Jump to content

We're moving to Discord!

Come join in the discussion here!

You can also still find out all the latest news on TWITTER and FACEBOOK

Thank you for your continued support, and we look forward to welcoming you shortly.

The Warcradle Team

S..Mike

3rd Edition Short Range Spacecraft (SRS)

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, Xerkics said:

So can carriers replenish srs because it looks like they are very easy to kill now.

Earlier it was stated that some of the SRS/Carrier rules were being ported over from Dystopian Wars v2.5

Based on the accidental copy of DW I received, Carriers in Firestorm may be getting a system of special Carrier Command Points like DW. Each carrier model has a rating of how many points is has to perform what is called Carrier Actions. For example you can spend Carrier Points to restore lost Wings to an SRS token (ala Deck Crews) for a point per Wing restored. Or you can restore a completely destroyed SRS for 3 Carrier Points (to the minimum 2 Wing count, and then you have to Deck Crews it back up to full strength from there). There's a two or three other things you can do to your wings in DW 2.5 with those points etc. Carrier Points replenish each turn, so there's a limit to how much per turn your carrier can do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Dr_Vector said:

I'm gonna step into this, LionofPerth, you're talking about realism in a game.  A space opera game that has design elements based somewhat like naval combat simulation, but is in fact about space combat with futuristic ships and strategies that probably are not viable.  If you wanted to say that this design wasn't realistic to space combat, well, we don't even have that yet.

It's nice when games mirror reality in a relatively believable manner, but at the end of the day it's still a game.  Game design for fun and balanced play should trump design which places realism over entertaining game play.  If you make a game element that does everything, equally well, why would you ever take a specialist?  The design for SRS is limited such that putting both generalists and specialists into play that do not obsolete one another is incredibly difficult to produce and then justify having exist.

An encyclopedia may be a fun read for some people, I mean I like a good pass occasionally, but there reaches a tipping point in game design when you should try cutting out the fat.  Now, if you had a good sample, showing how a generalist multi-role SRS can fit into this design; we'd have something to discuss in depth.  As it stands, I just don't see why this extra work is necessary aside from perhaps not having pleasing nomenclature.

Simply said, wrong. 
 

From my position, good design is based on a few principles. One of those is trade offs, another is limitations, the final is an understanding of the material you're working with. Simply said, Spartan, as a studio, is failing in my mind to work in any way towards the third aspect of that. They seemingly have no understanding of what they are trying to create, they have no understanding of what they are working towards or trying to create. They have no understanding of what the foundations are for what they are trying to do. 

There is an absence of good reason to break things up like this. It is an unnecessary complication on an already complicated system. One that is in addition to the basics of starship combat which is the core of this game. I can't think of a good reason this is in and I'm asking what they have traded off for such a feature to be present. The reason 'because I like it' is no reason at all for a feature. That's the short of it. I've stopped, killed ideas, for the simple fact they don't work on any reason but that. 

I'm not asking for each designation of craft, model number and length of calibre of weapons or the difference between a ground attack load out and an aerial combat load out. Nor am I asking for the finer points of microgravity engagements and maneouvre with six degrees of freedom. What I am expecting is that as much as some factions have specialised craft, they also have general craft, basic general use craft. This doesn't seem to have that. Everything assigned to dog fighting is a F-22, everything assigned to strike is a F-35 without any explanation. Give me that explanation and I will give them some credit. At least in equivalent aircraft function. 

Right now, that is another failing of the studio that is Spartan Games

 

17 minutes ago, Spartan_FA_Mike said:

I guess I don't have a great answer to why no multi-role SRS.  If we were to start all over again, we'd probably come up with something different.  For whatever reason, some of the stats are single numbers, others have multiple values and choices.   Having heavy/standard variants, bombers/interceptors, gives a way to get away from the totally abstract, but not to bog down in a bunch of variant craft.   This is where we have settled, thus far.   In re-reading this, it doesn't feel like a great answer, so maybe some of the other beta team people can chime in.

My first thought is neither option is mutually exclusive. In fact, the idea of a generalist craft goes towards helping to reinforce the idea of force differentiation, force asynchoronousity. Not sure that's actually a word in the dictionary, but it seems to fit the rules of word creation. 

If you have a force focused on heavy air dominance, give them no choice to take the 'light' variant. if they value ordinance of the very explosive variety, give them access to the heavy bombers but not the 'light' variety. I have arguments to made that a carrier force, a force that supports carriers as a primary means of attack and support, should not have access to 'light' craft and only have the more specialised craft.They have the knowledge to manage the more specialised, the more customised,the more complex, craft that could be called 'heavy'.   If you have a faction that is not so educated, so talented, so logistically supported, give them access only to the 'light' variants and a generalist craft. Make players debate the choice between the AD and PD. Make players make the choice between strike wings, tokens, that are heavily specialised or generalised. Make players wonder what the prime configuration for them is. Bring that depth into the game and better it for it having that depth. 

