Star Wars Roleplay: Chaos

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Factory Factory Suggestions

Untitled-2.png


What are some of the things you might want to see? Thought of something cool you might want to have added?

Post it up here!
 
Gluk, Stock, and Two Smoking Lasers
My ultimate hope for the new year is this: can we find a more user-friendly way to handle hangar space?

Hangar Space: (Please provide the amount of fighters/support craft this submission can hold in it's hangar by count of Squadrons, which hold 12 average Starfighters. The higher your squadron count, the lower your Armament and number of advanced systems should be. )
50m [Base: 0 | Very Low: 0 | Low: 0 | Average: 0 | High: 0 | Very High: 0 | Extreme: 0 ]
100m [Base: 0 | Very Low: 0 | Low: 0 | Average: 0 | High: 0 | Very High: 1 | Extreme: 2 ]
200m [Base: 0 | Very Low: 0 | Low: 0 | Average: 1 | High: 2 | Very High: 3 | Extreme: 4 ]
Hangar Allocations: (This is the allocated amounts of starfighters and support craft (dropships, shuttles,gunships,etc) this submission can hold in its hangar based on the maximum hangar space capacity listed above)
Starfighters: x squadrons
Support Craft: x squadrons
Single Craft Hangar: (Does this ship have a hanger for a single fighter craft to be docked? Please choose either Yes or No. This field does not need to be taken into account when balancing but should be included in the strengths and weaknesses.)

This is, by a mile, the most granular and cumbersome element of building a starship in the factory. It also ignores one of the most common reasons that people include/want/use docking bay space at all: as a docking bay. As a story mechanism, waypoint, and setting. (A straightforward way to accommodate the personal shuttles and Millennium Falcons and such would be one important side benefit.)

I don't have a concrete solution in mind, but cutting it back to some level of mandatory + optional (to align with how you handle armament and defense, which is excellent) could be a good place to start.

Hangar space math is 5.1's version of all the gun count math nonsense I helped design and perpetuate in the 1.0-3.0 era. Be wiser than I was.
 
Would like to start off by saying I'm enjoying the new updates this year. They make Pre-factory less of a scramble and when you're ready you don't have to wait for staff to notice it in the piles of pre-factory pages. I bet it's easier on the staff too!

I do have a question about the Technology Forum. Why not split technology into separate Weapons, Armors, etc. categories like how Ships are separated? Wouldn't it make more organized sense? I'd imagine it'd be a bit easier on staff too, with some split between this and that type of tech, and becoming specialized in that area.

I also question why spoiler tags are not allowed in submissions. With my personal experience, I have a ship I'm gradually improving, and every time I add a new block of paragraph of Description. I initially used spoiler tags for each section, thinking it would be easier on the eyes, then was told they aren't allowed. I changed it and just bolded which block of text belonged to which update, but it definitely confuses me to this day.

And one final thought: plz gib lightsaber rifles.

Keep up the good work guys!
 
Gluk, Stock, and Two Smoking Lasers
I do have a question about the Technology Forum. Why not split technology into separate Weapons, Armors, etc. categories like how Ships are separated? Wouldn't it make more organized sense? I'd imagine it'd be a bit easier on staff too, with some split between this and that type of tech, and becoming specialized in that area.

Now that's an interesting thought, hiving off Weapons and Armor into their own subforum. Might streamline things nicely.
 
HPI AI; Terraris Command
Factory Judge
I do have a question about the Technology Forum. Why not split technology into separate Weapons, Armors, etc. categories like how Ships are separated? Wouldn't it make more organized sense? I'd imagine it'd be a bit easier on staff too, with some split between this and that type of tech, and becoming specialized in that area.

Intersting idea, howerver there is only one problem with this. What about the other 16,000 threads that have already been accepted?
I mean, it’s just more chaos if one half is here and the other is there... And it would be helluva job to check every single sub in the Factory and move them into the right places.
 
Bunker-level Normal
What about the other 16,000 threads that have already been accepted?

Let them organically transfer over just like what happens with template updates and broken formatting/images. We don't expect judges to enforce these on outdated subs as is, I'd expect the same for this.

As it stands, there's little drawback to discoverability except moving forward. Either someone is watching the incoming subs, or they're searching later. And search already has ways to filter by multiple boards to find what you want. With technology as diverse as it is, browsing for weapons is already like looking for a particular hue of straw in the haypile.

I see little drawbacks to leaving existing subs as is until their creators ask them to be moved/sub modded or archived.
 
The current Restricted Materials list needs some clarification.

I'm specifically referring to the double asterisk (**) section.

For one, whoever picked tanned text on a dark gray background must have eyes that are younger than 40, because that's hell to read. But second of all, the sentence seems to mash up two separate clauses that contain both permissive ("may") and directive ("will") language. As the permissive language is at the start of the sentence, it seems like this is a "it depends on which FJ you get and their mood at the time" level of subjectiveness. However, then the directive language at the end makes it where it seems as if the intent is for the listed items to always be at a lower production value, not just "may" or however a particular Judge might interpret the rule.

If that's the case, why are the explicitly listed items (particularly in the second clause after the comma) not included in the bulletized list for better readability and understanding of what is/is not considered a restricted material that will always require a lower production value? Burying set expectations in fine print just invites confusion on the part of submitters.

Just my two cents.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom