Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
I've read the majority of this thread, and I apologize for having little in terms of responses here lately, though I would like to say a couple things:
I've for a while now, strongly believed in separate threaded Objectives. Kind of like Flashpoints for each objective in an Invasion. Though that's a different topic in my opinion.
I don't think stats are entirely needed for fleeting. Sure they can help as references, but I don't believe in them. If PvP dueling has any indication, people are USUALLY capable of taking reasonable hits and stuff. Once that "PvP" dueling involves NPC's however? It appears that their is a natural decline in peoples hit taking ratios. This then applies to Fleeting. So what are we to do when people aren't playing fair on a regular basis? You have some one to mitigate the situation. I believe a Game Master or perhaps a few for fleeting is needed to increase the level of destruction, the speed of destruction, and eliminate unfairness in regards to the destruction. This way, anyone, literally ANYONE can control a fleet, go up against the best, write something sort of vague-ish and the Game Masters decides based on their writing and on their opponents writing whether or not its a hit. No stats needed.
This was asked for. oh trust me... we asked for this. "what does an armament rating of 18 mean?" was answered by "it means 18."
It is intentionally vague. Does it really matter if it means 18 turbolasers or 800 turbolasers? It means that Ship A with armament rating of 18 does more damage than Ship B with armament rating of 17, and that unless Ship B has special defensive features, the pilot of Ship B needs to GTFO or do something really, really smart. It means that both ships can brawl it out and both ships will take a lot of damage... but that Ship A will be the one limping away.
And in a roleplay setting, that's enough.
To date, with the exception of "ship killer weapons", can you recall a roleplay where the specific weapons of a starship really mattered more than the ship itself? Well... other then the 'superships' that titan industries keeps making.
That being said... the defensive rating of ships are all fairly standard. Armor is armor... hull is hull... There are a handful of ships that are designed to take an absolute beating and keep on chugging... the Ordo class frigate comes to mind here. But for the most part, all ships can take the same damage to hull. Armor plating? The difference between durasteel and any other non-restricted material is not large enough to produce a huge difference in armor value... It helps, but... not -that- much. Shields... you have standard, advanced, redundant and double redundant... and a few ships that combine the advanced and redundant shields... This can make ships with 1.5x, 2x, 3x, and up to 4.5x the strength of other ships... on paper anyway. Ships that focus on advanced shields don't often focus also on advanced armor or hull construction and vise versa.
So all ships end up being roughly the same when it comes to defensive values. Some just bling out there shields while others do armor and/or hull.
A defensive rating could be nice... but advanced tech and restricted metals screw this up about as bad as fancy weapons screw with the armament rating.
I made this ship partially because of fanservice and partially because it's something I've always wanted but had never realized how to make until that point... But partially... I made it in protest of the recent string of superships and as a means of "leading by example." I wanted to show people what an 'extensive' development thread should look like... and I wanted to show people that "overdeveloping a ship" should be used to make a handful of very, very nice ships that are special... not to cram as many guns and possible onto a ship at minor or mass production.
Now, I'd rather not... but lets look at the Prowler in terms of Armament Rating.
Hull Integrity: 20/20 with special modifiers.
Armor Rating: 20/20 with special modifiers.
Shield Rating: 20/20 with special modifiers.
Armament Rating: 20/20 with special modifiers.
For starters... those special modifiers... are they what allow him to be 20/20 in almost every category, or are they in addition to his 20/20 ratings?
He has 'standard' (18/20) 'single-ply' corvette shields, but then has a secondary shield system (redundant) that is also a special type of shield that causes energy weapons to literally bounce off. So, overall, the ship has 20/20 shields but has plenty of justification (via 'glancing hits' and generally bring a hard target to hit) to take significantly more damage than most 20/20 ships would take... But again... other ships have "Advanced, Double Redundant Shields." Is this what gives them the 20/20 shield rating, or is it in addition? Either way, having advanced shields gives a lot of justification to shrug off some hits and keep fighting.
Prowlers are living ships. Hollow organs and veins and bones with the same strength as metal variants fill the interior of this ship. Powerful semi-metal muscles fill the gaps between armor and interior sections and help prevent depressurization. The ship can take an absolute beating when it comes to hull damage. Possibly even more than the Ordo-class Frigate. (granted, taking that much damage would likely send the sentient, child-like ship running to hyperspace.) But... is that what a 20/20 in hull integrity would really mean? Or is that in addition to it?
And... for gods sake... I plated the thing in Beskar. Would it otherwise have a 16 or 18/20 armor rating? I've no idea. There are no rules for this.
And then there are the weapons... I gave this ship two heavy guns that apply a DOT effect to target ships and one heavy gun that can bypass the shields and pierce the armor of all but the largest of ships....
