Approved Submission [Mechanic] Damage Rating Revision

Current state of the article is sorta WIP. Please forgive this.

Will fix/update after I sleep. Hopefully this solves some of the discontent.

@Fred
Equalizing armor? That's absurd. There is absolutely no merit behind such a move, especially considering the drastically different properties of the materials present.

Equalizing armor would be kin to saying that having a hull comprised of aluminum is just as effective as having a hull made of Zesuaium, but the aluminum makes the craft 'double-plus-nimble'. It plain don't work. Quite simply, crap-tier armor materials can NEVER be compared to high-end armor materials, especially when looking at materials such as Yamataium, Zesuaium, Nerimium, and Duremium.

However, I must also admit that the new system would make it difficult to apply armor as a stat, however, a comparative explanation of how materials interact with a given form of damage does help the matter greatly. E.g: aether saber reliably penetrates 250mm of Nerimium armor.

Also, it seems that the recent design-by-committee has trimmed off the descriptive statements I tossed in.

@DocTomoe, I'm digging those damage descriptions on the right, since they're visceral - and quite informative too. They definitely help with the visualisation of a ... rather abstract damage system thanks to describing the effects, and the armour thickness. I never bothered to figure out how the numbers translated into descriptions and I've been winging it since 2006. The PDR/ADR/SDR system did help a -bit- to clarify things better than the 0-10 scale of old (which I still see in super-ancient articles)

Especially the one about the HHG Mass-Driver bullets. Ow - I just considered them powerful enough to put a decent hole in someone, but not blow their whole goddamn arm off! I do remember @Fian stating before 2010 that the burning powder in the HHG's Mass-Driver rounds acts as a super-short range shotgun blast, so even the muzzle flash on the thing can kill somebody!

Okay, the design-by-commitee thing going on is going too far. This is becoming a drastic case of featurebloat by trying to make everyone happy. Trying to please everyone is not always a good thing (good decisions /= best decisions).

What I presented had:
Description by weapon class by purpose. Light Anti-Personnel, Medium Anti-Armor, etcetera. This stays in. Having the purpose of the weapon being built into an article without giving a cold DR number was one of the initial purposes of the change. Having this changed as become a deal-breaker for me.

The addition of more steps in all categories but starship/capital ship is still something I view as inelegant, and a concession given to people whom were conservative and likely couldn't be pleased in the first place. Not to mention I considered the lethality table worked 'just right', and I'm highly reluctant to go back to the drawing board for things I do not consider broken so much as simply different.

I am rather displeased with the plethora of examples being added. Some were okay, but this much is becoming too much. I'm especially opposed to mentions of "material by thickness" and I kind of feel like some examples get downright ridiculous. Destroying planets? We're not going there and impose to the GM exactly what he should do. DocTomoe might think equalizing armor is absurd, but we're not discussing 'alluminum', we're discussing submissions of items which have deliberatingly been armored (not all spaceships are armored, warships typically are) and I maintain that everything that beforehand gave a multiplier from 0.6 to 1.0 was exotic enough to all be considered level as "armored" with the material lending the quality for it and the designers just "making it work" in an article submissions unless stated otherwise (which is then under the purview of the NTSE mods).

So, I'm drawing my line in the sand. When you submit something into the setting, it's because you want to achieve something. What I want to achieve is growing increasingly distorted by being tugged in many different directions, so I'll be sticking to my guns as to what was submitted. I was open to helping clarify, but not going back to the drawing board regarding the design of it. Given I'm the one whom made the previous system, given that I remember how many tantrums I had to face, given that I remember that people sometimes don't even know a good thing even if it pokes them in the eye, I'm going to have the confidence to believe in what I worked on and that it works. Since it was an optional guideline, I'm quite okay with some people not adopting it because they're not comfortable with it; I already have the arrogance of feeling "I know better" so gut-reaction feedback in the shape of "I don't like it and won't touch it" doesn't really bother me.

If Wes or Nashoba want to impose changes to this once it passes muster, that's their perogative. But otherwise, leave the design be until it is Approved or Rejected. Besides, Wes already thought it was ready in the shape it was. I can appreciate the effort you're trying to do, Eisthied, but I'm going to roll the changes done to this to have it back to how it was at the beginning of the thread - mostly because it's taking a form tha I myself don't want to see approved.

(restored to 2016/02/18 19:27 version, additional changes made to match Wes stated preferences on the Plumeria-class example)

Well, I just took some time to read the updates. Sorry but RL has been a real pain in the posterior lately. And now that Fred has restored the page to his original proposal. Overall I have no problem with what Fred Proposed originally. Obviously any change is going to mean some work updating equipment, but that's the nature of the beast.

