Tef's Starship & Vehicles Template (Under Construction)

[Sirella Valkner]

[member="Raziel"] [member="Jared Ovmar"] [member="Darth Janus"] [member="Danger Arceneau"] [member="Tefka"] [member="Popo"]

I think that is a discussion for the Company people as well. I personally would like to see some alterations on that list, but since a lot of the company people aren't tracking this thread we should probably make a new thread for it to get their attention.

My Personal opinion which I posted in the other thread is that companies should have specializations. Specialize in small ships you do small ships really well but can't really make Star Destroyers despite your high tier.

This however has the problem of adding layers to rules and instead I would rather not do that and leave it up to company judge discretion based on tech entries, but that then leaves it too open to player griping you know? MEh anyways conversation (imo) for another thread.

 

[Danger Arceneau]

[member="Raziel"] [member="Jared Ovmar"] [member="Darth Janus"] [member="Danger Arceneau"] [member="Tefka"] [member="Popo"]

I think that is a discussion for the Company people as well. I personally would like to see some alterations on that list, but since a lot of the company people aren't tracking this thread we should probably make a new thread for it to get their attention.

My Personal opinion which I posted in the other thread is that companies should have specializations. Specialize in small ships you do small ships really well but can't really make Star Destroyers despite your high tier.

This however has the problem of adding layers to rules and instead I would rather not do that and leave it up to company judge discretion based on tech entries, but that then leaves it too open to player griping you know? MEh anyways conversation (imo) for another thread.

The question is --- what about the current starship companies who do lots of different things.

Are they grandfathered in?

People will say it's unfair if they are and the new companies have to start fresh.

 

[Sirella Valkner]

The question is --- what about the current starship companies who do lots of different things.

Are they grandfathered in?

People will say it's unfair if they are and the new companies have to start fresh.

Certain canon companies can do nearly anything. I think personally a system can be put in place where you can limit and widen the scope at the same time base it on selection of specialties and general stuff based on tier. I donno. As I said it is an idea that would need to be worked on and could probably use its own thread to be discussed and nailed down if its something we want to explore. I just figured I'd tag all of you to get you in on the discussion so you knew Company stuff was being discussed and get basic opinions.

 

[Danger Arceneau]

I think domino also had something up about restrictions based on tier.

 

[Tefka]

I don't see how companies are relevant to the Starship Template. Let's get a functional template first before getting way off track.

Start another thread if you wanna discuss companies, but please know I'm not gonna care about it until this is done.

 

[Sirella Valkner]

[member="Tefka"] [member="Raziel"] [member="Popo"]

I noticed the Max Squadron count is 2 for frigates which are defined as up to 500 meters.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Escort_carrier

And there is some other examples of smaller ships carrying more like the Fury from truce at Bakura. So the question is when judging these articles are the hard limits you have listed immutable?

 

[Tefka]

No. That's why FJs exist. To judge by the baseline, but allow things off of it.

 

[Sirella Valkner]

[member="Tefka"] [member="Popo"] [member="Raziel"]

Just making sure.

So to recap real quick.

We agreed (I think) to add a speed rating as well as maneuverability. We agreed (I think) that 0 will be fastest and 20 will be slowest (this makes translating older entries to modern easy. You multiply by 2.) And what else?

Did we ever get a decision on the proposal of Raziels to make the armaments rating "for class" of vessel? So a a armament 20 fighter can happen without being the same power as a StarDestroyer?

 

[Raziel]

Honestly, I wasn't sure if it was supposed to be relative to the class or across the board anyway

 

[Tefka]

relative to class. That much should be obvious. I'll see if I can make that clearer. Val already brought it up.

 

[Raziel]

So I've been a pain and spread my thoughts over multiple posts, but on top of the five I've put up so far, this is my last. I've tried to see this as someone new to ships, and want this to be as accessible as possible. I'm sure any other questions will arise very quickly once the guide is up and it can be refined.

[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.

I would agree with the above approach, and also with adding "freighter" as a sub group right up to Frigate.

 

[Sirella Valkner]

[member="Tefka"] [member="Raziel"] [member="Popo"]

I just saw the resource thread. And I don't know if we particularly care about this or not but the speeds are a little wrong in the image you have. An A-wing for instance only goes 120 mglt while a TIE interceptor goes 111 and a TIE fighter goes 100 and X-wing depending on type is 80-100, and a Y-wing is more commonly accepted as the 80 mglt number and a TIE defender is either 144 or 155 depending on which canon you accept. AKA MGLT is a mess, but Wookieepedia tends to go with the lower numbers. So an X-wing and TIE fighter is 100 but TIE fighter has a manouverability edge. A TIE interceptor is 111 an A-wing is 120 but a slight manouverability edge to the TIE Interceptor. Y-wing is listed as 80, B-wings are listed as 91 because they were supposed to be (in some games and sources) the rebels answer to TIE Defenders and as an upgrade to the aging Y-wing.

