-
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
Tech Wars 101: The Issue and Discussion
- Thread starter Legix
- Start date
-
- Tags
- discussion tech
Rizzo
Well-Known Member
I got an idea. Why don't we make an image of the submission a requirement? that way a moderator could look at the picture and say 'that could/can't work'.
that's not fair! I'm not an artist!
Well, DOGA is free and stupid simple to use. OR get with someone who has DOGA and work with them. Just one look at the vehicle in question will tell you what you need to know. That way when someone says that X number of guns/missiles couldn't possibly fit you can show them that it does.
that's not fair! I'm not an artist!Well, DOGA is free and stupid simple to use. OR get with someone who has DOGA and work with them. Just one look at the vehicle in question will tell you what you need to know. That way when someone says that X number of guns/missiles couldn't possibly fit you can show them that it does.
Legix
Well-Known Member
This sounds really bad. The art of older ships, which we can agree have WAY too many weapons, is a big example. Just because something looks good =/= viable, too. See every gun replica that falls apart like trash compared to genuine solid steel. Looks shouldn't determine a submission's intended impact.I got an idea. Why don't we make an image of the submission a requirement? that way a moderator could look at the picture and say 'that could/can't work'.
Well, DOGA is free and stupid simple to use. OR get with someone who has DOGA and work with them. Just one look at the vehicle in question will tell you what you need to know. That way when someone says that X number of guns/missiles couldn't possibly fit you can show them that it does.
This isn't to say we shouldn't have art. Submissions with art are easier to imagine, but using that as a "get away with X" card seems a tad bit foolish with the way some people run on about "best design". Might make them think it's inherently stronger.
Navian
Inactive Member
For a bit of precedent, consider that the Plumeria, which is widely considered a highly effective ship design, is not only surprisingly effective for its size (which would require us to design a pointbuy system where the value of a ship is linked to something other than its size, or some other contortion no one has considered before), but also has a hot tub. We'd have to ask ourselves how many points a hot tub is worth when building a ship, or contrive a way to allocate space that provides enough wiggle room that no one will ask about the 5 tons of mass allocated to the room, the water, the machinery, and so on.
Or we could just accept that hot tubs are intergral to the Yamataian design philosophy, which as we know is inefficient because they can afford to be, and because we don't want them to blow everyone away by trying their hardest to optimize for combat efficiency, because then they just wouldn't be the Star Army anymore.
Every faction is supposed to do things differently. To maintain that with a pointbuy system we'd have to include rewards for designs that are otherwise suboptimal but fit factions, and penalties for making 'smart' decisions that go against a faction's philosophy. For example, Nepleslian ships that don't have excessive firepower, Freespacer ships that aren't deathtraps on the brink of destruction, or Yamataian ships that aren't clean and comfortable. And then designers would be trying not to overflow their penalty box while optimizing their ship against the base system, instead of trying to epitomize their faction's ideals.
That's after we somehow work out a detailed point-buy system that incorporates and balances everything I listed in the first paragraph of my previous post. All around, this doesn't seem like a good idea after all, does it?
We do need to write down what's acceptable, but it varies depending on what we're making, so a cohesive ship design system isn't the right way to do it.
Or we could just accept that hot tubs are intergral to the Yamataian design philosophy, which as we know is inefficient because they can afford to be, and because we don't want them to blow everyone away by trying their hardest to optimize for combat efficiency, because then they just wouldn't be the Star Army anymore.
Every faction is supposed to do things differently. To maintain that with a pointbuy system we'd have to include rewards for designs that are otherwise suboptimal but fit factions, and penalties for making 'smart' decisions that go against a faction's philosophy. For example, Nepleslian ships that don't have excessive firepower, Freespacer ships that aren't deathtraps on the brink of destruction, or Yamataian ships that aren't clean and comfortable. And then designers would be trying not to overflow their penalty box while optimizing their ship against the base system, instead of trying to epitomize their faction's ideals.
That's after we somehow work out a detailed point-buy system that incorporates and balances everything I listed in the first paragraph of my previous post. All around, this doesn't seem like a good idea after all, does it?
We do need to write down what's acceptable, but it varies depending on what we're making, so a cohesive ship design system isn't the right way to do it.
Maybe make a picture required if there is a problem. If you can't draw, then make an attempt at describing the vehicle.
If a NTSE mod says "This cannot work" then you can make the DoGA model and show it.
Next, for those who cannot or won't learn DoGA for whatever reason. Why don't people go on a list to Volunteer as "DoGA Modeller"
It would be an indication that you are willing to do DoGA work for people.
I would go on that list.
If a NTSE mod says "This cannot work" then you can make the DoGA model and show it.
Next, for those who cannot or won't learn DoGA for whatever reason. Why don't people go on a list to Volunteer as "DoGA Modeller"
It would be an indication that you are willing to do DoGA work for people.
I would go on that list.
Zack
Inactive Member
Writing down what is acceptable would be a cohesive design system.
