As I promised @Fred here, in order to continue the discussion regarding point-buy systems and DRv3 here's what @Zack and @Fred have discussed thus far:
One thing that annoys me of the way the submission guidelines have been treated. Frankly, the 8-same-tier weapon budget worked well as long as "submission fairness" did not come into the equation. It gave a baseline idea (which Cadetnewb wanted) on what could be aimed for with a warship of that size. One could say the basis is 'fast warships boasting spinal mounts and few extras' - which the Plumeria, Eikan and Sharie kind of are compared to the other warships we have around.
But I always expected haggling to happen and for it to remain a flexible figure. For example, if I had a ship skirting the line in size between medium starship and heavy starship... I thought it was reasonable to accommodate a submission running out of weapon space by adding one or two items to the weapon budget (10x Tier 11 weapons is far less significant than 8x tier 12 weapons). Say, someone might have pointed out the Chiaki's lack of intrastellar propulsion and I would have probably been amenable to giving something back in return.
Someone somewhere is going to gloat on the site, but let's recognize what they was: an unofficial form of point-buy, kept that way in the interest of flexibility. But this form of amenability sparked alarm in others due to double-standards being something that could happen. Mods are only human, and organic processes aren't steady.
I know the 8-same-tier-weapons budget is not outlandish because it comes from somewhere. It's an observable commonality on Wes' ships, and if there's any baseline I think we can rely on, it's the setting admin's submissions as primary benchmark. but to appeal to both the effort invested by Frostjaeger, accommodate Zack, and respond to the dilemmas Cadetnewb tried to relate, maybe we ought to use this as springboard for a simple point-buy system base on what we have so far for DRv3.
I won't vouch for the quality of the examples I'm about to provide, as I just made them up, but I thought we could make that up in with simple 3-step selections:
Damage control:
1- Minimal backup systems
2- Auxiliary systems, emergency reserves
3- Significant system redundancies and backup systems
Barrier systems:
1- protection against space hazards
2- defensive field systems (bubble)
3- military-grade system (double-sided for small-craft/six-sided for starships)
Travel range (how fast could depend on ship armor weight):
1- Interplanetary (transatmospheric)
2- Interstellar (subspace travel - which is like CDD)
3- Fast interstellar (hyperspace travel - like fold drives)
Auxiliary craft:
1- Limited smallcraft and escape pods (ejection seat for small craft)
2- Equivalent to several shuttlecraft, ample number of escape pods
3- Carrier capabilities to support multiple units (proportional to vehicle)
Cargo capacity:
1- Limited (small closet-spaces beyond landing facilities)
2- Dedicated cargo bay(s), significant stores of extra supplies.
3- Significant cargo-storage space
I thought I'd try to draw inspiration from Zack's stuff, but I couldn't find it, so going in blind. I basically wanted to go on a basis of "small, average, large" assets in each field as an example. And somewhere beyond that, we have our 8 weapon budget
So, the total budget might actually be more around 16ish. The above is exploratory and in no way proven to work.
I really wanted to avoid a point-buy system, but you guys aren't allowing for that kind of leeway.
https://wiki.stararmy.com/doku.php?id=guide:starship_stats_tables
I like the idea of haggling, but I hate the idea of having to do it with a bunch of different people. I'm very much in favor of just writing down what is acceptable.
You don't have to get as granular as the stat tables either. You (Fred) already laid the basis of the system with the unarmored option. A simple system just like that where a ship gives up X to get Y would be fantastic. Maybe knock off another damage tier to get a few more weapons? Or a negative modifier to speed to get more armor? Or just a list of 'negatives' you can apply to your ship in exchange for taking something from the list of positives.
The important part is just writing down what's acceptable.
Thanks for the link Zack.
I just randomly made the above writeup. The problem I find is that very few ships are actually going to fit in it. Larger ships like the eikan and Sharie tend to have everything, and the Sharie was already watered down as far as it can go (I had to convince Wes that the turret rate-of-fire made up for the equivalency they had with the Plumeria's main gun). But the Sharie has a fighter wing and shopping malls. I'm not sure there's any tradeoff possible there, but if I stick to making things proportional to ship size (like the armament currently is), then every ship is likely to have tradeoffs when people don't actually want tradeoffs, they want everything.