If they are not so specialised, then they only have access to the 'light' variants. Not only that, you could only base the 'heavy' variant on stations or full carriers, not Escort, Light carriers. There's good reason to have some variants, but not all of them as you do now. I still have to admit some confusion to the reason for the need of heavy and light shuttle variants. I can't see this as anything other than 'just because' and like I said to the person above, that is no good reason to design, build something in that regards. It's not more reason than the direction the wind blows. 

I've scrapped, killed ideas, concepts, for that very reason. I think you guys need to do the same and start again from the ground up on V3. Not just make a version three, but to make a whole, better game for it. I think this is especially true of Planetfall as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At what point does a ship attack the SRS? Can they now shoot them with normal weapons as they now have DR or are they still only targets for PD? Can you drive off an attack?

Because they only have a DR per token and no CR they can't be critted and, as far as I know, multiples of DR don't do anything extra (that's covered by crits and multicrits) you can only ever destroy one SRS per token per shot? I.e.: you don't link fire at tokens, you fire multiple separate shots instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simply said, I feel that ironically sums up the content provided quite well.  I can't see where in your diatribe that your statements are supported, these conclusions you've drawn aren't connected to substantial evidence.  If it is indeed, please, point it out as I honestly see little basis for these conclusions you've drawn.

You state, as I understand it, good game design is based on trade offs, limitations, and a comprehensive understanding of these features in play.  Following up with stating Spartan Games' design doesn't qualify as good game design, yet all I can see as evidence is that this SRS list is larger than the previous list, with lesser and greater variants of each purpose distinct SRS type.

This apparently is bad design because it adds too much content to the game?  I don't see how this can be qualified as adding too much content to the game.  This news hasn't even hit the proverbial streets long enough for a substantial player review and testing process to get started.  You didn't show an example how another game's design attempted something similar, with a reason for why that recorded event was definitively bad design.

You don't point out how this design is meaningless, I'm not even sure how you could given we don't know the statistic lines for the carriers from which SRS are based.  SRS perform the same functions under this system as they do now, PD coverage, AD rolls against models, boarding actions, and model support.  Granted the model support has changed from CP restoration and token removal to CP restoration and related token removal and a both separate and new hull repair SRS.

Fighters are dropped, but frankly they were niche use at best, and outright obsoleted in comparison to interceptors and bombers.  Fighters were the least appreciated SRS for value, though not completely without any value.  Frankly, I'd be asking for more information about how or if dog fighting still exists given that nothing has been stated about that possibility and the lack of PD in anything other than an interceptor.

 

Regardless, where did this wild tangent suddenly come from?  I was talking about realism and the impact it should have in game design and game play.  Followed by how I don't see trimming out fighters as a substantial problem given their, at best, niche role as jack-of-all-trades and master of none.  They're already on if not over the brink of obsolescence in current play due to the roles of interceptors and bombers.  There isn't much wiggle room to improve fighters and not make them the superior choice without an overhaul to the game system.

By all means, prove me totally and completely wrong and quite simply so.  Although this diversion into how you've proven Firestorm is fundamentally a bad game design by bad people and for all of the wrong reasons seems irrelevant to how realism can and should impact a game.  While I didn't exactly find a solid example of how and why fighters should remain within Firestorm, I can only imagine that is because, you don't think Firestorm is any good at all?

If you do see a way to put fighters into this game, why are you even asking someone else to do that work for you; given you must know better than they how it is supposed to work?  Really, why does atmospheric combat and military on a planet have absolutely anything at all to do with the execution of tiny spaceship dog fights?  Space based combat between Short Range Spacecraft is just there to be cool; I'm going to need this apparently obscure source where there are provably realistic and viable military strategies that are highly similar to current aerospace combat.

Star Wars has long been debunked as based on WWII dog fighting than any degree of realism for space combat; yet it is, at the very least, one of the major influences behind the proliferation of space ship dog fighting for space operas of all varieties.  Might as well complain why the P-47 Thunderbolt doesn't have an accurate representation in Firestorm.  The rallying call to put fighters back into the game for the sake of realism might as well be, "Hawker Tempest equivalent, or riot!"

