Minor Factory Updates

[Kurayami Bloodborn]

[member="Thorne"]

No. All I was saying is that listing the hull materials(commonly used ones should not need to be linked as most people have some idea as to what the materials are capable of), and not advocating for or say that people should have to list the exact targeting computer used, the exact model of engine utilized, who manufactured the reactor, and a technical breakdown of all the weapons. I'm simply saying that a laser cannon doesn't need to be linked as we have a baseline for what a starfighter laser cannon is capable of, same as ion engines shouldn't need to be linked specifically. Just state what went into the construction (linking Chaos canon tech or less commonly known things from Legends/Canon on the wiki) so as to prevent someone from changing the ship to fit the exact situation the writer finds themselves in dependent on the thread.

I'm only making the point that the way it's been done for a long time was fine and that loosening that 'restriction' opens the door to potential abuse, not saying it will happen, but that it isn't out of left field to think that it could easily happen. I've watched things happen in a similar vein with similar restrictions in place before.

 

[Matt the Radar Tech]

[member="Kurayami Bloodborn"] I understand the concern for potential for retcon of materials by some players, but intrinsically all metals and components that aren't restricted have comparable attributes. They might have different wording, but they are all capable of being broken down or affected by similar damage types. So really the only way it could be abused is if there were drastic changes - and those would be blatantly obvious - such as a ship suddenly having nightshadow coating, or ablative armor plating, which are so specific that not including them in the original sub makes the abuse very, very evident.

All they're asking for is specific material links, which implies materials that are not standard or may have been subbed/serve as advanced additions (agrinium, turadium, quadanium, etc). These are examples of 'advanced materials' that can replace durasteel - but in terms of rules, are still not as strong as restricted materials. Again, attempted abuse will be very evident, because any real change of materials would require those restricted materials to be meaningful. And those are heavily regulated. And obvious.

I think you're over complicating it and are overstating the generally similar attributes of basically every material, aside from restricted ones.

 

[Ellie Mors]

However, because many of these "support craft" were in fact combat craft like gunships and well-armed dropships, so it has became a balance issue. As an example of this issue, you could make a small frigate sub that had zero fighter squadrons but then list 24 well-armed gunships as "support craft" separately. That defeats the intent and spirit of the old hangar system.

While I understand what is being stated here, I feel like this was the intent of the new approach at judging - to forgo so much restrictions so that they can be handled as they become an issue. I think that people who are doing this are violating board rules (noted in the factory rules) that would incur a 30 day ban for attempting to mislead factory judges and staff. (Insofar that listing "support craft" to get around limitations and then using armed ships for "support craft" is an egregious attempt at fooling a judge/the factory).

While I support the move to make it openly clear that this isn't okay, I don't think that limiting it like everything else just to catch those few that have already been breaking rules is the right way of doing it. (i.e; including support craft as a part of the balancing performed on starships)

I don't really think it's a pressing matter to address, but I would like to suggest keeping stuff like this into account in the future, both to keep from making unnecessary work for the submitter and the judge, and to maybe take action when rules are reported broken rather than preemptively (or in such a proactive manner, I suppose). I realize this is in reaction to an issue, I just don't think that a proactive change in the judging and submitting process is the right way to handle something that should be dealt with by reprimanding people who are already violating an existing rule.

 

[Fiolette Fortan]

Pretty sure that unless it's a Restricted Material, building materials / components for items in the factory is mostly just flavor anyway. It's still going to boil down to whether or not a writer does or does not take the hit, regardless of whatever hull material their ship has, or what their new fancy armor is made of. At the end of the day you could have all the 'advanced' materials on your ship, but it's still going to boil down to, will you or will you not take the hit. Other than that, listing and linking materials back to the wookiee is nothing more than just extra footwork that isn't necessary, at least in my opinion. Do I like it? Nah, not really. Not my call to make, I just to roll with it.

 

[Gir Quee]

I see no reason as to why anything outside the exotic or lesser known components/materials(including all Chaos canon subs) should need to be linked, much like it has been for quite sometime.

Pretty sure that unless it's a Restricted Material, building materials / components for items in the factory is mostly just flavor anyway. It's still going to boil down to whether or not a writer does or does not take the hit, regardless of whatever hull material their ship has, or what their new fancy armor is made of. At the end of the day you could have all the 'advanced' materials on your ship, but it's still going to boil down to, will you or will you not take the hit.

I don't disagree with you both in theory. This issue is that not everyone is on the same page of what's exotic or lesser known. And then there's the issue of everyone not being intentionally transparent.

Here are some scenarios that we've encountered with some slight changes in the named materials.

1) This mass produced armor is made out of 'laminum' (not Laminium, which is a RM). The user then claims that the 'laminum' in the submission is a typo, and that's it's actually "Laminium" when he talks to other writers in the roleplay itself.

2) This armor is made out of the "Uiifa'klf Beast" (some obscure beast most people have never heard of). It's not a restricted material. However, the hide of this beast has the ability protect the user from lightsaber and telepathic attacks. This is not mentioned anywhere within the submission itself. However, the user then expects everyone to know about these properties when they roleplay with other people.


I suppose the argument could be made here that this could be solved by the "Intentionally breaking these rules or attempting to mislead Judges will incur a minimum 30 day zero tolerance ban from the Factory or Codex.". But at least one of these cases, I think it was more of an issue of ignorance from a new player.

I'd rather have these issues handled upfront rather than threaten people with bans.

I will say this though, I'm not planning on banning people who accidentally don't hyperlink common materials.

 

[Gir Quee]

While I understand what is being stated here, I feel like this was the intent of the new approach at judging - to forgo so much restrictions so that they can be handled as they become an issue. I think that people who are doing this are violating board rules (noted in the factory rules) that would incur a 30 day ban for attempting to mislead factory judges and staff. (Insofar that listing "support craft" to get around limitations and then using armed ships for "support craft" is an egregious attempt at fooling a judge/the factory).

It's not technically a violation (it wasn't "hidden" or "misleading"), but I think we're in agreement of the general sentiment.

I'm hoping that commentary from other members will convince people not to push boundaries too far or expand into questionably gray areas. I'd rather like to keep things open, but ultimately, we will continue to implement changes as feel are best for the community at large.

 

[Gir Quee]

Concerning the fighters and support craft, I have a suggestion that might streamline the process: What about, instead of two specific numbers (one of which is seen as 'restrictive' by some), you combine both fighters and support ships into a single process. By providing a maximum docked ship count, based on size as currently used, players could then allocate numbers from both fighters and support ships from that max number.

At a glance, I like this idea. It's pretty clean and uncomplicated, but it gives people people options. This is something that I will bring to the other Factory staff for discussion and possible implementation.

 

[Ellie Mors]

[member="Gir Quee"]
I think the thought process behind listing combative ships as support crafts is that a judge, RPJ, or admin will overlook it because they'd expect it would have no impact on the balance of the ship (because a support craft is supposed to not provide any advantages or disadvantages to the submission that, say, additional fighters would give).

It's disingenuous, it's an attempt to try to see if people aren't paying close enough attention.

It isn't the most concrete, and "black and white", form of misleading, but it is an intentional attempt at trying to get something approved by calling it what it is not. The very nature of mass approvals means it's going to be missed a good 9 times out of 10, and people who have done this will bank on it.

Edit: I personally don't mind the changes to the template, I just think problems are going to persist if the underlying issue isn't treated.