, zero, nadda, idea that is what they were meant for. Why? Because many, many games use the names for something else. Just like "predator" and "aegis" are used in many other games.
The more I think of it, the more I feel the names are cool, but that is the only virtue for them. They are not informative, they don't ease the learning of the game. I'd rather edit/hack the names myself to something more useful, that is how bad they are. They are worst than useless, because I confuse them with other things, and now with each other.
Not good, not good at all.
Question regarding earlier comments: If the whole point is to make them easy to remember, why not go with the more obscure names? At least then they wouldn't be confused with the very many games that already use these very common names.
-
First off, armed spy drones are not something you ever control, they are just enemy things you try to avoid.
In terms of the other stuff... well, I am open to feedback, obviously. But I am not hearing anything that makes any more sense yet. Going with the more obscure names I suppose would be not a bad idea to avoid confusion with other games.
Then again, we are talking here about learning 7 things, so I think it is hardly taxing compared to, say, ai war. So while clarity is always a good thing, I don't think we're in the territory of more than players can remember after a very short while with the game.
-
The word "sentinel" is absolutely perfect as a better name for "armed spy drone," so I'm going to use that there. That is much more cool and menacing.
As for having something like "light cruiser," that could work, but again that is speaking to size. The size specifications of these various ships really are not in line with what you may be thinking, too -- they don't vary in visual size to the degree that real naval ships would. So going by size I think is tricky. Interceptor and Corvette do work in that framework, though, I think.
Ultimately this is never going to be a clean naming system in terms of being consistent with anything real-world, because this is all made-up stuff and we are intentionally pulling from all sorts of sources, not just doing "naval combat in space." See AI War in terms of what I mean from pulling from all over the place. I really want to reserve the term bomber for orbital bombardment, as that's something that really fits well there and could be a gameplay.
In terms of things that are not immediately obvious, like Predator or Aegis, the main thing is "are they memorable once you do know." Because the tooltip is right there. Ideally it is immediately apparent what is going on, but that's just not always going to be possible. With something like the "Garron," that doesn't work well because it is not memorable. But predator I can create an associative link in my mind for.
I think I'm going to go with these names for now (including hammer for cruiser), and if there are tweaks that come up later, then we might look at them. But I definitely need to focus on other things right now, now that we have serviceable names at least. Thanks tons for the help folks, as the names are way better now.
Not to be contrary, but i agree with Chemical_Art that a functional naming scheme does a really good job of explaining what a ship does.
To that end i would suggest something like -
- Fighter/Bomber/Spy drones
- Escort/Troop Carrier/Supply transports
- Light Assault /Heavy Assault/ Counter-Measures craft
- Anti-Missile and Anti-Aircraft craft
- Assault and Support craft Carriers
In this way the 'Function' of the craft is very clear and not clouded with other names. :)
-
I understand, but at the same time, if there are so few things, they should be unique from names used in very, very many other games. And if there so few things, using generic names shouldn't be such a big deal.
To put it a different way, either:
A) Ship names need to be unique, in order to make them easy to remember and distinguish from each other with in game / from other games
B) There are so few ships, it doesn't really matter since it will be learned quickly in game.
What is it? If generic names are to be avoided, at least pick names that are really unique. And if there are only a few names to remember, have them correspond more closely in what they do, rather then in a very, very vague way. The current system is a compromise that doesn't fulfill either need very well.
-
To that end i would suggest something like -
- Fighter/Bomber/Spy drones
- Escort/Troop Carrier/Supply transports
- Light Assault /Heavy Assault/ Counter-Measures craft
- Anti-Missile and Anti-Aircraft craft
- Assault and Support craft Carriers
In this way the 'Function' of the craft is very clear and not clouded with other names. :)
I like these names for the very reason you describe. It describes their role, which really is the key thing, in a generic yet specific way. Size is secondary to this. What is important is that you can determine its role, including when compared to other craft. For example, I can tell easily the difference between Fighter/Bomber/Spy drones. I can't tell the difference between Sentinel, Hammer, and Aegis nearly as well.