 

Edit:

@Xystophoroi      In a previous post within this thread Spartan Mike covered an example of PD coverage against a combined interceptor and bomber attack run.  The short summary is that DR 2 means every 2 successes on a PD roll removes one wing from a token, thus the sample's linked fire PD roll with 13 successes destroys up to 6 wings worth of SRS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@LionofPerth at least from a players perspective I can see why they eliminated the multi craft (ie fighters)

no one used them :unsure:

people preferred to min max there PD or AD, never mind that fighters could do both, and had the best range of movement, they proved less effective at either task, and were passed for other options

not to say there couldn't or shouldn't be multi roll craft (I'm not opposed to the option) 

however with how the forums are lately, and the general testiness of players, any carrier given option (perhaps the only option) for multi roll craft will have naysayers on both sides either crying that it's too strong, or too weak (depends on the perspective)

as far as light vs heavy, same reason we have cruisers/ heavy cruisers, ships with heavy srs will likely be costlier, for increased effectiveness, others may have more srs, or be cheaper, with less effective wings

my only concern honestly is the repair craft being able to repair hull points :blink:

ill likely love or hate it, depending on whether or not I have access to it :D 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Polaris said:

as far as light vs heavy, same reason we have cruisers/ heavy cruisers, ships with heavy srs will likely be costlier, for increased effectiveness, others may have more srs, or be cheaper, with less effective wings

Remember, the cost of SRS are rolled into the carrier cost, so it's not something that you explicity see anymore.  It's the old sales pitch that the wings are free.  It's the carrier to service them that costs ya.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Spartan_FA_Mike said:

Remember, the cost of SRS are rolled into the carrier cost, so it's not something that you explicity see anymore.  It's the old sales pitch that the wings are free.  It's the carrier to service them that costs ya.

yes but I assume a carrier who can carry heavies costs more then a carrier who can't :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Polaris said:

works for me :) 

so a guess a better way to phrase my statement, is that there are not heavy or regular SRS for the sake of diversity or options, but for the sake of balance.

No, it's both.   We want the options of standard/heavy, but it gives another way to balance and flavor the fleets, yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be nice to see some other specialist SRS, like torpedo bombers. Something that can chase down a fleeing vessel far away and engage with short range torps to avoid being shot down itself.
I am really keen to see what the new SRS tokens are gonna look like as well!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Lord Bloodwings said:

It would be nice to see some other specialist SRS, like torpedo bombers. Something that can chase down a fleeing vessel far away and engage with short range torps to avoid being shot down itself.
I am really keen to see what the new SRS tokens are gonna look like as well!

That's a good idea.  We don't have it yet, but it's a good idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As something I thought of earlier, I think you should consider the implications of having no limit on SRS token numbers and launches.  I believe one of the goals in the new system is to limit the PD mountain, via forcing people to decide when to use it.  I see zero reason in the new implementation to not put every single Interceptor into a single token (unless they're specifically to be sacrificial shields for bomber runs).  That way you can decide to add any number in from 0->whatever when you take a shot.  Assuming this tactic catches on (and it will after the first time someone uses it), PD overages can still be held largely intact in many fleets via proper distribution and usage of single-SRS tokens.  You can choose to space your PD out at need throughout the entire turn, and bring in tokens from other squads if you're running short.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Polaris said:

@LionofPerth at least from a players perspective I can see why they eliminated the multi craft (ie fighters)

no one used them :unsure:

people preferred to min max there PD or AD, never mind that fighters could do both, and had the best range of movement, they proved less effective at either task, and were passed for other options

not to say there couldn't or shouldn't be multi roll craft (I'm not opposed to the option) 

however with how the forums are lately, and the general testiness of players, any carrier given option (perhaps the only option) for multi roll craft will have naysayers on both sides either crying that it's too strong, or too weak (depends on the perspective)

as far as light vs heavy, same reason we have cruisers/ heavy cruisers, ships with heavy srs will likely be costlier, for increased effectiveness, others may have more srs, or be cheaper, with less effective wings

my only concern honestly is the repair craft being able to repair hull points :blink:

ill likely love or hate it, depending on whether or not I have access to it :D 

 

 

On the other hand, I was thinking of swapping my carrier load outs to fighters over bombers and interceptors. They had the range and with the Command range, gave me the longest strike range. I'd take less AD to be able to hit longer. That felt like a fair trade off. 

My issues are far wider because we are told the changes, not the rationale and the reasoning behind. I don't see what they are trying to achieve to here. As I said, it creates only complexity and my gut read of it as it stands now is that it is more than likely, quite bad design. It's failing to follow the fundamentals. It's adding complexity for, what at the moment is no good reason and perhaps closer to no reason. It doesn't answer any sort of need and it doesn't fit into any path of expansion, other than complexity. 

@Dr_Vector

Read again some of my posts. What I said still stands, it's not a call for realism, it's a call to understand what they're doing. That it has good reason and motivation. That at the end of the day, it adds to, expands, the game in a way that improves it. I would also say it's less 'P-47 or riot' and it's more 'what are they trying to do here?' 

