The Liberalisation Of Super Star Destroyers

[RIP Carlyle Rausgeber]

[member="Alric Kuhn"]

Ergo the territorial limitations. Only factions which rise to seize sizeable territory should be able to construct these vessels. The First Order for example controls approximately 100-140 systems[The caveat being 47 are on the map, though the others are listed on wookiepeedia] within its territory, as well as ICly receiving refugees from the former One Sith. I think that they, the Galactic Alliance and Silver Jedi would have the pull to construct a super star destroyer. They have the infrastructure, the pull and the will to construct at least one of these behemoths. Unlike the Empire, they're not frivolously creating moon-sized battle stations, or having to suppress rebellions on multiple fronts.

[member="Jamie Pyne"]

My rebuttal for such a convincing argument can be summarised as thus:

What sort of argument do you have against the enabling of these vessels?

 

[RIP Carlyle Rausgeber]

I have also added a poll to the thread, to gauge opinions.

 

[Alric Kuhn]

[member="Carlyle Rausgeber"]

As I said, it could be argued, but I still don't really see it.

They're not creating moon-sized battle stations, no, but they are creating dozens of regular ships. Most factions claim to have entire armada's at their disposal and the cost of a single Star Destroyer in canon is supposed to be massive. The Empire could sustain both because it had thousands of systems paying up, most large factions here have like 200, probably less.

Not to mention that both the GA and FO are mostly situated in the Outer Rim/wild space which is generally poorer and less well off than the Inner-rim/core.

Personally I don't think we should talk about SSD's, not when we can already have ships that are like 5km-6km long and no one even builds those.

 

[RIP Carlyle Rausgeber]

Personally I don't think we should talk about SSD's, not when we can already have ships that are like 5km-6km long and no one even builds those.

And settle for a poor mans destroyer? We don't have to settle for worse, when we can settle for the best.

Look, the fact is is that ships like that are 1. Heavily restricted by flagship rules and 2. Just a poor man's SSD. I give that credit to [member="Butch Mahan"], who said, "No one likes a flagship which is essentially an OP Pocket Battleship." Which is true, flagships don't carry with them any aesthetic or size one would like as a command ship.

I'm not saying we flood Chaos with these things, I'm saying that a few larger factions are given the ability to create, and use them.

 

[Samka Derith]

[member="Carlyle Rausgeber"]

There has to be a reason to create something other than ‘it’s cool’.

So my question to you is; how will the introduction of SSDs help the board?

We are a Star Wars role playing forum and this was something that appeared in two Star Wars movies, the films being by far the most important parts of the franchise. I don't think anything else matters.

I'm not a fleeter nor was I around for the earlier days on this forum so maybe I'm missing examples of this OOC reasoning you've alluded to but I feel there are more game breaking weapons and armour allowed for ground combat and duelling which are allowed because they appeared in little known comics or video games and as such are 'canon'. It seems strange to me that overpowered tech and Force abilities are fine but something that appeared in the movies themselves is somehow too much.

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

The decision has been made for now.

There is too much going on right now to think about another change here. It is not something I'm automatically against, and nor is Cira from my understanding.

However, now is not the time to this. Wait until the Factory changes are bedded down and then we can look at this again.

That's my final answer on this.

 

[Jsc]

[member="Carlyle Rausgeber"] - This is a great idea and I see no reason it cannot work in our game.

When the Factory is ready for it, this will happen soon thereafter. Easy, easy, easy.

Until then. We wait.

 

[RIP Carlyle Rausgeber]

[member="Valiens Nantaris"]

Is this you putting the kibosh on discussion here?

Or just reaffirming there will be no change of the rules till the factory is finalised?

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

[member="Carlyle Rausgeber"]
Discuss all you want, sure. Come up with some good community ideas...but they'll be no action on it for some time.

 

[Alyson Halle]

I personally would like Super Star Destroyers, i see little problem as long as they are regulated well and are not handed out like candy, but i would love to have star dreadnoughts.

 

[Eugen Aker]

[member="Valiens Nantaris"]

Since the factory is currently down for the time being for a total overhaul, then wouldn't this be the perfect time to have the discussion and continue hashing out ideas for implementation? The whole idea of the Factory rework is to create a system more appealing to the community as a whole. I mean, we have the whole community, including several experienced fleeting writers, to use for feedback, so it's not like you're the only one that has to mull over this to figure out how it will work. A single big ship in itself is not going to be an automatic cinch for victory in fleeting anyway. Tactics and good writing rule the day. There seems to be popular support for this, so I don't think it's a good idea just to dismiss the proposal out of hand when this thread hasn't even been up for a full day. I don't know if you mean to come off like this, but the vibe I'm getting from you is "I don't want to deal with this right now, pass".

