Fiolette Yvarro Approved.
Posted 08 March 2018 - 09:47 AM
Lily Kirsche Kuhn So I would like this one pulled from the archives please (it was archived because I was banned at the time, even though this sub isn't the one that was incriminated back then):
Edited by Cathul Thuku, 10 March 2018 - 01:09 PM.
For all your real estate, construction, banking and insurance needs: IGR Brokerage
Theme: Magicians' Tower
Posted 27 March 2018 - 03:29 AM
Submission for Second-Chance Review: Murmillo-Class Frigate
This Warship was denied on the basis its' Hanger contains vehicles and dropship craft and has a 'None' Hanger rating which I believe is an incorrect application of the 5.0 Starship Standard as seen in the above screenshot. "Please provide the amount of fighters this submission can hold in it's hanger by count of squadrons" I believe the repeated "Starfighters" reinforces the idea to the average reader that the word 'Starfighter' refers to fighter and bomber craft such as the X-wing and Y-wing not Dropships, Shuttles and terrestrial Vehicles. If this is not the case as indicated by the Roleplay Judge I suggest the wording be modified to better represent this in the interests of transparency and ensuring the standard is applied consistently and accurately. The Insistence that Shuttles, Dropships and Vehicles count towards 'starfighter' squadron counts for the sake of balancing has the potential to greatly impact designs submitted to the factory and it's probably best to have it out there rather than locked up in Factory Judge Chat or something like that.
Even though every submission is judged off its' own merits I think it would be useful to point out previous submissions under the current standard that have contained both Starfighters and Dropships, Droppods and Shuttles that ostensibly did not have any of the latter craft count towards the Hanger Rating. The Desolator-Class Battlecruiser is an example I'd like to present as supportive of my argument for why the Murmillo-Class Frigate should be approved under the present standard as none of the support craft are ostensibly counted towards the Hanger rating it's measured purely off the contained combat "strike craft".
Edited by Kyli DT-6767, 27 March 2018 - 01:08 PM.
Posted 27 March 2018 - 01:36 PM
While I agree the judge was correct in his assessment of this submission as unsuitable, i feel with some changes to name, image, and removal of all but one of the offending items, it could be made acceptable.
“It gives me strength to have somebody to fight for; I can never fight for myself, but, for others, I can kill.”
Posted 27 March 2018 - 08:00 PM
I'm generally content with my submissions being denied for power concerns, or concept, but I don't believe this submission itself fit either of those bills. If 'superweapon' anything meant a denial, things like this, this, this, or even this, would never have been accepted in the factory; and the list could go on and on. Suffice to say, I believe the judge was simply wrong in their assessment, and I'd like the submission moved to WIP to allow me to bring the submission up to par.
Posted 29 March 2018 - 12:14 AM
Jamie Pyne - So, it seems that I managed to get my hand on a copy of the rating's excel/sheet that I shouldn't have, which fueled a misconception between the reviewing judge and me over what was balanced from either's perspective. As such, I would like to request a second chance for the Nagata corvette (resubmission) and the chance to lower some of its ratings to reflect the proper resources - now in hand.
Posted 05 April 2018 - 07:07 PM
Your second chance is approved. The factory bases hangars off of squadrons primarily. However, in certain cases where there is an abundance of vehicles, dropships, or other atmospheric craft being stored, the hangar rating will either in addition to, or in place of be used. This rating is used, in those such cases, as equivalent to fighter squadrons. I hope this clears up the confusion.
This is one of those things that is very clearly a blow-for-blow crossover. To make this viable it would require drastic alterations. I'm going to say no on this one.
I can grant you a second chance however a proton beam cannon transferred into a turret in no way will pass factory standards. You will need to remove and alter all wording surrounding that type of armament. If that is amenable I will give the go ahead on this.
Second chance granted.
Edited by Jamie Pyne, 05 April 2018 - 07:08 PM.
- Arcanus Sunstrider likes this
Posted 18 April 2018 - 09:51 PM
This one I feel could be reworked. I do not disagree with the judges opinion, the items intention could be abused and so I would either A: Like to rework it with more balance to try and make it work. or an alternative B: have it be a smaller creature if possible.