I'm Back with Some Constructive Criticism

[Tesh Aquer]

Was a member of the original Warmongers, ditched site for about 6 months, now I'm back since I'm fleeting again. I looked over the thingy with all of the information and have some points to make:

Looking at the damage modifiers listed, you could have an infinite number of corvettes firing at a Destroyer or battlecruiser and do 0 damage. So a fleet of a huge number of smaller ships wouldn't be able to take out 1 large ship.

Alot of the complexity could be eliminated by using a shield and hull rating a.k. SBD (shields) and RU (Hull)
SBU and RU are equivalent, so 1 SBU=1 RU. That said, ships usually have a proportionally higher SBU to RU for obvious reasons.
Comparison:
ISD= 4800 SBU, 2300 RU
MC80=3840 SBU, 2128 RU, however Mon Cal has redundant shielding
Certain weapons do more damage to shielding and more damage to hull
An example would be a proton torpedo hitting being roughly equal to 100 SBD/RU. A core unit and system for shielding and hull could make calculations much simpler. I can assist with assigning SBD and RU values if needed. All the user would have to do is either a. calculate or b. estimate how much a certain volley would do. Estimation works better, as that can more easily account for potential random volleys.

Due to the nature of balance and the origin of the ratings, these are not set in stone. Only having to fire 65 torpedos to destroy an ISD would not be very fair. However, point defense could eliminate most of those. 1 Turbolaser shot would be roughly 35 SBD/RU (for simplicity's sake use DP, damage potential). This would require about 110 turbolaser shots to take down a Mon Cal's shields. As I said, this can be up for debate and damages can be, say, halved if ships here are too heavily armed.

Another unit of note: MGLT and MGLT/s. This stands for Megalight and Megalight per second (speed and acceleration). 1 MGLT=1 m/s 1MGLT/s=1m/s^2

The largest problem I see with the dice rolling method is that one would have to roll a dice and add/subtract all of these modifiers to make a post. It also rewards less tactical innovation and more brute force and giant ships, which arguably is less fun.

Another just overall tip: don't bean count. If you know you can have 1,234 ships, please don't bring 1,234 ships, especially if those are things like ISD. The empire could have summoned a force of 25,000 ISD's at some points, but they would never do that.

Also, as a newcomer, having to read a 7 page document filled with modifiers and dice rolling is pretty intimidating, and I have had a few years of fleeting experience. It would be much more welcoming to say: here is a list of weapons and about how much damage they do. Keep this in mind when writing. Obviously, the major flaw of the SBU/RU system is that there are lots of ships on Chaos, and none of them have this sort of system. One could estimate and use ranges and ship size to determine the ratings (again, I can be of assistance).



That is all, and I do look forward to fleeting.

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

[member="Tesh Aquer"]
You mention some very good points. I'd like to try your ideas out. Do you have Skype (PM me if you do) and we can discuss a few things.

They key will be getting the hull, shields and damage balanced which will take some work, but is pretty rewarding.

 

[Tesh Aquer]

[member="Valiens Nantaris"]

I have charted out quite a few possible values that could work for SBD and RU ratings. They could use adjusting based off of what ships on here are like. I used ISD IIs, Ship X (little better than an MC80), a cc-9600 frigate, a DP20 gunship, and an X-Wing for tests on various weapons and got decent values.

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

Excellent.

 

[Ali Hadrix]

I like what you said here..."Keep this in mind while writing."

I think a lot of our fleeting issues could be solved by more collaboration between allied writers when it comes to taking damage. That way we're not only making decisions for ourselves each time.

 

[Gir Quee]

Obviously, the major flaw of the SBU/RU system is that there are lots of ships on Chaos, and none of them have this sort of system. One could estimate and use ranges and ship size to determine the ratings (again, I can be of assistance)

• 
  

  Each ship begins with a number of shield (if applicable) and hull points equal to its length in metres. How damage is resolved is entirely up to the writer, but a standard indicator of health must be used.

I've been enjoying the use of the shield / hull point system as its been used in the Terminus campaign, perhaps because its given me a more specific idea at where my ship's "health" is at, but it also got me thinking about the nature of the defenses of the different types of ships.

