Factory “Point-Defenses” as Its Own Rating Category

[Mellifluous Magenta]

Hello factory nerds! I come bearing another mediocre suggestion!

So, to clarify a few things beforehand, this suggestion is written more from a “gameplay”, rather than “story” standpoint, in the sense that the bulk of what I am proposing about will be written through the lens of gameplay (E.g. The “Meta”). In addition, I would like to be forthright with my biases, as this is a suggestion that might yield some benefit towards starfighters (I have many starfighter pilot characters). Now, with those out of the way, I would like to make a suggestion pertaining to warships, which I’ve essentially written out as the title to this thread. Nevertheless, I will restate myself here.

I think that [Point-Defenses] (We could also call it [Defensive Armament]), should occupy its own rating category, rather than sitting in the strange limbo it does now where it's either listed under [Armament] or [Defenses]. To make things easier on myself, I will list out my perceived pros and cons of doing so, here.

Pros

• From a gameplay or “Meta” perspective, making [Point-Defenses] an independent rating category could yield benefit to (WARNING: BIAS!) fighters and missiles in the traditional context of fleet-based, spatial engagements. In order to have “good” point-defense systems, writers would need to sacrifice elsewhere in their designs, whether that be [Armament], [Speed], or Etc.
• Once again from a gameplay perspective, “Point-Defense” as an independent category could help to better define the roles of various warships. Anti-starfighter corvettes might be “nerfed”, but in the process they would also become a critical element of a well-constructed fleet in gaining a more clearly-defined role in countering starfighters and missiles where other vessels may be less capable of acting in that capacity. As it is now, most [Extreme] Armament and [Extreme] Defense battlecruisers are just as capable of killing fighters and missiles as anti-starfighter corvettes are.
• I’m not too much of a nerd when it comes to canon, but my perception of canon warships is that not all of them have “good” point-defense systems or even have them in the first place, which was why fighters were considered to be quite useful (At least according to ADM. Reshmar
  
  ). In my opinion, I think it is helpful to better line up the gameplay with tactics that are considered to be effective in canon.
• Boarding tactics could become a more significant part of traditional spatial engagements. However, I should note that in spite of the gameplay making boarding tactics somewhat obsolete, I have encountered many writers (Including Isla Draellix-Kobitana , Darth Carnifex , and a few others) who have allowed boarding actions to happen against their ships for story or “fun” purposes, even when used against vessels that should otherwise be capable of swatting boarding pods down like flies.

Cons

• This could very well result in another “Great Factory Rush of 2020” as writers might want to update their starship designs to accommodate the new standard.
• Defining what [Point-Defenses] are versus [Defenses] might be up for debate. However, I can offer my own definition, which I’ve written out below:
  • Point-Defenses are defensive weapon systems or technologies which enhance a given warships ability to engage small craft, missiles, “needle-style” attacks, and in certain contexts, fast corvettes, which might otherwise be capable of bypassing traditional [Defenses].
• Older starship submissions which have a lot of point-defense systems might be caught in an awkward spot, especially if their writers have left the site. However, I imagine that these submissions could be grandfathered in, with the understanding that in spite of their extensive point-defense systems, their net effectiveness ultimately amounts to [Average].
• There is a question about whether small craft could use the addition as well. There are quite a few larger small craft designs (Those between 30-50 meters) which have extensive point-defense systems. In order to accommodate them, I would suggest distinguishing between “Large Small Craft” and “Small Small Craft”, perhaps by splitting the Small Craft category up into two templates, where “Large Small Craft” are between 30-50 meters and “Small Small Craft” are between 1-30 meters.

For our purposes, I'm of the opinion that civilian starships should be allowed to retain point-defense systems. Otherwise I have nothing else to add! I am hoping that this suggestion, if implemented, might enhance fleeting a bit by reducing the focus on slugouts between [Extreme] Armament and [Extreme] Defense battlecruisers/dreadnoughts, while also opening up another layer of viable tactics that could make these ships easier for smaller craft (Including corvettes) to kill. That said, I am interested in hearing what everyone else has to say! If you’ve read up to this point, thank you!

 

[Isla Draellix-Kobitana]

I agree with this suggestion, point defence is hard to justify squeezing into Defenses or Armament as it is both. Fighters and pods would consider all those laser cannons 'armaments' .

I have several ships that have great 'Defenses' from shields etc, but I have written that they have lousy pount defence.

The canon mandator 4 would be a great example, it has extreme Armaments and from the reaction of the rebels it also has Extreme defenses but, this 7km long ship has what? 12 point defence guns on the top and none of the bottom. So do you make you defences lower? But then have some star destroyer complain when you don't RP their turbolasers breaking though.

This is just an example, and I think Mellifluous Magenta has done a great job of arguing the pros and cons.

 

[Gir Quee]

Mellifluous Magenta , I think you did a pretty good job on fleshing out the pros and cons of your idea. Overall, I have mixed feelings about this idea to the point where I'm neutral on its adoption. I agree with the basic premise that there is a significant difference between having lots of capital guns and lots of defensive guns for use against fighters. However, I'm not so sure this idea warrants a significant overhaul of the template, especially that in actual practice, it all comes down to how things are written in RP, especially when there are other ways to voluntarily get this effect in the current template - either add in a gun count in the weapons section, or talk about those tradeoffs in the strengths and weaknesses. I have already seen both of these methods used exactly for this purpose when I was part of Factory staff.

But I figured I'd add a few more random notes to this discussion.

In the past, a lot of this division between large guns and small guns was accounted for with actual gun counts or even older, actual ship classes in Starship 2.0 which defined the default number of turbolasers, warhead launchers, and point defense weapons.

• There is a question about whether small craft could use the addition as well. There are quite a few larger small craft designs (Those between 30-50 meters) which have extensive point-defense systems. In order to accommodate them, I would suggest distinguishing between “Large Small Craft” and “Small Small Craft”, perhaps by splitting the Small Craft category up into two templates, where “Large Small Craft” are between 30-50 meters and “Small Small Craft” are between 1-30 meters.

This is probably going to add more complexity than the Factory staff wants. Simpler is often better. I think you could make the argument that if you want point defense weapons, then it's going to be a capital ship to simply match with basic, canon thematic ship design.

For our purposes, I'm of the opinion that civilian starships should be allowed to retain point-defense systems.

A potential issue for this is what constitutes a point defense weapon? Case and point, where would the canon KDY2055 Short Range Turbolaser Rapid fire Defense Battery lie? Is it a turbolaser? Or a defense weapon? It has both ideas simply within the name itself. A lot of warhead launchers could have similar problems, especially if they're capable of holding different types of warheads.

Otherwise I have nothing else to add! I am hoping that this suggestion, if implemented, might enhance fleeting a bit by reducing the focus on slugouts between [Extreme] Armament and [Extreme] Defense battlecruisers/dreadnoughts

I think this issue could be solved by having more fleeting mission varieties put in there besides simple, superiority slugfests. Rescue missions, scout missions, preparing defenses like minefields, blockade running, etc.

 

[ADM. Reshmar]

Mellifluous Magenta awesome work. I won't get into the whys, that has been put forward by Gir Quee . The bottom line is that we really do not need a separate rating. I mean yeah it would be cool and sure I would use it, but it is too simple under the current factory system to just list it in the strength and weakness section. Strength strong point defense weakness poor capital armament or poor offensive armament.

In the last few fleet battles, I have taken part in on Chaos, the stats of the ships used outside their class, in general, meant very little. We look at a cruiser, battlecruiser, frigate and know Hey that's a smaller or bigger ship than what I have and know it is weaker. We can look and see, hey it has long-range weapons or has a superweapon. Or hey this thing is a fly swatter don't send my fighters at it. The rest is in the writing. size class defense and armament are just a general indication of a ship's capabilities. You can fire a salvo that would decimate a moon at someone and if they chose to they will brush it off like you threw an orange at them no matter how powerful your armament.

Do not get me wrong I love the idea of it but do not see that it would add anything to the current factory system or to how fleeting is done on Chaos. My first thought was "this will just give another point for people to put somewhere they want." We really do not need another point for the system. You can already make a 5km semi-unique battlecruiser with extreme armament and extreme defense and field 25 of them. Everyone know how I feel about fleet size, I am very outspoken about it. I feel like adding another rating for someone to rate as low or bass to boost another stat by 2 to 3 just doesn't out weight the coolness or common sense factor of having point defense as another rating. Again Love the idea but in the end, all it would do is enable the assistance that bigger more powerful is better.

 

[GAL Ltd.]

I would say "yes" to this because I do believe that there is a difference between "defense" and "point-defense" but I agree with ADM. Reshmar on the fleet layout and the cons are to overshadowing the pros to me. I don't want to go through a long drawn out and totally pointless post, but long story short, if we add this, what about adding "missile/torpedo armament" or "ion armament"?

Hear me out on this, I LIKE the point defense argument, but settings like this lend more to the D20 "dice" style of gaming. This (to me) lends more to where stats mean more and mods are in charge of thread and rp outcomes.

I personally don't mind at all but are we just cleaning a car that was just detailed?

 

[Isabella Pavan]

I would say NO to this, solely because as a dedicated fleeter, I have both written and read submissions which differ on this subject. Some prefer to add PDC-type weaponry in the defense field, others in the armament field, and personally I believe that and this, should be up to them. The balancing system in it self is near-perfect (really as perfect as your going to get in this giant sandbox).

It's just burdensome.

But hey, that's just my take. I'm interested in what others may say. My position isn't well-defined or hardened, so I'm willing to hear some love from the other-side as to why.