• 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 stararmy@gmail.com 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

Approved Submission [188604] AF-15 Tacit

Status
Not open for further replies.

Zack

Inactive Member
Submission Type: Space-Fighter
Submission URL: https://wiki.stararmy.com/doku.php?id=wip:af15

Faction: Independent
FM Approved Yet? (Yes/No; Who, When) Yes, Me, Now.
Faction requires art? (Yes/No) Yes.

For Reviewers:
Contains Unapproved Sub-Articles? (Yes/No) No
Contains New art? (Yes/No) Yes
Previously Submitted? (Yes/No; explain reason if rejected) No

Notes: a 'mook' fighter upcoming antagonists in 188604. Nothing really objectionable on the submission, but it isn't nearly as detailed as similar things intended for player use.
 
This suggestion has been implemented. Votes are no longer accepted.
What is the DR threshold of the shields?

And the armor should itself be in SP, not DR.

Do you have a render of the underside? I can make out an intake scoop, I think. What's that look like?
 
I changed 'shield mitigation' to 'shield threshold' so there is no confusion about what I mean.

ADR for armor value has been changed to ASP.

And I added the DOGA model of the craft to the DOGA thread on the site. I also did a quick render of the underside, but I didn't include an underside view of the craft in the article because I didn't like the way the page looked with all that art scattered about. There are a pair of small intakes down there but they aren't much to look at not did I actually include any landing gear on this model (It is assumed to be in some compartment that closes up to he flush against the hull.

View attachment 5907
 
Black on black imagery is not the greatest for approval purposes. Even at max brightness I can't make out much

After reviewing this submission, here's my offer.

I will approve this submission as a GM-only plot device that does not leave your plot and sets no precedents for any future submissions or technology use. That designation means you can keep using it all you like within the confines of your plot, much like your C5 essentially exists today.

Using this qualified approach gets you the plot device you want — no muss, no fuss. It also saves us the trouble of going toe-to-toe again over a submission that requires more work than is already shown.

The approach also relieves me of a headache before it's allowed to start.

Deal?
 
What I expect from you is for you to follow the submission review guidelines. If you can't (or won't) then I would rather someone else handle this review.

That being said, I'm looking at the article with the Yui-Red background and didn't consider what it may look like in the ghost nebula flavor. I just went through the different wiki flavors and I still think the grey looks fine though the shadows on the rear fin may be a bit too dark. I'm out and about today, but I should have enough computer time before tomorrow rolls around to do a white base color with transparent background image of the craft to make things a bit more visible.
 
This review is for: AF-15 "Tacit" starfighter

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)
[-] 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)
[/] 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 …
[x] 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)
[-] Use major unapproved sub-articles that should be submitted separately
[/] Lacking Detail
[x] Images hosted on sites other than stararmy.com (Photobucket, Imageshack, etc are not allowed)

The article has …
[/] 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.

Review notes/questions:

1. The company making this fighter does not exist on the wiki and has not yet been submitted. On those grounds alone, I'm within my rights to reject the submission outright.

2. The fighter cannot be confirmed as complying with the Starship Speed Standard. We don't know where the fighter's made, let alone who actually is making it. We only know that it exists, and that's not enough information to judge it.

3. We don't have any information about what material comprises the fighter's hull. That removes its compliance with the DR guidelines.

4. I'm wary about the speed of the missiles fired. In past discussions, we've severely reduced the speeds at which starship-fired projectiles are allowed to go, but whether 0.8 c breaks the soft limit is beyond my recollection. Anyone who knows better (@Nashoba?) can correct me there (via PM, please).

5. We have nothing on the internals of the cockpit, the type of engines it uses, how it maneuvers beyond fins for aerospacy flight or any other salient details about how a player might utilize the craft, were they ever in a position to do so.

Based on these concerns, I am well within my authority to reject this submission for IC usage. This does not include my concerns about the craft in general, based on my years of experience in the SARP setting as well as a tech moderator and as primary tech moderator.

That being said, this submission is good enough to fit the role of a GM-only plot device, which sets no precedent beyond itself and establishes no plot entities outside the plot for which it is used, in this case 188604.

This submission therefore is approved for GM-use only within the 188604 plot.

It is not approved for any other IC usage.

Thread locked.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…