Space Stations

[Raziel]

[member="Ayden cater"]
[member="Popo"]
[member="Tefka"]
[member="[URL="http://starwarsrp.net/user/147-valeria-aetani/"]Valeria Aetani[/URL]"]

Ok, the space stations are complicated. They confused me and I have a fecking PhD in Astrophysics. They have confused other people too.

Currently if you have a civilian space station you take the profile of a ship half the size, then you multiply the guns by 0.75 and then you multiply the hangar by 1.5 (and the wording is still more complicated than this [divide guns by 2 and then add 50%])

I propose we make life much simpler.

We split each category into three/four sizes: Small, Medium and Large, etc.

For each category we lay out the hangar and gun numbers. We could even just have Assault and Balanced Military, Support Civilian.

It's a damn sight simpler than what the current system does, it's not much less flexible and I reckon it would do for roleplay purposes and frankly that is what's important.

Thoughts? Abuse? (Credit for above simplification goes to Valeria, it's not just my idea)

 

[Ayden Cater]

You double the size of the ship. You half the base weapons pool. You then get to add some bonus guns back in because it's a station and not a ship.

I don't mean to sound like an ass, but that's not very complicated. Could the wording be a little better? Maybe. But I've seen enough stations go through with minimal changes needed to make me think it's working fine.

 

[Tefka]

I'm tired of the numbers game.

 

[Raziel]

You double the size of the ship. You half the base weapons pool. You then get to add some bonus guns back in because it's a station and not a ship.

I don't mean to sound like an ass, but that's not very complicated. Could the wording be a little better? Maybe. But I've seen enough stations go through with minimal changes needed to make me think it's working fine.

You're allowed to provide counter arguments of course. Dividing something by 2, then taking a number from a table, then dividing that by 2, then multiplying that by 1....is not that mathematically complicated. But I think it is more complicated than it needs to be.

It is complicated enough that myself and Valeria got it wrong recently, most of that was down to the wording at the time, as we've already discussed.

The question is, what do we get out of it being like this?

We can just put a more simple table up that people can pick from and configure. This will make it easier. What do we lose? Down to 4 sizes of space station instead of 8? Is that genuinely a loss?

[member="Ayden Cater"]

 

[Raziel]

Also, why is a carrier Command Ship as fast as an assault Corvette?

 

[Ayden Cater]

It's not.

An Assault Corvette is Speed 6.

A Support Command Ship is Speed 7.

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

[member="Raziel"]
I don't understand why we can't make them simple, the way I thought they were handled.

1. Compare your station size with an equivalent ship. (So a 4000m station would be Command Ship x2, a 1000m one would be heavy cruiser)
2. Military stations get +50% guns, Civilian get -50% guns.
3. All get 150% hanger.

And that's it. Simple, boom. Everyone can figure that out.

If you want to stick with what's there already then at least do a table up showing how many guns each size of civilian/military/balanced/support station has available.

 

[Raziel]

What I'm asking, is what's the rationale for carriers being faster?

 

[Raziel]

[member="Raziel"

If you want to stick with what's there already then at least do a table up showing how many guns each size of civilian/military/balanced/support station has available.

The would just make life easier IMHO

What's the current table made in? I'd be happy to do one quickly tomorrow

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

Done as excel then saved as an image I believe.

 

[Ayden Cater]

[member="Raziel"]

Assault ships typically have heavier, reinforced hull plating, more power to weapons and more weapons in general, as well as redundant shields.

Support ships have significantly fewer weapons and a large percentage of their internal space is empty (aka, Hanger space). All that surplus energy can be routed to the engines.

 

[Raziel]

[member="Raziel"]

Assault ships typically have heavier, reinforced hull plating, more power to weapons and more weapons in general, as well as redundant shields.

Support ships have significantly fewer weapons and a large percentage of their internal space is empty (aka, Hanger space). All that surplus energy can be routed to the engines.

Makes perfect sense, I was thinking too much in terms of current ships, where weapons effectively power themselves, and engines are limited. Cheers [member="Ayden Cater"]

 

[Raziel]

I'd have thought something like this would just keep things simple:

 

[Ayden Cater]

[member="Raziel"]

My only observation is that your scaling seems off, especially for "very small". Did you scale this based off the current guide or are these kind of "first shot, hit-or-miss, see-what-sticks" numbers?

 

[Raziel]

First crack, but generally relative to the current numbers. Some of them were a mix of two classes, in which case I tended to lean towards more defense guns, less capital.

If you think it would be helpful I can email you the spreadsheet? I'll have another look at the numbers shortly.

[member="Ayden Cater"]

 

[Raziel]

Had a quick look, very small looks pretty well aligned to corvette. x0.75 guns, x1.5 ships