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!

Moving Forward

Lord Ghoul

Guest
L
I am against the death star idea. Not only is it a very slow and stationary weapon, but it is always susceptible to attack as seen in the movie. It's more of an intimidation tactic than an actual weapon of war. I say we build an ESSD instead. It still has a superlaser, but it a lot more moveable.

No death star. Waste of resources.
 

Sirella Valkner

Because I'm a plant.
Well right now the concept is actually that of the Original death star as envisioned by the genosians.

ijn.png
 
It's more of an intimidation tactic than an actual weapon of war.
And this is why we build one. Besides, I don't think the Admins will ever allow a weapon that can totally unbalance the game. If we build a Superweapon, it might get used *once*, but it'll have some sort of critical flaw that allows the other Factions to take a shot at it.
 

Rhace Tarrin

Guest
R
I feel it's a waste. Why not get a fleet of Star Destroyers, good quality ones? Just as much firepower, more utility.
 

Lord Ghoul

Guest
L
and the Death Star isn't a superweapon that can totally unbalance the game? bull.

I'm for the more star destroyers idea. Let's max out our fleet rather than build some massive ball.
 

Sirella Valkner

Because I'm a plant.
I don't have art for it yet, but the superweapon for the campaign is intended to be fairly small. Instead of super big Death Star. Already planned out with Republic and Sith. But we only get it if we win. There is a chance the Republic gets it *shock* and then I need to design something different for them I suppose.
 
You're missing the point again, Mikhail. No doubt a Superweapon will be allowed for RP purposes, but I doubt it'll be permitted to exist for long (i.e. it's built to be destroyed) or will be constructed with some massive technological flaw that will cause nothing but problems for the users. Otherwise we could just blow up Coruscant and be done with it.
 

Lord Ghoul

Guest
L
You literally just destroyed your own argument.

Build a superweapon as an asset, claiming it won't be a waste of resources.
Then you say that the superweapon has a massive achilles heel and will be destroyed fairly quickly.

Your reasoning is why it should never happen. Use our resources to do something productive, that will help permanently expand the Empire. Like a larger fleet of star destroyers. I thought Tirdarius was all about longevity of the Empire? I don't see that in your reasoning here.
 
He is, but then again, he'd also never go along with such a dumb project in the first place. Superweapons are for intimidation or sheer destruction, and there are far better ways to achieve both.

Mine, however, is an OOC comment. Although I've no doubt we'll be allowed to at least start building one, a Superweapon is a game-changer, and a weapon that likely wouldn't be allowed without providing some serious disadvantages for the faction possessing it. Otherwise the mere possession of such a thing would equal victory.
 

Darren Onyx

Guest
D
Well I agree with Tidarius. We have to design a flaw. If we don't have at least one flaw that could cause it to be wiped out, we can just go planet by planet and take everyone out. It would unbalance the game.

My original idea, as being discussed with Tef, is going to be a new superweapon that has one flaw. That flaw hasn't been decided on yet due to the affects it would have on the endgame battle. Other then that, I am fully aware that regardless of what we decide to go with, it need a flaw.
 
Personally i think we need to show these minor factions we mean business and go on an offensive against a few to force them into treaties.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom