Hangar Counts

[Raziel]

[member="Tefka"]
[member="Spencer Jacobs"]

Looking at a ship with a fighter count, I find myself seeing two differing values for starfighter counts in old and new guide.

The armaments are OK, because the new ratings are a rough guide and unspecific. However, the new guide is specific on squadron counts. Assuming squadrons counts of 12, I've compared the old and new maximums below.

For a dedicated carrier with low armaments (support in old money)

3000M ship
Old: 20 Squadrons
New: 10 Squadrons

1000m
Old: 8 Squadrons
New: 3 Squadrons


The old hangar loadouts are referenced in the new guide as a viable standardized load out: http://s965.photobucket.com/user/FormingInTheMists/media/Hanger1.png.html

Am I missing something?

Which do I judge to?

Cheers!

 

[Allyson Locke]

Interesting. This would mean that the newer ships would be half as powerful as the old ships which would really put a damper on things. For right now use the new stuff since that's being implemented. Thanks for bringing this up, I'll have a couple of changes for ya.


Edit: Okay so to balance this out, The old GUN standards counted as a class 10 or 12 out of 20, so the new ships have the possibility to be way better at guns, even though they're worse at fighters.

 

[Camellia Swift]

I developed a complex, sadly, reference system that creates a standard that utilizes the new and old templates, ship length, old gun and hanger counts, and the rating system we have now.It shouldn't be official by any means, but it could definitely be put out there as an optional reference for the fleeters or faction companies if they want it. I really tried to factor in the math, canon, old and new templates, ship length, and the rating system when putting these together.

For hangers
Carrier Class/Type Ships: 6 fighters per 100 meters. Cruiser of minimum 600 meters would have 36 Fighters or 3 Squadrons, their max, but only for the carrier type. The only matter being would be if anyone would have a problem with 3000 meter ships having 180 Fighters, 15 Squadrons, over the 120, 10, now. (Knowing well that Carriers would be less armed than other ships)

Average Ships: 4 Fighters per 100 meters. Earlier on with smaller ships the carrier to non-carrier difference would hardly appear. I think that adds a nice flavor to the less used smaller ships by turning them more towards attack craft for the fleeters out there. (Again at max 3000 meters the hanger size would be large, but the max 6 Squadrons (72 Fighters) is only the same as an Imperial SD which was only 1600 meters and was our standard for balanced Destroyers)

Do those takes on hangers seem like a problem? Anything more or less could fit clearly into the rating. When the hanger count is listed and low with smaller ships they could be considered to be equal to lower ratings for the fleeters. Thus allowing them to remember they get more guns in exchange. And when they get to the larger ships where the counts go above the norm, they rate them higher and remind themselves they get less guns.

And then if you're saying the old average loadout for balanced ships on the old template is 10, then with that in mind how does this math sound?

For gun counts
Between 500 Meters: 18 Guns per 100 meters (Equaling an average 10 rating). Following the rule that a missile launcher would cost 2, defense guns 0.5, and capital guns 1. With the rule that they cannot use over half their gun values for any one type of weapon. Anything close above that would be closer to an assault (12-14 rating). Anything far above requiring a dev thread to prevent an overpowered mess? Anything less leaning toward a carrier layout with a larger hanger?

Between 500-1000 Meters: 27 guns per 100 meters (equaling an average 10 rating). Following the rule that a missile launcher would cost 2, defense guns 0.5, and capital guns 1. With the rule that they cannot use over half their gun values for any one type of weapon. Anything close above that would be closer to an assault (12-14 rating). Anything far above requiring a dev thread to prevent an overpowered mess? Anything less leaning toward a carrier layout with a larger hanger?

Between 1000-2000 Meters: 58 Guns per 100 meters (equaling an average 10 rating). Following the rule that a missile launcher would cost 2, defense guns 0.5, and capital guns 1. With the rule that they cannot use over half their gun values for any one type of weapon. Anything close above that would be closer to an assault (12-14 rating). Anything far above requiring a dev thread to prevent an overpowered mess? Anything less leaning toward a carrier layout with a larger hanger?

I honestly have nothing to keep things above 2000 meters balanced. Its such a hard ballpark you're looking at overpowered ships abound.

 

[Camellia Swift]

Again this would only be to appease the fleeters and would only be an optional guide for them to gauge, not for anyone else using the factory to worry about.

 

[Allyson Locke]

[member="Camellia Swift"] That's the issue. The factory isn't just for the Fleeters. I want to remove the environment and the feeling that the Starship and the rest of factory is only for the fleeters.

 

[Camellia Swift]

[member="Spencer Jacobs"]

Exactly, but you still have the old starship guide open for their reference, but you won't let anyone follow it still, which opens up the fact there are these discrepancies with the hangers and guns. Which is crippling to optimization.

