• 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

Golem Assault Armor

Is this army only or also available for general public? Cause that would be kinda cool. Make a sort of skimmed down version or something?
 
I'll point out some confusion with the name. Back when Nepleslia used NDI goods, there was a Golem power armor.

If you want it that way, sure, but it could be awkward to people backreading and seeing how there were Golems before too.
 
The naming issue is known and has been deemed a non issue with the difficulty of finding solid information on the old Golem PA. It's also why I added the Assault Armor moniker. talked with Sig about it already and it didn't seem to be a problem to him either.

As for availability I'll get right on that. Probably via Sig as well.
 
Fred, that issue was noted. There are only 3 references on the wiki to the old Golem, all of which were not an actual "Golem Power Armor" page.

As for availability, this is supposed to be a military grade system.
 
For reference, here are the old Golem stats:





 
Ok. So we've covered that there's no relevant connection to the defunct Golem PA and that it's not going to be sold on open market so you'll have to find pirates that snagged a shipment or something and they can charge whatever they want. Next disaster?
 
If the Golem Armors are not connected, would it be possible for you to consider changing the name? I just would like to avoid confusion. Would you be opposed to this?
 
Also, could we make the background of the art transparent (or at least wiki dark blue)?
 
Andrew said:
If the Golem Armors are not connected, would it be possible for you to consider changing the name? I just would like to avoid confusion. Would you be opposed to this?
What confusion is there? The majority of the Nepleslian player base would not have been around to even have heard of the original Golem. How often do you mention Golems in your plots or wiki pages?

A search of the word "Golem" turns up three hits (aside from the two that are associated with DB and his creation). The most used link is the Daisy, which is only used as a point of reference in its history and development.

If the original Golem was still running about, I'd say change it. But it's not. It doesn't even have a proper wiki page. So, unless the old Golems are going to start sprouting back up, there's only one Golem Assault Armor in active use. Hard to get it confused when there's only one on the wiki.
 
As was discussed briefly earlier, the suggestion to change the name was merely a suggestion. If he decides to change it, it is up to him. If not, it has no bearing on the review process.

(He had actually mentioned he was considering a different name anyway because he was not fond of the current)

Once he decides, I will start my review of this submission.
 
No better names have been thought up by the think tank which espouse the traits of the armor and are cooler. Please go ahead with the assessment.
 
Review in Progress. Will be completed by 12/19
 
This review is for: GAA

The submitted article is/has…
[x] A very high level of overall quality
[x] A general topic sentence under the title header
[x] Artwork (Required for new species; Strongly recommended for vehicles and hand weapons)\\
[x] Needed and/or useful to the setting
[x] In the proper format/template
[x] Proofread for spelling and grammar
[x] Easy to read and understand (not a lengthy mass of technobabble)
[x] Wikified (terms that could be a link should be a link)
[x] No red and/or broken links
[x] Reasonably scientifically plausible
[x] Reasonably neutral point of view

The submitted article is/does not…
[IN COMPLIANCE] Overpowered (or cutting tech for a faction with little or no roleplay)
[IN COMPLIANCE] Obtusely redundant
[IN COMPLIANCE] Contain copy pasta descriptions of systems or interior compartments
[IN COMPLIANCE] Unauthorized by faction managers or player-controlled corporation
[IN COMPLIANCE] Contain references to IC events that have not occurred (SM must authorize retcons)
[IN COMPLIANCE] Use second-person language (“you” or “your”) unless it is an instructional guide aimed at players.
[IN COMPLIANCE] Use bombastic language (“virtually immune,” “nearly indestructible,” “insanely powerful,” “horrible effects”)
[IN COMPLIANCE] Use an unbalanced header/text ratio (many headers but sections are one-liners)
[IN COMPLIANCE] Use major unapproved sub-articles that should be submitted separately
[IN COMPLIANCE] Lacking Detail
[IN COMPLIANCE] Images hosted on sites other than stararmy.com (Photobucket, Imageshack, etc are not allowed)

The article has…
[IN COMPLIANCE] Speeds in compliance with the Starship Speed Standard, if applicable
[IN COMPLIANCE] Damage Capacity and Damage Ratings in compliance with the DR Guidelines
[IN COMPLIANCE] The in-character year of creation/manufacture. (Should be current year. Future years not allowed).
[IN COMPLIANCE] The Standard Product Nomenclature System, if applicable.


Summary
Note here if any serious issues are present. These are the issues that will hold up approval.
** Short description of the issue. If a longer explanation is needed, put it in Notes.

Status:
Approved.


Notes
Looks good. Please add price. Not going to hold up approval for it.

I intend to finish this review by: COMPLETED
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…