Anyways those are some nit picky things I figured I would bring up before a player potentially does.

 

[Tefka]

A non issue. Peter recommended staying away from mglt, as its not a widely known concept. I agreed.

 

[Sirella Valkner]

[member="Tefka"]

Ossum. I just saw the image and was like "Uhg MGLT is a mess." and felt I should pipe up.

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

*Nods*

Everything is proceeding as planned.

 

[Camellia Swift]

So having read through this and everything I mostly have just a concern with the weapon rating system. I think it may pose a problem being too simplified.

Its been said people can use the old method of listing out weapons, but what reference do we have for the members who opt to list their weapons, and for the judges judging the submissions, when compared to the weapon rating.

How many guns do we allow a Frigate compared to a weapon rating of 12? Or a Cruiser of 8 compared to a ship with the current/old support layout?

I'm afraid people who list their weapons will be ignored or discredited as being weaker than people who just use the weapon rating and claim they have more weapons because their a 16 or 20. And for that matter I think it does matter what the types of weapons are when they're listed. Ion Cannons work better on shields and enough ion damage can disable a ship which could be a person's objective over destroying it which turbos and mass drivers do better, Concussion missiles are faster than Proton Torpedos but are typically weaker. And the Defense Guns are already well explained in the starship guide.

So what will also stop people just using the excuse of having a weapon rating over actually listing their weapons, from constantly changing what the exact effects of their weaponry are because we didn't make them specify it?

I would bring up hangers as well, but that was mentioned before and I'm still mulling it over myself.

 

[Tefka]

How many guns do we allow a Frigate compared to a weapon rating of 12? Or a Cruiser of 8 compared to a ship with the current/old support layout?

It doesn't matter.

So what will also stop people just using the excuse of having a weapon rating over actually listing their weapons, from constantly changing what the exact effects of their weaponry are because we didn't make them specify it?

What is an example you can think of how this could be abused? I find this to be my only concern. Should we post a snippet saying the rating system allows basic guns/batteries only?

The rating system will stay.

It's our job to figure out how to make it easy with as few "snippets" or rules as possible.

 

[Ellie Mors]

It doesn't matter.


What is an example you can think of how this could be abused? I find this to be my only concern. Should we post a snippet saying the rating system allows basic guns/batteries only?

I believe an example would be if someone who happens to be in a ship with a slightly higher rating that does not list their weapons decides to say their weapons are all of a more powerful class than the listed ones without ever actually listing what they are. (Although RPJs would handle this, I believe being able to preemptively avoid this would be better).

I believe your second question, about the snippet, would be a good way to do this.

 

[Camellia Swift]

[member="Tefka"]

I'm not saying we do away with the rating system, but I think like with the dev thread list we might create a reference list for us judges to go by when approving those listing their equipment so we can know how they fit in with the rating system and can make appropriate suggestions and know what we're approving whether its within bounds or requires some work.

What I meant with the Frigate of 8 example was in case we end up being asked the question by a member making a submission looking to list their guns but want to have the ship be equal to a 8 rating.

I wouldn't mind working up a reference for our benefit when judging or aiding those of members looking to do specific weapon lists for their ships.

I think the idea that a snippet of basic guns and batteries sounds good (I assume this means no heavies or long range or hypervelocity guns). My concern is mostly in regards to any fleeting for invasions or skirmishes since I know there is little PvP between personal ships and in rps it hardly would be much of a complaint or noticed by people even. But if in one post they suddenly have the right amount of a certain weapons type with the right modification to meet their needs it would be a little unfair to their opponents.

 

[Raziel]

It doesn't matter.




What is an example you can think of how this could be abused? I find this to be my only concern. Should we post a snippet saying the rating system allows basic guns/batteries only?

The rating system will stay.

It's our job to figure out how to make it easy with as few "snippets" or rules as possible.

I like the bit in bold. Really like it. If you want a simple rating go for it! However, if you want to go for specialist ship with lots of long range weaponry, or pump your allotment into missile batteries or flak guns, then you should present a balanced load out for judging.

Standard weaponry should include basic Turbolaser, Ion, and mass drivers (not hypervelocity guns), but the fraction of each should be listed.