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.

Approved Submission C8

Status
Not open for further replies.
Zack

Zack

Inactive Member
Submission Type: Starship
Template Used: Starship
Submission WIP URL: https://wiki.stararmy.com/doku.php?id=wip:faction:uso:c8
Submission Destination URL: https://wiki.stararmy.com/doku.php?id=faction:uso:c8

Faction: USO
FM Approved Yet? Yes
Faction requires art? Yes

For Reviewers:
Contains Unapproved Sub-Articles? Yes:
https://wiki.stararmy.com/doku.php?id=wip:faction:uso:c8radiatorarray
https://wiki.stararmy.com/doku.php?id=wip:faction:uso:heatsinkcontainer
https://wiki.stararmy.com/doku.php?id=wip:faction:uso:liquidstoragecontainer
https://wiki.stararmy.com/doku.php?id=wip:faction:uso:c8defensefieldfacility
https://wiki.stararmy.com/doku.php?id=wip:faction:uso:electrostaticfieldgeneratorcontainer
https://wiki.stararmy.com/doku.php?id=wip:faction:uso:c8laserfacility
https://wiki.stararmy.com/doku.php?id=wip:faction:wazu:lasercontainer


Contains New art? Yes
Previously Submitted? Laser container was previously submitted, pretty much just resubmitted as-is since this is how the container is supposed to be used: as part of a weapon submission.

Notes:
The planet-cracking opreation has been mentioned a few times in RP, but it hasn't been put on the wiki yet.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
This suggestion has been implemented. Votes are no longer accepted.
It would be silly to go back and redo all the artwork, especially when there currently is no 8 tier rule and the ship already falls within what is normally acceptable for similar ships.

The beam generators are all inside of the ship anyways, so it is a lot easier to say the ship can only generate 8 beams instead of having to redo the visible parts of the ship to only have 8 beam emitters.

The only question is how you want the text changed to better reflect that.
 
This shouldn't be a real problem, having more weapons than can be fired. The game Dreadnought and another similar game do the same thing and it's perfectly balanced. I doubt we would have any issues in pvp with a setup like that
 
By reducing the amount of beam generators, there are actually fewer weapons in the ship.

The bits on the surface are just the focusing apature for the beam. Having extra is just like carrying an extra barrel for your machinegun.
 
Wait a minute, @Zack. If the extra emitters are redundant, then why does it matter if the C8 has them or not - and if the beam generators themselves determine how powerful the C8’s weapons are, then what is the effective tier of each beam generator?
 
@Alex Hart because he's put a lot of time and effort into this submission and it matters to him personally and he now has both someone he likes and doesn't like criticizing him heavily about nonsense that isn't going to make a bit of difference. Try to see the other person's point of view before making statements like that, which only make it harder for the submitter to accept counsel.

Also, don't like this post, @Zack as it is neither in nor out of your favor. This is merely a lesson in civility.
 
If it has 8 of the weapons on board with 12 holes to fire through, but only 8 can be used at a time, okay.

What it cannot do is have 12 of the weapons on board and only 8 can be fired.
 
Rizzo said:
a lot of time and effort into this submission and it matters to him personally
Click to expand...

Except that should never be a factor in a submission. We don't checklist effort, we checklist results. "Because I worked hard on it" is an argument that really doesn't, and shouldn't fly in the NTSE, or anywhere else.

If we graded off of how much "effort" someone put into their article, we'd get articles that are essentially, as someone else so wonderfully put when referring to postmodern art, "like a figure skater jumping out and flopping on the ice, getting a concussion, and then demanding a medal."
 
This is going to be extremely abbreviated, as I’m on break at work, but here goes.

The problem with having the C8’s beam generators - as opposed to its actual weapons - is that the generators themselves link back to the C5’s weapons, which are listed as SDR 5. SDR 5 translates to at least Tier 13, and the C8 currently has over ten thousand of these generators - and ten thousand T13 weapons isn’t going to fly (nor is six T13 weapons on a T10 ship gonna fly).

Worse, each of the twelve Laser Facilities “only” has 108 of these T13 beam generators - which causes a conflict between the C8 article and the Laser Station article, as 1,296 =/= 10,384.

Here’s what I propose:

> Reduce the number of Laser Stations to eight.

> Give each station approximately 32 beam generators, and remove their ability to “share” their output with each other.

> Establish the output of one beam generator’ as T10. This is because these beam generators are the same ones the C5 uses - and since the C5 is T10 and has six of these beam generators, the most the beam generators could output is T10 (in order to comply with the 8-tier rule). 32 T10 beam generators outputs a single T15 beam - so problem solved.
 
I think you might even looking into things a bit too much, Frost. From what I can tell, the laser facilities are being used in this ship to make an overall stronger laser beam, which totals out to Tier 15. It's like making a bigger bullet to deal more damage, just with lasers.
 
META_mahn said:
Except that should never be a factor in a submission. We don't checklist effort, we checklist results. "Because I worked hard on it" is an argument that really doesn't, and shouldn't fly in the NTSE, or anywhere else.

If we graded off of how much "effort" someone put into their article, we'd get articles that are essentially, as someone else so wonderfully put when referring to postmodern art, "like a figure skater jumping out and flopping on the ice, getting a concussion, and then demanding a medal."
Click to expand...

This statement is indicative of an incorrect application of the analogy. My counsel had nothing to do with Zack and his behavior, but instead was directed at Alex. If you feel that you can say things like you are the absolute authority you need to be such. We are not. We too are fellow SARPers and submit to the exact same approval process thus we need to treat them the same way we want to be treated. Statements like this...
Alex Hart said:
Look, @Ametheliana said what changes she wanted made, so why are you arguing about this right now.
Click to expand...
... do not show respect to the submitter. In fact, they show a great deal of disrespect not only to Zack but also to Ame. Can she not handle this herself? Zack was talking to her, not Alex. Frankly, it had been comments like these holding up this process that have led me to offer myself to Wes, not for the authority to boss people around but rather to serve my community. Make no mistake, it will be comments like this that will be deleted from submissions I grade and you will see how these useless arguments will be ended. With the utmostrespect and civility or somewhere else. Wes hasn't much time before his time will be completely preoccupied and I don't want him to have to deal with situations that can be avoided.

Furthermore, we are indeed grading for effort. The very first item on the checklist reads, "A very high level of overall quality." Quality requires effort and content creation in general requires a great deal of personal involvement and time. We are moderators. We need to set an example in the NTSE process, not putting our desire to be involved over the need to be respectful, gracious hosts. Again, I'm not saying you can't grade or insist on changes. I'm saying it must always be done with respect.
 
Respect, yes, but that should never get in the way of your job. It’s never okay to neglect to do what’s assigned to you because of “respect.”

It’s impossible to please everyone. So please the important things: Consistency of Setting and the rules. People change on a whim. The rules do not.
 
Hm
Okay so I looked back at this thing Meta, Alex, and Rizzo are looking at.


From what I can tell, @Alex Hart's original comment was directed at @FrostJaeger, but things got mixed up somewhere and @Rizzo believed that the comment was directed at @Zack. After that, @META_mahn did his post.

It happened because of a mistake/miscommunication. Let's please not be at each other's throats...


(I hate autocorrect. It basically broke This post...)
 
Zack re-did the article and it reads a lot better and more clearly now.

Congratulations on a successful submission, Zack.
 
@Alex Hart I apologize. She's completely right. I had Frost on ignore and it totally looked like you were saying it to Zack. I should have turned that off and checked.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
RPG-D RPGfix
Back
Top