*headdesk*
So, in spirit of "Keep It Simple Stupid", Zack's right. Focusing on what would be haggled for is probably better than going for an exhaustive listing. but the exhaustive listing might cover Cadetnewb's "I've got a big battleship, I can cram stuff in!" consideration.
What haggling seemed reasonable, thus far, during the lifespan of the eight-same-tier-weapon guideline that I remember:
- Have a weaker barrier system than you're entitled to? I'm willing to let you have an extra weapons.
- Don't have a fold drive when most ships do? Here, have an extra weapon in your budget.
- The weapons you want don't fit, but your submission's size borderline might fit in the next higher size? here, have 1 to 2 extra weapons (still less powerful than jumping categories).
I figure that ideally, the number of 'extras' you get shouldn't exceed 7 (if we keep to the base of 8)
The Sharie problem I outlined has me draw a bit blank on this. x_x
Okay, my last post was somewhat scatterbrained. I got my thoughts more organized. Sorry for double-posting.
First off: @FrostJaeger are you okay with us discussing that haggling? If that much makes Zack content, it's bound to alleviate concerns from other people at the same time and it still builds on the current foundation. Give a shout if you'd rather go for article approval rather than continuing the discussion - I was in similar shoes when having DRv3 submitted, so, I can relate with your current plight. I believe it's contextually accurate, as it rests on the same foundation and is still relevant to weapon budget, just on a greater scope.
I looked over the DRv3 Article to see where flexibility/haggling was possible, trading in caveats for extra boons. Let's keep in mind this is mostly for vehicles, mecha and up. We have:
Regarding Defense tier:
Unarmored. Having a ship not bear armor plating. This is pretty significant, it's like any weapon that hits you is going to hurt your unit worse than units of that tier usually do. We know it may carry the intrinsic advantage of being faster (or stealthy, depending on material). Really only a significant tradeoff for a warship.Regarding Barriers:
Fortified. Lose from weapon allotment and/or speed penalty, raise effective tier for defense. Just as significant as less armor in impact. Essentially the reverse of Unarmored. Possibly could involve armor only, barrier only but treating them separate involves more complexity
Limited coverage. We know that there's a baseline for barriers. Double-sided only starts happening around the Mecha category, but becomes common for Starships. If a starship chooses for less capable field systems - a light starship going for simple bubble barrier - then concessions are possible.Regarding Propulsion:
Half-Strength. Right now, barriers are treated as able to soak in two lethal hits. This kind of handicap that it can only handle one.
(no barrier was a possibility, but this feels more like a technological limitation than a tradeoff to me)
No fold drive. Removing a common FTL function. May entitle the ship to tradeoffs. (for instance, it's a tradeoff a Chiaki escort might have used to be Fortified)Regarding Size:
(No Flight Capability was a possibility, but I wasn't sure it was appropriate as that feels more like a design decision. Mostly a way to have groundbound tanks able to boast more firepower?)
Almost next size tier. If the desired ship hardware doesn't fit, striding the line between one tier and another in size can justify accommodating an extra weapon or two (because giving a few bonuses is not as empowering as having the ship become one of the smallest of next size tier)Limitation on extra weapon allotment: never more than 7. Having 8 would essentially give a smaller ship equivalent assets to a ship a tier greater. Even with tradeoffs this shouldn't be possible.
Magnitude left ambiguous for the moment. Not yet sure what would be worth what.
Also, I don't think this ought to necessarily prevent future haggling. Just that when we actually settle on a point we can give and take on, to document it. Also, a point to be flexible on should likely involve peer-oversight for quality control, in order to avoid one mod making one up only to have others give it a double-take later on (in essence, it could be a bit of a living document; basically, it's okay not to think up all of the possibilities right now)