-
To that end i would suggest something like -
- Fighter/Bomber/Spy drones
- Escort/Troop Carrier/Supply transports
- Light Assault /Heavy Assault/ Counter-Measures craft
- Anti-Missile and Anti-Aircraft craft
- Assault and Support craft Carriers
In this way the 'Function' of the craft is very clear and not clouded with other names. :)
I like these names for the very reason you describe. It describes their role, which really is the key thing, in a generic yet specific way. Size is secondary to this. What is important is that you can determine its role, including when compared to other craft. For example, I can tell easily the difference between Fighter/Bomber/Spy drones. I can't tell the difference between Sentinel, Hammer, and Aegis nearly as well.
Thank you! :) I feel flattered. I just hope it makes sense to other people too. :)
-Teal
(i'm really not in the navy, haha, i just watch a lot of old war movies with my dad) :)
-
Maybe you could take those "hammer" names and make it the:
Heavy assault
USF Hammer
And I am saddened that nobody recognized the plasma starship joke. Should I have said dreadnought?
-
Maybe you could take those "hammer" names and make it the:
Heavy assault
USF Hammer
And I am saddened that nobody recognized the plasma starship joke. Should I have said dreadnought?
So we will have names on top of the type of craft? Well... I guess ships do now, haha, just seems like a lot to keep track of..
About the plasma starship? Sorry i'm not very good at AI War, i lose a lot, but it is still cool, or is that a Star Trek thing? In that case i'm a Next Gen/Deep Space 9/Voyager/Enterprise kind of Trekkie... the plasma part escapes me though, what is that mean?
-
We don't need names on top. I was just thinking of a compromise that would incorporate easy labels with cool names.
As far as the plasma starship thing, I think Chris transferred ownership to Keith by that point. So maybe this is just too old of a joke.
For what it's worth, Captain Picard is the best Captain... ever...and no other series before or since has captured the magic of Enterprise.
-
The plasma starship joke was funny, sorry I didn't respond. :)
I see the point about names being really unique or really functional. However, I don't think that the roles that are being described so far really describe the functions that the ships have in-game. All that really matters is the basic classes at the moment, the other stuff is all specialized anyway and doesn't factor into squadrons. And lancer and sniper are really easy to remember (heh) once you encounter them.
Okay, so for the basics beyond that:
- Interceptor: I think we all agree this is great.
- Corvette/Frigate: This is kind of a heavy interceptor in some ways, but in other ways not. It is good at hitting midsize ships and thus more effective at taking out certain threats than regular interceptors. But at the same time, these can't swarm and "run interference" like interceptors do. Maybe Light Assault is really what these are, I don't know.
- Predator/Destroyer: I guess "bomber" would be a fit here, since it is specifically for hitting large targets hard. So maybe that is what this should be after all.
- Hammer/Cruiser: I guess these are Heavy Assault, really. They are big and they fire things that hurt, bad. If they get near your flagship too long, it gets dead fast. But swarms of frigates against these will take them down fast, because these just can't muster the rate of fire to deal with that. They need tactical support, which is fitting for heavies.
- Aegis/Battleship: Man I love calling these battleships, it's a real shame. I don't really know what better thing to call these, although they are not really battleship sized in a lot of ways. These aren't about shielding anything from anything else, particularly. Rather, they are these huge armored beasts that move really slow and fire these burst scatter shots that absolutely rip through crowds. You can see 10 interceptors go down in a go with these things. But their shots are readily absorbed by enemy flagship shields, so you need something like the heavy assault to finish things off. You can't just stack battleships out there (particularly because also the light assault and lancers will eat these alive if they are not supported). So what are these? They are Armored Crowd Dispersal Units, or something. ;) I'm open to a name that is Armored ____, where ___ describes their function as kind of an area-of-effect little-guy-killer.
So...
- Interceptor
- Light Assault
- Bomber
- Heavy Assault
- Armored ____?
Sigh. Okay, thoughts now?
-
For what it's worth, Captain Picard is the best Captain... ever...
Yes. Unquestioningly.
and no other series before or since has captured the magic of Enterprise.
Eh? You mean TNG? Or Enterprise?
