Factory 2.0 Starship Templates

[Captain Larraq]

*stares at starship factory*


Ok! First glaring question. Do the previous starship limitations for Minor Factions and Companies of each tier still apply? By removing the 2.0 starship guide you got rid of the only place where all those rules were laid out.


Second... It states (or appears to anyway) that each classification of starship has its own 1-20 scale for weaponry. But there is no elaboration on the comparison between two or more starship size categories. Does a Corvette with 20/20 weaponry out-gun a Frigate with 5/20 weaponry? Where is the point of reference? Also, do 2.0 maximum weapon counts still apply? As it is, it more or less looks like I could put a thousand light turbolasers on fastmounts on a Star Destroyer and there is nowhere in the guide that says if that is a bad idea or not. Actually... There is nowhere on the guide that says putting a thousands light turbolasers on a frigate isn't acceptable.

>_>


Lets see... next... Speed and Maneuverability! Weaponry is on a 1-20 scale that is independent for each classification of starship. Is the Speed/Maneuverability also on an independent scale, or is the speed/maneuverability scale universal? If so, what is a speed 20 starship? No examples are given. Also, how does the 1-20 scale compare to the 1-10 scale from previous submissions?

Is it This?

Spoiler

New = Old
1 = 1
2 = 2
3 = 3
4 = 4
5 = 5
6 = 6
7 = 7
8 = 8
9 = 9
10 = 10 (slowest old design)
11 = 11
12 = 12
13 = 13
14 = 14
15 = 15
16 = 16
17 = 17
18 = 18
19 = 19
20 = 20

Or This?

Spoiler

New = Old
1 = 0.2
2 =1
3 =1.5
4 = 2
5 = 2.5
6 = 3
7 = 3.5
8 = 4
9 = 4.5
10 = 5
11 = 5.5
12 = 6
13 = 6.5
14 = 7
15 = 7.5
16 = 8
17 = 8.5
18 = 9
19 = 9.5
20 = 10

Um... there are a 2,200 different lengths that a 'Dedicated Carrier' can be. Covering sizes that exist within two different ship classifications... Yet there is no restriction or guidelines preventing an 800 meter long 'Dedicated Carrier Frigate' from having the 10 hanger maximum for a ship of its type as opposed to standard Frigates having a maximum of 3 and standard Destroyers having a maximum of 6... The potential here for minmaxery is pretty bad and there are no built-in guidelines on what is considered an acceptable range.




There are about 10 flagships in existence on the board. Most of which are split between the Omega Protectorate and the Lords of the Fringe. I think there are about four in OP and 4 in LoF, one in the CIS (I keep forgetting their new name), and one for the Mandalorians. How does the new 'only 2 flagships per major faction' rule apply to ships that are already in the control of major factions?


The new guideline is MUCH less clear on what does and does not require a development thread. Or how much of a development thread is needed for... stuff. For example... As it is written, I could go out and make a 3km Destroyer at Mass Production value... And nothing in the guide says I need to make a development thread for it. Generic or otherwise.


And that's... pretty much all I can spot right now. Though a comparison chart would be nice... for armament.
a 1-20 scale is pretty vague when it comes to explaining what sort of weapons or quality/quantity of weapons an individual can expect to encounter. While on a small Frigate or large Corvette this might literally mean 20 guns, this gets pretty darned confusing once you start throwing in 3km and 5km ships. And a 10-50 meter Starfighter with 20/20 weaponry? What does that meeeeeeean!? There is way too much that was left vague on the matter. It would help if you provided some specific examples for each category. Such as... An ISD II would have a 15/20 armament on the Destroyer scale while the Allegiance SD would be an 18/20 or 20/20. Something like that! To give people a rough estimation of what sort of damage output or weapon count is 'appropriate' for each category.

 

[Tefka]

Utilizing the new feedback forum and using the wonderful [member="Captain Larraq"] as my test subject.

