[Elysia] Adrast-Type Tactical Missile Update

The platform needs:
Its red link fixed (Manufacturer: veritas_shipyards)
Text underneath all major headers

I will properly read over it after those things are fixed so that I don't miss anything later on.

The torpedo missile looks fine.

Painted black for stealth.

no art.

Speed not listed in tenths of C.

The flavor doesn't seem to match up with the previous article, no talk about acceleration.

Remote controlled by stations, rather than expanding on the networked computer usage.

This should be a new submission, rather than an update of the much older article. This should also have art, and we really shouldn't be considering new weapon articles without art.

Why is this speed 0.6c? It seems too fast for the rules, unless exceptions are made for missiles. I'm hoping to work on a missile soon myself, and the speed of this submission will likely reflect what I deem possible for mine...so expect this to set precedent.

The missile issue was brought up during DRv3's creation and so far it still hasn't been fixed.

The current accepted work around is to not list the weapon speed.

Agreed. Simply don't list it, and everything will smoothly move at the speed of plot.

Wes has told me in a PM that 0.75c overboost, ala Plumeria, is still a thing. I guess this missile could thus achieve 0.6c.

In theory, however, for the sake of keeping things from getting out of hand, it's best to leave its actual velocity unlisted. We have more to lose than to gain by having it listed.

Is it even possible to approve something that travels through space without a speed value?

Yes. This has been used before to approve missile type weapons.

There is still a giant hole in the approval rules for how to treat missiles. Then again, if we're upholding doublers there doesn't seem to be much reason to follow DRv3 anyways.

I say we go with unlisted unless @FrostJaeger has major disagreement with that ruling.

Wes' words, to clarify, regarding what would be needed to barr overboost or such speeds: "Basically if you want to get rid of them you need a wiki page saying they're not allowed and a setting discussion thread that links to that page and explains the change needed to the aether articles etc"

Not impossible to ban, but needs cause.

We already have several pages that ban them. They are explicitly against the last several versions of the speed guidelines.

Then find and link those pages in a setting discussion as stated above. That's what it would take.

They are already banned though. What would the point of opening the discussion be?

Relax guys, Ame's made her call. Now it's up to Frost to answer.

This is off-topic and should have its own thread to discuss or move to chat or PMs.

Zack said:

Painted black for stealth.

Click to expand...

Fixed, and thanks for pointing that out.

Zack said:

no art.

Click to expand...

Try reading the opening post of a thread before posting in it, @Zack.

FrostJaeger said:

This article will be receiving art at some point in the future, however, it's currently a low-priority item because of its age and lack of usage.

Click to expand...

Anyways.

Zack said:

Speed not listed in tenths of C.

Click to expand...

Try reading the entirety of the submission's article before posting in its thread, @Zack.

The submission's article said:

• Maximum Velocity (Space): 0.450c (134,906.6061 kilometers/second, 83,827.0787 miles/second)

Click to expand...

Anyways.

Zack said:

The flavor doesn't seem to match up with the previous article, no talk about acceleration.

Click to expand...

The only reason I removed the section about acceleration is due to the fact that it was no longer necessary - not when the missile only has to accelerate to slower-then-light velocities (as opposed to the original version, which had to accelerate to two thousand times the speed of light).

Zack said:

Remote controlled by stations, rather than expanding on the networked computer usage.

Click to expand...

Uh...what? Remote-controlled? Try actually reading the article, @Zack (emphasis mine)...

The submission's article said:

...to enhance the Tactical Missile's overall “competency,” it is equipped with an advanced guidance system that makes use of targeting and sensor data supplied by local Adrast stations in order to determine the course of greatest success to its target, thereby increasing the missile's accuracy and damage potential...

Click to expand...

Anyways.

Zack said:

This should be a new submission, rather than an update of the much older article.

Click to expand...

How about nope?

Zack said:

This should also have art, and we really shouldn't be considering new weapon articles without art.

Click to expand...

Again, try reading the opening post of the thread, @Zack.

