Ships Discussion - Overabundance of Linked Features

[Cira]

Hey everyone,

Currently, the Factory is in an active discussion over the an increasing concern when it comes to ships. I know there are several aspects of Ships itself that is a pain point, but in this specific case, I really wanted to get some crowd sourcing ideas because I am stumped and my staff is also at odds itself.

The Concern:
We have seen a massive increase of ships being submitted that contain well over a dozen hyperlinked subsystems either canon or chaos created. Often times these can end up at over 50 linked special features for a ship, each requiring a Factory Judge to have to review each item to ensure for balance and FairPlay.

We understand people love ships and want to make them unique and work suited based on a role, to show off their tech. And while we can objectively ask, "Please review your systems and only keep the items you specifically deem as the most important." Even then, we still end up with two dozen subsystems that provide advanced special features.

We already have a limited amount of judges to review ships. Along with that, the meticulous care that comes along with it with having to review these advanced systems means that it takes even longer to judge, along with an even longer secondaries to give it a second review. Even then, we may miss things that ultimately may end up being reported and then prompting the submission to be pulled out.

I want to reduce this lengthy process. I want to still be able to give the flexibility of allowing submitters to create neat ships with neat features, but i also recognize that when it gets beyond a dozen of hyperlinks to review, it may be grating. I've been told that the lengthy process also gives off the perception of favoritism or persecution, and that is not what i want for the Factory. Ships, unfortunately, have always been a section that just seems to always be a pain point.

We've often said that simply using common sense and trying to balance a submission on its own is enough. However, this is a pain point i struggle with to find a way to balance it. A few of my Factory staff have ideas, ranging from making a max limit on advanced features to making writers write additional detail in the description that would "Justify" why these advanced features should be on the ship. I really, really do not want ot limit anyone or add more rules.... but i am so utterly lost on how to possibly find a balance here.

So I am asking the memberbase, fleeters, ship designers, those of you who use the Factory for creating the ships you love -- how can we find a balance?

Any ideas would be appreciated.

 

[Darth Carnifex]

20 Hyperlinks is Job Security.

 

[Natalie LaForte]

Have each special feature take up "power" which is determined by ship class and reactor type. Unless it's submitted through the factory, it's always a set number.

Each non-combat special feature takes up one "power"

Each ship has features which ships are expected to have and is listed under the starship template. If a ship doesn't have one of these features, then it has to be specifically listed in the submission.

Eg: Every ship can be assumed to have communication systems. There's no need to list them separately. Additionally, each ship can be assumed to have engines, so unless they're a specific model they don't need to be listed.

 

[Cira]

[member="Darth Carnifex"]

Just to clarify, are you recommending a max cap at 20 links for the template?

[member="Natalie LaForte"]

Interesting. Could I possibly ask you to please perhaps show me in an example ship template how this may look as a blank and how it may look as a submitted ship? Sorry to ask for work, but I know i am a better visual learner and i figure it would help others understand too.

 

[Natalie LaForte]

[member="Cira"]

Sure, I'll PM you.

 

[Cira]

[member="Natalie LaForte"]

Thank you. I appreciate it.


Everyone else, please do keep giving me some feedback and recommendations. I would greatly appreciate it.

 

[Adriago Duilius]

I think maybe combining the features, so that you can use less hyperlinks and use less reading time through each and every link. For instance, many vessels use basic systems, like Standard escape pods, standard life support, and standard sensory systems, and each contain a link to wookiepedia to the basic articles that cover them. A way to stop that is to create a "Standard Ship Systems" and have subsets for different combinations of doing it based on vessel size. And for factory submitted features, you can combine them into, "X Ship Systems" that contains all the special features you have designed, submit that through technology, and simply link to that singular one(Which will explain each and every feature a little more brief in the single submission) saving time on both ends.

 

[Darth Carnifex]

Naw, I just think that the Factory Judges should suck it up and do their jobs.

Or if they can't handle it, find people who will.

[member="Cira"]

 

[Cathul Thuku]

While I might be guilty of linking poodoo-loads of components that are more or less exotic, there are times where I feel I have no choice but to link it, especially when I sub specialized ships such as an ELINT or EWAR ship (and the Immobilizer series, 419, 420 and 421, had dual roles as both ELINT and interdictor ships). Usually I find that larger ships fall prey more easily to the temptation of linking more features than smaller ones. In fact, there was one ship that was approved with one of its components still awaiting a second-chance request: the Lothal-II-class artillery carrier, with the contentious component being the Eri heavy long-range tractor beam. While I could always just use a generic heavy tractor beam if I was to use a Lothal-II in a thread before the Eri's second-chance request is resolved, I'm not sure whether it would be doable.

But I also find that several of the writers that tend to be tempted into linking large numbers of features are often writers that regularly use ships in threads. Sure, they can be annoying to read, and I sometimes admit as much.

As far as I'm concerned, however, better link too many than too few because I'd never assume that the reader will actually know what the component does or what makes it different from a generic component, especially true when you fight against a new writer or a writer that is unfamiliar with what you're using. Or, in invasions/rebellions, it's entirely possible one, two or even all three RPJs assigned to a specific invasion/rebellion are unfamiliar with space combat, so it can be highly annoying that .

