• 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

About Intediction Field related technology

1: Microgravity (Normal FTL speeds)
2: Near Planet (speed reduced to 10% of max, Point to point stopped entirely)
3: Standard interdiction field, Draconian War Era Interdiction Field (FTL activity stopped entirely)
4: Military Anti-Interdiction Field
5: Military Interdiction Field
6: Directed Interdiction Systems
7: ???
8: Fleet Scale Anti-Interdiction Field
9: Fleet Scale Interdiction Field
10: Damaged Space / no FTL zones.


This is an outline of what I had in mind. Setting it up in this way sorta explains tech advancement sense interdiction fields started showing up. It also gives a slight benefit to interdiction as opposed to anti-interdiction so 'whack a mole' is a bit harder to pull off successfully. Interdiction would be like DR, and be going up against anti-interdiction to determine if a ship can use its FTL systems and at what speed.
 
The way I see it, you could easily simplify this by grading it as:

Grade 0: Normal FTL Conditions.
Grade 1: Inter-Planetary FTL Conditions
Grade 2: Local Superluminal FTL Interdiction
Grade 3: Mass Superluminal FTL Interdiction
Grade 4: Damaged Subspace Areas / No FTL zones

  • Normal FTL Conditions:
    Hyperspace Fold and superluminal drives function normally. Condition usually applied outside star systems.

    Inter-Planetary FTL Conditions:
    Reached upon entry of a starsystem or generated in deep space by a vessel using an interdiction net hoping to snatch another vessel from hyperspace. Hyperspace fold systems do not function, superluminal engines still do to an extent.

    Local Superluminal FTL Interdiction: Inhibition of superluminal drive capabilities to function, usually generated by another ship using interdiction to prevent escape and insure to limit the opponent to sublight speeds so to bring weaponry to bear.

    Mass Superluminal FTL Interdiction: Similar to local interdiction, except this category is increased in scale and is typically of use for fleet engagements rather than ship-to-ship engagements.

    Damaged Subspace Areas / No FTL zones: Similarly to Grade 4, but areas so affected allow for no FTL capabilities whatsoever and cannot be countered by anti-interdiction measures.

* * *

I feel this way, it simplifies things from using Grade 1 to 4 levels of FTL inhibition, with Grade 1 to 3 values being available for anti-interdiction systems. It's simpler, has less redundant values (we pick only what we need) and it does not base itself on the admittedly screwy DR 1 to 10 damage scale.

Starship-grade weaponry likely might end up based from 1 to 5 in the future anyways. No use basing something off the older system which is in need of being replaced, you see? I admit I could have gone from 1 to 5 instead of 0 to 4... but I felt the number 0 was more appropriate to represent the absence of an interdiction field being used.
 

Hmm...depends how "total" we want interdiction technology to be I suppose. Do we want interdiction fields to simply slow/make FTL harder or do we want it to block it completely? Can ships use their FTL/Fold drives anyway at the risk of damaging/destroying their engines?

Also, how do we want anti-interdiction to function? Would it just reduce the range of interdiction fields? Counter them entirely? If interdiction weren't total, we could reduce the speed penalties when under the influence of a friendly anti-interdiction field (might be getting a bit math-y that though). If we use a 1-10 / 1-5 system, would an anti-interdiction device subtract from the interdiction device's rating and make it easier that way?

Speaking of the 1-10 / 1-5 system, do we even want one? There were some voices against that earlier in this thread - do said people have a better/more workable idea or will something along Uso's lines work with perhaps a bit of tweaking?
 
Wes has stated that he wants a 1-10 system and a 1-10 system is more consistent with the rules set we already have. More freedom is given to ship designers to play with interdiction values and devices and it covers just about everything that interdiction deals with including anti-interdiction. The only thing that needs to be added to the 1-10 system is a brief description of what interdiction is and how it works.

The system you are putting forth isn't really consistent with the setting. FTL works well near planets as it is. Ships don't get snatched out of hyperspace because of the point to point nature of the system. The Grade 4 system implies that FTL works to some extent in all of the lower grades.

The DR system is working fine for what it is needed to do right now. We don't have to rewrite the entire setting every time we want to add a rule :|



Perhaps I wasn't clear enough with my outline. Anti-interdiction should subtract from overall interdiction. For example a level 3 anti-interdiction field turned on while a ship is in a level 4 interdiction field would net 1 interdiction, allowing normal FTL speeds. (though in retrospect this should probably be changed to the 10% number)
 
I'm sort of in agreement with Derran's argument that one an interdiction field is established, we could use only sublight, which would give some room to talk in starship battles. With super-FTL weapons, you don't have so much room for the crew to react or recieve orders from their commanding officer - the Miharu's first real starship battle had the CO giving order to the crew that they tried to interpret on the fly because they needed to react quickly due to the need of making FTL jumps and the presence of superFTL torpedoes. Remove that, and you have a little more room to breathe and roleplay things out a little more intelligently.

From that point, it's really the GM's position to decide how fast paced his battle is, but he'd have a feasible excuse to squeeze in more time.

So, I'd make an assumption that Interdiction tech would allow to affect an area locally, or on a more massive scale. The state would be either that that the conditions are normal, that you cannot use your fold drive or that you cannot use your superluminal drive. A 0 or 1 value, really. And then, if we keep to relatively small values (see my post above yours, Cannonball), then we might limit the headaches to a minimum.

* * *

This thread is all about re-evaluation of FTL/Interdiction technology Zack. We are also going for overhauls pretty much everywhere else since Andrew decided that set precedent was no longer an impediment to fixing things. I'm just getting started, you know? And seeing my goal is to make things more coherent and give environment greater value (some things in space should matter), this only makes the importance of it greater because players being able to relate more to things is in my eyes important.

Therefore, Wes is not limiting my options with his thinking that 'a 1 to 10 DR-like scale would be okay'. My thinking goes much more in line with Derran's this time around.
 
Being coherent involves a single set of rules. It is much more coherent to fix things and have the new rules that fix things mesh with the other rules. If you really want to change all of the rules to better suit your style of RP then perhaps you should talk with Wes about getting your own forum where you can adjust the rules to your liking or utilize the clusterflux section.

Not everything about the rules here is broken and in need of fixing. I'd like to hear from a few of the techies about what values should be in the 1-10 system.
 
But Fred's system isn't coherent with the current rules or the current usage of FTL in the setting. We shouldn't just have rules, we should have rules that work well with the setting.

Even in Fred's post he said that the DR system, which has been working well for what it is intended to do, would have to be reworked and numerous previous RPs would find themselves going against the new rules set laid out. This isn't good for coherency of RP.
 
I'd honestly rather that interdiction was an "on/off" affair. However, as that apparently won't be happening, I prefer Uso's system. The DR system has already been established, and we might as well continue to use the scaling on it for other such things, like interdiction tech.

Also, with your idea on FTL being unavailable around planets, think of how confusing that would be for any new player, seeing dozens of space battles around planets with no effect on FTL, and then being smacked in the face when someone says "nope, half the setting isn't canon."

The speed changes do enough of this already, but I'm okay with them as they actually serve some sort of purpose (putting a cap on any future arms race in the propulsion department), whereas this seems a bit more like you attempting to make the entire setting more hospitable to your personal style of GMing combat.
 
My style of GMing combat matches mostly the medium I understand Wes would usually desire for the setting, while I'm trying to ground out most of the inconsistencies (like firing a point-defense beam on a torpedo going at 17 000c while under a 1 AU distance no time: I press the firing button and you are instantly hit) and trying to make it so that players can identify more to their jobs on each of their positions - aaannd make it fair if I can manage it at the same time. Another thing I've also acknowledged is that the lower speeds might make actions within a star system count for more than before and an easy way to cheat your way around cheaply in battle is the usage of the fold system to pop from one place to another. It leaves a lot to be desired on the level of reactions.

Seeing that Wes is going all out on his starmap making his lightyear-long defense networks to both force out of hyperspace warships and nuke them with super-long range quantum detonator attacks... I wouldn't mind disposing with the ridiculous power of the defense networks and just removing the fear enemy ships might fold out right next to one's holding.

...or I could just fold in 1100 mishhuvurthyar vessels next to Nepleslia and smash it open like an overripe melon. Do you really want people to be able to do that?

Sometimes, less is more.

Furthermore, I support the same idea you do SUBLINEinal. FTL works or doesn't. Interdiction is countered, or it is not. No inbetweens, reductions or exceptions.
 
Don't you guys think this thing about a Interdiction numerical system is just over complicating things just a tiny bit?
 
Unfortunately, interdiction fields can apparently be countered and this introduce contests akin to 'my wang is bigger than yours' because, of course, everyone wants to one-up everyone.

Keeping it to a much smaller scale with only the most important points being emphasized felt like the lesser evil, since people seem to want interdiction fields which will completely halt FTL, but they need a way to counter it... and they want numbers... but they don't want complicated lists.
 
Well the 1-10 system would be like the DR system. It would be a guideline for GMs to use and because Interdiction systems would be limited to 1-10 a 'wang contest' wouldn't be an issue. Saying that it would be in a 1-10 system but not in a 0-4 system is kinda ridiculous.
 
And here I thought Interdiction Field is defeated by anti-interdiction field about the ship, allowing maybe some FTL travel. (CDD?) Simple enough right?
 
That is how it works, but we were going to use the 1-10 (IR instead of DR perhaps?) system to show how strong an interdiction field is and how strong of an anti-interdiction field you need to negate it.
 
We?

Sorry, but what I see as ridiculous is choosing the bigger evil over the lesser one. I have Toshiro complaining in one thread about big tables and here I see just the opposite of someone using a big table and just one drastically smaller one would be sufficient. All it is, Zack, is your voice against mine.

...

That's enough. I want a staff ruling on this: Andrew or Wes. No one saying anything after this is going to matter much after all - no arguments are going to be won out of endurance.

I'd like a thread lock until this matter can be addressed.
 
Based on Fred and Zack's input and that of others, I am attempting to construct a simple, useful, and easy-to-understand guide to FTL systems and FTL systems.

I will let you know when I'm done.
 
This looks neat to me.

The only drawback I see is that when anti-FTL fields are initialized, ships can still use FTL, meaning that the whack-a-mole syndrome wasn't cured.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…