:|
Granted... it's not designed to outright destroy another ship. Like I said... I made the ship to prove a point. There is (effectively) only one, it will never kill a PC (unless said PC chooses to be killed by it), and it goes around leaving crippled ships in its wake... instead of making a ship with 5x or 10x the weight of fire of a standard ship and just bludgeoning to death every ship I come up against.... I made a fast, agile ship that cannot be killed (only chased away) and cannot kill (only cripple). (well... that was the plan anyway. The ship's fairly lethal to frigates and cruisers.)
The current admins could easily choose to create a scaling system to support the existing armament rating system... they could quantify what an 18/20 armament rating means to the 2.0 guide. You could also come up with various defensive ratings and quantify what makes a ship a 20/20 as opposed to an 18/20... But then you'd also have to either work the existing 'superships' into your calculations for what a 20/20 ship is... or you'd have to bring them out for further edits to prevent them from having 21/20 ratings.... which... would be pointless.
This was not done initially because the intent (as far as anyone could make of Tefka's mad plan anyway) was to make things simpler, easier to understand, easier for new writers to get a grasp of, and easier to use in roleplaying.
And it would.
If people would use it.
Btw. For the record. I see the prowler's armament as being an 18/20 across the board... but that the special modifiers are what makes him 20/20 in all categories. Offense, Shields, Armor, Hull... standard for a decent, balanced ship sits in at 18. Fancy shields, beskar plating, fancy weapons, unique structural layout... all makes him 20/20 instead of 18/20 and lets him retain the speed, agility, and utility of a decent "balanced" ship. All rewarded via low production rating, lengthy development thread, and... the fact that I did this with a Corvette instead of a Star Destroyer.
I'll be honest... I know I'm the last person anyone wants to see as an authority figure... But if staff wanted to hire on a dedicated RPJ for fleeting, I'd be the first to apply.
A defensive rating could be nice... but advanced tech and restricted metals screw this up about as bad as fancy weapons screw with the armament rating.
Ok, so I've put some numbers to the armament ratings.
These are roughly logarithmically spaced, with a little intelligence thrown in, so that one scale can cover everything. The defensive scale covers everything from battlecruisers to starfighters in one.
I've taken my Scythe cruiser and worked through a few options.
[SIZE=10.5pt]Option 1: Use current armament table: http://s965.photobucket.com/user/FormingInTheMists/media/Armament1-1.png.html[/SIZE] [SIZE=10.5pt]Show weapons by firing arc[/SIZE] [SIZE=10.5pt]ARMAMENTS[/SIZE] [SIZE=10.5pt]Prow battery – 3 (Prow Arc)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10.5pt]• Long-Range Ion Cannons (8) [/SIZE] [SIZE=10.5pt]Starboard battery – 11 (Prow/Right Arc)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10.5pt]• 10 Quad Heavy Turbolaser Cannons
• 5 Dual Heavy Ion Cannon [/SIZE] [SIZE=10.5pt]Port battery – 11 (Prow/Left Arc)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10.5pt]• 10 Quad Heavy Turbolaser Cannons
• 5 Dual Heavy Ion Cannon [/SIZE] [SIZE=10.5pt]Defensive battery – 11[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10.5pt]• 5 Point-Defense Emplacements
• 10 Flak Gun Emplacements
• 15 Quad Laser Cannons [/SIZE] [SIZE=10.5pt]Ordnance[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10.5pt]• 15 Heavy Warhead launchers Launchers (Assault concussion missile: 5 prow, 5 starboard, 5 port)[/SIZE] [SIZE=10.5pt]Option 2: Only gives notes on what each battery contains[/SIZE] [SIZE=10.5pt]ARMAMENTS[/SIZE] [SIZE=10.5pt]Prow – 3 (Prow Arc)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10.5pt]Notes: Long Ranged Ion[/SIZE] [SIZE=10.5pt]Starboard – 11 (Prow/Right Arc)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10.5pt]Notes: small amount of Ion weapons [/SIZE] [SIZE=10.5pt]Port – 11 (Prow/Left Arc)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10.5pt]Notes: small amount of Ion weapons[/SIZE] [SIZE=10.5pt]Defensive – 11[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10.5pt]Notes: Mix of types [/SIZE] [SIZE=10.5pt]Ordnance[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10.5pt]• 15 Heavy Warhead launchers (Assault concussion missile: 5 prow, 5 starboard, 5 port)[/SIZE] [SIZE=10.5pt]Option 3: One rating, summarised[/SIZE] [SIZE=10.5pt]ARMAMENTS[/SIZE] [SIZE=10.5pt]Firepower rating: 15[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10.5pt]Small amounts of long range ion weaponry. Most weapons are heavy turbolaser batteries. Uses Assault concussion missiles as ordnance[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10.5pt]Defence[/SIZE] [SIZE=10.5pt]Prow rating: 14[/SIZE] [SIZE=10.5pt]Other shield rating: 12[/SIZE] [SIZE=10.5pt]Armour rating: 12[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10.5pt]Notes: The scythe is rapid and light, so has lower than average defences. However, it has an average forward shield for frontal assaults[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10.5pt]Capital Armament Ratings:[/SIZE]
1 normal range capital gun = 1
Heavy = 2
Long Range = 2 (However each long range gun must replace 5 capital guns due to extra drain on power [and for balance otherwise everyone would just use long range!])
Making a scale that covers the range (which means logarithmic) will confuse people.
"Why isn't firepower 5 half of firepower 10?"
"If I have a firepower 15 ship, why aren't my three batteries firepower 5?"
Making it linear will make it easier, see above questions, but will struggle to cover the whole range without lots of numbers! (The smallest difference to separate small ships is 5, but buckets of 5 leads to 1-200 to go up to 1000.....). The alternative is lumping everything from a weedy corvette, to a top end assault frigate together
You'd then need a simple table that for each of the new classes outlined:
Typical firepower rating of an assault ship at the large end of the scale, defense rating, and speed and manoeuvrability.
Typical firepower rating of a carrier at the small end of the scale, defense rating, and speed and manoeuvrability.
There's a problem here. A 20/20 Frigate and a 20/20 Cruiser and a 20/20 Destroyer all (currently) operate on different scales. And that's a good thing. Setting it up so a specific armament rating translates to a specific number of guns won't make sense using the existing system of ship specific armament ratings. Nor should it. What sense would there be in making a 5,000 star destroyer when it's being limited by a 20/20 system designed for ships ranging from 400 meter ships to 2,000 meter Star Destroyers?
Keeping it vague means that you look at the armament rating and the size of the ship. 20/20 on a 1,300 meter Destroyer vs 19/20 on a 1,500 meter Destroyer? They should come out at about the same.
With the above system, you'd see ships ranging from frigates to star destroyers supporting an armament rating of 16 and we'd just continue down the same broken path that makes no sense and turns fleet vs fleet roleplaying into a massive cluster****.
One armament rating for Corvettes.
One armament rating for Frigates.
One armament rating for Cruisers.
One armament raging for Destroyers.
And... carriers get... special treatment based on length.
It creates a system where pitting 10,000 meters of ships against 10,000 meters of ships makes sense. Where Cruisers know how they compare to other cruisers and everyone understands that the cruiser is going to be out-performing a similarly armed frigate, and a frigate will not be out-gunning a cruiser unless the cruiser in question is some form of support ship with a low armament rating (say, around 14).
Alternatively... You could choose to resolve the matter in a simple manner.
Armament Rating 12 roughly equates to Armament Rating 01 of the next highest category.
Armament Rating 13 roughly equates to Armament Rating 02 of the next highest category.
Armament Rating 14 roughly equates to Armament Rating 04 of the next highest category.
Armament Rating 15 roughly equates to Armament Rating 06 of the next highest category.
Armament Rating 16 roughly equates to Armament Rating 08 of the next highest category.
Armament Rating 17 roughly equates to Armament Rating 10 of the next highest category.
Armament Rating 18 roughly equates to Armament Rating 12 of the next highest category.
Armament Rating 19 roughly equates to Armament Rating 14 of the next highest category.
Armament Rating 20 roughly equated to Armament Rating 16 of the next highest category.
And when you're looking at 100m Corvettes vs 400 meter Frigates or 600 meter Cruisers vs 1,200 meters Destroyers, this makes sense.
The only real situation where this doesn't make much sense is in minimum and maximum length ships. What happens when you take a 450m Frigate with armament rating 20 vs a 550m Cruiser with armament rating 18? Yes, the cruiser is 100 meters longer and would likely out-gun the frigate... but by how much?
There's a problem here. A 20/20 Frigate and a 20/20 Cruiser and a 20/20 Destroyer all (currently) operate on different scales. And that's a good thing.
But as far as rough damage goes... That's up to the writers involved in the thread. An Armament Rating 16 Frigate is shooting at an 18/20 Cruiser... Does it take 5 posts to get through the shields or ten? Or one? How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop?
In the end, it doesn't matter. Let the two writers decide what feels right to them. And if they cant? RPJ time.
Say, destroyer gets a max of 50/50.
Cruiser gets a max of 35/50
Frigate max = 22/50
Corvette max = 10/50
Fighter max = 2/50
Then no one has to do any of that scale conversion. It's all on the same plane.
There are three things I can't appreciate about the current arms rating system, however.
I can't designate where my weapons are positioned. What if I want to put all my capital guns on the bow for a massive attack if I can get the target dead-ahead, while risking broadside attacks?
