Playing with the notion of removing numbers from starships

[Raziel]

I had a play to see how it worked out, as discussed with [member="Darth Vitium"]

I added a little more description, removed materials, modularity, armaments and defences. Split out Role and Classification. I think it's perfectly viable as a template, but perhaps should be an optional "Simple Template" to see how it goes down.

Image Source: (Please link to where you found the image, or to the original artist if possible. TinEye or Google Image Search can help.)

Affiliation: (Example: The TIE (Twin Ion Engine) Starfighter was primarily created for the Galactic Empire. Do not put the company unless the product is only for your company's use. Common choices include 'Open Market', Personal, or the name of a specific Faction/Major Faction.)

Manufacturer: (Kuat Drive Yards, BlasTech Industries, [Insert Major Faction Name], [Insert Character Name], etc. You must link to any Chaos Company submissions.)

Model: (Example: TIE (Twin Ion Engine). For submissions where a model wouldn't be appropriate, such as a custom walking stick, put 'N/A' for 'Not Applicable'.)

Production: (The scale is Unique (Only One Character), Semi-Unique (Only A Handful of Characters),
Limited (Only A Select Group Of NPCs/PCs), Minor (Any Character, Only Select Groups Of NPCs), Mass-Produced. (Anyone.))

Classification: (What is the classification based on size? See the Adjusted Anaxes War College System. Examples: Starfighter, Freighter, Corvette, Frigate, Cruiser, Heavy Cruiser, Star Destroyer, Battlecruiser, Dreadnought.)

Role: (Important! What role does your vessel fulfill? Examples: Personal Transport, Troop Transport, Courier, Light Freighter, Bomber, Interceptor, Carrier, Destroyer, Reconnaissance, Escort Frigate, Interdictor, Listening Station, Scout, Patrol Ship, Command Ship)

Length: (Via Metric System. See list of Example ships below)
Width: (Via Metric System. See list of Example ships below)
Height: (Via Metric System. See list of Example ships below)

Hangar: (Capital Ships Only. None, Small, Average, Large. More details of typical complements can be provided in the description)

Squadron Size: (Starfighters and similar at Semi-Unique production and above only. Please provide the number of vessels this submission would have in a squadron. The average for a typical starfighter is 12)

Special Features: (Provide all of your submission's special features, including non-combat items and special weapons, here in a list. Please link to all Factory Submissions used. Typically requires development: Stealth technology. Ensure capabilities from features are included in the Strengths list. Links: Starship Weapons, Approved Technology, Shields, Engines)

Maneuverability Rating: (Relative to the size of the vessel. Choose from: Very Low, Low, Average, Maneuverable, Very Maneuverable.)

Speed Rating: (Relative to the size of the vessel. Choose from: Very Slow, Slow, Average, Fast, Very Fast.)

Hyperdrive Class: (The lower the number, the faster the ship. You may use decimals. (Minimum: .5 | Max: 10.) Average Hyperdrive Class: 2 Typically requires development: Below 1. Links: Hyperdrive, Hyperdrive Comparisons)

Strengths: (Provide, in list format, a minimum of 2 strength of this submission. This is where you may outline the capabilities of your vessel at a high level. Must be balanced with Weaknesses.)
Weaknesses: (Provide, in list format, a minimum of 2 weaknesses of this submission. This is where you may outline the capabilities of your vessel at a high level. Must be balanced with Strengths.)

Description: (Describing your submission's history is optional. Please provide a detailed account or link of each special feature that is listed in this submission. All miscellaneous descriptive elements go here, such as Cargo Capacity, Passengers, Consumables, Crew, etc.. There is no requirement for amount of words here so long as you meet the minimum requirements for your special features. You may go into additional detail on the precise capabilities of your vessel, but must give an overview in Strengths and Weaknesses.)

Development Thread: (Restricted Items require specific development threads. The more posts, the more powerful the submission can be. Links: Banned & Restricted Items)

Intent: (Please describe your reason for submitting this. It may be simple or complicated. The Factory Judge will take this into consideration.)

Who Can Use This: (Optional. If you chose Limited, Semi-Unique, or Unique in Productivity above please list what groups/characters can use this submission in role-plays.)

Primary Source:(Please link the source of another writer's submission that you are modifying for your use; only necessary for "Chaos Canon" submissions)

Example Ships:
Heavy Corvette

Spoiler

Image Source:
Affiliation:
Manufacturer:
Model:
Production: Mass-Produced
Classification: Corvette
Role: Anti-capital ship (Destroyer)
Length: 200m
Height: 40m
Width: 70m

Hangar: None
Special Features:
Manoeuvrability: Low
Speed: Slow
Hyperdrive Class: 1

Strengths:

• Heavy guns: For its size this vessel packs a large number of heavy turbolaser. Working in packs they can assault large capital ships.
• Precise Targeting: Weapons are turrets and very precise, allowing this vessel to strike at key enemy systems. Also effective against freighter/large gunship sized vessels.
• Ablative plating: Armour plating lets these vessels slog it out more than a typical corvette.

Weaknesses:

• Vulnerable to fighters: With few defensive turrets these corvettes are vulnerable to starfighter scale weaponry.
• Exposed turrets: Large turrets protrude from the vessel, making them good targets for enemy fighters
• Ponderous: Heavy armour makes this vessel slower than a typical corvette.

Description:
The assault corvette is designed to hunt in packs. Armed almost exclusively with heavy turbolaser turrets. As a group they close on capital ships and use their turrets to precisely target vulnerable systems of enemy ships. However they need fighter escort. Quadranium armour plating allows these vessels to engage for longer, but corvettes can not go toe to goe with large vessels for long regardless. Turrets are not as well protected and can be picked off by enemy fighters. Engaging swarms of fighters armed with torpedoes is not recommended as this vessel has few defensive turrets and turbolasers struggle to track fast ships.
Development Thread: No
Intent:
Who Can Use This: Anyone
Primary Source:

Example Ships:
Bomber

Spoiler

Image Source:
Affiliation:
Manufacturer:
Model:
Production: Mass-Produced
Classification: Starfighter
Role: Bomber
Length: 12m
Height: 3m
Width: 4m

Squadron Size: 12
Special Features:
Manoeuvrability: Low
Speed: Average
Hyperdrive Class: N/A
Strengths:

• Flexible Ordnance: Bomb bays can take a range of ordnance for flexibility, allowing this to be outfitting to assault ground or space targets.
• Straight line speed: Without a heavy hyperdrive this bomber can put on a turn of speed for a bomber, able to keep pace with starfighters. Useful for escaping after a run.

Weaknesses:

• No Hyperdrive: If the base ship is destroyed these vessels can end up left behind.
• No turrets: With no turrets and poor maneuverability these can struggle to shake interceptors.
• Poor targetting system: This vessel uses an outdated targetting computer, as such it struggles to hit precise targets smaller than 20m

Description:
This bomber features four flexible launchers that can be outfitted with guided or dumbfire ordnance. There are two forward laser cannons, but with no rear facing turrets it can have trouble dealing with interceptors on the tail. A bay could be outfitted with mines, but this is a risky tactic and reduces potential damage inflicted in a bombing run.
Development Thread: No
Intent:
Who Can Use This: Anyone
Primary Source:

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

[member="Raziel"]
This would work for personal and non-combat ships.

I am completely opposed for military ships.

 

[Gir Quee]

I've just now read the recent thread about getting rid of numbers in the feedback forum. It seems to me that we have two different reasons for getting rid of numbers.

1) People "abusing" numbers (arms races, playing "mathhammer", etc) to the detriment of roleplaying.

2) People having difficulty interpreting or understanding numbers.

I do not think that getting rid of numbers will solve the root problem with the first issue. I think that even if that we do not have numbers, people will continue to jockey and work their designs to be the most competitive (or powerful) as possible. If it's not with numbers, it will be with how everything is described within the submission itself. Numbers are only one sort of descriptor. People will still use other descriptors to cause the same problem.

I really empathize with the second issue though. It took me a while to catch onto the speed scale here when I first joined (If you can recall that first ship submission I made here that you judged, [member="Raziel"]). I do wonder if there's a way that we can make a good conversion chart that shows the relationship between numbers and descriptors (sort of like how the armament rating description reads) so that people can look up an attribute that they want by a verbal descriptor (something like 'slow') and then see a number that could go with it.

On a semi-related note, I would be curious to hear why Larraq switched from using verbal descriptions of his armaments on his ships (such as with this example here) back to using traditional gun counts on his newer submissions. There might be a lesson or some experience that he has had that might better inform us for this discussion.

 

[Raziel]

We could add armament and defences as: very low, low, average, high, very high

Then you could start with this position:

A military starship begins with everything being average. Civilians start as low across the board. If you add to one you have to subtract from another. Or add glaring weaknesses to compensate.

Making the starship spreadsheet (the one with sliders) showed me just how complex the relationships are on the cookie cutter ships (which is based on past precedent)

There are multiple options to simplify things.

 

[Allyson Locke]

i like the option being for non combative/non faction ships

 

[Ellie Mors]

i like the option being for non combative/non faction ships

Seconded

 

[Raziel]

[member="Spencer Varanin"]
[member="Darth Vitium"]

Little thought exercise then.

I can use canon ships in roleplay threads as I please.

I could use this, this or this.

Is that better than a ship submitted with the template above?

Why do I need to know more than "It's a pretty average star destroyer, with a few fighters" to roleplay a naval engagement? Do I really have to, or is that just ingrained in the way Chaos write fleet battles?

 

[Ellie Mors]

[member="Spencer Varanin"]
[member="Darth Vitium"]

Little thought exercise then.

I can use canon ships in roleplay threads as I please.

I could use this, this or this.

Is that better than a ship submitted with the template above?

Why do I need to know more than "It's a pretty average star destroyer, with a few fighters" to roleplay a naval engagement? Do I really have to, or is that just ingrained in the way Chaos write fleet battles?

First link is a stub, here is the real info on the second one: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Sudden_Restoration , your third link says it was lightly armed in the descrption.

 

[Raziel]

Let's add armaments (none, very low, low, average, high, very high) to the Noddy template then!

Good enough for invasions

 

[Gir Quee]

i like the option being for non combative/non faction ships

Just to clarify, what do we mean by a non-faction starship? I can definitely get behind this being an option for non-combat ships.

I could use this, this or this. Is that better than a ship submitted with the template above? Why do I need to know more than "It's a pretty average star destroyer, with a few fighters" to roleplay a naval engagement? Do I really have to, or is that just ingrained in the way Chaos write fleet battles?

Adding on to what Lis said about the presented options...

The first two don't have enough information to get a clear idea about their 'role', per se. While both of their stock models appear to be warships, we know very little about how they stack up against another ship. I can see some writers being able to work with that vagueness (both using or fighting against them), but the vagueness about their characteristics could also create problems with other writers (Either by user's expanding its abilities, or by opponents downplaying its abilities).

That being said, I really doubt that anyone would use either of those vessels simply because it's possible to make a way better vessel by adding on details with our current Chaos ship system.

The third one is arguably the most usable because it has the most detail. But again, while it's entirely possible to use it, would people really use it when they can make a more detailed, and thus better ship?

Maneuverability Rating: (Relative to the size of the vessel. Choose from: Very Low, Low, Average, Maneuverable, Very Maneuverable.) Speed Rating: (Relative to the size of the vessel. Choose from: Very Slow, Slow, Average, Fast, Very Fast.)

With this system, how do we relate speeds between different ship classes? (For example, the classic opening scene of Episode IV where the Tantive IV is chased down by the Devastator?)

 

[Raziel]

[member="Gir Quee"]

Smaller ships are faster and more maneuverable that bigger ships with the same rating. It doesn't really matter.

 

[Raziel]

What makes a more detailed ship 'better'.

Does the ships you have submitted give you a better chance in winning an invasion?

You're part of the problem here for the record, with your little pissing contest with Resh and Larraq. Which is why you'll answer the above question incorrectly.

 

[Ellie Mors]

What makes a more detailed ship 'better'.

It gives both the person using it and the person responding to it more information to work with in order to better utilize it in RP.

I'm not sure if Gir is trying to say it makes them more effective/powerful in RP, but that's not what my reasoning is for my opinion.

 

[Raziel]

[member="Darth Vitium"]

Can you explain how having a # attached to the ratings make that the case please?

There is currently no requirement in the current template to list the type of weapons used on a ship, so please disregard that from any comparison with this template. Unless you wish to make it mandatory to list the 'type' of weapons in a new template.

 

[Ellie Mors]

[member="Raziel"]
For the same reason why we use #'s for the quality of our armor ratings, why we use #s to describe the ammunition on our weapons, why we use #'s to give a KM/H measurement for our vehicles.

Rating 1 being lowest armament score / lightest armed, 20 being heaviest armed.

You have 20 different descriptors you can apply to your ship (saying "(none, very low, low, average, high, very high)" is identical to changing our rating from 1-20 to 1-6, with 1 as none and 6 as very high).

Yes, it helps to have the option to list what weapons are on the ships (as in types), and yes it isn't required currently - but there's a reason why almost every single ship submission at least listed what kinds of weapons are present, and over 90% of them list the amount of them, along with the rating.

What is it that you want to change that will be different than what we have now, and how is it better?

I am not here to convince you why our current method is better, you are making this topic to convince us why your change would be beneficial.

 

[Raziel]

Remove armament ratings entirely is what I want. A submission can be judged on:

1. Strengths
2. Weaknesses
3. Description

As much fluff as anyone wants can go in the description for the purposes of Roleplay.

Try it out as an optional template and see how well it goes down.

"I'm using an average star destroyer with lots of turbolasers and some TIE fighters" is all you need to roleplay a ship. Even in PvP.

 

[Ellie Mors]

As long as a submitter has the freedom to describe their ship in their description and won't be told they can't say anything about what weapons are on the ship, I'm fine with it.

But I would like to try it with non-combat ships first (as in ships not meant for direct military action).
[member="Raziel"]

 

[Gir Quee]

What makes a more detailed ship 'better'. Does the ships you have submitted give you a better chance in winning an invasion?

Lis pretty much hit it on the head. My main point was that the more detail is in a thing, the less room there is for misunderstandings and abuse.

You're part of the problem here for the record, with your little pissing contest with Resh and Larraq. Which is why you'll answer the above question incorrectly.

I can respect that you disagreed with my action to have made the original Union-class as it was. I can get that, but I'm not really sure what you want me to say to this...

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

[member="Raziel"]
Easy, tiger, let's not throw insults around.
You've got a strong opinion on this, but this doesn't mean others don't have valid opinions too, we're just having a discussion here.

I would definitely support that non-combat and personal ships try a reduction in the template if that's the way you want to go.

For a start a lot of ships are of those types, and second they're less likely to be used in competitive RPs so we get more time to judge and adjudicate.

 

[Raziel]

[member="Gir Quee"]

I do apologise, it was unwarranted.

As it was before it's the people who play the system the most that are most resistant to making it even more approachable.

I don't think this needs to be limited to non-combat vessels, I think this would be a perfectly acceptable optional template to test out.