Making armor ratings 1 through 15

[Cira]

I'm thinking of adding 5 more numbers to the rating. Or even making it up to twenty.

This will be for heavy armor and the rule will still be for anything 9 and above, it must be a unique submission only.

We had this discussion before but it was lost in the sauce. I want to bring it back.

Give me your ideas and let's brainstorm.

 

[Cira]

Oh and grades 11 to 15 should be the heavy armors with tangibles cons. IE. Heavy weight, little dexterity, little agility.

 

[Julius Sedaire]

Weight does NOT equal quality. It just doesn't at all. I can not stress that enough. More often than not, actually, weight equals shitty armor with the only protective quality being sheer thickness/mass. Spring steel versus carbon steel versus stainless steel for medieval plate is an amazing example of this. The armor can be made thinner, lighter, and many times more effective. Requiring the top tier of armor to be heavier is insane and goes against every single bit of logic, both Canon/In Universe and in our own world.

Adding five points to the scale also does zero to balance out anything. It just raises the ceiling on a flooded system and creates a new arms race to the top. Same thing with debt. You don't get out of debt by borrowing more or raising your debt limit. That just increases the problem. I'd love an explanation as to how just raising the ceiling does anything to truly balance things out, and doesn't just kick the can down the road and delay the same problem we're in now.

 

[Ellie Mors]

Weight does NOT equal quality. It just doesn't at all. I can not stress that enough. More often than not, actually, weight equals poodooty armor with the only protective quality being sheer thickness/mass. Spring steel versus carbon steel versus stainless steel for medieval plate is an amazing example of this. The armor can be made thinner, lighter, and many times more effective. Requiring the top tier of armor to be heavier is insane and goes against every single bit of logic, both Canon/In Universe and in our own world.

Adding five points to the scale also does zero to balance out anything. It just raises the ceiling on a flooded system and creates a new arms race to the top. Same thing with debt. You don't get out of debt by borrowing more or raising your debt limit. That just increases the problem. I'd love an explanation as to how just raising the ceiling does anything to truly balance things out, and doesn't just kick the can down the road and delay the same problem we're in now.

There are currently mass produced quality 10 armor, there will never be a mass produced armor over it. While I didn't envision this proposal, when I originally proposed it, being centered around weight, it is suitable to devalue armors rated 10.

 

[Ellie Mors]

As I originally proposed this a month or so back, I'll have a full explanation of my thought process behind this.

 

[Julius Sedaire]

[member="Braith Achlys"] - I'll wait for your full thoughts. But weight does not equal quality.

 

[Jairus Starvald]

I am against retroactively devaluing all armor ratings.

We approved those things. It was our responsibility to think of balance back then - retroactively making everyone's armor basically weaker is silly at best. If we got problems with some people having pushed through OP stuff, yank them out and have them rebalanced, but right now this is a heavy handed approach to a problem that we caused ourselves and that isn't even that much of an issue.

If it had been an issue those pieces of armor would have been reported and yanked out anyway.

 

[Ellie Mors]

I am against retroactively devaluing all armor ratings.

We approved those things. It was our responsibility to think of balance back then - retroactively making everyone's armor basically weaker is silly at best. If we got problems with some people having pushed through OP stuff, yank them out and have them rebalanced, but right now this is a heavy handed approach to a problem that we caused ourselves and that isn't even that much of an issue.

If it had been an issue those pieces of armor would have been reported and yanked out anyway.

The armors in question were reported and the problem still exists. This is the result of those issues existing, you do not solve a problem by doing nothing, you solve it by taking steps to correct it.

 

[Tefka]

I would like to discuss why we think its appropriate to report items ourselves so that it opens debate for policy change in the Factory.

[member="Braith Achlys"] [member="Cira"]

 

[Cira]

[member="Tefka"]

I'll be looking into this.

But no, that was not the reason why this was brought up.

Jorus came up with the idea.

The idea I'd proposed included caveats again sub mod requests. Simplest and fairest way would be to specify that everything above 10 is restricted to Unique. That would stem the tide of sub mod requests. An additional stipulation about bulk would keep mod request volume way down as well.

Here's why I believe we need to simply add more range to the existing scale: it's become hopelessly distorted. We've addressed ship power creep in various ways over the years, mainly by increasing gun count standards tokeep things fair. We've never really addressed armor power creep. As a result, standard mass produced stormtrooper armor is around a 7-8 instead of a 5, and there are many, many approved light armors in the 8-10 range at high levels of production. Those are just two basic examples; there are many others. We can't go back and nerf everything, and we shouldn't make a whole new scale (with the shift to 20-point speed as a prime example of why that's a terrible idea).

If we open up the field by adding two to five more ticks, or even just one - 'turn it up to eleven' - we'll get a small influx of heavy armor subs that actually look like they're supposed to: bulky, unique, ultra tough. Bam, Factory armor ratings get their integrity back.

Jorus Merrill brought up the idea of expanding the armor rating scale from just 1-10 to 1-15 or maybe 1-20. Nothing has been set in stone about this idea, so I'd like to ask everyone whether they would be comfortable with expanding the rating scale (not unlike the way we expanded the speed scale for starships) while also asking for ideas and input on the idea to make it work. A few ideas that were mentioned:

• Treat it as a 100% new scale, similar in manner to how we completely changed the speed & maneuverability ratings for starships. Current-10 (as in the highest on our scale) would still be extremely tough, but it wouldn't be a 15 (if we cut it off at 15) or 20 (i.e; 10 from current/old would not convert straight to the top).

• "Add" ratings 11-15 or 11-20 as ratings beyond the current 10 as more durable than what we currently consider class 10, with each of these ratings requiring armors to be largely cumbersome or heavy.

 

[Jamie Pyne]

Can someone point me to thread examples where armor ratings have come into play? Or instances where this has been clearly abused?

I am all for correcting a problem if one exists, but I don't think I've seen a problem with armors in terms of ratings so much as people who just refuse to take hits, and that is a problem that will always be present, regardless of whether there is a rating system of 1-10 or 1-200.

 

[Ellie Mors]

[member="Tefka"]
The items were reported over a year ago, it isn't the reason for this discussion, the reason the reported items are being brought up is because the notion that they could simply be reported doesn't hold water because they were already reported and the issue still exists.

 

[Tefka]

Apologies for derailing, there was some confusion that the Administrators have helped clear up.

(While I'm here, though, I totes back [member="Jamie Pyne"]'s line of questioning. If you have evidence that supports your view and motive, provide it! Hell, people shouldn't have to ask for it. I provided mine when standing before the community talking about development threads, and you're not even close to being under that sort of scrutiny/pressure under this thread. Practice like you are!)

 

[Cyrus Tregessar]

Ratings 1-4 are basically never used as is. If the intention is to rebalance how armor is, I think templates or examples for Light/Medium/Heavy Armor with some example inherent weaknesses would be a better solution.

It doesn't solve old overpowered armors, of course, but theoretically the report system should handle that when it arises. I think that people who get really caught up in armor tend to look at materials and description rather than ratings anyway, similar to how most fleeters still use gun count as the primary metric in a battle.

Otherwise I would agree with [member="Tai Fa"].

 

[Raziel]

Ratings 1-4 are basically never used as is. If the intention is to rebalance how armor is, I think templates or examples for Light/Medium/Heavy Armor with some example inherent weaknesses would be a better solution.

I like this.

My intention is that all the templates will have example cookie cutters to show how different types of submissions can be done and that dropping production can get you more powerful items (We may not allow a mass produced item as effective as a unique item in a lot of circumstances)

We're all going to have to change the mindset on judging in future. I think an example Light, Medium and Heavy armour cookie cutter with the template and no more development threads as a "get out of jail card" (Well it looks a bit OP but give me 20 posts) might fix the issue going forwards.

I am genuinely undecided on whether changing the scale will help matters or just generate work. (Mods are a queen)