Rascaldees
Banned Member
- Submission URL
- https://stararmy.com/wiki/doku.php?id=wip:ucs:weapons:daedulus_cannon#ammunition_or_energy_source_if_applicable
- Submission Faction(s)
- Outlaws (Independent)
- Submission Terms
- I agree
Awaiting approval.
-
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
Rejected Submission Daedalus Cannon
- Thread starter Rascaldees
- Start date
- Status
Syaoran
Retired Staff
Okay you guys have kinda gone off on the wrong side of the fence. All we need right now is to make something with believably close damage potential to a weapon of the tier that he wanted. We do not need to calculate energy transfer and such (the vast majority of the weapons in site do not do that because we don't have hardness for the materials either.)
So what really needs to be done is simply getting comparable, but not exact energy values.
So what really needs to be done is simply getting comparable, but not exact energy values.
HarperMadi
🎨 Media Gallery
That'd do. ish.
Alexstraizer
Active Member
I think he is using an Osmium Alloy.
Maybe?
Hello! Let's see if this submission meets the requirements for inclusion in Star Army's lore...
[
] 1. The destination URL should be a page in the appropriate namespace and titled lower_case_with_underscores
[ ] 2. The article is in the appropriate format and article template
[ ] 3. The article follows our wiki style guidelines, including: No forced line breaks, text after each section header, etc.
[ ] 4. The article is easily read and free of errors in spelling and grammar
[ ] 5. Links to other wiki articles are present as appropriate
[ ] 6. The article fits into the Star Army universe's space opera theme and technology levels
[ ] 7. Images in the article are hosted on Star Army's wiki and sourced responsibly (contact Wes privately if there's a concern)
[ ] 8. The article is original and doesn't contain copy-pasted content from other articles.
[
] 9. The article complies with Star Army's rules in terms of damage ratings, speed limits, etc.
[ ] 10. The Faction Manager(s), if applicable, have posted approval for this article in this thread.
Here's some fixes this article still needs:
1. The damage this weapon does is, currently, far too high for its caliber and fire rate.
If you want to keep the caliber size, a damage rating of 10 for the armor penetrating round is acceptable, and a damage rating of 9 for the general purpose round. As far as fire rate goes, based on existing weaponry 40-50 RPM seems about right.
If you're married to the damage ratings, you should increase the round size back to what it was previously, 600mm or so if I remember correctly. For firing rates, 4 RPM for the armor piercing and 6 RPM for the normal shot seems acceptable.
2. Currently, this weapon is missing an article for its ammo
When these fixes are made, please post a reply here so I can re-check the article. Thank you!
[
] 1. The destination URL should be a page in the appropriate namespace and titled lower_case_with_underscores[
] 2. The article is in the appropriate format and article template[
] 3. The article follows our wiki style guidelines, including: No forced line breaks, text after each section header, etc.[
] 4. The article is easily read and free of errors in spelling and grammar[
] 5. Links to other wiki articles are present as appropriate[
] 6. The article fits into the Star Army universe's space opera theme and technology levels[
] 7. Images in the article are hosted on Star Army's wiki and sourced responsibly (contact Wes privately if there's a concern)[
] 8. The article is original and doesn't contain copy-pasted content from other articles.[
] 9. The article complies with Star Army's rules in terms of damage ratings, speed limits, etc.[
] 10. The Faction Manager(s), if applicable, have posted approval for this article in this thread.Here's some fixes this article still needs:
1. The damage this weapon does is, currently, far too high for its caliber and fire rate.
If you want to keep the caliber size, a damage rating of 10 for the armor penetrating round is acceptable, and a damage rating of 9 for the general purpose round. As far as fire rate goes, based on existing weaponry 40-50 RPM seems about right.
If you're married to the damage ratings, you should increase the round size back to what it was previously, 600mm or so if I remember correctly. For firing rates, 4 RPM for the armor piercing and 6 RPM for the normal shot seems acceptable.
2. Currently, this weapon is missing an article for its ammo
When these fixes are made, please post a reply here so I can re-check the article. Thank you!
Rascaldees
Banned Member
At 600mm it was agreed the round would be a T14. Now the same caliber is being described as a T10? There's no more evidence needed in my mind that either this DR system is so out of wack that it cannot be fixed or that there are clear biases had here.
Frthermore, the weapon isn't missing an article for its ammunition. It is linked within the topic itself. Are you purposefully misreading what has been written in order to create strife or do you genuinely want to help? Because right now all logical evidence points to the former.
At this time I will be formally requesting a new NTSE to take command over the modifications to this weapon as per the site's rules explained to me by @Jack Pine
@HarperMadi or @Syaoran could you please investigate this? This has gone on long enough and is either being written to be purposefully confusing or the NTSE moderator has no idea what he's talking about. The earlier talks in the thread mention a 300mm weapon being tiered similarly to this weapon's purpose. A T14 weapon was agreed earlier that 600mm would be good to go. Am I mistaken and reading too much into what's being said? Or am I seeing the logic between the lines here?
"That's more or less what I've been doing. I think a 600mm shell should be roughly sufficient, going off of basic math, to do the intended damage tier." or is this not in response to "Then I guess I'll beef the caliber up to 600mm and call it good." this? Which was stated directly before that former quote.
Frthermore, the weapon isn't missing an article for its ammunition. It is linked within the topic itself. Are you purposefully misreading what has been written in order to create strife or do you genuinely want to help? Because right now all logical evidence points to the former.
At this time I will be formally requesting a new NTSE to take command over the modifications to this weapon as per the site's rules explained to me by @Jack Pine
@HarperMadi or @Syaoran could you please investigate this? This has gone on long enough and is either being written to be purposefully confusing or the NTSE moderator has no idea what he's talking about. The earlier talks in the thread mention a 300mm weapon being tiered similarly to this weapon's purpose. A T14 weapon was agreed earlier that 600mm would be good to go. Am I mistaken and reading too much into what's being said? Or am I seeing the logic between the lines here?
"That's more or less what I've been doing. I think a 600mm shell should be roughly sufficient, going off of basic math, to do the intended damage tier." or is this not in response to "Then I guess I'll beef the caliber up to 600mm and call it good." this? Which was stated directly before that former quote.
Currently the article has a red link labled 120x500mm round in the ammunition area. If you want to keep that size, I told you what you should do. I also said in my post, quite clearly, that if you were married to the tier 12 and 14 damage ratings that you should change the shell back to what it was previously, 600mm, just as you mentioned.
Rascaldees
Banned Member
You're also wildly all over the place with the caliber and what it should be capable of. If a 600mm x 1000mm weapon is doing damage at T14 then it isn't far fetched to believe a 120mm x 500mm is doing similar damages to anything T11 or lower since and I QUOTE:
"Damage tiers are roughly supposed to be double the damage of the last tier"
"Damage tiers are roughly supposed to be double the damage of the last tier"
Oh, I see the issue - Alex is still looking at the wiki page, not the thread; That's how things are supposed to be done, actually! Just talking about the issue in the thread doesn't really improve the article itself - modifying the wiki page oughta fix it.
(Not saying anyone's wrong or right or anything like that, just pointing out something I noticed~)
(Not saying anyone's wrong or right or anything like that, just pointing out something I noticed~)
Rascaldees
Banned Member
The article has been changed a few times now. Originally the shell was a 12x50mm. Then it changed a few times until it reached 600x1,000mm which is a ludicrous shell size. It's just been changed back to a 120x500mm shell. With a mass of 200kg at .75c the shell impact is enough to obliterate an entire planet with a single shot. And 200kg in a shell that size is very plausible. I'm 6ft and 210 pounds in reality. I have 95.2kg of mass and I'm not made of metal or very dense materials. Relative to our size, humans have very little mass in their bodies compared to most other elements.
Now I get this isn't a hard science setting but SURELY something that can just erase a planet is well over T9?
Well... Setting scale doesn't rely on purely hard sci-fi in that sense, there's loose hardness but not solid hardness. If that makes any sense.
I'd say a round/weapon that can deal notable damage to a planet would be pretty high on the tier table, even accounting for stuff like shielding. Probably in the lower end of capital ship tier? Which is T34-14ish last I recall. Lemme go check that... Yeah. I think the main problem, which isn't really part of this submission, is that DRv3 doesn't really have a proper "rate of fire" approximation. It says "attack", which depending on your weapon of choice could be one hit or dozens.
But that's kinda a tangent, to be honest. I think this weapon's fine at T13 for average use. That puts it in the scale of the Plumeria's main gun, and the turrets on the Sharie battleship (A personal favorite of mine, though outdated).
I'd say a round/weapon that can deal notable damage to a planet would be pretty high on the tier table, even accounting for stuff like shielding. Probably in the lower end of capital ship tier? Which is T34-14ish last I recall. Lemme go check that... Yeah. I think the main problem, which isn't really part of this submission, is that DRv3 doesn't really have a proper "rate of fire" approximation. It says "attack", which depending on your weapon of choice could be one hit or dozens.
But that's kinda a tangent, to be honest. I think this weapon's fine at T13 for average use. That puts it in the scale of the Plumeria's main gun, and the turrets on the Sharie battleship (A personal favorite of mine, though outdated).
Syaoran
Retired Staff
For now I'm just going to interject this. But it should be noted that DR is measured 'per shot' not involving rapid fire. So if the weapon is meant to have huge amounts of rapid fire it can get by with a lower DR, and still having high damage potential. However that also doesn't mean that in order to be a certain DR, that the weapon needs to fire at least a certain speed.
Rascaldees
Banned Member
My point isn't rate of fire versus damage. My point is that weapons of the exact same tier have a mere third the destructive power.
Rascaldees
Banned Member
Apologies. I misinterpreted the intended message.
I'm gonna quote myself from here real quick.
Yes, in "True Physics" as I'm going to call them, you have a devastating weapon. This is, however, "SARP Physics". Yes, it is based off of "True Physics", but it's not meant to be equal to it. Use some basic science to determine that "yes this does a lot of damage", but you shouldn't like... Pledge eternal allegiance to what it is, basically. The way weapons work here is just going to be different, which is why the DRv3 system exists (or at least, that's the REASON it's supposed to exist).
Also, going to quote this rule:
"It is not a valid argument to justify overpowered or questionable abilities on your submission by…
It's one that people really seem to forget, all the time - I've seen several people do it. Lots of older pages may have even been approved by a person, or made by a person, who isn't in the community anymore!
The submission rules are here, for those who would like a reminder or who want to verify my quote.
Yes, in "True Physics" as I'm going to call them, you have a devastating weapon. This is, however, "SARP Physics". Yes, it is based off of "True Physics", but it's not meant to be equal to it. Use some basic science to determine that "yes this does a lot of damage", but you shouldn't like... Pledge eternal allegiance to what it is, basically. The way weapons work here is just going to be different, which is why the DRv3 system exists (or at least, that's the REASON it's supposed to exist).
Also, going to quote this rule:
"It is not a valid argument to justify overpowered or questionable abilities on your submission by…
- pointing to an older submission, especially one of a different faction"
It's one that people really seem to forget, all the time - I've seen several people do it. Lots of older pages may have even been approved by a person, or made by a person, who isn't in the community anymore!
The submission rules are here, for those who would like a reminder or who want to verify my quote.
That is correct, and currently, this weapon is doing very high damage per shot, and firing two shots every second. Right now, this weapon is capable of putting out the equivalent of an Eikan class firing its main gun twice every second, hence why I gave the current ruling.
This may be off-topic to a degree, but I think that the whole "damage per attack" thing should be made a little less... outright in favor of rapid-fire weapons. Because as it stands, it's just specific enough to make situations like this show up, where a weapon seems reasonable enough except for an arbitrary number being effectively inflated beyond what the weapon's creator has intended due to what is effectively "fine print".
Syaoran
Retired Staff
I'm going to say your ruling kinda make no sense Alex. This can down the Eikan in a few shots and look at it's RPM but also your ruling was not that "This gun is OP" you ruled that the gun did not actually perform at the DR that it was stated to be at." Now 2 times a second is high, but there are other weapons with pretty absurd fire rites. I do recommend some tweaking though to bring it's fire rate down. But please do not try to tie down fire rate like that. As many shots hit as the GM wants to hit.
Rascaldees
Banned Member
What is also correct is that many weapons of the setting are doing 1/3rd the same damage in the SAME tier as the proposed weapon tier for this weapon. This weapon does well over 600 megatons of damage in a single shot. Another weapon of the same tier which is recently added is doing 240 megatons; well below half. If this submission passed for the given tier then logically speaking the 600 megaton weapon is at least if not more than one tier above given how wide the tiers are since 240 megatons might be considered high for the tier.
Going by SARP's DR system which has been quoted as "each tier is double the last" that would mean that this weapon does NOT fall into a T9 category and instead falls into a T10 category at the minimum if not a very, very close running to a T11. I'm not arguing that the fire rate can be nerfed or should but.
But there's another argument here; this is a ship's main cannon. This is what they use to hunt down and destroy other ships of the same size and larger carriers. It would make absolutely 0% sense for that weapon to be rated to basically be an anti-fighter weapon instead of something capable of damaging large ships.
Going by SARP's DR system which has been quoted as "each tier is double the last" that would mean that this weapon does NOT fall into a T9 category and instead falls into a T10 category at the minimum if not a very, very close running to a T11. I'm not arguing that the fire rate can be nerfed or should but.
But there's another argument here; this is a ship's main cannon. This is what they use to hunt down and destroy other ships of the same size and larger carriers. It would make absolutely 0% sense for that weapon to be rated to basically be an anti-fighter weapon instead of something capable of damaging large ships.
- Status