This only adds complexity and for the moment, I can see no good reason for it. No motivation has been given for the light and heavy variants. Saying well, light and heavy cruisers exist is still no argument. Saying that something is good because you like it and bad because you don't like it is not what I am doing nor what I would encourage people to do either. I want to know what their design bible says, that all of us know what the design people says. I want to know how they intend to expand things out and where things fit into that plan. I want to know what their goals are and a path to achieve them. 

If they wanting to create a harder, more realistic universe, then fighters have perfect reason to exist. Information. Smaller, low emission (EM, thermal, more) craft that can maintain and expand the scanner, sensors range? That's important. So does the ability to shut it down and prevent the enemy for getting that information. So if that's the case, why don't we have scouts, or recon craft that add modifiers to hit or help deal with cloak? That would answer a clear need and would help explain the universe. An obvious, in universe need. Namely, how can you shoot at something if you can't see it?

If they're going for a big gun style, WW1 gun duel game, why do they even have these strike craft in here? Why are they expanding the game and diluting their core theme? That is some of the worst reason to design something. If not the worst reason. 

If they're working on a strike craft, carrier based game, why do we have so many ships with big guns? Again, see above. Diluting the core theme, the core idea. Why aren't cruisers, frigates and destroyers clear escort craft to the carriers? 

If you are creating a fleet game, of big capital ships, why do you define it down to sub-variants of craft? What justifies this clear step away from abstraction? 

If they want a game which is running on rule of cool, like Star Wars, then why not tell your players you want to do that? 

There's too much we don't know and not enough answers offered by Spartan. If not none. Till they can offer clean, decent answers, till they explain what the end state is and where they want to be, I can only work on my impression of those changes they offer and what they publish. Right now, as it stands this only, adds complexity. It's more material without a stated goal, question answered. What questions are they answering here is the simple question. If go even further, I might even say, material without a stated need for it too. I had everything I needed in the previous edition. 

Spartan_FA_Mike even said he doesn't have a good answer. If Spartan doesn't have a good answer, then I must be closer to the truth than I would like. 

To wrap up, take this as an example. 

I want to make a RTS title in the future. It's going to have components that fleet based and ground based. Upgrades are on a whole, going to be faction wide and represent the logistics of the force at your command. That you must manage your logistics to gain the best upgrades, units for your forces. That preparation is just as important as your commands in the field. 

So on that level, you should expect that some form of resourcing and supply management is a high priority in such a game. That you might have supply routes to manage and secure. That defending resourcing sites is going to be important. That when you lose a shipment it will be a punishing event and that you must react quickly to keep to your previous plan. 

If I then introduced a form of upgrade that made your supplies immune to attack, or the enemies supplies immune to attack. That would seemingly break my rule on the importance of supplies. In the worst case, it's an attack directly on the player and in the best case, it's a failure of me to understand the implications of a choice. The same is then true if I write up this section on the 'great new espionage' elements and let them overshadow the core concept. The same is true if I said I want hard physics and went semi-Newtonian movement, models. The same is true if I was making a dog fighting game and then went and filled it full of strike, ground attack missions. The idea, concept change change, develop, that's a given, but it's the nature of that very development which can take a great idea, make it medicore, make a medicore idea stunning.

Spartan, from my position are taking some great ideas and making them medicore, at best. At worst, breaking their own games for no reason other than ego. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@LionofPerth, I'm actually doing a degree right now where Game Design is my minor - it's a video game-targeted degree, but we learn by building and using tabletop games as well as designing something that will run on a computer. And one thing I've had drilled into my head over and over again is "abstract, abstract, abstract." If there is not a reason for the detail, if it doesn't serve the functions of the game, then nine times out of ten the added immersion of detail is actually countered by the detail you hoped to use to immerse forcing the player to devote headspace to understanding it all, and it actually acts as a barrier to immersion. Detail is necessary, yes, it allows for fascinating and complex interactions between systems, but if it's not actually adding anything to the experience - and you're not building a faithful simulator, intended to be a 1:1 recreation of real objects/practices/concepts - then no matter how much you as the designer may love it, it needs to be ripped out.

The trick is, leaving just enough in to prompt the player's imagination, which will always be a higher-fidelity device than anything possible on the tabletop or on the screen, while still incorporating sufficient functional detail to generate a complex experience. Usually, this means disguising functional detail that is in there for the experience you want to make, as 'cool' detail that the player enjoys. For example, the kinds of WARs listed in the weapon topic. Calling them 'Beams' and 'Corrosive' and everything gives the player an image in their head. But the functionality of each is relatively simple, it's how they interact that generates the complexity. And by combining the image the player gets from reading about their massive array of beam weapons, with the functional detail of rerolling 1s at short range (and always ensuring the image is at least related enough to the functionality that bears its name that the player can convince themselves it fits, by whatever rationale they prefer), it generates more immersion for the player than any amount of 'true to life' detail that was incorporated into the rules based on focal lengths and lens degradation and heat buildup and everything would - the place for that sort of well-researched detail is in the image you give to the player, not the mechanics underlying the game system - in other words, the fluff, the lore, the flavour text.

