• 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
  • 📅 February and March 2024 are YE 46.2 in the RP.

Rejected Submission [Submission Rules] Armament Limitations

FrostJaeger

Chief Parakeet
Banned Member
  • Faction requires art: Nope.
  • Contains unapproved sub-articles? Nope.
  • Contains new art? Nope.
  • Previously submitted? Nope, though it contains elements from this and this.
Well, here you have it, ladies and/or gentlemen. The expanded, fleshed-out, more-thoroughly-explained (no offense @Fred) replacement/re-installment/I don't even know because I typed this up at 4 in the morning for DRv3's weapon limitations.

I'd like to thank @Arbitrated, @META_mahn, @Talarn, and the rest of the SARPChat Discord server for acting as reviewers/moral support/editors/etc. and @Fred for creating the basis of the system in the first place, but, uh, yeah, that's pretty much all I have to say due to being really, really tired at the time of writing.

As before, would @Wes, @Doshii Jun, @Fred, @Ametheliana, and @CadetNewb (plus anyone else who has constructive criticism) mind looking at this thing (or a derivative of it, anyways) one more time?

Also, one other minor request @Wes: Would you lock and/or move the original thread to the "Rejected or Abandoned Submissions" sub-forum, please? In my opinion, this submission kind of, uh, supersedes the older one in terms of purpose and scope.

P.S.: @Zack My apologies for not replying to the 4th Elysian Empire submission in a more timely fashion; I'll be doing so tomorrow - and it's something I'll do my best to be more "on top of" in the future.
 
This suggestion has been closed. Votes are no longer accepted.
It seems I've been given an ultimatum. Either fight singlehandedly for my idea to be heard, even though it's meant to help everyone else, or let FrostJaeger get his way even though it'll hurt him and the rest of the site in the long run. It's easy to prove this isn't about ego, by just saying I don't really care about getting 'my way' that much. I can't speak for anyone else.

FrostJaeger's thrown up the phrase 'off-topic' to shut down ideas he doesn't like, and defined it as anything that doesn't support him. His exact words were that anything not in his submission is off-topic, this includes all additions, improved phrasing--anything constructive at all, not just taking an alternate approach entirely. Still, he'll accept those so long as he likes them.

I'm just not going to work with him, or within any paradigm where setting submissions are turned into a competition. I trust that is not what the majority of SARPers want, otherwise I'd be leaving here today.
 
Navian that's a bit of an unfair statement. Because yeah Frost is buckling down on what he's considering off topic now, but by the converse, people were given the opportunity to give constructive criticism of this efforts, and instead that time was mostly spent simply saying "It's wrong" "I don't like it" or something of the sort, without an ounce of how to -improve- his submission, and several times conversations that didn't have anything to do with improving this proposal popped up. People only have so much they can tolerate, and even if people start giving proper criticism after he's pushed his limit, you can't expect him to just suddenly become happy and cooperative.

People can't act up, and then when they finally push someone turn around and act good and then pretend like the person that's pissed off is being unreasonable.
 
Syaoran, I don't think I follow you. It's unfair for me to accuse him of throwing out the baby, because the bath also had water in it? Even if he was provoked, being provoked is no excuse for being deliberately indiscriminate.

If you're trying to tell me that I was one of the ones who provided nothing positive to go along with the negative, that's just not the case. Even in my first post on the second page, I already provided an alternative solution. He simply dismissed it, silently.

Rebuttals to the very long post (as I didn't have the energy for them when I woke up):

Seeing as how debating has continued in complete ignorance of what @Ametheliana said here and what I repeated here, I guess I'll have to concede the point seeing as how no one paid any attention to it in the first place.
It's hypocritical to complain about debates taking place in a thread and then still make posts full of quotes and rebuttals. Other alternatives to arguing (aside from ignoring arguments outright) include summarizing or redirecting; the goal then would be to explain yourself rather than to defeat an opponent.

If you, @Navian, or literally anyone else in this thread wants to submit a different system for review (or even just start a discussion thread!), please feel free to do so.. I'm not stopping you...
This seems like a backward way of implying that the amount of effort someone puts into their idea, or how dedicated they are to it, has some sort of direct relationship with the merit of the idea. Since you've put a lot of effort it, this serves you well, but it simply isn't true. Ideas should stand on their own merits, and partisanship should be irrelevant.

...nor am I trying to "insist" upon anything...
I'm not sure what I'd call your tone if not 'insistent'. 'If you think your idea's so good, try to beat me, fair and square' is one of the things you're insisting on. I'd consider this uncivil.

As I requested of Navian in an earlier post of mine, please point these flaws out so that they may be addressed and fixed.
Given these were already pointed out before the post containing this quote was made, and that was again pointed out, I'd call this belligerent. Failing that, it's at least stubborn. When he got around to answering this, he just dismissed them as 'out of scope'--so apparently, the system is intended to be porous by design. That's odd.

Are you attempting to imply that the opinions of those who voted "Yes" aren't relevant to this community?
Are you attempting to imply that the opinions of those who voted "No" aren't relevant to this community unless the "No" vote wins? I didn't think so. Please don't say things like this. When a "Yes" vote is successful, the "No" voters get something forced on them whether they like it or not--that's how referendums work.

...this submission is not intended to replace or strip power from the NTSE moderators. It is a tool for them to utilize. Nothing more, nothing less.
It's also a tool for the players. We do have players who use the NTSE guidelines to keep the staff from doing their jobs already, this proposal will give those players more power.

The poll was not my idea. It was the brainchild of Wes. The time limit was put in place to prevent this farce of a discussion from continuing for the next three months.
Frankly, I wasn't talking about the poll. I was talking about the insistent posts in this thread.
For the third time now, I have not "insisted" anything.
There's the irony we're looking for in this sentence alone.

Has it ever occurred to you how painful and arduous getting everyone to agree upon something as extensive (and complex) as a list of starship, mecha, vehicle, and small craft roles would be?
I did not say a word about extending this list beyond starships. I suspect it would be less arduous than coming up with a comprehensive point-buy design for starships. I don't think we need to drag in anything other than starships into either proposition.

I don't think veiled insults are appropriate here either, Navian, especially since you're implying that anyone who voted "Yes" in the above post as someone who enjoys "gam[ing], lawyer[ing], exploit[ing], and distort[ing]" and the rules.
You said it, not me. I suspect no more than half the people who voted yes were motivated by this, possibly as low as one or two. Yes, we do have gamers and rules lawyers on an internet roleplaying website with dozens of members, that shouldn't surprise anyone. It's hard to find a five-man roleplaying group without any.

Also, even I enjoy all those things in the right context, it's not criminal to enjoy these things. It's just inappropriate to be motivated by a desire to do these things with regard to the use of an OOC setting submissions forum for a creative writing site. It contradicts the purpose and spirit of the venue.

I mean, if you're going to be uncivil (in spite of what Ametheliana said here and what I repeated here), at least focus your efforts on me and spare the rest of the community, okay?
Same to you, apparently.

How exactly would considering multiple options at once be any worse than this absolute cesspool of a thread?
No matter how bad things things look to you now, they can always get worse. For example, people could end up leaving the site or getting banned, in any quantity. I've already decided not to get involved, but to everyone else, I recommend not making this a competition. It's better to use bad ideas than multiple conflicting ideas.

Once again, the reason I didn't cover such topics is because of the fact that if I did so the submission would be at least three or four times more complex and restrictive.
For complexity, this might be true, but it wouldn't have to be. The specific suggestion I made, for modifying weapons with 'virtual tiers' to represent how factors other than damage alter their effectiveness, would be at most half again as complex, and it could even reduce the complexity by streamlining the current two-mode system you've written. If it was done well, it'd be much more restrictive--its goal would be to be restrictive. Again, these are guidelines telling ship designers what they can and can't do. It's possible to be restrictive in a good way, that's largely the point of having rules.

I still haven't read 'the Section'... almost done.

[/quote]Exactly what "vision clash" are you referring to? If any existed, they would immediately be struck down by the Faction Manager.[/quote]Or they'd argue with the Faction Manager, who'd get exasperated and either make concessions or leave the site. We also fight over who gets to be FM, who gets to be co-FM, who deserves to be FM, and create splinter groups when there's conflict between FMs and players in their factions. These conflicts are real, and their end-game isn't as clean as you'd make it out to be.

Reported.
I wasn't referring to you, and even if I was, it wasn't an insult. This is something that really happens, which is why this submission is dangerous--especially if you don't realize what we need to defend against--or preferably, discourage from happening. I don't feel too good about our prospects of being able to 'defend' a rule system from exploitation, which is a large part of why I proposed an alternative to one.