I guess I've been under the impression that generally, a support ship wouldn't have quite the same amount of armor or shields as an assault ship of similar size. So I was thinking about maybe using a sort of modifier to show that difference between the types of ships in relation to their length to get shield and hull ratings.

Something like "x1.25" for heavily armored assault ships, "x1" for balanced ships, and "x0.75" for support ships.

For example, the Redoubt-class Assault Cruiser is 600 meters long. Under the current Terminus campaign rules, it has 600 shields / 600 hull.

With this idea, the Redoubt would have 750 shields / 750 hulls because its an assault ship, which would reflect its "Featuring the heavy armor and assault-grade shielding" found in its submission description.

What would people think of some modifier like that in the system?

 

[Ali Hadrix]

I like a lot of these ideas, but more and more I get the feeling we're straying further and further from the goal of fun collaborative writing.
I would like to see more discussion take place not here, about combat, but during combat situations between writers.

 

[Gir Quee]

My experience is that there's a happy medium to all of this.

Sure, too many rules and ideas can be stifling for many writers.

But my personal experience is that a lack of baseline understanding causes a lot more problems, especially in a competitive environment (like invasions or skirmishes), because boundaries aren't clear, and everyone wants to win.

Looking back at several boards where I've RPed fleeting at in the past, the more I'm impressed with our current fleeting system here.

Sure, I did fleeting there without rules and even without staff-approved personal designs, but a lot depended on who you "fleeted" against. Some people were fairly fair and easy to write with, but some people were so competitive that every maneuver or attack got contested in a heated OOC discussion. It wasn't very fun for me.

That's what I think is great about the Fleeting system here, it's entirely optional, but it gives good guide lines for everyone involved to cut down on OOC drama.

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

You can’t please everyone. As soon as you add in any stats you will get people saying it’s too much and people saying it’s too little. The only thing you can do is try and find a happy medium.

I disagree about different stats for different ship types. Assault ships have more weaponry, which gives them an advantage in battle, whilst support ships don’t. I find that is enough of a balance.

 

[Ali Hadrix]

I've grown very partial to the outcome of battles being decided by a coin flip, which removes the element of competition from things.
That way we can always focus on the quality of RP.

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

LOL

 

[Ellie Mors]

I've grown very partial to the outcome of battles being decided by a coin flip, which removes the element of competition from things.
That way we can always focus on the quality of RP.

The effect of a coin toss being made with low-quality writing will likely not be recognized by the other writer, as is their right to do so.

 

[Ali Hadrix]

[member="Valiens Nantaris"]: I appreciate your mirth. :|

[member="Silara Kuhn"]: I understand that. I look at all the battles I've RP'd in the past, and I see the outcome being what writers contest over unwaveringly. Being competitive is great, but it's not the point.
Cooperation is one of the only steady solutions to reaching the end of a combat oriented RP without everyone tripping over their d***s.
Taking a series of engagements and removing that element of competition allows for each writer to focus on the quality of the engagements in which they partake. Am I suggesting this be done for everything? Of course not. The temptation of a battle in which you can truly overcome and be victorious is too tempting for that. But it's also an impractical approach to every RP.
But maybe we apply them to this series of RP's I'm proposing.

I've seen RP's thrown completely off track especially when they reach their destination through battle, but the battle itself is not the destination. What I mean by that is I've seen perfectly good RP's with the goal of building cooperation and simply enjoyment between two sides ruined by the inability to reach a clear conclusion on the outcome of a single battle.

Winning and losing is the last thing I care about if I've fought a good fight.

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

[member="Ali Hadrix"]
The competitive edge is always the biggest issue here. People want to win, and no matter how much they say or are willing to play fairly, they still want to win.
That's why Warhammer 40k and D&D has rules, otherwise no one would ever get anything done.

In that vein, what surprises me most is not that so many RP battles end in draws, but that any end in victories.

 

[Ali Hadrix]

"...what surprises me most is not that so many RP battles end in draws, but that any end in victories."

That was almost poetic. lol But I totally get you on this. I'm willing to sacrifice minor prizes (that are inversely major issues) for the greater goal of sweet, succulent, bodacious RP.