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!

Starships - Armament & Defence Rating

First of all, I apologize for this and disregard it if I can't be proposing/suggesting things since I am simply on trial. Neither do I write this to step on someone's toest or anything like that, simple my views which I would like to share with the rest of the team and see their views on it.

Now to the content itself:

Armament rating:

I've understood that it scales by power and size, but that is not always the case, in my opinion. As the greater the size = the greater the power/damage output is common but not something fixated. The first example that comes to my mind is the one where the content of this suggestion/discussion comes from these two - 1st example & 2nd example.

Both examples utilize a laser canon and a bomb (Ion Bomb & Seismic Charge respectively). The armament rating has been dropped to overally 5 despite that a Ion Bomb/Seismic Charge albeit being pretty small are very destructive in terms of damage output.

My suggestion is perhaps dividing the rating into two - size & power and requiring dev threads on a certain average of the two or per the judge's own judgement. Of course, it comes with the drawback of reducing simplicity.

Defences Rating:

What I have always liked about the armor template is that lots of people list their quality in terms of the attacks that the armor is to face i.e Quality 8 vs Energy; Quality 5 vs. Non-energy (Slugs) and all that. Now I am not at all a specialist in starships as most of the people here are but as far as I recall different shields or hulls had different purposes. A shield vs. energy attacks (turbolasers) and shields (and/or the hull itself I assume) that are stronger vs. solid attacks such as missiles. Perhaps that way it would give another indicator for judges to be able to see if there exists a balance of strengths and weaknesses, and legitimacy of the submitted piece of work.


I would be really happy to see what you guys and girls think!

zef out -drops mic-
 
I'm unlikely to be in favour of adding complication by adding more mandatory terms.

Currently I've seen people provide an overall rating and occasionally split offensive by any of the following:
Firing arc
Vs capital and vs fighter
Vs shield and vs hull
Laser and ordnance

I have no issue with any of these but they're optional.
 
Zef Halo said:
First of all, I apologize for this and disregard it if I can't be proposing/suggesting things since I am simply on trial. Neither do I write this to step on someone's toest or anything like that, simple my views which I would like to share with the rest of the team and see their views on it.

Now to the content itself:

Armament rating:

I've understood that it scales by power and size, but that is not always the case, in my opinion. As the greater the size = the greater the power/damage output is common but not something fixated. The first example that comes to my mind is the one where the content of this suggestion/discussion comes from these two - 1st example & 2nd example.

Both examples utilize a laser canon and a bomb (Ion Bomb & Seismic Charge respectively). The armament rating has been dropped to overally 5 despite that a Ion Bomb/Seismic Charge albeit being pretty small are very destructive in terms of damage output.

My suggestion is perhaps dividing the rating into two - size & power and requiring dev threads on a certain average of the two or per the judge's own judgement. Of course, it comes with the drawback of reducing simplicity.

Defences Rating:

What I have always liked about the armor template is that lots of people list their quality in terms of the attacks that the armor is to face i.e Quality 8 vs Energy; Quality 5 vs. Non-energy (Slugs) and all that. Now I am not at all a specialist in starships as most of the people here are but as far as I recall different shields or hulls had different purposes. A shield vs. energy attacks (turbolasers) and shields (and/or the hull itself I assume) that are stronger vs. solid attacks such as missiles. Perhaps that way it would give another indicator for judges to be able to see if there exists a balance of strengths and weaknesses, and legitimacy of the submitted piece of work.


I would be really happy to see what you guys and girls think!

zef out -drops mic-
I disagree on #1 (Armament Ratings), which your examples don't help much. We are trying to keep armament rating where it is now in order to keep it as simple as possible for submitters and members who actively engage in fleet engagements as well as those who don't. That being said, I'm not sure if I'm of the mind that the two ships should have had such a low armament rating, as it isn't just the number of weapons featured on the ship that warrants the rating it is given.

#2 is wholly possible via optional suggestions to submitters. Just like with armors in armor submissions. All that "Energy Rating: X, Projectile Rating: Y, etc" is entirely optional and is not forced on submitters. You are more than welcome to add little quirks to your own submissions via "Hull Rating vs Energy Projectiles" and such, as well as offer the idea as a suggestion to members (which admittedly makes the defense rating easier as a submitter, for me) so that they have an additional option. If you're asking if doing this is okay, the answer is yes.
 
If people want to break it up they can, but I will not require someone to do it. The point of simplifying things to a standard was to make things easier for the submitter and the judge to review together and come to a conclusion that approves the item for the submitter. You shouldn't need a degree in Astrophysics or whatever engineering to do a make belief ship.


I thank you for your ideas, but for the time being to keep things simple and stream lined we will not be changing. As much as I want to incorporate a very complex and involved system, it just wouldn't work with the community at large and several instances of the Factory has proven as such. This is what works and it has for the time being. [member="Zef Halo"]
 
Indeed, simplicity just wins the arguement, I guess. It would be too much of a drawback reducing the simplicity that has been introduced for the sake of getting further in-depth on technicalities.

Thanks for the input!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom