Tef's Starship & Vehicles Template (Under Construction)

[Tefka]

[member="Ayden Cater"]

I wish to limit the amount of templates created. I instead suggest we add a new field to Starfighters called "Squadron Count", which allows the player to adjust how many ships are in this ship's squadron, if any. The bigger the ship, the fewer there are in the squadron.

I also agree we reduce the size from 1-50 meters, and bump corvettes down to 50-200 meters.

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

[member="Tefka"]

Well if you're not careful, you're gonna have a bunch of 90 meter "starfighters" packed into carriers.

Why not make Starfighters 1-25 meters, and make a new category called Support (or some other thing to that effect) from 25-100 meters that would include things like freighters and dropships?

This seems reasonable.

 

[Sirella Valkner]

You could go the "Sub Capital" or "Patrol Ship" route for the 25m-100m ships.

I have a question though. What about all the current articles? Most of the template is still compatible with older ships just with some added categories but like speed is radically different from how we currently do it. It is going to be a hassle updating all of the old articles, for the second time for some.

 

[Tefka]

[member="Sirella Valkner"]

I don't know how many times I have to say this.

We are not updating old articles in the case there is a change to the Template.

 

[Sirella Valkner]

Okay what about special snowflake cases? In the past we have allowed an event prize to be "Sublight Speed and Maneuverability: Class .5" which is faster than an interceptor. There is another player that has an entry like this through dev threads as well some sort of racing fighter, but in this situation I'll be honest I'm talking about my event prize from Roche? Obviously it doesn't fit snugly into the current scale of things.

Now that being said.

Either we could either change the example so instead of 20 being an interceptor in speed (which there are a bunch of things faster than that in canon, A-wing, TIE defender) we make it an 16-18 or we make it so a special event snowflake can go overboard. I don't use the fighter personally, but I know they are traded about in threads and coveted as prizes so I'd rather see people who wheel and dealed to get a hold of them still maintain something special about them in the end.

Also two other things I'd like to ask about real quick. Can we get a basic conversion chart from old system to new system where applicable posted for players looking at old tech? I think that would be helpful and help slowdown inevitable modification requests to a new template. And then maybe in the description add in some more examples of where things are speed wise.

Just some suggestions, comments, concerns.

 

[Tefka]

My problem is, there's sublight speed, maneuverability, MGLT, and hyperspace classes.

These are four classes of numbers that are all regulated differently in canon and must be learned by a player submitting a Starship.

I wish to condense this down to possibly two numbers, one which you must learn (Hyperdrive Class) and one which should be inherently known (rating scale). Hyperspace and "normal space". How can I do that in the template provided?

[member="Sirella Valkner"]

 

[Sirella Valkner]

[member="Tefka"]

Well for 1. I would actually put sublight speed in there separate from maneuverability. In canon the A-wing was said to be super fast in one book but had less maneuverability than an X-wing who could take sharper turns. I don't see a speed section just maneuverability. You could get some interesting designs and strength/weaknesses if you added in both. I mean its like the Falcon which was still fast but maneuvered like a brick compared to fighters.

Maneuverability: ( How agile is your ship? Can it take tight turns? Please provide your vessel a Maneuverability Rating on a scale 1-20, with 1 being slower than a bantha, 10 being average, 20 being crazy agile like a TIE Interceptor.)

You could literally use this same scale for speed. I'd love to see a separate speed and maneuverability line.

On the scaling here I'm just trying to imagine how it works in relation to this specific scenario.

Lets break it down this way. There is a Fighter the TIE Interceptor it goes 1 in our current guide. That is like 130 mglt cool whatever. The Aleph fighter goes .5 in our current guide because it was prize tech for players winning an objective. That is like 150mglt (TIE Defender Speed). If I wanted to update my ship entry to make it modern and thus more appealing to players, new players in particular as one just got the fighter in question and is hyped about using it in the invasion how would I do that since 20 is the hard limit you set as interceptor speed/maneuverability.

I mean in this case you could set it to a 20+ Rating for a special snowflake ship. But yeah that was my issue with this. Am I making any sense?

 

[Tefka]

Addressing some skype concerns. I highly recommend we post all of our thoughts here in this thread, or in the FJ forum.

[8:27:52 PM] Popo: Iunno, just from the comments of a 1-20 system/chart for selection it sounds a helluva lot more confusing than the system everyone's already used to, and if we're gonna go off of a chart, you could literally set it to balance itself and remove the need for Starship FJs, honestly. Or, more likely, only need one or two to just sorta... monitor the thing. I don't mind having an easier job, but there are folks who do like the math involved and the work they put into the things. I'm not a fan of the huge amount of math, but I do enjoy the ability to make the guns consolidated or specialized because it adds flavor. going to a chart just... Iunno, it kills the fun of that. A sort of "I have x guns and y missiles and their set up y way and it's a specialzed ship that does z" "Oh, mine is just this type of ship with a 14 on the gun chart and it does this specialization." There's no comparison, really, that I can think of off the top of my head.

[member="Popo"] : I am not proposing this template as a measure of destroying all math involved in the template. I am proposing this template as a method to remove most, if not all, calculation from the template. It should be easier to fill out a template and easier to judge a template. Removing calculation will do this.

I would love to make these templates more "stream-lined" to our current format to reduce confusion. Please help me do this by providing solutions/ideas.

I do not wish to make a template so easy that it puts you FJ's out of a job. I do wish to make it hella easier to judge.

 

[Tefka]

[member="Tefka"]

Well for 1. I would actually put sublight speed in there separate from maneuverability. In canon the A-wing was said to be super fast in one book but had less maneuverability than an X-wing who could take sharper turns. I don't see a speed section just maneuverability. You could get some interesting designs and strength/weaknesses if you added in both. I mean its like the Falcon which was still fast but maneuvered like a brick compared to fighters.

Maneuverability: ( How agile is your ship? Can it take tight turns? Please provide your vessel a Maneuverability Rating on a scale 1-20, with 1 being slower than a bantha, 10 being average, 20 being crazy agile like a TIE Interceptor.)

You could literally use this same scale for speed. I'd love to see a separate speed and maneuverability line.

On the scaling here I'm just trying to imagine how it works in relation to this specific scenario.

Lets break it down this way. There is a Fighter the TIE Interceptor it goes 1 in our current guide. That is like 130 mglt cool whatever. The Aleph fighter goes .5 in our current guide because it was prize tech for players winning an objective. That is like 150mglt (TIE Defender Speed). If I wanted to update my ship entry to make it modern and thus more appealing to players, new players in particular as one just got the fighter in question and is hyped about using it in the invasion how would I do that since 20 is the hard limit you set as interceptor speed/maneuverability.

I mean in this case you could set it to a 20+ Rating for a special snowflake ship. But yeah that was my issue with this. Am I making any sense?

Yes. I think the best, most streamlined method would be to go with your suggestion: add a "Speed Rating", but make it from 0-20.

This allows for decimals, meaning someone rated at a .5 could easily convert that directly to the Speed Rating, where 0 is infinite speed.

 

[Tefka]

To further streamline, we could reverse the direction of the maneuverability scale, making it 0-20, with 0 being infinite agility.

 

[Sirella Valkner]

To further streamline, we could reverse the direction of the maneuverability scale, making it 0-20, with 0 being infinite agility.

Yes all my likes.

Since Hyperdrive rating is low = faster anyways this seems intuitive to me.

 

[Sirella Valkner]

[member="Tefka"]

Also when I'm not as tired I'll try to take the current Guides Speeds and translate them into new speeds to try to make a baseline, assuming no one else does in the meantime. And then we can discuss. With the new scaling system I'd just rather like to discuss so we judges are all on the same page. If that makes sense. Do it now instead of waiting for submissions.

Like I know you said you wanted to get rid of the guide, but I could definitely see a guide still being useful.

Also for Starfighters maybe even the 50-100 scale ship... I

Armament: (You may provide your armament in list format and/or provide your vessel an Armament Rating on a scale of 0-20, where 0 is no weapons, 1 is very light weapons, 5 is light weapons/light defense, 10 is medium weapons/medium defense, and 20 is heaviest weapons/heaviest defense. Please link to all Factory Submissions used. Links: Armament Rating, Starship Weapons, Approved Technology, Standardized Load Outs)

I don't think the 0-20 scale for weapons is needed. Like... it is 10ish guns at most to me it seems lazy to allow someone to be like "well my fighter is a 20 scale fighter when like most fighters have 2-4 laser cannons. This isn't complicated enough to justify the armament rating system in my opinion.

 

[Tefka]

[member="Sirella Valkner"]

The armament rating system is optional, and is optional for the reason of allowing lazy people to use it.

 

[Sirella Valkner]

[member="Tefka"]

Yeah. It just seems meh for such small craft though.

I mean lets be honest. I had people not ICly buying Sienar ships because the old entries didn't have a non combat attachment list introduced in 2.0. So the more vague articles probably won't be used as much anyways. People like the the details in the submissions.

 

[Raziel]

(The scale is Unique (Only Your Character),

As per discussion on tech, could we please change these to "named character"?

 

[Raziel]

Could we add something along the lines of "relative to a vessel of this class" to the armament scale? Or does 1-20 cover from fighter to SD?

Sorry I'll be chucking in thoughts one at a time. Overall I like it, and I think it will make life a lot easier for everyone, thanks [member="Tefka"]

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

Could we add something along the lines of "relative to a vessel of this class" to the armament scale? Or does 1-20 cover from fighter to SD?

Sorry I'll be chucking in thoughts one at a time. Overall I like it, and I think it will make life a lot easier for everyone, thanks [member="Tefka"]

I actually like this a lot.

Make it relative. Don't try and compare an A-Wing and an SSD on the same scale, compare them against others of their class and type.

You could drop it down to 0-10 then easily as well.
[member="Tefka"]

 

[Raziel]

Hangar: (Please provide the amount of fighters this submission can hold in it's hangar by count of Squadrons, which hold 12 average Starfighters. The higher your squadron count, the lower your Armament and number of Special Features should be. Bigger ships can accommodate more Armament and more Squadron Count, but will require a development thread once you pass 1,600 in length -even if generic. This submission's Max Squadron Count: 6, with 6 being the max for a 3,000 meter ship with a low armament. Feel free to provide a list of names for your squadrons, like the notorious Red Squadron. Alternatively, you may swap squadrons for Vehicles or other items of note, or even provide a standardized load-out.)

I don't quite follow the bit in bold here? Is this saying all ships over 1600m require dev threads? If so perhaps this information should be elsewhere in the template, like under dimensions for Destroyers?

Under spacestation varieties, perhaps add "Civilian Station" ?

God, won't that be easy. To make a civilian station you just fill in the template, describe what it does and give it a low armament. No maths!

 

[Sirella Valkner]

When we implement this. Can we close down the factory to new submissions and give people a week to get their current stuff approved? Then archive everything and up the new template?

This way we have a clean factory and we don't need to deal with "Well there is a new template now..." for pending articles.

[member="Tefka"]

 

[Raziel]

So I’m trying to approach this with the eyes of someone new to making star ships, as I wholly agree this should be as accessible as possible. Perhaps a few example weaknesses in the guide would help people put something appropriate in? Off the top of my head:

Long Range Fighter: This vessel specialises in attacking from range. However, it is at a significant disadvantage against a well-armed vessel of a similar class at close range.

Blind-Spot: This vessel has a significant blind spot in its firing solutions that can be exploited by faster opponents.

Slow to target: This vessel’s hypervelocity guns take a significant time to lock onto an opponent at long range.

Unshielded: This fighter has no shielding and is particularly vulnerable to Flak defences.


Quick question, where do the rules on manufacturers sit? For example, what tier of company can mass produce Destroyers?