What's new
  • If you were supposed to get an email from the forum but didn't (e.g. to verify your account for registration), email Wes at [email protected] or talk to me on Discord for help. Sometimes the server hits our limit of emails we can send per hour.
  • Get in our Discord chat! Discord.gg/stararmy
  • 📅 May and June 2024 are YE 46.4 in the RP.

Approved Submission C5

Zack

Zack

Inactive Member
Submission Type: Starship
Submission URL: https://wiki.stararmy.com/doku.php?id=wip:c5

Faction: 188604
FM Approved Yet? Yes
Faction requires art? Yes

For Reviewers:
Contains Unapproved Sub-Articles? No
Contains New art? Yes
Previously Submitted? Yes

The original submission was rejected because it didn't have a manufacturer, and because the weapons could be attached to other ships.

The weapons are now a part of the ship itself rather than a separate submission, and have been changed accordingly. The ship now also follows the rule of thumb regarding the amount of DR it can put on a single target.

The main Art for the craft has been updated with a new design. Component articles have some recycled art from the weapon container submissions, and another discarded C5 design has been added to the side scrawl of discarded C5 designs.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
This suggestion has been implemented. Votes are no longer accepted.
Actual size is ~168 meters with the antenna so officially that would put it in the 20-30SP range.

The main reason why the ship has 27 SP, is so that I can count each weapon container as 1 SDR and have a total of 27x2-54 weapons containers which is the exact amount of containers the ship needs in order to look the way it does. I've tried a bunch of different looks for the ship (4 of which are on the wiki page) and I just really don't like the way the ship turns out when I try and reduce the number of weapons so I just reduced the SP instead and then adjusted the SP to match what was there.

ICly, this isn't a civilian grade ship. No centralized reactor, dozens of redundant parts, a very compact and sturdy design plus no humans filling the ship with explosive gas.

View attachment 6203

Consider that compared with the light cruiser you listed, the majority of the insides of this ship is metal, where the majority of the volume of the cruiser is air.
 
Zack said:
Actual size is ~168 meters with the antenna so officially that would put it in the 20-30SP range.
Click to expand...

I ignored that because it doesn't justify having more hull points in any way. Plus, cool materials and metals don't make up for a lack of mass.

Can't say I really mind, just think it might be a little easier to swallow if it were more realistic. Would hate to see another tech item only be approved for a specific plot's use ^^
 
How big do you think that light cruiser would be if you took out the living space for people and squished the ship down to the essentials?

It technically meets the SP requirements, and I think it als meets the spirit of the rules even if meeting the requirements is done with a bit of cheese. After all the SP rules are for manned ships rather than compact drones.

On the flip side, if the drone were made flat and flimsy in order to be larger, would that really justify a higher SP value?
 
Zack said:
How big do you think that light cruiser would be if you took out the living space for people and squished the ship down to the essentials?
Click to expand...

I think it'd be smaller and have less SP because removing spaces for people would remove structural mass.

These thoughts are just a tip. Good luck with the review people!
 
You wouldn't really be removing any mass from the ship, you'd just be changing the configuration.
 
My pronouncement:

This thing has 20 SP. Max.

because I'm tired of seeing this particular bit of technology re-surfacing over and over.

Having an atmospheric environment isn't a weakness. Most inertia-based and atmospheric retention tech pretty much glosses over that concern. I read its composition, see that it's considered heavy, and figured that giving something that's a 152 meters across that kind of value a ship 350m could have is more than generous.
 
Having an atmospheric environment isn't a weakness.
Click to expand...

There is a reason it is called explosive decompression. Things that go through rapid pressure changes tend to not survive those changes and we're not talking just about the structural problems of a pressurized interior suddenly becoming depressurized, you also have to consider the effects it would have on the wiring, mechanical bits, and electronics that were also once inside the pressurized container.

The ship meets the rules requirements for its SP value, and it has a good fluff reason for its SP value (Slow, Heavy, Densely built) so I don't think there should be a problem here.
 
This wasn't an argument, Zack.

Your submission, at best, has 20 SP. It has 20 SP, and not the 15 SP I kind of feel it ought to have on account of it being diminutive, because I'm judging it like a starship with the eact same caveats you mentioned. When I said 20 SP, I was already being generous.

If that doesn't sit well with you, well, this can go unapproved again.

But I'll add something more: I'm tired of seeing this waste the time of the mods, so, I'm going to ban this particular submission from being resubmitted, or anything that'll pass as a workaround attempt.

Basically, take it or leave it.
 
This review is for: C5

The submitted article is/has…

[x] A very high level of overall quality
[x] A general topic sentence under the title header
[x] Artwork (Required for new species; Strongly recommended for vehicles and hand weapons)\\
[x] Needed and/or useful to the setting
[x] In the proper format/template
[x] Proofread for spelling and grammar
[x] Easy to read and understand (not a lengthy mass of technobabble)
[x] Wikified (terms that could be a link should be a link)
[x] No red and/or broken links
[x] Reasonably scientifically plausible
[x] Reasonably neutral point of view

The submitted article is/does not…

[/] Overpowered (or cutting tech for a faction with little or no roleplay)
[x] Obtusely redundant
[x] Contain copy pasta descriptions of systems or interior compartments
[x] Unauthorized by faction managers or player-controlled corporation
[x] Contain references to IC events that have not occurred (SM must authorize retcons)
[x] Use second-person language (“you” or “your”) unless it is an instructional guide aimed at players.
[x] Use bombastic language (“virtually immune,” “nearly indestructible,” “insanely powerful,” “horrible effects”)
[x] Use an unbalanced header/text ratio (many headers but sections are one-liners)
[x] Use major unapproved sub-articles that should be submitted separately
[x] Lacking Detail
[x] Images hosted on sites other than stararmy.com (Photobucket, Imageshack, etc are not allowed)

The article has…

[x] Speeds in compliance with the Starship Speed Standard, if applicable
[/] Damage Capacity and Damage Ratings in compliance with the DR Guidelines
[x] The in-character year of creation/manufacture. (Should be current year. Future years not allowed).
[x] The Standard Product Nomenclature System, if applicable.

Summary

This logic still applies.

Integrating the weapons into the platform means that the possibility of any ship min/maxing the DR system is eliminated. That fact doesn’t preclude this ship from min/maxing, which it certainly does.

Even if the vessel is classified as a drone, its potency is unrivaled and its purpose, intentional or not, is an abuse of the DR system. Likewise, Submission Rule 4.II clearly states that “promising in-universe restrictions on use or availability” is not a valid argument to justify “overpowered or questionable abilities.”

The submitter has addressed the previous issues, but this new issue essentially is a way to get around the separate submission’s rejection.

So I am clear: my feelings about the submitter are not relevant here. I always have treated all submissions equally and with fairness. I have done so with this one, and will continue to do so with future ones, including those from this submitter.

That said, the submitter’s current or future status as an FM of any faction — big or small — or as a popular and/or successful GM also does not factor into this review. Tech submissions intimately tied to a GM’s actions in a plot are by their nature GM devices, regardless of their desired or achieved submission status.

The submitter, however, has made clear in the past that a GM-only device is not desirable. With that in mind, I, in my authority as Chief Tech Moderator, won’t offer that as an option.

This submission is rejected for IC usage. Unless the submitter appeals, the submission must be ICly removed within 72 hours.
 
Would a good compromise be 20 SP and each beam cluster doing 5 SDR for the complete ship's array (total of 30 SP for them all firing)?
 
If you're OK with that, Wes, I have no objections. Has he appealed to you?

I still want it to be clear that Zack isn't being singled out for abuse or harassment. I also want it clear that I have followed the rules impartially.
 
Well, I looked at the submission finally and I could see what the big deal was about. That's a lot of guns. O,O

So I thought, "how can we make this more in line with what we'd expect in the setting" and those numbers are what I thought would be a solid suggestion. I'd like @Zack to say if he'd be okay with them before we decide anything.

Thanks Doshii.
 
'm tired of seeing this waste the time of the mods, so, I'm going to ban this particular submission from being resubmitted
Click to expand...

I'm the only one submitted tech that has to deal with this kind of thing. No one else is having their submissions rejected outright without discussion. I'm also the only one having to request that the staff actually use the submission guidelines for review. I'm constantly having to appeal to remind the submission staff what the rules are regarding the DR system, weapons, speed, ect when they aren't initially refusing to review submissions.

Adjusting DR values? That's no problem. I've changed the values for the C5 to 20 SP and 5x6 DR.


The staff acting unprofessionally? That's a problem.
 
If you have a complaint about me, Zack, make it formal. You push the envelope and argue like no one else does on this site, and even when I quote submission rules, you're not happy.

If we need to talk with Wes in the room, let's do it.

That said, the changes desired by the admin have been made. Submission now approved.
 
Thank you Zack (and Doshii) for being willing to compromise on this. I'm glad to see this finally approved.
 
I've gone ahead and converted the C5 - and its weapons - to DRv3. For the ship itself, the conversion was fairly simple: @Fred said that the ship "fits in Tier 10." For the weapons, however, it was a bit more complex - thus I converted them to Tier 9 and included my reasoning below.

@META_mahn said that the weapon "feels like a primary weapon, sort of like a Plumeria’s MWA which is a big single-shot device rather than an array weapon" - and I agree, especially when one considers the C5's artwork. Since the C5 is stated to be a gunship, this (using the Plumeria as a "base" reference) means that the C5 should be capable of threatening Tier 12 starships; furthermore, as the six beam weapons...
...I feel quite confident in saying that the beam weapons destroy their targets by "melting" through them over an extended period of time, as opposed to all at once like a Main Weapon Array and that a continuously-fireable Tier "11.5" beam (the combined strength of six Tier 9 beams) would pose a significant threat to a Tier 12 starship, thus allowing for the C5 to fulfill its intended role as a "a Gunship type anti-starship drone."
 
This needs to be FM approved, or subversively SM approved. Additionally it needs to be its own submission.

Also put it in a WIP before someone murders you for it.
 
RPG-D RPGfix
Back
Top