New Starship Template & Standards

[Allyson Locke]

For the past several months the Factory has been working towards solidifying our consistancy, especially with starships. There have been several holes and flaws with what we previously had. This caused issues between judges and submitters and that main issue was confusion. The factory has moved towards something more standardized to help with all of this. The following is the change log and a TL;DR information of what it means to you as a submitter.

Also please note: With the change over to this form of standardization, it is requested that when discussing ships and such that links from previous versions be used as references, but not concrete evidence for this standardization. Do remember to remain consistent the submitter and the judge must be able to draw from the same source of information. No previous versions of the factory starships will be accepted after the template has changed from the date and time of this posting.

All items that were submitted before and are currently under review in the starship section will be considered "grandfathered in" and go with the standard they were submitted under. Any questions or concerns please refer to the Q&A section of the Factory Information Forum, post here, PM me.

Change log

• Removed links to old armament tables
• Consolidated ship and station dev
• Added dev for civilian stations over 3000m
• Added requirement to link manufacturer if chaos canon company
• Add defense line
• Make armament ratings mandatory
• Outline that strengths from special features must ALL be listed under strengths and balanced by weaknesses or dev
• Add dev guidelines to all relevant categories
• Fixed formatting errors in "Primary Source" field
• All templates done
• Add civilian space stations/shipyards. Examples: : Asteroid Base, Deep Space Manufacturing Facility, Skyhook, Medical Station, Orbital Docking Platform, Space Colony
• Split Destroyers and Carriers into sub 2000 and >2000 classes
• Add all example ships
• Fix examples that are in the wrong class
• Add recommendation to use example ships
• Update Helpful links section with easy reference chart

What this means for you as a submitter:

• You can now see the guidance on stats that will require additional development. Note that ships will be judged on overall balance and maxing everything to the limits is unlikely to be acceptable.
• Armament ratings are now mandatory. Judges will be instructed to focus more on these than fiddle around with tedious gun maths.
• Defensive ratings have now been included and are mandatory.
• The templates each have some handy example ships. You can copy and paste these and then configure them to your requirements!!
• A reference chart summarises the example ships to help you make and customise your vessels.
• There are now separate charts for military and civilian ships, as well as some examples.
• Make sure you list the relevant strengths of other features and submissions you're using in the strengths of the vessel too. This is now mandatory.
• Make sure you link to the submission of the manufacturers as this is also now mandatory.

Hopefully this will all make submitting a starship a much easier and transparent process for everyone. Try and make sure you balance out your ships primary stats: speed, manoeuvrability, armament rating, defense rating, hangar size as well as any special features your ship has.

Any questions or concerns please refer to the Q&A section of the Factory Information Forum, post here, PM me.

 

[Captain Larraq]

Looks neat. I think the armament ratings are a little low though. LIke... you list support ships in the 4-8 range and carriers at a solid 4. For me, the ranges are 0-10 for civilian ships and 10-20 for military ships. With strength 14-16 being the "average strength" of a ship designed for combat. For me, this is what I see a balanced warship from 2.0 as having for offense and defense. Your "ship of the line" designs and such. And then the Assault and heavy brawler designs would be ranging from 18-20... maybe as light as a 16 in one area or another.

But yeah... If anyone threw a ship with armament rating/defensive rating 10 at me, expecting it to hold up like an average "ship of the line", I'd just laugh at them.

 

[Ellie Mors]

Good thing 2.0 is no longer a thing

In all seriousness, that's just an issue of perspective. If your own average ship is ~16, that doesn't change the "real" average, run-of-the-mill military ship. Just means you are holding your ships to a higher standard, and thus more heavily armed. Numbers from 2.0 are no longer even used, so keep in mind these ratings are based on the new 3.0, which is a bit different.

 

[Captain Larraq]

Good thing 2.0 is no longer a thing

In all seriousness, that's just an issue of perspective. If your own average ship is ~16, that doesn't change the "real" average, run-of-the-mill military ship. Just means you are holding your ships to a higher standard, and thus more heavily armed. Numbers from 2.0 are no longer even used, so keep in mind these ratings are based on the new 3.0, which is a bit different.