I can't choose what my weapons are. This goes back to my gripe about ion cannon effectiveness, however--although there is also a sort of disparity between the effects of an HVC cannon and a battery of heavy turbos. The HVC round can slip through shields without too much of an issue, while the turbos have to 'wear out' the shields before hitting the actual vessel.
What about specialty weapons? Say I want to develop a huge, multipurpose cannon like the one the Republic recently made.
I feel like the arms rating throws out a lot of things that make vessels unique and even worth submitting. Why don't we all just use generalized 'canon' vessels if we're going to go this route?
Say, destroyer gets a max of 50/50.
Cruiser gets a max of 35/50
Frigate max = 22/50
Corvette max = 10/50
Fighter max = 2/50
Then no one has to do any of that scale conversion. It's all on the same plane.
There are three things I can't appreciate about the current arms rating system, however.
I can't designate where my weapons are positioned. What if I want to put all my capital guns on the bow for a massive attack if I can get the target dead-ahead, while risking broadside attacks?
I can't choose what my weapons are. This goes back to my gripe about ion cannon effectiveness, however--although there is also a sort of disparity between the effects of an HVC cannon and a battery of heavy turbos. The HVC round can slip through shields without too much of an issue, while the turbos have to 'wear out' the shields before hitting the actual vessel.
What about specialty weapons? Say I want to develop a huge, multipurpose cannon like the one the Republic recently made.
I feel like the arms rating throws out a lot of things that make vessels unique and even worth submitting. Why don't we all just use generalized 'canon' vessels if we're going to go this route?
I know we're all not trying to completely go to wargaming, but maybe something like the weapon listing show on this stat card would help:
It would allow people to specify the ranges of their weapons, the type, and the fire arc, all while leaving exact numbers of weapons out of the equation. The numbers listed there for damage could just be relative strength.
Proton Beam Cannons count as 100 capital guns. And based upon how it's been used in fleeting engagements, neither side has considered it to be as all powerful as what was used on the SSD in canon.
that Proton Beam on the Eclipse was different than say the one on the Avenger or the Immortal
The Eclipse basically had one of the Death Star's seven radial lasers as a main weapon, the Avenger's and Immortal's are nowhere near as powerful, at least that's what I've always consider about that weapon at least
Proton Beam Cannons count as 100 capital guns. And based upon how it's been used in fleeting engagements, neither side has considered it to be as all powerful as what was used on the SSD in canon.
Have we not already gone around and around on this topic?
You missed my point that the Heavy Long Range Hypervelocity Cannon, also 100 points, was deemed close enough to a superweapon that the Judge who initially approved it asked admins if he should go back and deny it. At the time, the weapon was so close to a superweapon that the -only- reason it got approved at all was because the ruling judge didn't understand what he was looking at until it was too late.
The measure of what is and is not a superweapon is not limited only to its ability to destroy a planet, but also by its effect on cities, ships, vehicles, characters, and writers. When I initially brought up the subject of ships capable of one-shotting other ships nearly a year ago, I had it rammed down my throat.
Honestly the way things are reading now I'd be in favor of a sort of points system for making ships. You get a baseline 'generic' vessel (balanced, support, or carrier) and then points to modify it in various ways. Want it to be especially heavily armed? Cool, but you'll likely sacrifice speed and defenses and the like. The armament rating covers that, but only for weaponry (and the judges opinion of how balanced that is). I don't think it woudl be too hard to develop a system that covers most aspects of a ship (especially if we start adding in Hull/Armor/Shield points).
So basically slave armament rating, speed/maneuverability, and add in a 'defense' rating into a new system. Balance has to be found between the three (and it could be more or less than three values, if you want to make more or less complicated) but there's plenty of room for creativity in how that rating is acquired. Is that 20 offense (or whatever) from a battery of HVC's or something more conventional (or more unique)? Is the 20 defense from advanced rare armor plating and double-redundant shields, or flicker drive or some other warp-sorcery we haven't heard of yet? When it comes to balance in a fight, you know how things stand just by looking at the numbers, but how it's written varies wildly.
Of course we've redone the starship factory rules three times and it hasn't fixed anything yet, so perhaps this is totally off-base.
I do agree with Beowoof that the potential ambiguity with regard to armament rating should be removed. Hasn't this discussion already mentioned that one of the obstacles to fleeting is lack clarity?
Quick note on HVC's, they are stopped by Particle Shields, the same shields used against missiles and other projectiles. Granted, most ships probably focus on Ray Shields, but it's not like they are no defenses against them. Also I will note that their key weakness from canon, the fact that you have to drop your own shields to fire and thus are vulnerable to attack from missiles/bombs/etc. has yet to be exploited.