-
Armored suggestions that relate to area-of-effect weaponry:
Armored Desolator - a desolator renders an area devoid of life
Armored Decimator - a decimator deals a large amount of damage to a group of enemies
Also, with all the debate going on I think it will help a lot of people to see these things in action. Once we see exactly what we are trying to help name I think a lot of speculation and preconceived ideas about how a ship should be named will be resolved. Just my two cents though.
-
Armored Decimator is not bad, actually!
And in terms of seeing these things in action, here you go: http://www.arcengames.com/forums/index.php/topic,14782.0.html :)
I think all of the classes are shown there, but I wouldn't swear to it.
-
So...
- Interceptor
- Light Assault
- Bomber
- Heavy Assault
- Armored ____?
Sigh. Okay, thoughts now?
These names are much, much better. Simply because I can mentally imagine their role. The Heavy Assault is starting to sound like a brawler, or Carronade, a weapon to duel with single targets at close range. While the HA name isn't perfect, I like it so much more :)
As for the Aegis, they sound like Flak platforms, pure and simply. They annihilate smaller craft but not larger craft. So some variant of it would work.
-
Flak. *Facepalm* That is indeed the word I was looking for. All I could thing was MLRS or MIRVs or similar. Though I'm not sure that Armored Flak Ship has a good ring to it, and it sounds like Flagship. And they aren't platforms, they're mobile and mean. But that's in the right direction.
Agreed on Heavy Assault not being great. I really feel like it is too close to light assault in general, and just not interesting. I'd rather call that something else, as you mention, but brawler seems too... small. That's the general idea, though.
So:
- Interceptor
- Light Assault
- Bomber
- ??? {Assault/Heavy/Brawler inspired}
- Armored ??? {Flak inspired}
Glad you are liking those better, I am too, actually. So I'm glad you kept saying something about it -- and you too, Teal! :)
-
Flak. *Facepalm* That is indeed the word I was looking for. All I could thing was MLRS or MIRVs or similar. Though I'm not sure that Armored Flak Ship has a good ring to it, and it sounds like Flagship. And they aren't platforms, they're mobile and mean. But that's in the right direction.
Flak Armored is no good, yes. No dispute there.
Agreed on Heavy Assault not being great. I really feel like it is too close to light assault in general, and just not interesting. I'd rather call that something else, as you mention, but brawler seems too... small. That's the general idea, though.
Bigger then a brawler. Hmm, a ship that specializes in broadsides. Sounds almost like a boarding craft. I know it doesn't actually board, but that's the only reason for a large craft to need to get so close to kill. Unless you get technical in its weaponry. Like it uses {short range weapon}
So:
- Interceptor
- Light Assault
- Bomber
- ??? {Assault/Heavy/Brawler inspired}
- Armored ??? {Flak inspired}
Glad you are liking those better, I am too, actually. So I'm glad you kept saying something about it -- and you too, Teal! :)
-
Having now watched the video I understand your previous concerns about sizes with regard to calling things frigates/cruisers/battleships/etc. Combat looks more like two carriers (the flagships) meeting in space and deploying their squadrons and other craft to fight each other. Carriers don't carry around cruisers and battleships so I like the new direction the names are taking to reflect the fact that they are more like strikecraft than their own, independent starships.
My suggestion for the new fourth slot name would be "Gunboats". Gunboats are heavily armed ships with small crews that can deal damage if they get in close but can be overwhelmed as well. The name isn't just limited to naval warfare either. Gunboats show up in sci-fi contexts as well. Take Star Wars for example where you can see the Empire using "Assault Gunboats" in the old TIE fighter games.
*Edit: I've just had a thought that if people don't like the idea of using the word "boat" to describe a starship I suppose "Gunships" would work equally as well*
Also, one little thing bugs me about the name "Light Assault" and that is that is seems to be missing a word. Light assault what? Light assault rifles? Light assault flowers? The last one is a joke but hopefully you see my point. I would suggest calling them "Light Assault Craft" or LACs for short. It just sounds like a more complete name to me.
-
Hooray! Today we end the tyranny of wet-navy ship classes in space sci-fi!
...Ahem.