Other people do this all the time, DnD, 40k, Kerbal space program, simple planes, all have cohesive ship design options. We even already have an unused version in the stat tables if you want to see how I would do it. (Though if In did it again, I'd just code a. program with slider bars that's idiot proof.)
Other people do this all the time, DnD, 40k, Kerbal space program, simple planes, all have cohesive ship design options. We even already have an unused version in the stat tables if you want to see how I would do it. (Though if In did it again, I'd just code a. program with slider bars that's idiot proof.)
I acutally like Navians idea. What are your factions ideals in a ship? What do they try to do? If you go against that, you aren't playing to your faction. You are trying to make something that is just better. Vekimen are fast, with high RoF. They are also incredibly compact and uncomfortable to be in, dark, and unpleasant for anyone who isn't a Vekimen. If I suddenly made something like a luxery ocean liner, then obviously that isn't Vekimen built. They don't do comfort.
But then I get trapped. This is the only problem I see. Vekimen use larger tunnels, so if I have a large battle cruiser or Battleship or something along those lines, and it has any semblance of comfort, then am I docked and penalied because my ship is 1km by 300m by 200m and it can physically afford more space, where as my corvette is brely large enough for two decks and a couple rooms that can only hold 20 people total in an emergency?
Edit. This is an example.
But then I get trapped. This is the only problem I see. Vekimen use larger tunnels, so if I have a large battle cruiser or Battleship or something along those lines, and it has any semblance of comfort, then am I docked and penalied because my ship is 1km by 300m by 200m and it can physically afford more space, where as my corvette is brely large enough for two decks and a couple rooms that can only hold 20 people total in an emergency?
Edit. This is an example.
Navian
Inactive Member
No, those aren't the same thing. A cohesive design system does provide constraints meant to forbid things that are unacceptable, but if it's rigid enough to forbid everything that would be unacceptable it'll also forbid many things that are acceptable, likely including whole ranges of things that were previously unanticipated, like the ships of a faction with a different philosophy that wasn't considered when designing the system. And if it's flexible enough to work with any faction, it will definitely permit many things that should not be allowed, otherwise it couldn't include unexpected designs.
This suggestion doesn't seem to be relevant to the problem, especially given the examples you just listed. It seems more intended to give people something to play with and have fun experimenting with the constraints of, which is very nearly the opposite of our goal here.
Last edited:
Syaoran
Retired Staff
Requiring art is a really bad idea. Some people are just not artistically or engineering inclined. And having art as a hurdle will make people shy away from doing it. It's understandable to make species need it, but for just tech, a solid description of it's appearance should be good enough.
Even if the site has a group of people willing to donate their time to the project? It may not be grade A material, but we could at least have a minimum example
Syaoran
Retired Staff
People shying away isn't actually about what's 'available'. For instance, even if people are offering to do it, if art is required, people who can't do art would be limited by their finances to buy new art, and even if people are doing it for free, they're limited by their conscience, feeling like they aren't putting a burden on people. Not everyone has the courage to ask for free art after free art, even if they are from different people.
Navian
Inactive Member
I don't think so. 'Be in numerous fights' isn't a high standard to hold to, so long as it's not expected to win them all single-handedly. A ship could be designed to be 1/3rd made of missiles and launchers with another third hangar bays and then have a small engineering section, with little in the way of armour, shields or energy weapons very easily, in my mind. It'd depend on being either large or inconspicuous, out of range, and protected by other ships to survive those battles.
Arieg
DEFCON Everybody Dies
Well effectively being able to go from one engagement to another without having to pay a visit to a reload point.
Syaoran
Retired Staff
@Arieg in all honesty, you're thinking aobut design all wrong. If you want a ship to be built for going from one engagement to another without resupplying...don't make it's primary for of attack something so restrictive. That's like trying to have a soldier that only has a pistol and grenades go from battle field to battlefield without resupplying. You should think of ways to make it's main guns more reliable, and focus on using those for main combat and finishing with missiles, if you plan to go form engagement to engagement.
Navian
Inactive Member
I think most militaries would solve that problem with logistics vessels. Designing your ships so they can fight two engagements instead of one logically means they'll have half as much firepower in each engagement, so while they might conserve ammunition deliberately, if they don't have the ability to unload all their missiles in one battle they're suboptimal warships, and might be more suitable as patrol vessels.
It's not too difficult to send in another ship to provide a resupply, much cheaper than building more warships. It's kind of like how when we design fighter craft in the modern day, instead of giving them longer ranges and larger fuel tanks, we consider it more efficient to refuel them in mid-air... even though mid-air refuelling is very difficult! It's considered worth it, just to get higher-performance fighter jets.
It's not too difficult to send in another ship to provide a resupply, much cheaper than building more warships. It's kind of like how when we design fighter craft in the modern day, instead of giving them longer ranges and larger fuel tanks, we consider it more efficient to refuel them in mid-air... even though mid-air refuelling is very difficult! It's considered worth it, just to get higher-performance fighter jets.