 

[LT-137]

Building on the idea that Adriago had mentioned, as it's one that I had when I was an FJ back in the day, I think having the separation of the more "Narrative" Standard Features, and Special Features would be ideal. As many who follow my work already know, I do this already and have yet to receive any negative feedback - since what's listed in the standard features section gives no 'advantage' when used in collaborative combat RP's.

That being said, most of what I use is re-purposed Canon technology. When we're using something from Chaos, it comes with it's own set of strengths and weaknesses, something I've noticed doesn't really get touched on when a bunch of sub-systems are crammed together on some random starfighter. As I'm trying to wrack my brain to put these thoughts into a more coherent medium, perhaps it might be worthwhile to have that separation of linked Canon and Chaos-Canon articles, so that it's easier for the Judges to pick out what systems they need to look at, and what systems they shouldn't really have to "waste their time" with.

As well as putting a bit of work back on the submitter, by making sure that the strengths and weaknesses of their Chaos-Canon submissions are represented in the final, cumulative submission itself.

 

[Laira Darkhold]

Under Factory 2.0 there was a similar rule.

I believe it was 1 special system below 1000 meters, 2 above, plus 1 per level of production decreased. Since that was before 3km ships do 3 for battlecruisers (So five at limited production).

I think giving a little more leeway than that for Unique Ships wouldn't be unjustified. (Especially for Millennium Falcon style personal freighters)

Also I agree that basic things shouldn't be linked for posterity's sake. I used to do it, Larraq used to do it. List them if you want, but linking the Wookieepedia article on Engines or Communications is a waste of time. Every ship can be assumed to have standard military sensors, communications, and targeting computers.

[member="Cira"]
Just my two cents

 

[Cira]

@Adriago Duilius [member="Torian Pierce"]

Definitely possible. If this can be done via a template arrangement, all the better.

I apologize for asking for additional work, but do you think you can provide an example on how this may look in a submission (Blank and filled out?) I am uncertain if you mean actually create a chart that defines what "Standard Features" are per class, or if the suggestion is to separate the template to be "Standard Features" and "Special Features", in which case the benefits/cons of said special features may end up more defined in "Strengths and weaknesses."

 

[Cira]

[member="Laira Vereen"]

I believe there was a version of it where advanced features were limited per class. I honestly cannot remember the qualitative amount. Certainly is a potential method of finding balance. At this moment, all suggestions are greatly appreciated and will be entered in our Factory staff discussion on this.

 

[sabrina]

[member="Cira"] How about hardpoints, each ship can type can have only so many. Like in Masters of Orion game, as each item given a weight ratio. Thus better it is, the heavier it is.

https://strategywiki.org/wiki/Master_of_Orion/Warship_design

 

[LT-137]

[member="Cira"] - I can link you to several of my submissions where I've used the "Standard Features" section, which may assist in helping clarify things for the filled out section, but for the empty template. All I can think of is merely adding a section above the "Special Features" blurb that asks the question of what the submitter thinks is standard for whatever classification of starship they're submitting. So, things like Life Support, Inertial Compensators, Landing Gear, Standard (Civilian or Military-grade) Sensors or Navigation systems. You guys already have that sort of thing partially finished in the example templates, but I fear further establishing the standard for each classification would only add more work on some poor soul. As they'd have to dive through the SW Universe and determine what's considered a Standard Light Starfighter, or a Heavy Starfighter and so forth; I'm not even going to touch on the various roles a corvette or frigate could take on and what would be considered the standard there.

Anything else that would deviate from these aforementioned standard systems would require it to be listed in the Special Features section. Like a specific type of paint that masks the internal systems from external scanners, or even some custom tiddlywink that makes their custom starship faster than Plumber Joe's cargo hauler. So I guess the suggestion ultimately leans towards the separation of Special and Standard features, which then is further defined in the Strengths and Weaknesses section; which should include every notable Strength and Weakness of every attached Chaos-Canon or even Canon item, thus representing how it would work on the whole.

 

[Jsc]

Limit the number of available linked sub-systems.

I am of the opinion that anything that can't be slotted into the description in one or two sentences has to go.

 

[Teynara Jeralyr]

[member="Cira"]

Ask that 'standard equipment' of the sort unlikely to register under 'special features' and/or that it's player-designed/factory incorporated simply not feature as a hyperlink. You don't need to hyperlink sensory equipment or escape pods unless those have special features beyond their standard design. The only risk is if people decide to loophole and not link technologies that are modified/player-created (and/or restricted!) in order to come in 'under the radar'.

 

[sabrina]

Limit the number of available linked sub-systems.

I am of the opinion that anything that can't be slotted into the description in one or two sentences has to go.

But But that is my entire description gone missing.

 

[Jsc]

But But that is my entire description gone missing.

Lulz

 

[RC 212]

Put a special features Cap on vessels according to Manufacturing.

For example a Unique can have ten special systems, custom or whatever.

Semi; less and so on and so forth. That way it forces the creators to choose what special features are most important to them.

Consider all custom made starship parts special features. Custom weapons, hyperdrives, etc.