I concur, and also am willing to approve the article.

I feel like we need to give this damage system a catchy name, and move it to a permanent location in the guide: namespace.

So far all I've got is "Fredscale."

Well, borrowing from history, and the fact that the initials for the page are FDRR FDR - R New Deal Rating.

Sorry, but Fredscale is already taken by a suitably scaly swamp monster. =P


In all seriousness, though, I'd view it as a courtesy to give time for Eisthied to see the decision I've come to. He's, after all, put a lot into this as well.

Fred said:

I can appreciate the effort you're trying to do, Eisthied, but I'm going to roll the changes done to this to have it back to how it was at the beginning of the thread - mostly because it's taking a form tha I myself don't want to see approved.

Click to expand...

Fred said:

In all seriousness, though, I'd view it as a courtesy to give time for Eisthied to see the decision I've come to. He's, after all, put a lot into this as well.

Click to expand...

Fred said:

What I want to achieve is growing increasingly distorted by being tugged in many different directions, so I'll be sticking to my guns as to what was submitted.

Click to expand...

You rolled the article back without their consultation. They're not going to appreciate your decision after the work they and a handful of others have put in off their own backs. You're throwing the project back to square one, moving the goalposts, and undoing days of heavy work and consultation when the project was more or less inactive for the past three/four months, because you feel your system (which happens to affect the whole site if it is approved) ran away from you. Seriously? Can you be any more immature with snubbing the community?

I don't respect or acknowledge anything wrought with your unilateral conduct or privileges, because I've seen you blow up in fits when you don't get your way throughout the years. This is another fairly typical scenario, with a good old Fred Filibuster, laden with typical condescending passive-aggressive dummy spitting. Kinda like a Sigma Slam, eh? Time for a dose of Luca's Lunacy. I'm an active-aggressive bastard and you can't stop me, no matter how stupid I sound.

Can you consider that with all these changes, the players, GMs, Tech-makers, and FMs will have to wrangle with whatever you decide to summon from upon high to us unwashed masses? That's why we're making it ours, so we can work with it better and deliver what we feel is best. Not yours. Ours.

If you were even trying to be respectable to the community, you'd have at least waited until Eistheid was online to have the decency to look them in the eyes before you did this, but I think you just want to be that faux-messianic figure who always wins the arguments. You're like Superman. You're boring, you always win.

I vote to take the DR system everyone had put their efforts into, put it in a new article, and submit it to compete with yours.

...

also its four in the morning, what am I doing with my life arguing with someone I don't even agree with at all, and won't ever change?

From a game play perspective, this system encourages two things from the last DR system that the current DR system was meant to solve.

1: SP 50 star ships are now vastly superior to 2 SP 25 star ships

and

2: Star ship Weapons can now have to be at least Class 13 to be useful against all targets.

This would have the immediate effect of people going back to designing larger ships with larger weapons. The previous system tracked survivability with 3 armor levels and then hit points which evened the playing field a lot. Yes, some units had a large amount of SP, but you could always be sure that your weapon was going to be able to hurt the target unless you were extremely outclassed like bringing a pistol to a tank-fight. The old system also grouped all starship level weapons at the top which is great because anything being flung around at those speeds is pretty much always going to be able to damage the target. When designing a ship you also didn't have to worry about maxing out your DR on each weapon just so your small ship could compete with larger ships, you could just build what you wanted.

Now we have the same race to the top that we had with the previous system. Increasing your class on the scale is a huge benefit so making the largest possible item is always going to be better. Naturally if you want to build a power armor, tank, or ship you are now going to aim to make the largest one possible. Ontop of that, the pressure is now to also take the largest weapon possible because if you come up against something that out-classes you, you can very easily end up able to deal no damage.

---

On a side note, thematically it feels annoying to see large ships becoming impervious to damage again. Large heath pools seem more realistic. Bigger = More Armor just isn't something you normally see nor is it something that I feel should be encouraged. I prefer my battleships to take damage, catch fire, and keep on chugging through rather than being completely immune to small fighters.

---

On a sider note: The proposed scale is almost exactly the same as the previous 1-10 DR Scale so we already have a very good idea of how it will work.

Yeah I'm pretty much with Luca on this one, this is spitting in the face of people who tried to find a compromise and get a DR system that everyone wanted, not what one person wanted because they thought it was better and screw everyone else.

Furthermore, Fred, you seem to like to mention that you helped design the old DR system, since you've done that at least twice now. Have you considered that maybe the reason that people wanted to change this wasn't because "They didn't like it because it wasn't what they wanted" but instead because it's just simply bad the way it is, like the old system?

I said I would wait for tonight to lock this thread and review it. Nothing I have read so far encourages me to do any different.

I ask @Wes and @Nashoba to not advance beyond me here in reviewing this. Not that you two would be beyond your authority to do so, but I have heard a lot about this submission in private and public, along with the thread itself, and I believe it's my duty to see this through.

"people sometimes don't even know a good thing even if it pokes them in the eye"

"I alreadyhave the arrogance of feeling "Iknowbetter" so gut-reaction feedback in theshape of "I don't like it and won't touch it" doesn't really bother me."


How can you be so dead certain that you just think everybody else is wrong? It just seems like you have got to have been wrong before. You act like you don't know what it's like to be wrong

Alright this is a major site mechanic something that will effect me, other tech submitters, and even hold some influence over GMs. This is something important that should be hashed out with as many sources of input as needed, in this case it occurred last night over the IRC and the version you don't like Fred is the one that was created by that effort. The line in the sand can be drawn, you can say this is the way you want it but if the community wants something else then the reviewer should take that in mind and kill this on the table.

@Fred

There was a huge controversy over this DR system that ended in a collaborative effort by Eistheid - the individual spearheading this program - and several other people to address valid concerns with the system.

And it gets reverted because you have some sort of problem with it, that it's grown beyond what you feel comfortable with. There was actual discussion and effort regarding this - actions that represented collaboration and mature compromise. Good job in showing how little you truly value such things.

Luca said:

I vote to take the DR system everyone had put their efforts into, put it in a new article, and submit it to compete with yours.

Click to expand...

I'm going to take Luca's cue and concur in suggesting that Fred's reversion to his current system be disallowed, and Eistheid's efforts be resubmitted as a separate system. It's a complete disgrace when actual compromise and collaborative effort can be reverted on the whims of a single person's actions that reek of an insultingly large amount of arrogance.

I didn't want to really speak in this thread because of some reasons. But I think that the approvers should consider that this is in fact a site wide scale. While yes you can't account for things people aren't vocalizing. There have been clear vocalizations of issues with the system and the reverted revisions addressed those. So I would say that if those considerations are allowed to be ignored after a productive discussion finally happened that this system should not just be optional for the GM but for the submitter.

People shouldn't be forced to submit in compliance with a system that ignored their input, especially not when people finally started working to fix the problems instead of just shouting "I don't like it" without saying how to fix it. What does that say about the community? It tells people not to put in effort because it doesn't matter if someone vetos it. It discourages people from speaking up and trying to solve problems again.

I supported this system initial because it was what people wanted, at least as far as could be understood because people weren't speaking up. I support the change to try and make it fit what people want. I don't support it being rolled back to suit one person, and if that's acceptable than a new system that accounts for the wishes of those speaking up should be made.

Excuse me... I'll interrupt this renewed attempt of character assassination on Fred to point out... what's the name of the wiki page again? I thought it was Fred's Damage Rating Revision. What am I? I'm a game designer with a few project on my belt; if I don't have the confidence that I know what I'm doing, no one else will have it for me. It's like when a parent makes a decision for his/her children; they might not agree, but the parent can still be persuaded that the action being done is for thier own good.

It's something that I've been sitting a couple of years on, piddling, tweaking and such based on an extensive amount of observation on how people used the previous one, what they picked, what they didn't, and how to make it more approchable to a newcomer. At some point, a thread opened up for discussion on this very topic, with mechanically mostly the same thing, it became out there debate because some people saw it on the wiki, liked what they saw, and asked that it happen. For a good while, I was asking people to help me make it better, weighted pros and cons, etcetera.

No, it doesn't catter to every preference, but that's because I wanted it to stick to its mission as a narrative tool more than something as incremental as the current DR system is for one-upping and arms races in the NTSE - if there's one-upping to be done, my goal was that it be done by the text description.

I won't deny that Eisthied has invested a lot of effort in helping the readability of the article, and I too appreciate that. And Eistheid was kind enough to keep interest on this while I considered it on ice for further consideration, but with Wes' consent, he put it up in the NTSE forum for approval. But make no mistake, this is my submission. Like every other submission out there, something was created, and now I want it judged by the NTSE mods for what it is. Either it gets Approved on its own merit, or it doesn't and then goes back to the drawing board.

This is not the one way street you're making it. Eistheid is being really nice with you, trying to reach a compromise, but there's been no brainstorm that I've been implicated to try to work on the pros and cons of making changes. The changes done, are effectively changes done behind my back - and as I understand it, this would not be acceptable with any other submission process. I've gotten no communication, no PMs, no invites to join people in chat to talk it out. I had goals too in doing this, and maybe I still want them to be met. Considering that the feedback has gone from scathing and demeaning from the very beginning of this thread, answer me this: should I actually reward your attitude? If you want cooperation, you need to appeal to that of others as well... and I've seen scant little of that for all the talk about respect and all. Maybe I'm reluctant to be bulldozed over by other people, especially when they are applying double standards - imagine that!

