Approved Submission [Mechanic] Damage Rating Revision

CadetNewb said:

Working on one of Zack's aritcles, we decided that personnel could have energy shields or barriers, but any above Tier 3 would result in either a lot of discomfort or bodily harm. Could you either update the article to reflect this or give me the green light?

Click to expand...

This sounds a lot like the old rule that PDR things couldn't be ADR and ADR couldn't be SDR. I thought a big part of DRv3 was getting rid of odd limitations on RP that didn't necessarily stem from technological capability.

Rizzo said:

Lol, love it!
But seriously, I have no intention of ever really studying these new guidelines beyond 'this is a big gun, this is a wittle guy!'

I mean, seriously, most of this stuff is common sense.

Besides, my characters tend to take more damage than the GM gives them. I get inconvenienced by a glue grenade, I say it blocks the intake and makes the reactor meltdown...
Dats how I roll, with a D20. Self-assigned crits. I call a number and see how close I am. If it's incoming damage, the further the better. Stories are just a little cooler when there's a bit of chance involves.

Click to expand...

We get it, you self-sabotaging butt munch. Now carry a Power-Armor pistol as an assault rifle.

To be fair, the proposed change is a bit of a holdover from an article that was going through review as this was being worked on. However, one thing that does remain a constant is that we want to avoid Catgirls taking on PA using only energy shields and no armor. At least, based off the posts that Wes made anyways.

It's worth mentioning that the V3 system does have a line under shields that says the shield is the same strength as the armor class. So it is something that was actually in this system, and not just being brought over in panic.

CadetNewb said:

Working on one of Zack's aritcles, we decided that personnel could have energy shields or barriers, but any above Tier 3 would result in either a lot of discomfort or bodily harm. Could you either update the article to reflect this or give me the green light?

Click to expand...

You know I have reservations about this and I've made them known, but I'm neither a tech approver or an admin.
I'd like @Wes to tell us how he wants this handled. If I see him greenlighting this, we'll get the change in.

This said, there's nothing in the article that I recall that denies personnel the use of barriers. It's once facings are discussed that there's mentions of 'this is usually used by power armor and fighters'. Which is probably still true until personnal barriers become common. So, as far as I can see, there's nothing that actually gets in the way of a mod approving such a thing.

V3 just covers the 'common' use of facings in the setting, because I didn't want it to be a roadblock to tech approval. I just detailed what came across to mind without meaning for it to become an exhaustive list.

IF barriers start being given to personnel, I do hope they aren't conformal. If they're still considered an hazard, having it conformal to the exposed body would likely be extremely unpleasant (if not harmful).

Though, there's different kinds of protections involved. If you refer to the multi-shield section, it could be a DUNE-like barrier that only protects from certain things and not others. The health hazards mostly come from gravitons and scalar radiation so far. I know I wouldn't be in disfavor of being able to witness developing technology through these handicaps and see those get better, just like KFY barriers were originally murder to unprotected living things at first, and now are more like damned unpleasant and will make dogs bark at you.

It's been an unwritten rule for the longest time that personnel can't have barriers, and the article in question would be the first of it's kind on the site. I'm sure more would follow sooner or later, but having some good ground rules would help prevent any metagaming or outright OP things from going on I would think.

Or, perhaps, we shouldn't just tacking on arbitrary regulations to the new DR system, and continue to approve things on a case-by-case basis. Let's see how Fred's fancy new rule set works out for a while before hastily modifying it.

SARP doesn't really have a history of egregious metagaming, anyway, so I don't understand the concern.

raz said:

Or, perhaps, we shouldn't just tacking on arbitrary regulations to the new DR system, and continue to approve things on a case-by-case basis. Let's see how Fred's fancy new rule set works out for a while before hastily modifying it.

SARP doesn't really have a history of egregious metagaming, anyway, so I don't understand the concern.

Click to expand...

Metagaming is partly why we only are allowed 1 type of FTL travel from what I'm told.

This is why we can't have nice things.

raz said:

Or, perhaps, we shouldn't just tacking on arbitrary regulations to the new DR system, and continue to approve things on a case-by-case basis. Let's see how Fred's fancy new rule set works out for a while before hastily modifying it.

Click to expand...

I must say, I have to agree with that. My hesitation and deference to Wes mostly stems from me wondering if DRv3 is supposed to be the article defining what barriers are in the first place.

Sure, it might go in detail. Maybe more than elsewhere. But it's not an "here's what barriers are in this setting" kind of article. I think that actually hasn't been much of a thing mostly to give freedom to interpretation.

Like I said, what's mentioned in DRv3 is common applications. It doesn't deny exceptions from existing, and becoming a trend in themselves. So, the 'sit back and wait' stance appeals to me too.

Alright, no changes for now?

I hate double posting, but are we also going to move this into the proper name space?

I don't know how.

Fred said:

I don't know how.

Click to expand...

You copy and paste the text into the new article's location and create it. Then delete the old article.

Or you ask Wes and wait. Which is a quicker procedure, but slower for everyone.

Probably better to have Wes move it. When Wes uses the move operation, all links to the page change too, so you don't have to go back and change them.

Considering that @Wes would need to adjust several other pages linking to V2 in the first place, it's probably a matter best left in his hands. There may be a delay, but since this has been in the cooker for nearly 2 years, I'm sure we'll survive.

In other news, it's come to my attention that people are being confused by the "how fast can I go?" section.
As some observed, it looks a lot like the data in V2, which I actually adapted on feedback I was given that the absence of the information that armor weight not being related to STL speeds was a flaw.
Now, I'm getting opposite feedback in the form of durandium being treated as overpowered and that the master document ought to be the speed standard article.

So, my stance now is kind of like : "Well, which way to do want it?"

Because for all the focus and condemnation on the presence of the table that was adapted, that section was actually a reluctant addition on my part. Many seem to be missing the second and third paragraphs, which I'll quote:

SARP's major factions like Yamatai and Nepleslia have a listing of speed standards which should be prime reference for what your sublight and faster-than-light speeds ought to look like for fighters, shuttles and starships.

SADRv2 had this table defining how armor weight would have influence on the top sublight speed that could be reached. See below for its SADRv3 adaptation

Click to expand...

In which I thought I was directing the reader to the proper reference, or could use the V2 table if they really prefered.

Well, regarding how armor affects speed, it's already in the style of the V2, right? Why not just leave it as is - it'd be little to no change. If we're going to mess with the speeds again, might as well just leave it to a submission specifically regarding that.

@Fred Would point-defense weaponry (especially for larger vessels such as battleships) be included in the eight-weapon limitation?

As I originally intended when I brought it up? Yup. The 8-weapon rule was based off the Plumeria and took into account its point-defense guns too.

If you go over to this post, you'll perhaps be able to see what I mean. However, going for many significantly smaller weapons forces us to use fractions to count weapons, and then use a common denominators.

How mods will rule over that is beyond my purview. Considering how Wes started asking for my help in converting KFY articles and that I've been dealing with space stations with thousands of weapons, I wouldn't blame a mod for just eyeballing it (especially if the former item wasn't created to account for the 8-weapon budget DRv3 suggests).

Can the Mindy 4 be added to the tier list somewhere?

It's hard to place it. Definitely superior to a Daisy at tier 5, but less v2 SP and shielding than the tier 6 stuff. I'd lean toward tier 6, but thought I'd ask for official clarity.