For once, a fair argument.

Though I'm not sure I should shudder or laugh that my (and thus Larraq's) idea of a civilian ship can compete with what others would consider a "decent military ship".

 

[Rayth]

[member="Captain Larraq"]

Don't forget there needs to be room above the usual top end, mass produced brawler for: Unique ships, ships with significant dev, space stations with even more armaments.

 

[Cyrus Tregessar]

Make armament ratings mandatory

Now that I've gotten that out of my system, I like what I see with most of the other changes. Especially the gun exchange being built around 'emplacement' types. Soon enough we'll get to a hardpoint and points system, I can feel it.

 

[Sanya Val Lerium]

Honestly idm the idea but I think this may cause rp problems with the "my ships is better because of the rating of armaments are higher." Personally I think the rating should be broken down a little bit more for example

Long range 0-20
Mid range 0-20
Short range 0-20

Then defence

Projectile 0-20
Energy 0-20
Explosive 0-20

Something like that would incredibly help balance this out more for rp.

 

[ADM. Reshmar]

[member="Sanya Val Swift"] I see sorta what you're meaning. the armament doesn't take long range weapons into account. I think we can just use common sense here. the people who fleet are generally pretty open to discussion and fair so I do not see it being a big issue. if an instance comes up I feel confident the fleeter's will figure it out.

 

[Sanya Val Lerium]

[member="Reshmar"] that's for us fleeters who are used to it that way but what happens when a few waves of fleeters come in and demand that they have the al mighty superior ship

 

[Ellie Mors]

[member="Reshmar"] that's for us fleeters who are used to it that way but what happens when a few waves of fleeters come in and demand that they have the al mighty superior ship

Being a fleeter and possessing common sense are not exclusive to the other. All Rp should be done with communication with other writers, and possessing solely an armament/defense rating only grants generic equipment. You are making a problem out of nothing. If a ship was "almighty" because of superior guns and shields, the Immortals would never lose a confrontation.

 

[Rayth]

[member="Sanya Val Swift"]

[member="Spencer Varanin"] can contradict me here, but this isn't likely to be enforced.

However, if you wish to provide an overall armament rating and then break it down by arc or type of weapon I don't think anyone will mind.

There comes a point where you're just better off listing out the weapons when you want to get complicated.

You'll note there are example ships and a little info at the end to help you customise the weapons.

 

[Jsc]

Starfighters require a defense rating now? Ugh. So like...

• Shield Type - Redundant + Recharging + Back Generator
• Armor Type - Titanium Plate
• Chaff Type - Emission Decoy
• ECM Type - Anti-Scanner Quick Recovery

...Would equal a rating of...

Oh nevermind. I don't care. I'm just putting 10. And if anybody challenges that I'll just slap them. Lulz.

 

[Ashin Varanin]

This is solid work, @Raziel. Well done.

 

[Jeron Verity]

I really appreciate the work you all do, guys and gals, for a time I thought we may have just been running on fumes, but I see the real work was being done inside and fixing things from the inside out. I'm not sure if this factory reform means a lot to the people of Chaos, but I sure am thankful you guys still continue to improve the site for us simpletons. Thanks Valiens, Tefka, Spencer, Thurion, Arceneau's husband(Forgive me, brain started shutting down after Tefka) and other Admins I haven't gotten!

 

[Ellie Mors]

[member="Galven Solomon"]
I didn't notice this beforehand, but we appreciate the comment.

 

[Raziel]

Just so people are aware, the example ships aren't hard limits but they're supposed to be good starting points. If you make a ship with stats above these, don't be surprised if you get asked to add weaknesses to balance. You'll note that some of them are maxed out in a particular area (hangar size, weaponry, etc.), but none of them are maxed out in all areas.

The template is supposed to support a wide variety of ships, not pigeon hole you into a set of classes. But it's a balance between speed, manoeuvrability, armament rating, defensive rating, size of hangar and special features.

I'd recommend anyone new to starships copies and pastes the example ship closest to what they're after and tweaks from there!

If people think there's a massive gap for an example ship, let me know!