Interesting how I'm also attempting to introduce a "clear and comprehensible" guideline that, strangely enough, is quite unpopular.
Clear and comprehensive guidelines are unpopular with those who benefit from muddled and incomplete guidelines, and vice-versa. I don't think this alone is what motivates the majority of voters on either side, but it surely motivates some of them.

Please, no more of these.
 
Last edited:
What I'm telling you Navian is that Frost is a human, just like you. And that his own disposition and feelings need to be considered. You can't just sit here and complain about what Frost is doing without looking at all the stuff that put him in a position where he felt like that was the appropriate response. It also doesn't help that you have a very accusatory way of speaking some times. You're also making some complaints about long rebuttal post but you're doing that yourself right now.

All and all the point is you can't sit here and act like one person is the problem, when many people were involved and created the result. There isn't a person in this thread who conducted themself perfectly. Victimizing oneself or vilifying another person not only doesn't get any one anywhere, it makes things worse and looks childish, especially since a poll went up.

If you want to submit your own idea for what should be done, do what Frost did, he had to do it 'on his own' as well. It just so happened people agreed with him. There is no ultimatum in that, that's how it is. If you want something made, you make it and see if it gets approved.
 
And seriously, this is a game with super technology. A ship with loads of missiles may as well be a ship with a bunch of trebuchets.
 
Syaoran, I'm not the one who didn't want any debate in this thread.

You're making excuses for his bad behavior while at the same time accusing me of doing things he did even more of. FrostJaeger accused me of making insults and insinuations that I haven't done, among other things. I've been restrained in comparison.

It should be apparent to anyone that one person isn't the problem, and it should be apparent that I'm well aware of this. I don't know where that is even coming from. FrostJaeger is still his own champion. You're victimizing him and vilifying me right now.

I don't 'want something made'. I provided constructive criticism. Would it be nice if we used my idea? If I didn't think so, I wouldn't have shared or explained it. I'm not partisan to it to the point where I'd make it a competition.
 
I'd really like it if this would become less about individuals and more about progress.

Hear this? It's the sound effect for clashing egos. Less please.

I'd be grateful if arguments prolongued out in the hope that they'll win out of endurance just be put to bed. I think we rounded that topic.
 
I'm not accusing you of anything, nor am I excusing his behavior. I merely stated that while you were complaining about large rebuttal post, you were making one. That is simply a fact. It's not comparing you to anyone or anything. And I clearly said no one behaved perfectly, meaning Frostjeager is at fault for some of his behavior too, as am I, and everyone else in the thread. What I am saying is you can't single out an individual and try to blame them, because everyone made mistakes and it's not right to throw it all on one person.

If you want me to be clearer and less polite I will. Post 101 in this thread, we have absolutely no need for post like that. It's nothing but whining. I respect you as an individual with a good measure of insight and reasoning, but this is not the place to complain about people's behavior or how hard you have it. This is the place to discuss the system idea that Frostjeager pitched.

I tried to say it in a less offensive way but that doesn't seem to be working.
 
The poll has ended. "No" narrowly won. Hardly a mandate. Maybe it would be better if the limitations are a guide for reviewers and submitters, but not a rule.

Staff is Wes and Nash. Wes asked for the poll.
 
It's just not useful to selectively point out hypocrisy while ignoring or excusing other hypocrisy. It is, in itself, a form of hypocrisy to do so. And you're still doing it, Syaoran. ...We're at rock bottom. Let's move on, but please don't think you made a good point, Syaoran, unless it's the one I just described.
 
The poll has ended. "No" narrowly won. Hardly a mandate. Maybe it would be better if the limitations are a guide for reviewers and submitters, but not a rule.

Staff is Wes and Nash. Wes asked for the poll.

@Doshii Jun, it...hasn't ended yet? Unless someone just closed it, the poll is still open until 9:59pm EST - and was it to be closed at this moment, "Yes" would win by two votes, not "No."
 
Personally @Doshii Jun I think the best solution(best practical one) would be to make some kind of guide intended not for the submitter but the reviewers. However I don't know how to go about doing that right. But the NTSE are the ones who signed up for 'work' so to speak.

I think people's biggest problem with the system as it is though is the number 8 seems small for weapon limits. I mean it's a given that in a system where it counts weapons there has to be some definition of what counts as a weapon so that has to be there, though maybe the definition can be a little different? I don't know. I think a lot of people just want more than 8 weapons.
 
I feel like the last thing a statless, systemless RP like Star Army needs is more rules. I bear no ill will against Frost and I appreciate him trying to help things, but I don't think we need this and I encourage folks to please vote no with me. As a ship designer for SARP, I don't feel that these rules will help me make better or more "balanced" ships and they seem to go against common sense things like "well, how much could you fit if you did the actual measurements?" I feel like "the max damage a ship can do to a single target per round is its own SP" from DRv2 was a very simple rule that would do this better.

I promise I won't keep harping on this and reposting my view over and over in different ways, as I've said my piece above and that's good enough. Thanks for listening everyone. Please vote no.
 
Look. At the end of it logic and reason need to stand.

Bureaucracy is bad for roleplaying groups. Too much of it and you get a bad reputation. It also makes it hard to sell when recruiting new plays"hey check us out, we have cat girls and ridged rules"

People want to write creatively not stumble through a web of arbitrary bureaucratic rules.

If you do not like somebody or the way they do things, do not play with them.
 
@Wes, it's a bit unfair if you as the SM personally encourage people to vote one way or another.

Putting that aside though, I do not think the "How much could fit on the ship" is a good away of doing it. Because then people will just make ships large enough for their weapons, regardless of the 'role' the ship is supposed to fill. Even from what I've looked at now, there is a pretty clear distinction that most of the small startships, are civilian. (Not all of them of course) But you don't see very many active small military ships that are used.(Plumeria's are though)

To be clear not saying this will erupt into a 'problem' but simply that if people want to put a lot of weapons on regardless of class of ship, they will just make something big.
 
I personally believe in pure engineering sciences. I am voting no simply because I don't see missile massacre-ing as OP so long as you can justify the presence of said missiles.

Say I bring 100,000 missiles of any type into a battle. Missiles start their life in a factory. They require resources to produce.
Does the factory have those resources? If yes, is the factory physically capable of manufacturing 100,000 missiles?
If yes to both it is now time to load them into my ship.

So, it turns out that my ship can actually only hold 10,000 missiles. Okay, so we enter the battle with 10,000 missiles and have now engaged @Wes to punish him for being a website owner. I have aquired target lock and now give the order to acloud_3_steamusercontent_com_ugc_273976415961970392_FE466DA55759B8A50BC3C2B05B4508C0C703B8D4__.gif

But hang on, my ship only has 500 missile tubes! So the crew push buttons and the ship lobs 500 missiles at YSS Eucharis.

The Eucharis sees 500 missiles approaching and engages the missiles with it's super space age accurate point defense weapons. During the exchange about how many hit the ship? Well wouldn't that depend on the quality of the missiles? A good missile isn't cheap, so I'm going to say that the number of hits I score should be a direct reflection of how much money I'm investing in the assault.

So if our concern is with missile massacre-ing between factions I say that's not really feasible because they'd go bankrupt trying to supply their ships which would inevitably find themselves in situations where they are low on/out of ammo. That and a missile ship is going to have trouble with long-range missions because of ammo related issues. They'd be better off with a cannon, ballistic or energy.
 
@Wes, it's a bit unfair if you as the SM personally encourage people to vote one way or another.
Perhaps. But I would have to live with these just like anyone else on the site, and my one vote counts the same as everyone else's in the poll.

Note: I enabled vote switching because people were erroneously told earlier in the thread that I could change their votes if they changed their mind. However I don't have a way to change your votes so I just let people change it themselves.
 
Rizzo this thread isn't about missiles <.< It's about armament capacity. Missiles are simply one type of armament. When we're talking about how strong having a bunch of weapons can be, it gets a whole lot worse if you consider direct fire weapons. Like a ship that has 20 'main guns' or something. Yeah you could limit it by saying "Does the ship have enough power to use them all?" But not only do most people in SARP not have a super strong grasp of engineering, we're we're also working with fantasy tech. Knowing if a 5meter cube aether generator is enough to power all that isn't going to happen.

We'd literally just be winging it on everything other than "Is there enough space to physically fit the gun?" That's includes winging it on how big the gun actually needs to be in the first place, how much distance needs to be between certain weapons so they don't interfere with each other, and lots of other science questions that would be involved in calculating 'space' that probably only a handful of people on the site are qualified to answer.
 
RPG-D RPGfix
Back
Top