Concerning the names, I have a few things to say:
1) Ultra-obscure names like Poniard and Garron (I honestly thought those were made-up words at first) are terrible for something that's supposed to convey purpose instantly. (Needless to say, invented terms without an obvious etymology are even worse). Stay away from them.
2) I'm going to disagree with chemical_art here: Aegis and Sentinel work well; they have existing real-world meanings and connotations that communicate their ingame role well.
Predator: goes after things and eats them
Sentinel: watches over things
Aegis: Athena's shield (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis)
3) As per #2, I'd recommend using agent nouns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_noun) and names of objects with an appropriate connotational relationship, except that they tend to use up words that could have been used for names of ship classes instead (e.g. Aegis would be the perfect name for, say, a defensive cruiser class) - and for the same reason, they often don't convey size very well.
I'll probably hold off on suggesting names till I can get home and watch the combat video, though.
-
All right, you guys have been suuuper helpful with these last three posts! I was really tempted by Gunship, but I think that is a little bit nonspecific. Here's the names I'm going to use, at least for now, unless there are better suggestions. But I'm getting really happy with these:
- Interceptor
- Light Assault Craft
- Bomber
- Predator (yeah, I moved back to using this, but in a different slot. This is a "big scary" all-purpose ship, and so having it be named that is frankly appropriate, I think).
- Claymore (yay! Going with the idea of flak and hitting the little guys, this is a clear indication of what these are. I think this one's a winner).
-
Right, now that I've watched the video (and failed to glean anything relevant to this thread from it ::)) I'll just throw out the ideas I had:
- (no change)
- Cutter (probably implies too much speed?), Heavy Fighter, Brawler
- Monitor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monitor_(warship)) (this one is kinda obscure though), Aggressor, Spear, Gunboat
- Knight, Lineship ... though Cruiser is honestly perfect
- Phalanx, Defender, Guardian/Guardship, Waller
(There would be more, but I took out anything already suggested)
-
Claymore? That huge sword that was so huge and unwieldy it was only useful in destroying slow opponents? ok.
-
Right, now that I've watched the video (and failed to glean anything relevant to this thread from it ::)) I'll just throw out the ideas I had:
- (no change)
- Cutter (probably implies too much speed?), Heavy Fighter, Brawler
- Monitor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monitor_(warship)) (this one is kinda obscure though), Aggressor, Spear, Gunboat
- Knight, Lineship ... though Cruiser is honestly perfect
- Phalanx, Defender, Guardian/Guardship, Waller
(There would be more, but I took out anything already suggested)
I like all these names.
-
- Interceptor
- Cutter
- Monitor
- Predator
- Claymore
Ooh, yeah, Cutter and Monitor are much better. I still prefer Predator over the others suggested there, and Claymore. Claymore is a large sword, yes, but in more recent military meaning it is also a large antipersonnel mine. The sense I'm using it in is in the latter.
-
Claymore? That huge sword that was so huge and unwieldy it was only useful in destroying slow opponents? ok.
When I think of Claymore, actually, I think of the Claymore mines, which are anti-personnel mines which are effective at taking out soft targets in large numbers, but fairly useless against armored targets.
Edit: Ninja'd by the master...
-
- Interceptor
- Cutter
- Monitor
- Predator
- Claymore
Ooh, yeah, Cutter and Monitor are much better. I still prefer Predator over the others suggested there, and Claymore. Claymore is a large sword, yes, but in more recent military meaning it is also a large antipersonnel mine. The sense I'm using it in is in the latter.
They all sound good. I think something storm related would sound nice for the flak type ship. (Tempest, Storm, Monsoon)
-
It's thematic, but I think I'm going to stick with claymore for now -- it sounds more military, like the others, and for people familiar with the mines, it makes sense. And if someone thinks the sword... well, that's not the end of the world, since these are the largest ship that isn't a flagship.
-
I like Monitor a lot.
-
Me too, that was a killer suggestion.
-
- Interceptor
- Cutter
- Monitor
- Predator
- Claymore
Ooh, yeah, Cutter and Monitor are much better. I still prefer Predator over the others suggested there, and Claymore. Claymore is a large sword, yes, but in more recent military meaning it is also a large antipersonnel mine. The sense I'm using it in is in the latter.