 

[Darth Imperatus]

Guys, there was a poll about whether the gun counts should be removed some time back. The results were:

20 said no
10 said yes

http://starwarsrp.net/topic/36214-starship-gun-counts/

It's a lot easier to compare a ship that has 40 long range turbolasers with a ship that has 5 normal turbolasers than it is to compare a destroyer with "level 20 armament" with a cruiser that has "level 6 armament." I can get why the new system seems streamlined, but honestly I think it takes depth out of the system and at the same time makes it more complicated and harder to understand. For fleeters, it's much better to know how many of what type of gun each ship has, and it makes ship design actually meaningful. You can make a ship with loads of ion cannons or loads of turbolasers; you can swap out loads of missiles to make it better at dealing with smaller ships or swap missiles for lasers to make it better at fighting bigger ships. You can give it long range guns for flexibility or normal ones for firepower. Yes, using vague ratings might make starships easier to make, but not more fun to make, and certainly not easier to use. I don't know how I will go into a battle and work out whether my level 20 destroyer will beat their level 6 cruiser. This also makes it less FUN to roleplay fleeting scenarios. If somebody fires their heavy, long range weapons at me, I can accept that I'm outranged. Maybe I'll close to fight them at point blank, or maybe I'll run. But even if I know that their armament is better than mine because it has a higher number, what do I do about it? We're all nerds here and we LIKE this sort of thing. And this isn't just my opinion--it's the opinion of 20 people who voted in a poll about this very point! If you want, do another poll and we'll find out if people prefer the gun count or the armament rating. If most people like the armament rating then I'll just have to suck it up, because that's the will of the community. But at least let the community make this decision.

______________________________

But despite all this, let me just say, I love some of these changes! The vehicle design system does the opposite of what I've just been talking about--it adds depth and will help resolve disputes. The new ship sizes and the "flagship" section allows way more cool things to happen with personal ships! But unfortunately the part I have the problem with is the biggest one, and despite all the cool new features that I'm sure will improve things for the better, these changes will still make things worse on the whole, in my mind at least, if the new armament ratings are kept instead of the older, more in-depth, clearer, and easier to use version.

 

[Cross Ikon]

@Tefka @Captain Larraq

 

[Tefka]

There is nowhere on the guide that says putting a thousands light turbolasers on a frigate isn't acceptable.

By using the armament rating, you're forfeiting the right to state the quantity of guns on the ship. My stance, and by extension the Factory's stance, is that the quantity of guns on a ship is not conducive to role-play. This conclusion was reached by contemplating the following reasons:

1. The ultimate goal is to make creating Starships faster. We want people to churn out submissions faster, because we want content, and more of it. So a balance between content and accuracy within the Star Wars universe was sought.

2. When fleeting, nobody actually states (and if it does happen, it's extremely rare) how many guns there are on their ships. Usually, they utilize the special features, or the shields. To be honest, a Shield Rating wouldn't be outside the scope of what we're aiming for.

3. You mention how vague it is. This is done purposefully. In line with reason #2, during a role-play, the writer is usually vague on the ship's basic armament. We're aiming for the same level of vague in the submission, but we've allowed the option of being more specific for the number crunchers.

In short,

The rating system is not meant to provide a specific environment of rock-paper-scissors. It is meant to be vague, and give a rough look at what the ship's weaponry is capable of. Is it strong at attacking? You're probably aiming for a 13 or higher. Is it a cargo ship? You're probably 5 or below. Is it a bomber? You're probably about the same as a cargo ship - but in your special features, describe your payload.

We're not aiming for wiki levels of detail. What I'm aiming for is something more conducive to role-play, and something that is quicker to churn out, and something that feels hand-crafted.

With that said, I do enjoy a lot of your suggestions, and good - constructive - feedback like this will only help to improve the Factory.

 

[Captain Larraq]

Guys, there was a poll about whether the gun counts should be removed some time back. The results were:

20 said no
10 said yes

http://starwarsrp.net/topic/36214-starship-gun-counts/

It's a lot easier to compare a ship that has 40 long range turbolasers with a ship that has 5 normal turbolasers than it is to compare a destroyer with "level 20 armament" with a cruiser that has "level 6 armament." I can get why the new system seems streamlined, but honestly I think it takes depth out of the system and at the same time makes it more complicated and harder to understand. For fleeters, it's much better to know how many of what type of gun each ship has, and it makes ship design actually meaningful. You can make a ship with loads of ion cannons or loads of turbolasers; you can swap out loads of missiles to make it better at dealing with smaller ships or swap missiles for lasers to make it better at fighting bigger ships. You can give it long range guns for flexibility or normal ones for firepower. Yes, using vague ratings might make starships easier to make, but not more fun to make, and certainly not easier to use. I don't know how I will go into a battle and work out whether my level 20 destroyer will beat their level 6 cruiser. This also makes it less FUN to roleplay fleeting scenarios. If somebody fires their heavy, long range weapons at me, I can accept that I'm outranged. Maybe I'll close to fight them at point blank, or maybe I'll run. But even if I know that their armament is better than mine because it has a higher number, what do I do about it? We're all nerds here and we LIKE this sort of thing. And this isn't just my opinion--it's the opinion of 20 people who voted in a poll about this very point! If you want, do another poll and we'll find out if people prefer the gun count or the armament rating. If most people like the armament rating then I'll just have to suck it up, because that's the will of the community. But at least let the community make this decision.

