Question Factory Question Time: Part Two

[John Locke]

Ok, so this is part two of John reaching out to the community.

While my previous question asked what changes to the Factory would make it more interesting and user friendly, I also wanted to get some opinions about an element of the factory that's been niggling at me for a while.

"A significant weakness."

The rules state the following:

Balance Guideline
For technical ratings, start with all values at Average for a Mass-Produced piece of technology. For every increase you should either:

• Reduce the Production value.
• Reduce another rating (e.g. increase Damage Output while decreasing Rate of Fire).
• Provide balance with genuine and significant weaknesses.

The genuine and significant weakness is meant to be a way to allow a more powerful submission to exist by giving it a way that anyone can defeat it. It was first explained to me as "a ship with no shields over a critical element, allowing anyone who fights it a way to defeat it."

However, this is a very subjective rule that means different things to different people and can differ wildly from submission to submission, someone might claim that a ship with no shields is a significant weakness, another might claim that a heavily automated ship is a significant weakness. The judges, the writers and even I all interpret it in a variety of ways that can get confusing for everyone involved.

So, my question is this.

What do you think of the significant weakness part of the template? Should we keep it or get rid of it?

 

[Audren Sykes]

My opinion is to keep.

Until the judging is done entirely by automation the judges will have differences of opinion, it's human nature.
Having the [PvP-grade] weakness section accomplishes two significant requirements in my thinking: it forces the writer to not create invincible items - which we've all seen - and gives opponents a realistic idea of the technology. Beyond that it makes for a more complete item. Yea, I know, space fantasy, handwavium, whatever you want to call it. It's a thing, but nothing is ever perfect.

Now, whether it should be part of balancing? I stand aside on that point.

 

[Rik Perris]

Having the [PvP-grade] weakness section accomplishes two significant requirements in my thinking: it forces the writer to not create invincible items - which we've all seen - and gives opponents a realistic idea of the technology. Beyond that it makes for a more complete item. Yea, I know, space fantasy, handwavium, whatever you want to call it. It's a thing, but nothing is ever perfect.

Expanding on the thought of giving opponents an idea of the technology, perhaps the 'significant weakness' element really just needs reframing/narrowing/more context, into, more specifically: what would it take to hamper/brick/defeat this technology?

The genuine and significant weakness is meant to be a way to allow a more powerful submission to exist by giving it a way that anyone can defeat it.

You said it. That's what it's trying to provide. Why not make it more clear-cut and provide more context for the ask?

 

[Aurelian Sigismund]

I think we should get rid of it, just by the complexity of different views and opinions, different mindsets and approaches. Strengths and weaknesses are subjective but there is no rating which you can standardize to make a "one shot kill" not a "one shot kill"-discussion if the opportunity is given. As just as there are people who overpower stuff, there are people who exploit it. Its a worst case right there, but we gotta work from there, not the best one.

Further even if there are strong weaknesses involved, I have never seen the discussion or acknowledgement about them if the rating was not balanced. Rating always came first in terms of balance, never a suggestion or offer to alternatively put in a "significant weakness".

We all know Episode IV and the terrible design flaw of the Death Star. Yeah. But was it easy to exploit? Well, yes and no.

So I would get rid of it. It is too vague, too much down to subjective perception.