Toshiro said:

Why is this speed 0.6c? It seems too fast for the rules, unless exceptions are made for missiles. I'm hoping to work on a missile soon myself, and the speed of this submission will likely reflect what I deem possible for mine...so expect this to set precedent.

Click to expand...

It's because I could've sworn this was the "accepted" maximum value agreed upon at some point during the infamous missile debates; after talking with @Wes, however, I've gone ahead and reduced the speed to 0.450c. Apologies for that.

Zack said:

The missile issue was brought up during DRv3's creation and so far it still hasn't been fixed.

Click to expand...

It just got fixed, as far as I'm aware. Although @Wes would have to clarify, missiles to the best of my knowledge are now limited by the same rules as starships.

Zack said:

The current accepted work around is to not list the weapon speed.

Click to expand...

Nice attempt, but nope - and what approved submission(s), dear @Zack, have this "accepted work around" of yours?

CadetNewb said:

Agreed. Simply don't list it, and everything will smoothly move at the speed of plot.

Click to expand...

Nice (perceived) bandwagon attempt, but nope.

Ira said:

Speed of plot is what it it needs to be. All these numbers really mean is fast, faster, really fast, 2BUU FAST 2BUU FURIOUZ

Click to expand...

And this contributes to the discussion...how? Also, nice (perceived) bandwagon attempt.

Acewing13 said:

Especially since when we do, we get into arguments like this.

FrostJaeger said:

179,875 kilometers/second, the speed listed in the GIM-3's article converts to roughly sixty percent the speed of light - which renders the entire velocity-based argument kind of moot, seeing as how the missile can outrun (and, while it's ultimately up to the GMs, therefore have at least a chance of outmaneuvering) any starship currently used within the setting.

Click to expand...

And those just gets everyone annoyed.

Click to expand...

How cute - but you know what really gets everyone annoyed? People coming into submission threads and -
without actually contributing anything of value to the discussion - intentionally quoting others just to take cheap shots at them.

Toshiro said:

Wes has told me in a PM that 0.75c overboost, ala Plumeria, is still a thing. I guess this missile could thus achieve 0.6c.

Click to expand...

@Wes - not to be rude, but doesn't this conflict with what you said here?

CadetNewb said:

In theory, however, for the sake of keeping things from getting out of hand, it's best to leave its actual velocity unlisted. We have more to lose than to gain by having it listed.

Click to expand...

I vehemently disagree, as by listing velocities we prevent metagaming and other such shenanigans.

Toshiro said:

Is it even possible to approve something that travels through space without a speed value?

Click to expand...

It shouldn't be possible, in my opinion.

Zack said:

Yes. This has been used before to approve missile type weapons.

There is still a giant hole in the approval rules for how to treat missiles. Then again, if we're upholding doublers there doesn't seem to be much reason to follow DRv3 anyways.

Click to expand...

Don't even start, @Zack. DRv3 is here to stay, regardless of how much you attempt to ignore it and/or make it go away.

Ametheliana said:

I say we go with unlisted unless @FrostJaeger has major disagreement with that ruling.

Click to expand...

I indeed have major disagreements with the ruling, as I personally believe it to be motivated by OOC reasons and not the submission itself.

I'd also like to request that further posts only contain constructive feedback related to the submission itself.

Then hammer out the right speed, within standards. I know you have asked Wes a few times but what do you think works within standards?

@Ametheliana - A speed of 0.475c would work best, as it would allow for the missile to gradually overtake its targets.

Given that this will be setting a precedent (as @Toshiro mentioned above), here's the reasoning behind my decision...

• A missile traveling 0.600c (or anything above 0.475c, in my humble opinion) would be too fast and wouldn't allow for point-defense systems to respond in time, especially if it's part of a salvo that numbers in the thousands.
• A missile traveling at a speed less than or equal to 0.450c, on the other hand, would in my humble opinion not be able to always reach its target - which to me kind of defeats the purpose of firing a missile in the first place.

...and here's a small table I made (that could be added to this section of the Damage Rating article, though if you want I can create a separate submission thread for it @Wes) that demonstrate the speed bonuses different armor materials would confer to missiles.