______________________________

But despite all this, let me just say, I love some of these changes! The vehicle design system does the opposite of what I've just been talking about--it adds depth and will help resolve disputes. The new ship sizes and the "flagship" section allows way more cool things to happen with personal ships! But unfortunately the part I have the problem with is the biggest one, and despite all the cool new features that I'm sure will improve things for the better, these changes will still make things worse on the whole, in my mind at least, if the new armament ratings are kept instead of the older, more in-depth, clearer, and easier to use version.

The 1-20 armament is optional. If you read the section, it says that you can post a specific armament OR you can post a 1-20 scale for the ship. However, there is no 'maximum armament' like there was in 2.0, and the 1-20 scale is a little too vague at the moment. Though we will likely be getting some specific examples soon that will clear that matter up.

 

[Lina Ovmar]

*weeps silently about the ship guide disappearing*

 

[Tefka]

[member="Mia Monroe"]

http://starwarsrp.net/topic/20980-how-to-build-a-starship-20/

 

[Lina Ovmar]

[member="Tefka"]

can it be pinned?

please?

 

[Arage Bao]

[member="Tefka"]

So what if someone decides to use a specific armament list, instead of using the ratings. Are we to use the maximum gun counts as per the old guide, or?

 

[Tefka]

[member="Jared Ovmar"]

Are you referencing the Standardized Loadouts from the 2.0 guide? They're linked in the Armament section.

 

[Captain Larraq]

1. The ultimate goal is to make creating Starships faster. We want people to churn out submissions faster, because we want content, and more of it. So a balance between content and accuracy within the Star Wars universe was sought.

Wasn't the Tech Factory closed because there was 'enough' content and there were too many submissions?

=P

Just saying.

2. When fleeting, nobody actually states (and if it does happen, it's extremely rare) how many guns there are on their ships. Usually, they utilize the special features, or the shields. To be honest, a Shield Rating wouldn't be outside the scope of what we're aiming for.

I agree! When fleeting, people typically do gloss over specific weaponry. However, on an OOC level, each fleeter reviews the submissions he is using and his opponent is using and uses those as a guideline for understanding the power difference as well as strengths and weaknesses to keep aware of in his roleplaying.

Unfortunately, the new system kinda spits on individual Pilots and Captains. People who only ever intend to write for one ship at a time and may or may not bother writing for their own squadron or two or starfighters that they keep in their ship. To these people, the individual differences between two ships is absolutely critical. Granted, the vast majority of them have 'Unique 1' ships which are granted a far greater leeway in overall power anyway. *shrug* We'll see how it pans out.

We're not aiming for wiki levels of detail.

Oh you poor, poor fools.

The projects I've been working on are about as detailed as some of the -best- Wiki pages.

Why? Because that's what I like. And I know I'm not alone in that regard. I absolutely agree with what you're trying to do though. I recognize that I am the minority in this case and wouldn't expect others to put in the same kind of effort into a submission that I do. I do it because I enjoy it. I like the challenge. Most people do it because they want a toy to play with. *shrug* So what you're doing works great for the vast majority of the writers. You guys will just have to be prepared to handle a different set of challenges when someone drops a wiki-page on you or someone goes out of their way to make... craziness.

 

[Darth Imperatus]

[member="Tefka"]

I understand what you're saying about getting more content, I think we have enough already. Too many starships is very bad for several reasons:

1: Ships should have thought behind them; they should be made to fit specific roles that are necessary and helpful in fleeting engagements. These ships make a difference, and greater effort is rewarded; ten classes of supreme quality will trump a hundred that a faction spams out to try and cover all bases. Ships that are well thought out and bring new ideas to the table will create arms races, which will promote more well-thought out content rather than more content for content's sake. It will force people to innovate and use their minds in a creative way, becoming more immersed in the roleplay as a result.

2: Too many ship classes are too hard to keep up with. If I bring ten ships to a fight and they're all of a different design, my opponent will have to read up on every single one if he wants to know what he's facing. Of course, he could just take the approach of "I fire all my lasers at you and if I lose I lose" but if he hasn't looked up my ships to see that they are superior, what's to say that he SHOULD lose? People do not have the time to look up every bit of content if there's just too much of it, and this means that every new, amazing bit of content becomes meaningless and more arguments will occur.

