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
  • 📅 April 2024 is YE 46.3 in the RP.

Damage Rating Revision Discussion

Re: DR Revision Discussion

I like the updates to clarity and such. It should cut down on people making wrong interpretations. I also like how the system is fairly coherent within the current rules set.

Is weapon stacking and weapons being able to affect armors up to 3 rankings higher than them still going to be apart of this system?
 
Re: DR Revision Discussion

Uso said:
Is weapon stacking and weapons being able to affect armors up to 3 rankings higher than them still going to be apart of this system?
Click to expand...
Not sure yet. What do you suggest?
 
Re: DR Revision Discussion

One concern that just popped into mind: Does this mean that PA armor follows these same rules? i.e. Mindy armor has Zesuaium plating, as such is invulnerable to all but the biggest starship-based weapons?
 
Re: DR Revision Discussion

Er, no. This is just for starships for now.
 
Re: DR Revision Discussion

I would suggest we include the stacking system and include the 3 ranks higher bit for weapons.

This would mean that power armor weapons would be able to hurt high level armors, in turn meaning that this system can be used for power armors without power armors finding themselves invulnerable to weapons used by power armors. Even if the system isn’t intended to be used for power armors this would still be nice to have.

Stacking generally would fill the same function as the 3 ranks higher rule so it isn’t really needed, however I think that it should either be included or the 3 ranks rule be made to apply to shields as well. This way someone can’t make an uber shielded ship and be entirely immune to all weapons.

Also, the 3 ranks rule could probably be lowered to two ranks or even one rank. Previously we had zesu as a rank 10 armor and the generic non-powerful space gun generally ended up around DR 7. The 3 rank rule allowed DR7 weapons to be competitive because they could still cause damage to the toughest of armors yet still provided reason for heavier weapons because they couldn’t defeat the armor with one shot.

Zesu is now rank 9 and there has been a heavy push to stop using it which in turn would make the best armors ranked 8. Considering that generic weapons are still rank 7 and light weapons are rank 6, they would be much more deadly with the 3 rank rule because even a light starship weapon would be able to destroy the heavy armors. I think it would be safe to lower the 3 rank rule down to 2 or even 1 rank because this would allow the medium starship weapon to still be effective but push light starship weapons which are normally point defense guns down to just point defense gun status.

Another reason for lowering the 3 rank rule down to 2 or 1 is that I just can’t see a 9mm ever being able to cut through (Depleted?) uranium.

Though that being said this does sorta imply that a change in armor ratings will happen soon. Such as armor based on classification of ship?
 
Re: DR Revision Discussion

Just a suggestion that's may more accurately reflect scales, without (what some perceive as) overcomplicating combat. Della, Exhack, and I have all come up with a parallel concept of adding scale on top of the DR system (so I take no credit for this!). So, instead of merely 1-10 resistances...

Ships now get a 5, 10, 20, 40, 80, 160, 320, 640, 1280, or 2560 hitpoints, which parallels the DR 1-10 scale, except is based on chassis size instead of armor material. Weapons too would get a multiplier from scale, but they only go (10, 20, 30, ... 100). I'm hoping this might fix the inconsistencies with the DR system, where even the strongest possible defenses can be overwhelmed by your average cruise in seconds.

So, for example...
A Perfect Iron-plated battleship. Perfect Iron is DR 4, and battleships we'll say are #9 on the size scale (640 hp). Thus 640 x 4 equals 2560 hitpoints.

On the flipside, say a nuclear ballistic missile is launched. We'll say it's fairly developed and play it at [DR 7], and size category [Size #10 (or 100 damage)] since ballistic missiles are usually planet-defense sized. Thus it would strike for 100 x 7, or 700 damage.
Click to expand...

I know the system isn't perfect...but it might be a better alternative to people arguing whether or not a Mindy rifle should be able to tear through a ship...and the current gross imbalance of firepower-to-defense for starships as mentioned earlier.
 
Re: DR Revision Discussion

:shock:

---Again I repeat myself as long as these wonderful number systems remain optional for GMs to use as a guideline. --- ;)
 
Re: DR Revision Discussion

In response to all the "Ugh! The Maths! Get it away!" belly-aching on the IRC channel by you-folks-who-shall-not-be-named-but-you-know-who-you-are, I thought I'd post this counter-argument before someone decides to post a similar complaint on the thread. The main reason why I suggested this isn't to jump on the bandwagon but to strike a flexible balance between an imprecise single-scale system, and a complex mathematical spreadsheet. While the concept may sound complex, let me simplify it for those who are recoiling in horror at the use of mathematics:

Starship Designer: "Gee, size times DR...what's 50 x 5? Oh, it's 250. That's how much damage my cannon does. I'll write down 250 for the cannon's damage rating."

Plotship GM: "Gee, what's 2560 HP minus 250 damage? Let me whip out my calculator application and take the two seconds to subtract it. Oh, it's 2310. Thats how much HP the ship has left."

Scale Advocate: "Gee, I hate how Mindy rifles can puncture starship hulls. That's crazy! It's a freaking battleship! Oh, I'm glad this new system means a Mindy can't just instantly pop holes through my ship since it now accounts for differences in scale."
Click to expand...

Of course, from there it can easily be adapted into greater complexity for those who may want to, such as dividing hitpoints between different sections of the starship, or factoring in rate-of-fire into damage calculations. Again, only for those who want to; I'm merely trying to submit the basic principal of size x DR, not this specific chart.
 
Re: DR Revision Discussion

Illustrative. It might be more well received if you weren't so snarky about it, Jessica.
 
Re: DR Revision Discussion

My resistance is not due to the math persay.

Moreso my desire to stick to the traditional methods of play that I have come to enjoy on the site. I have no problem having guidelines to give me an idea in terms of damage. Thus my support for the renovation efforts currently being preformed.

However, I work on a much larger scale than a lot of the GMs on this site due to my roleplay being fleet based and not everything is black and white.

I enjoy my fleet and our way of doing things. I am sure if ever I decide to lead the plot down a PvP path this type of system would become more of a reality. For now however we are comfortable and are working out some fleet based methods of our own for our fleet based combat.

Eitherway, again--I have no issue using these guidelines.
 
Re: DR Revision Discussion

Doshii: I wasn't exaggerating when I said there were people condemning it because it used basic arithmetic. If someone wants to present an argument along the lines of, "Oh, I believe in a more freeform roleplay where GMs rule, and not guidelines," then that's okay. It's a fair opinion; your two cents. But when I get a few people simply saying "This submission sucks because it uses math," well, that's bordering on unconstructive complaining ... or the system sounds harder than it actually. Admittedly, the way I laid it out without formatting might have made anyone who simply glanced at the post briefly might have saw all the numbers and interpreted as it being just another complex system. Hence I wanted to heavy emphasis on how simple it is to perform said basic calculations, even at the risk of sounding satirical.

Andrew: And I wasn't referring to you, if my previous post gave you that impression. You're stating that is your opinion, which is okay, as opposed to unconstructive complaining.
 
Re: DR Revision Discussion

*pokes Jess* You know, I could have had used your input in my two other threads about weapons and shields.
 
Re: DR Revision Discussion

Hrm. I have a bit of a problem with Nerimium having the same DR rating as Durandium, in powered armor cases. Even though Nerimium is heavy stuff, I would think at least mixing a little in with the Durandium would kick the defense of the armor up by a point.
 
Re: DR Revision Discussion

Nerimium (NDI calls it Hephestium) is a raw material, actually. It is instrumental in the making of Durandium and Yamataium.
 
Re: DR Revision Discussion

Then why is the base Material (Nermiumium) actually stronger than Durandium by one DR point?

Is there some sort of trade-off? Is Durandium just easier to manipulate into ship shapes, or more energy resistant or something?
 
Re: DR Revision Discussion

Nerimium....I also remember reading you had to mix it with other base elements to make Nerimium. And it is quite dense and heavy I believe. Where as Durandium is light.
 
RPG-D RPGfix
Back
Top