There's a distinct difference between:
"Hey, the ship you're doing - it has nice art and I want to use it, so me and my mates are going to pull the carpet from under your feet, and decide how your creation is actually going to turn out; sucks to be you, mate "
and
"Hey, sorry man, I didn't pay attention when you presented this to people to comment and give feedback on; I missed out, but I really care about where this is going since it's going to be important to the faction/setting; mind just freezing the submission process so we can go back on to the drawing board. I get what you are trying to do, but there are these oversights that really bug me - surely a compromise can be reached."

I've been more than reasonable in my approach, and I maintain the right to defend myself and what I've worked on so far. So, sorry no, Koenig, I don't really buy your "disgrace" bit. Most of the drama going on is drama not of my own making. If I was really out of line, I don't think Wes, Nashoba and Doshii Jun would have taken it sitting down and twiddling thier thumbs idly.

So, you can either keep trying to make me butthurt - which hasn't worked very well so far - or try to be constructive. DocTomoe hasn't been in complete agreement with what I've said, but he's been constructive. Zack is detracting, but it's a pertinent observation that goes beyond "I don't agree, you and this suck", and I'm thinking about it. Actually, for that, I think it's the same parallels as the infantryman, whom can hurt larger units with different tools, so we probably have this covered. I also know Wes has been wanting his capital vessels to feel more fearsome, which makes the exponential raise in lethality/defense as it climbs up probably something sought after for him. If it takes a squadron of Plumerias to quickly cripple a Super Eikan heavy cruiser (assuming all shots fired connect and strike where it'd really hurt), my feeling is that balance-wise this is in a good place... at least in that respect, anyways.

And if you want to submit your own rival to this... by all means, be my guest. That approach done under that tone would be nothing other than spiteful and insulting, but If it takes you misguidedly feeling adversarial towards me for other people to get off thier butts and finally do something to help themselves, I'll count it as a small price to pay. Then again, you'd still need to get approved at the end, just like this is.

...and even if this here gets approval, I'm willing to bet Doshii will weight very heavily in the optional nature of the DR guidelines to pacify concerns raised, and people will house rule it up the wazzoo - which is expected behavior anyways; or Doshii will not approve since he'd want - based on feedback - adjustments done to this before it sees prime time. Then would be a proper juncture to overhaul this.

In the meantime, this is what I want submitted.

This collaborative process has moved beyond you and reflects collaboration of a community - the efforts of multiple people trumps your inflated ego to where you mistakenly feel as if you know best.

As such there is no attempt to "make you butthurt" with this submission or a proposed remission - if you have a problem with people wanting to collaborate on something different that is your problem.

If you take a competing submission to be spiteful to you that truly suggests a worryingly deep immaturity that suggests you cannot handle individuals who hold a different opinion than you.

I await the long winded rationalization to prove something to the contrary.

Nope, I've said my piece.

I am very interested in what Eistheid would have to say, and I'm willing to bet he'll be very disappointed in how things snowballed. I remember something similar happened in another thread, and I'm not happy he's going to have to deal with that again; I'm sticking up for myself - but he deserved better than this clusterfuck.

This is kind of why I didn't want to speak in this forum. But to be blunt. There are a few things. That honestly just aren't how a properly functioning community should work.

1. You say this is your submission. That's all find and good it is your submission. Go for it. But when you stop compromising and accepting people's input it no longer becomes something qualified to be used as a setting wide rule set. Because if it's going to be setting wide it needs to take into consideration all those involved in the setting willing to speak up.

2. You say that you weren't' invited to the discussion and that people aren't being cooperative. Firstly the discussion was impromptu it wasn't some kind of planned event, and considering you've made yourself distant from the hotbed for impromptu discussions it's kinda par for course that you missed it.

3. Now yes these changes were indeed done without your consent, don't like them? Okay that's reasonable. But telling people "I don't like it so I'm changing it back to what -I- like" does not win you over people's favor.

4. It should also be noted that the current plea is not to change your stuff, but to say that following your guidelines are not mandatory and that we can make a new guidelines that includes the compromise. You can have your submission, we just don't want to have to follow -your- rules but rather rules made by the community. If you want to be the only submission up here, then you need to accept everyone's interest not just your own. Otherwise accept competition, that's how it works in the real world.

5. If you're going to whine and complain about personal attacks, stop calling people out in your own post in response. It's fine to be upset about personal attacks, but complaining about them and then later down the post making personal attacks is what is called being a hypocrite.