3:

Reason: I'm going to cite "unhealthy addiction" for this one. Tired of hearing about it so much.

 

[Arage Bao]

[member="Tefka"] Yes, but at some point ships from 2.001m to 3.000m were added to the mix. Their max gun count were stipulated at the end of the 2.0 Guide, are we to follow those rules when making those ships and what about ships above the 3.000m mark who don't have any specific max gun count assigned to them?

 

[Darth Imperatus]

[member="Captain Larraq"]

I recognize that I am the minority in this case and wouldn't expect others to put in the same kind of effort into a submission that I do.

http://starwarsrp.ne...hip-gun-counts/

 

[Tefka]

Wasn't the Tech Factory closed because there was 'enough' content and there were too many submissions?

No. This wasn't the reason at all. The reason was explained to Staff. With Starships down, I wanted to see the Community's reaction to the Factory shutting down, and our reaction to a new Factory team.

One of the biggest problems I believe we've suffered from is complacency.

The other is exclusivity. I think I've solved one, I'm working on the other.

The projects I've been working on are about as detailed as some of the -best- Wiki pages. Why? Because that's what I like.

Myself, I hate providing super amounts of detail. I want to jump in the role-play and get involved with my character rather than my "things". But I can see how they are an extension of some people's characters, a part of them.

We all have our own joys and woes.

Thats why options are provided. The priority here, again, isn't to restrict you from doing your wiki stuff. It's to allow me to spend 20 minutes churning out a "cookie cutter" so I can play in the same game with you and your 3 hour "wiki page", even if your wiki page has way cooler stuff than my cookie.

 

[Captain Larraq]

Thats why options are provided. The priority here, again, isn't to restrict you from doing your wiki stuff. It's to allow me to spend 20 minutes churning out a "cookie cutter" so I can play in the same game with you and your 3 hour "wiki page", even if your wiki page has way cooler stuff than my cookie.

All in all, I think I spent about 8 hours designing, re-designing, researching, and fine-tuning my Tank sub that I'm working on.

For the Corvette I've got? Jesus. Closer to 12+ hours. Even higher if you count the day I spent researching planets and species or the week I spent subbing species through the Codex. (To create a groundwork for my corvette. You'll see what I mean.)

That doesn't even come close to the amount of time getting put into the dev threads. For the past month (and probably a sizable portion of the next few weeks until I finish my Tank's dev thread) I've spent the vast majority of my days off writing, researching, or planning these threads.

 

[Darth Imperatus]

[member="Tefka"]

There are enough people on this forum who enjoy playing around with the maths for a person to write up all the basic information and then go to them for help. It's called co-operation, and it's very possible. Maybe companies could start being meaningful entities if people were willing to do it: write up your description and your cookie-cutter info, go to a company and tell them to make you a ship that fits the bill and maybe even work out some sort of reward so it's a mutually beneficial relationship. It sounds to me that you enjoy the fleeting part but not the actual starship design--why, then, should you bother with starship design at all? Get someone else in your faction or a company to help you, and this community ends up with a much more in-depth bit of content that will cause less disputes and satisfy everyone.

 

[Tefka]

[member="Tefka"] Yes, but at some point ships from 2.001m to 3.000m were added to the mix. Their max gun count were stipulated at the end of the 2.0 Guide, are we to follow those rules when making those ships and what about ships above the 3.000m mark who don't have any specific max gun count assigned to them?

Sure. I'm sure you can voice this concern to the Factory Judges as well, or other like-minded members who wish to expand on 2.0's gun count guides. Staff would love to see your creations/suggestions, possibly to the point of including them in the guide.

The new templates are all about options, learning, and references. If you wish to provide a new source of information for reference, I'd love to take a look at it.

 

[Tefka]

[member="Tefka"]

There are enough people on this forum who enjoy playing around with the maths for a person to write up all the basic information and then go to them for help. It's called co-operation, and it's very possible. Maybe companies could start being meaningful entities if people were willing to do it: write up your description and your cookie-cutter info, go to a company and tell them to make you a ship that fits the bill and maybe even work out some sort of reward so it's a mutually beneficial relationship. It sounds to me that you enjoy the fleeting part but not the actual starship design--why, then, should you bother with starship design at all? Get someone else in your faction or a company to help you, and this community ends up with a much more in-depth bit of content that will cause less disputes and satisfy everyone.

This is an opinion geared towards forcing people into accepting your one way of doing things.

That's not what the new templates are about. They're meant to include all types of people, including but not limited to the ones who like fleeting but not designing starships.