Advanced Systems limit?

[Gir Quee]

I've noticed that recently, we seem to have a lot of submissions that coming in that full of advanced features. Sometimes, these submissions have enough development, balancing, and/or limited production amounts that I don't see an issue approving them. However, it seems to me that there's a decent amount of them flowing that don't have any of those aspects going for them; like we're seeing submitters intentionally trying to push limits.

I'm beginning to wonder if we ought to have some sort of public guideline about the use of advanced systems, perhaps even a max amount of advanced features that can be put into a submission. I'm beginning to think that it's fairly difficult to have a submission that isn't gamebreaking that has something like 10 advanced features on it.

Thoughts?

 

[Jorus Merrill]

Seems to me that, by policy or case-by-case, we'd have to define every previously approved component as advanced or not advanced. That's an immensely subjective time sink. When it's been tried, it's gone bad fast. I've got a bazillion anecdotes on it, but no time to lay them all out. Bottom line, I don't believe this issue should have a rule. There are too many other potential tradeoffs and too many ways this could go wrong.

 

[Darth Avida]

Please no :|

If it is too op, deny it. No need to reinvent the wheel.

 

[Gir Quee]

Seems to me that, by policy or case-by-case, we'd have to define every previously approved component as advanced or not advanced.

I feel that this is one of those areas that falls into "I know it when I see it", much like how we're judging "OP" submissions right now. We don't have strict rules on what defines something that's "OP", but we're still expected to deny something that is just that. Likewise, I don't see the need for the judges to collectively compile a list of "advanced systems" when reviewing every single sub. If something looks advanced or grants some unusual advantage, it's advanced.

As someone who wasn't a judge back in the old days of Starship 2.0, and speaking from a lack of personal experience with it, what were the issues with figuring out what counted as an advanced system back then?

For reference, I'm quoting the old ]how to build a starship guide (yes, I know we're not using it, nor do I am suggesting that we go back to it):

As a rule of thumb, a mass produced light capital ship (Corvette to Heavy Cruiser) can have one advanced system. Heavy capital ships (Light Star Destroyer and up) can have two. Things like redundant shield generators, heavy shield generators, or advanced automation all count as an advanced system when placed on ships they're not normally a part of. More advanced systems can be put on a ship, but will necessitate a decrease in production level. Certain advanced systems might also require a reduction in armament.

EDIT: To clarify, I'm not suggesting we should have solid, ironclad rule about what constitutes an advanced system and how many each different type of sub can have. I'm most interested in finding ways to keep submissions balanced and realistic, which I think a mass proliferation of advanced systems undermines.

 

[Darth Avida]

I feel that this is one of those areas that falls into "I know it when I see it", much like how we're judging "OP" submissions right now. We don't have strict rules on what defines something that's "OP", but we're still expected to deny something that is just that. Likewise, I don't see the need for the judges to collectively compile a list of "advanced systems" when reviewing every single sub. If something looks advanced or grants some unusual advantage, it's advanced.

As someone who wasn't a judge back in the old days of Starship 2.0, and speaking from a lack of personal experience with it, what were the issues with figuring out what counted as an advanced system back then?

For reference, I'm quoting the old ]how to build a starship guide (yes, I know we're not using it, nor do I am suggesting that we go back to it):

If it's something you are not comfortable approving, don't. If the submission has 10 advanced systems, whether it be triple redundant shields, a .2 hyperdrive, or something else like that, and you feel the submission isn't something that should be approved - even if they have X amounts of development - then deny it. The submitter has a second chance for this reason, they are more than free to use it.

 

[Jorus Merrill]

Likewise, I don't see the need for the judges to collectively compile a list of "advanced systems" when reviewing every single sub. If something looks advanced or grants some unusual advantage, it's advanced.

Then what you get is judges applying personal standards in a widely varying way. When this kind of thing was tried, you'd get some judges saying that only uber shields and hyperdrives and supertech was advanced, and you'd get other judges demanding dev for stuff like pre-approved tractor shrouds and chaff dispensers. There's no easy line to draw, and a lot of approved components (whether as their own subs or as elements in approved ships) fall into a gray area which some judges consider 'advanced' and others don't. The proposed rule, when it was tested, created more problems than it solved.

 

[Gir Quee]

[member="Jorus Merrill"], I just wanted to let you know that I appreciate your candor and your willingness to talk about this.

I guess it goes without saying that there is no perfect system, but it's something that came to my mind after seeing some recent subs. Thanks for taking the time to explain it to me.

 

[Jorus Merrill]

[member="Gir Quee"]

It's an interesting challenge for sure, and sorry if I sounded dismissive. It's one of those things that would have been good if it existed from the get-go, but would be a huge time sink/source of angst to implement after the fact. I feel there's just too much gray area to make a hard yes-or-no line anything but arbitrary.

 

[Raziel]

Strengths and weaknesses from systems need to be outlined in the overarching submission.

That's built into the new template.

Start picking on examples where this isn't done to try and change the mindset.

People have hidden strengths in a mountain of linked submissions before. If these get picked on in a report the submission is going to need a lot of rework.

[member="Jorus Merrill"]
[member="Gir Quee"]

 

[Raziel]

Special Features: (Provide all of your submission's special features, including non-combat items and special weapons, here in a list. Please link to all Factory Submissions used. Typically requires development: Stealth technology. Ensure capabilities from features are included in the Strengths list. Links: Starship Weapons, Approved Technology, Shields, Engines)