Why can't we pin a reference for the fleeters in the guide/tutorial section as well?

Wouldn't force it on anyone else, just give the fleeters a better understanding of their equipment. No one using the rating system need worry over it and it would be an optional take for the fleeters so they know what a limit is.

 

[Allyson Locke]

I love the suggestions, but again they're all geared for the Fleeters which is something I don't want to do. It alienates the rest of the community again from the factory. [member="Camellia Swift"]

 

[Camellia Swift]

[member="Spencer Jacobs"]


I'm confused where this would alienate people to have it as a tutorial outside the factory. Yes it would only be for fleeters, but it wouldn't affect anyone else's factory submissions but theirs? And only then if they used it. Its a resource not a law I'm suggesting. Am I missing something?

 

[Allyson Locke]

[member="Camellia Swift"] It would confuse players. They see this and it goes "optional". So someone who doesn't know starships creates said starship and it gets approved.They take this starship to one of the very rare fleet battles and goes against someone who used these added resource. The other person is a fleeter and created something because they had the extra resource. It puts a damper on the creation from someone who has never done it but wants to try.


The point I'm trying to make is yeah its a cool resource, but again having these special resources for Fleeters gives them another advantage and another confusing element to the Factory.

Another question I would like to pose just because I'm curious: Why are we so focused on Starships in general, most of the invasions I have been or have read - Fleeting really doesn't play a huge part. Most ships are there just to provide a "scare tactic" or as a place of RP.

Like I said I'm open to suggestions for things, but for now I won't be changing anything or adding special resources for Fleeters. We just had a huge change and people will have to get used to it. Once its flowing we'll talk about all of these things you wish to add for fleeters.

Again I want to reiterate. My goal is to make sure that Factory as a whole is available and makes sense to EVERYONE on the board. I want to end this feeling of the "Boys' club" when it comes to Starships especially.

 

[Allyson Locke]

tutorial outside the factory

Added note: You shouldn't have something so complicated that you need to set up a tutorial to use when creating a starship (minus the dev thread if needed) should only take you an hour tops.

 

[Camellia Swift]

Ok, I understand.

 

[Raziel]

"Stay on target!"

Ok, so the problem for me at the moment is simply one of consistency in judging.

The current template has both a Maximum limit of squadrons AND references the hangar sheet and says this is acceptable.

I don't think both should be acceptable at the same time and a factor of two different (a little bit wouldn't make much of a difference! )

If we artificially balance it out like you suggest spencer, we're think into a realm where people can't maximise guns (level 20) and use a full loadout with gun maths (hypervelocity guns etc etc). We do still want to support heavy ships with complex loadout for those who want to do it.



Realistically I prefer the squadron numbers tef has put in, they're more sensible.

Practically I think they should be bumped to be in line with the old numbers to keep everything nice and straightforward for both power-gaming number crunchers and casual ship-builders. (And selfishly, from my point of view, make my judging easier).

 

[Camellia Swift]

[member="Raziel"]

Their sensible up to Destroyer, but don't take into account pure carriers.

For example the Trade Federation Battleship was a 3000 meter ship. It carried over 1500 Vulture Starfighters alone, and then had a multitude of dropships, other fighter variants, and more. That's far beyond even the Max 3000 meter dedicated carrier Tef allows with 120 fighters max.

An Imperial SD II carried only 72 TIE Fighters at 1600 meters long. It was primarily an attack ship, and has always been our standard for Destroyers.

However for a nice clear image, the Venator Class SD, which would be a Light SD by old standards, carries over 400 starfighters. (But it has a much weaker armament than the average Light SD)

 

[Raziel]

Canon is varied and inconsistent. A good guideline, but let's not get too caught up in it.

The issue here is self consistency within Chaos

 

[Tefka]

Practically I think they should be bumped to be in line with the old numbers

Absolutely no.

I do not care for the word "old" and we will not use the word "old" when we reference what we're going to improve.

Old submissions will only be worked on if the players want them to.

We will continue to move forward...

without regard for past entries.

 

[Raziel]

So just to clarify, all hangar counts have to be within the squadron counts limit in the text?

 

[Raziel]

Would it hurt the new template to just remove the reference to the "standardised load out" image for hangars as it's not consistent with the max count listed?

[member="Tefka"] Just to be clear here when I say "Old" I'm referring to the standardised load outs from the previous system, that you've included in the new templates alongside the current max squadron limits. I am in no way suggesting modifying old submissions, my apologies that that was not clear!

 

[Tefka]

I don't care that standardized loadouts are not consistent. It does not matter if people use them.