For an SRS example, the Heavy Interceptors you're having a problem with could easily be, in lore, large SRS with overpowered engines, making up for their poor turning radius with an enviable boom-and-zoom capability and multiple independently-tracking weapons arrays - whether those be small railguns for Dindrenzi ones, so the Heavy Interceptor stays at a reasonable range and pounds the enemy into scrap, or beam arrays for the Aquans that use the one beam gun buried in the heart of the interceptor with spllitters for multiple beams and external quick-tracking focusing arrays to burn multiple enemy SRS and torps from the void at once, or ripple-fired missiles that track the enemy with guidance from the HI. Just because these sorts of craft don't work in atmo, doesn't mean they won't work in the void, where almost everything about building a craft capable of moving under its own power changes - and then there's the fact that the Firestorm Universe is Space Opera, and that genre is wide enough for everything from near 1:1 replication of WWII dogfights, like Star Wars, to the kinds of thing you see in anime that coined the term Macross Missile Massacre, to settings where fighters as we know them are simply useless for any serious military conflict.

If it helps, you could imagine the Heavy Interceptors as a fast-in-a-straight-line platform for mounting multiple of whatever their respective race uses for PD. Not as maneuverable as the more standard Interceptors, nor as fun for the pilots most likely, but effective for all that. And this would also explain why such a heavy craft would have no anti-ship capability - it's completely optimised for taking out targets approximately the same size as it or smaller - when escorting a bomber flight, they likely use their pinpoint targeting to fire at enemy PD (which has to be lightly-armoured and exposed, in order to get the fast-tracking necessary to fire at small, fast, maneuvering targets, and thus is sufficiently lightly protected for guns rated for the same sorts of targets), while spamming countermeasures and filling the capital ship's PD targeting arrays with garbage, which allows them to perform Wild Weasel duties by lighting themselves up brighter than the bombers that are the real threats while at the same time damaging the very PD arrays that will be used against them.

And the Heavy SRS fill an important mechanics role, by allowing carriers to be further specialised - in another topic, it was said that Sorylians will have smaller Wing Capacities, but more access to Heavy SRS - this allows for more meaningful differentiation, both between the factions, and between individual carrier classes within the factions. Thus allowing for more immersion, by means of showing the faction differences in design ethos and mentality goes all the way down to the smallest combatants, and all the way up to the roles a major combatant like a fleet carrier is meant to fill, by means of a relatively simple rules addition that costs almost no mental headspace for the player.

 

EDIT: Also, I have to say, I'm talking a big game here, for someone whose first piece of feedback on his last three assignments has literally been "more abstraction"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RecklessPrudence said:

@LionofPerth, I'm actually doing a degree right now where Game Design is my minor - it's a video game-targeted degree, but we learn by building and using tabletop games as well as designing something that will run on a computer. And one thing I've had drilled into my head over and over again is "abstract, abstract, abstract." If there is not a reason for the detail, if it doesn't serve the functions of the game, then nine times out of ten the added immersion of detail is actually countered by the detail you hoped to use to immerse forcing the player to devote headspace to understanding it all, and it actually acts as a barrier to immersion. Detail is necessary, yes, it allows for fascinating and complex interactions between systems, but if it's not actually adding anything to the experience - and you're not building a faithful simulator, intended to be a 1:1 recreation of real objects/practices/concepts - then no matter how much you as the designer may love it, it needs to be ripped out.

The trick is, leaving just enough in to prompt the player's imagination, which will always be a higher-fidelity device than anything possible on the tabletop or on the screen, while still incorporating sufficient functional detail to generate a complex experience. Usually, this means disguising functional detail that is in there for the experience you want to make, as 'cool' detail that the player enjoys. For example, the kinds of WARs listed in the weapon topic. Calling them 'Beams' and 'Corrosive' and everything gives the player an image in their head. But the functionality of each is relatively simple, it's how they interact that generates the complexity. And by combining the image the player gets from reading about their massive array of beam weapons, with the functional detail of rerolling 1s at short range (and always ensuring the image is at least related enough to the functionality that bears its name that the player can convince themselves it fits, by whatever rationale they prefer), it generates more immersion for the player than any amount of 'true to life' detail that was incorporated into the rules based on focal lengths and lens degradation and heat buildup and everything would - the place for that sort of well-researched detail is in the image you give to the player, not the mechanics underlying the game system - in other words, the fluff, the lore, the flavour text.