I'm not sure about the name Cutter to be honest. When I think of a cutter I think of a small, unarmed ship that is housed by a large ship and used to transport people between ships or to land. I know the Coast Guard operates some lightly armed cutters, but they aren't warships. If anything the name cutter would make more sense for interceptors since it suggests a small, lightly-armed ship that is fast and nimble and constantly turning and cutting through enemy formations.
I like the name Monitor, but it seems odd to be used on third smallest ship in the game. Monitors are historically modest sized warships, not things carried or launched by another ship. If I heard about a ship that could launch squadrons of monitors, I would imagine something quite a bit larger than the flagship as it is in the game. That may just be my prior knowledge of naval history talking though so I suppose the name wouldn't confuse everyone.
If I may suggest a more radical shakeup to the list at this point, I am a big fan of the name Claymore. I also like seeing consistent naming conventions with ships so why not name all the classes after swords/blades? For example we could have something like this:
Dagger: small, very fast weapon
Cutlass: bigger than a dagger but still pretty fast and it packs a bigger punch
Rapier: bigger than the previous two, intended for strong thrusting attacks against larger targets but can be overwhelmed by swarming smaller foes
Broadsword: a heavy weapon with quite a punch, but slow to swing with so it suggests a "low rate of fire"
Claymore: works well for me, especially with the double meaning relating to the anti-personnel mine
There are plenty of other nice sword names to if some of the above don't quite cut it. Scimitars, long swords, short swords, falchions. I suppose the naming convention doesn't even have to be restricted to just swords. Since we already have Lancers in the game, why not Scythes?
-
Definitely not a fan of the swords approach. Right now I've just put in all the new names for the ships, and I plan to stick with them unless something dramatically better comes along. Or unless over time we find something better (I don't plan on jolting around the names repeatedly, anyway).
-
Darn looks like I'm too late to this thread to suggest face puncher/face smasher!
-
- Interceptor
- Cutter
- Monitor
- Predator
- Claymore
Ooh, yeah, Cutter and Monitor are much better. I still prefer Predator over the others suggested there, and Claymore. Claymore is a large sword, yes, but in more recent military meaning it is also a large antipersonnel mine. The sense I'm using it in is in the latter.
Forgive me for not quite getting it, but your names, while interesting, don't explain anything specific about what size the ships are, or what they do. If the naming conventions of 'type' are not useable, then i would like to suggest a numbering convention that would at least tell me what size craft i am deploying and have a tentative idea of what that means to a battle, or my ships survivability.
MK1 - Fighters/Interceptors
MK2 - Light Assault Craft/Cutters
MK3 - Bombers/Monitors
MK4 - Heavy Assault Craft/Predators
MK5 - Multi-Target Craft/Claymores
In this way, whether i 'know' the name or not, or the function of the ship, I can readily realize, from the first practice game that my MK1's are going to be light and fast and my MK3's and MK4's are the heavier hitters. I think the Predator and the Monitor and such are cool names, it is just 'that i don't know what they are' that makes them hard to use, because i don't know what i should be grabbing, or planning next in the que.
Anyway, i know you are probably fed up with all the requests of we don't like this, or we like such and such more, but as long as its 'clear' as to function or size then I have an idea of what i need to use for the battles.
As a compromise, if you would be willing to have the names with an appendage to them, would be great with me! :)
- Interceptor (MK1)
- Cutter (MK2)
- Monitor (MK3)
- Predator (MK4)
- Claymore (MK5)
So that is really something i think i could understand, sorry to belabor that so much, but i'm just trying to find something i can understand.
Sincerely,
Teal
-
These aren't serially better than one another -- they all have distinct functions, and generally the squadrons of the smaller things are bigger enough to hit the larger things. If I were to put numbers on there, you'd be really confused why your Mk II routinely trashed your Mk IV in a lot of circumstances, heh.
-
Ok, thanks for the reply and guess i really should wait until i can feel how the game plays instead of just making suggestions now. Thanks
-
No worries at all.