 

[Jsc]

but the vibe I'm getting from you is "I don't want to deal with this right now, pass".

I prefer a Head Admin who is upfront about Staff's expectations for the roll out and implementation of new ideas for 2017. But maybe that's just me.

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

An awful lot of work has gone into the factory overhaul. People, all people, want the factory back, and so throwing a major change at this stage is neither wise nor profitable.

I prefer to be upfront with what is happening with the board and its planning, rather than wait for this to bubble along for days.

So work on getting a workable system you can present me later this year rather than trying to push for something now which will not happen immediately.

 

[Eugen Aker]

[member="Jay Scott Clark"]

I'd prefer the staff not to immediately dismiss a proposal with clear popular support, or roll through just to post cute gifs, but that's just me.

No one is asking for this SSD proposal to be implemented tomorrow, but it's at least something we can discuss as while the Factory is under the process of overhaul. Just offering a flat out no hurts the discussion when most people in here are trying to have productive conversation.

 

[Eugen Aker]

[member="Valiens Nantaris"] I disagree with you decision, but I appreciate your candor on the subject.

 

[Jsc]

[member="Suravi Teigra"] - *thumbs up*

 

[Jamie Pyne]

[member="Carlyle Rausgeber"]

Right now, I don't really have an argument either way, as I don't have enough information to actually have a serious opinion.

I just felt like being silly.

Edit: Actually, I do have a serious opinion, it's that the factory, despite certain viewpoints, has quite a bit going on internally and does not have capacity to consider another last minute tack on.

Unless of course everyone wants to leave the factory closed for the next 3 months for every person who throws an idea at the wall.

 

[Tanomas Graf]

Yes, because the Factory totally needs more than a month to implement something.

[member="Jamie Pyne"]

 

[Jamie Pyne]

[member="Tanomas Graf"]

When something is a compilation of restructuring a number of things to accommodate for one large thing, while at the same time a rather heavily involved member of the staff team leaves, and the rest of us do continue to have full time life responsibilities, yes, sometimes it does. Coordinating the schedules of half a dozen people takes effort. Unless SWRP suddenly starts to pay staff we will only be able to work at the speed that is available to each of us.

I realize that disappoints a number of you, but that's reality.

 

[Cathul Thuku]

[member="Gerhard Maxim"] I would rather allow minor factions have ships up to 2km in size, than to grant them access to flagships: tier-5 and tier-6 companies have IC resources comparable to that of minor factions that actually make attempts to fleet.

[member="Valiens Nantaris"] [member="Carlyle Rausgeber"]

Also let's not forget that, even with the First Order or the Galactic Alliance having one SSD each, fleeting will always be a niche activity because fleeting requires writers to be comfortable with using NPCs, and not only that, large numbers of NPCs. Now, I understand that some fleeters only seem to be directly using the NPCs in the CIC and/or the bridge and the attack craft crews, and, SSD or not, the fleeter PC will always be in the CIC. I know several writers that won't touch fleeting because they are uncomfortable, unable even, to use NPCs, even if one had number-less ships (I'm looking at you [member="Jamie Pyne"] and [member="Alric Kuhn"]), or otherwise a very liberalized shipbuilding environment.

Remember that virtually every ship in the 2-3km range comes with the restriction "1-per-writer" either implicitly or explicitly, and that 2+km ships consume much more IC resources than even 1-2km SDs to build.

But remember also that with most ships being sub-3km, high-meterage engagements that can make factions deploy a SSD (usually 40+km per side) also increases the size of the stack of different ships and attack craft in use, for all the fleeters involved in the engagement.

However, my idea for how to obtain flagships is as follows:

For a 3-5km flagship:

• No flagship thread required
• A faction is allowed one flagship for 3 planets owned
• Baseline development for 3km: 30 dev posts required, 3 writers (+10 posts, +1 writer for each kilometer beyond the baseline)
• Semi-unique maximum

For a 5+km SSD:

• A faction is allowed one SSD for 10 planets owned (or 20)
• A flagship thread is required for a baseline of 100 posts, 5+ writers (+20 posts, +1 writer for every additional kilometer)
• Must be labeled as unique