For an SRS example, the Heavy Interceptors you're having a problem with could easily be, in lore, large SRS with overpowered engines, making up for their poor turning radius with an enviable boom-and-zoom capability and multiple independently-tracking weapons arrays - whether those be small railguns for Dindrenzi ones, so the Heavy Interceptor stays at a reasonable range and pounds the enemy into scrap, or beam arrays for the Aquans that use the one beam gun buried in the heart of the interceptor with spllitters for multiple beams and external quick-tracking focusing arrays to burn multiple enemy SRS and torps from the void at once, or ripple-fired missiles that track the enemy with guidance from the HI. Just because these sorts of craft don't work in atmo, doesn't mean they won't work in the void, where almost everything about building a craft capable of moving under its own power changes - and then there's the fact that the Firestorm Universe is Space Opera, and that genre is wide enough for everything from near 1:1 replication of WWII dogfights, like Star Wars, to the kinds of thing you see in anime that coined the term Macross Missile Massacre, to settings where fighters as we know them are simply useless for any serious military conflict.

If it helps, you could imagine the Heavy Interceptors as a fast-in-a-straight-line platform for mounting multiple of whatever their respective race uses for PD. Not as maneuverable as the more standard Interceptors, nor as fun for the pilots most likely, but effective for all that. And this would also explain why such a heavy craft would have no anti-ship capability - it's completely optimised for taking out targets approximately the same size as it or smaller - when escorting a bomber flight, they likely use their pinpoint targeting to fire at enemy PD (which has to be lightly-armoured and exposed, in order to get the fast-tracking necessary to fire at small, fast, maneuvering targets, and thus is sufficiently lightly protected for guns rated for the same sorts of targets), while spamming countermeasures and filling the capital ship's PD targeting arrays with garbage, which allows them to perform Wild Weasel duties by lighting themselves up brighter than the bombers that are the real threats while at the same time damaging the very PD arrays that will be used against them.

And the Heavy SRS fill an important mechanics role, by allowing carriers to be further specialised - in another topic, it was said that Sorylians will have smaller Wing Capacities, but more access to Heavy SRS - this allows for more meaningful differentiation, both between the factions, and between individual carrier classes within the factions. Thus allowing for more immersion, by means of showing the faction differences in design ethos and mentality goes all the way down to the smallest combatants, and all the way up to the roles a major combatant like a fleet carrier is meant to fill, by means of a relatively simple rules addition that costs almost no mental headspace for the player.

 

EDIT: Also, I have to say, I'm talking a big game here, for someone whose first piece of feedback on his last three assignments has literally been "more abstraction"

Speaking to someone, who started a similar course and before they came into it, presented material to the course head and was told it was third year material. Who without an education, had material seen by the design team at a company back in 2009, and damn near got a job that would have taken me to England. Just from a portfolio of ideas, no actual electronic development. I also have worked on, by myself a full system specifications document for an idea. 

Out of interest, I killed the idea, it wasn't working and it was starting to suffer from feature bloat. It wasn't clean, it was getting far too self referential in its logic. Circular arguments that felt ugly. 

Who has spoken with people, including the CEO of an indie studio, directly on the process of design and how they progressed through it, who agreed with me exactly on those principles. 

You are also looking at someone who has written and run pen and paper RPG's, who has never used a module and always had written my own story for something. Who had a Shadowrun 5 game run near two and a half years and never, never, run out of content to run. 

Good design doesn't leave questions. Good design has a core, has a reason and a justification. It has borders and limits, it has a stated goal, path. Good design speaks for itself, because it's the answer to the question. 

I would make the point that I made that exact same damned argument not that long ago, possibly in the previous page. I argued, that the different type of craft can be used to differentiate the factions. That those who are more knowledgeable, studied in the use of strike craft have better craft than. You could flavour the factions and you could set them up to simply be that little more different. I also said, I still fail to see the need of separate the shuttle classes, not the fighter classes. I do not see the need to have the additional break down to the shuttles. 

Let me be clear, the break up of the strike, fighter and interceptor craft, I have no problem with. What I do have a problem with is the removal of a generalist craft and the break up of the shuttles, into light and heavy. 

What Spartan has failed and continually failed to provide is a justification for. Again, if you actually read my posts on the matter. I have said I do not see the need for such a level of detail and I do not see any questions answered by this. They've not explained what was so wrong with the previous version, which was far more abstract. They are adding complexity with no reason given for why it's so important to have it. 

There was enough abstraction before to represent that in the system. So why does Spartan now more than double the number of craft and entirely remove a class of? Spartan itself through Spartan_FA_Mike has said there was no good answer. 

This isn't some theoretically abstraction versus detail argument. This isn't a theoretical argument at all. They're saying that this is basically the rules as things stand now. That this is going to market as it stands and it will be the new edition for Firestorm. I'll be the first to say that Firestorm 2.0 had its issues and bugs, yet it worked well and it was a good enough system across the board. While I believed it failed in regards to setting and background, that is a personal opinion. They wanted opinions on what they're going to publish with. I provided that and they have provided no rationale, no reason, no justification for. 'Because' is not an argument. 

In my idea of what good design is, how it works and proper development, this barely counts as a brain fart. It's the start of the process, of working out just how much detail is required, what I'm willing to give up to get that detail, if it's so important. Even if it's important enough to warrant it. 

So don't treat me as stupid, look at what I said and look at what Spartan has said. You'd be surprised what I have actually said. Also, unless you want me to really go into detail, the importance of measuring a RCS and into the EM spectrum, let's just focus on what Spartan is doing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, LionofPerth said:

There was enough abstraction before to represent that in the system. So why does Spartan now more than double the number of craft and entirely remove a class of? Spartan itself through Spartan_FA_Mike has said there was no good answer. 

Stop right there.   I said that I didn't have a great answer to why no multi-role SRS.   Don't assume that because I don't know that no one does. I realize that I've got a Spartan prefix, and that gives my words a certain weight here, but you're stretching things here in saying that Spartan itself is clueless.  I might be clueless, but don't assume that everyone is.  This really is bugging you, so go higher up the chain, send a PM to @Spartan Derek or @Spartan Neil and get input from them.

27 minutes ago, LionofPerth said:

In my idea of what good design is, how it works and proper development, this barely counts as a brain fart.

27 minutes ago, LionofPerth said:

So don't treat me as stupid,

Please don't assume that we are either, because that's the vibe I'm getting.  I'm sorry that I've not been able to provide ample justification for why things are the way they are.  From this point, your recourse is to take it up with the lead designer, and the owner if you're not satisfied.  It's time to escalate this beyond this thread, because I can't help any more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, LionofPerth said:

*snip*

Wasn't trying to call you an idiot, was just trying to get some common terms and understanding here. Didn't know you had prior knowledge.

As for you calling for less detail, yes, you did that. While also using realism arguments against things that were done for mechanics reasons. I was attempting to show not a call for less detail, but rather to show that realism will have to be lost, for mechanics reasons, and that skewing too closely to realism only adds superfluous detail. Obviously I did not get that across - I apologise for that, I'm not the best at communicating what I mean to say. I think I may have gotten lost while typing, and lost sight of my point.

To address the topics you've actually brought up, rather than just type randomly:

Multi-roles were ditched because, when there is so little granularity in the stats wrt SRS, from a game mechanics point of view it is exceedingly difficult to come up with something that is not either so lackluster in every department that it is barely used (Fighters currently), or so powerful that, while it doesn't equal the specialists in their roles, it comes so close to doing so that there is no reason to not take the generalists. And additional granularity would be difficult to add, when SRS are down at the bottom end of the same scale that battleships operate on, without just multiplying everything and fitting SRS values in the holes, which would mean that a battleship would be throwing many more dice than currently, allowing the exploding dice to be even more swingy.

And while in real life all but the most specialised combat aircraft can do some air-to-air or air-to-ground (depending on what their particular weakness is), that has not always been true and may not always remain true. If the only way you can get the performance you need to be relevant in your chosen role is to specialise to the point you are virtually irrelevant in others, that is often the choice that is made, and other platforms used to make up the deficiency. An A-10, as first entered service in '77, was virtually toothless against air threats. An F-117 or B-2 were likewise. And many air superiority fighters were incapable of meaningfully harming a large, armoured target, like a battleship - that's what a plane more suited to the role was for. That is less the case currently, but it's not unknown.

As for shuttles being broken up into standard and heavy, it allows for the same dynamics that heavy and standard combat SRS do, for the same reasons. I'm... not seeing the problem? If Heavy Interceptors are fine (which I must have misunderstood, I thought that was one of the things you were protesting against from a realism angle), then why aren't shuttles, when all the same arguments hold true, both from a flavour and a mechanics perspective? Differentiating between species and roles, allowing smaller Wing Capacity carriers to be effective beyond the number of SRS they hold, while still leaving them some weaknesses that a larger capacity carrier that can only field the standard model would not have? I mean yeah, it doubles the number of SRS profiles, but it allows for so much more control of carrier capabilities on the part of the devs...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it strange that you still see removal of fighters as such a critical design flaw, I can personally say that I've always found them to be unnecessary.  Frankly their role is the generalist role, and it is a niche role at the best of times.  Unsurprisingly, I don't see a surge of people clamoring for the return of a generalist fighter type of SRS, showing support for their continuation.  Given the discussion about removal of elements in design, this seems to be an example of a reasonable decision to cut content made.

How on earth does one not understand the design and theme behind breaking a specific type of unit into lesser and greater versions?  SRS are basically aerospace combat craft, except within the void between stars, planets, and all other non-planet entities.  Breaking the individual types up should naturally imply that there are superior and inferior versions of SRS for these specific roles, as would be expected of vehicles in real life.

Given that SRS types are not all available on every carrier, carriers which are not the same across every faction, this potential diversity requires a much larger set of information to fully engage and understand how the design intent works in practice.  is this set of information too large, too complex?  It is not all currently available, and that's the only known truth, so you might as well turn to religion for the hard answers.

 

It's absolutely clear what you want here, you want Spartan Games to respond to you, specifically, and address your personal needs.  You want Spartan Games to hand over all their design documents and sit down to tell you the full disclosure of their business plans.  If that isn't your intent, you quite probably need to go back and read you own written material since you give the incredibly strong impression this is fundamentally the case.  Me, I've never heard of any successful business ever doing such a thing for a customer and with such absurdly low, if any, gains to be made.

By all means prove that this is, in fact, common business practice and a trademark standard of success for companies.  Otherwise, I don't see what you could possibly be expecting to happen on the pages of these forums.  Spartan Games is already releasing information about the upcoming system and what more substantial gain than that could you possibly want, given this is a system still in development?  I mean, it isn't as if Wonka is going to show up and start handing out deeds of ownership to his factory because he's a crazy old coot with more money than sense.

What more can you reasonably expect the Spartan Games employees to do for you?  They haven't struck me as intentionally disingenuous, so I can't see how it would be their interaction here which is a sore point.  No other forum member can give you what you desire.  I can't even begin to imagine what you think your actions here are going to accomplish, precisely.  Unless, you actually have no other agenda than to post into the void itself as a form of artistic expression?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a fan of the heavy/light options in abstract, but it will come down to how they are paired with carriers (and pseudo-carriers).

As for fighters, they've basically been the forgotten SRS in my area.  Now, rather than eliminating I would have liked to see a specialist role for them (like Targeted Strike bonuses), but as is, I won't even notice they are gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I realized a funny thing about the new SRS Types today after all this talk about the missing fighters and the standard vs Heavy versions of SRS. This is mostly a matter of names rather than function:

Quote
  • The SRS Types currently available:
    • Standard Interceptor  Fighter Escort (MV: 16",  DR: 2,  AD: 0,  PD: 1) - Same PD as in 2.0
    • Heavy Interceptor  (MV: 16",  DR: 2,  AD: 0,  PD: 2) - Same PD as in 2.0
    • Standard Bomber  Strike Fighter (MV: 16",  DR: 2,  AD: 2,  PD: 0) - Same AD as in 2.0
    • Heavy Bomber   (MV: 16",  DR: 2,  AD: 3,  PD: 0) - Same AD as in 2.0

So basically, Fighters have been divided by the role they are taking on at the time. The biggest change is that you can't alternate between the two roles 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Current rulings to questions previously asked:

  •  Tokens that are reduced in strength during an attack run do not result in a reduction in ship WC.
  • When a carrier type can use more than one category of SRS, the specific number of SRS taken are dynamically allocated during the game.  This means that a carrier with WC=6 and the SRS Contingent (Bomber, Interceptor) could launch 6 bombers one turn, 4 bombers and 2 interceptors the next turn, and so on.  Degredation in the WC comes only as the carrier is damaged (see above).

The current list of SRS types stands as currently listed on the front page post of this topic.  Additional SRS types may be added in the future, but I have no guarantee or timeline on that.

If I didn't answer your question with the above, please let me know.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 30 July 2017 at 6:15 PM, Venter said:

First and foremost: does the acronym really have to be WC

Change it.

No, seriously, change it. 

LOL Toilet Humour.... He he he he he he

The Principles of SRS certainly look simpler. I like that some Carriers can mix up their SRS at launch. That is certainly more fun than locking Carriers to a single role. 

@Spartan_FA_Mike thanks for getting all this info out here. Also I don't envy the Beating you are getting. You have been Stunningly Polite, well done. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there any feedback on splitting Interceptors into as many different tokens as you get wings?  It seems this would allow you to have extremely fine-grained control over PD decisions throughout the turn, potentially negating much of the push for making PD mountain a strategic choice.  This would be particularly true in factions with large SRS representations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.