• 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

Approved Submission [Mechanic] Damage Rating (Version 3) Update

F

FrostJaeger

Banned Member
Submission URL
https://stararmy.com/wiki/doku.php?id=guide:damage_rating_v3
Submission Faction(s)
  1. Yamatai (except Elysia)
  2. Nepleslia
  3. Elysia
  4. Poku (HSC)
  6. Iromakuanhe
  7. Non-Playable Factions
  8. Outlaws (Independent)
  9. Neshaten
Submission Terms
  1. I agree
For Reviewers:
Also tagging:
  • @Fred, as he’s the submission's original creator.
  • @Soresu, as this submission includes the Devil.
Anyhoo, here’s the list of changes...
  • Tiers 4 through 6 (Light Armor through Heavy Armor) have had their size descriptions updated to include numerical guidelines; additionally, the descriptions now share a common “theme” - namely, the height of a standard doorway - and include a footnote-thingie (whose precise name I can’t recall at the moment) that lists said height.
  • Tiers 7 through 15 (Light Mecha through Heavy Capital Ship) have had their size descriptions updated.
    • Tier 7 units now range from 5 to 11 meters in length, width, or height, which overlaps nicely with the upper limits of Tier 6 units and accounts for a wider variety of pre-existing submissions.
    • Tier 8 units now range from 9 to 21 meters in length, width, or height, which overlaps nicely with the upper limits of Tier 7 units and accounts for a wider variety of pre-existing submissions.
    • Tier 9 units are those that measure 21 or more meters in length, width, or height, which overlaps nicely with the upper limits of Tier 10 units and accounts for a wider variety of pre-existing submissions.
    • Tier 10 units now range from 50 to125 meters in length, which fits nicely with Tier 9’s dimensions (around 21 or more meters in size), overlaps nicely with the lower guideline of Tier 11 (100 meters), and follows the pattern set by Tier 13’s new guidelines (500 to 1,250 meters in length).
    • Tier 11 units now range from 100 to 275 meters in length, which overlaps nicely with the upper guideline of Tier 10 (125 meters) and the lower guideline of Tier 12 (250 meters).
    • Tier 12 units now range from 250 to 625 meters in length, which overlaps nicely with the upper guideline of Tier 11 (275 meters) and the lower guideline of Tier 13 (500 meters).
    • Tier 13 units now range from 500 to 1,250 meters in length, which overlaps nicely with the upper guideline of Tier 12 (600 meters), overlaps nicely with the lower guideline of Tier 14 (1,000 meters), and follows the pattern set by Tier 10's new guidelines (50 to 125 meters in length).
    • Tier 14 units now range from 1,000 to 2,500 meters in length, which overlaps nicely with the upper guideline of Tier 13 (1,250 meters).
    • Tier 15 units are now those which are 2,500 meters or more in length, which matches up with the pattern set by Tier 12’s lower guideline (250 meters).
  • Corrected various minor grammar and spelling errors.
  • Added numerous links to other wiki articles.
  • Added lots of a few more examples to the Tiers section. See the next spoiler for more information.
  • Standardized the damage descriptions in the Examples of Use section, where possible.
  • Added an OOC Notes section.
  • Added a note to the beginning of the What Size Do I Fit In? section that states the following:
...and here's the list of what was changed in the Tiers section:
Edit: Updated to reflect this post and this post.
Edit #2: Updated to reflect this post.
Edit #3: Updated to reflect this post.

Note: This thread is NOT for discussing the current revision of the Damage Rating (Version 3) system. Off-topic posts will be reported to staff members.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
This suggestion has been implemented. Votes are no longer accepted.
I think the issue is with the wording. The way the chart is written and worded makes it seem like it's a hard set rule of "This big or more" kind of the way starship scaling used to be and possibly still is.

What Alex wants is for it to be more clearly worded or at least a better rough definition of "Roughly X Meters big up to roughly Y meters big" per each tier. As it stands the chart makes it look like a large portion of the Mecha that exist in the setting count as Heavy powered armor, despite being multiple times larger. Origin for example DOES have a transitionally sized Mech; the LEAF, which is small enough to be considered a Heavy PA and could be used in place of one. The rest are roughly double the size of the LEAF if not more, but as the article is currently written, it reads that those larger 'light' mecha (Which were considered Medium to large Mecha under DR V2) are now in the heavy Power Armor bracket, which is silly.

EDIT:
As far as the Tennis Court thing goes, that's sort of a flawed example for a lot of people, as that's the size of a regulation tournament tennis court; I believe most of us are more familiar with the smaller tennis courts found at parks and recreation centers that are only roughly half that size.
 
Because in the article, it specifically says 10 meters. In addition to that, it doesn't make sense to have to double your size to go up a tier, What if people don't want to make a 20-meter tall medium mecha, or a 16-meter tall one either? What if they want something more like 13 meters? There's no provisions made for deviation in any way, and there's no clear overlap.

Everything is left for the player to look at based solely on the article, and that ever gives a single hard numerical value. It's unclear and the values given aren't based off the most common sizes of mecha in the setting.

Also if we're talking about the height of a mecha, we shouldn't judge by the with of a tennis court, because everyone will think of length. I think that clearer values are needed, that they should be designed to fit with actual mecha which already exist within the setting, that there must be overlap between them that is clearly stated.

And most of all, that there MUST be a statement that all sizes are average and that deviation is acceptable within reason.

Edit:

My official proposal is as follows:

  1. Add a note to the top of the size chart that all sizes are average and that deviation is acceptable within reason.
  2. Create overlap in tiers 7 and up, possibly 4 and up but that's probably too hard to judge well.
  3. Remove Numerical references for size within tiers 4-6.
  4. Redefine tier 7's size reccomendations to being from 5-12 meters, tier 8's size reccomendations to being 10-25 meters and tier 9's size reccomendations to being 18 meters and up. (These numbers can be discussed)
  5. Move the Kirie back to tier 6, and the Aggressor back to tier 7.
Obviously discussion around the actual new reccomended values for mecha tiers is welcome.
 
Last edited:
...Anyways. The following is my official response to what @Alex Hart proposed here:
  1. I don’t see any need for a note in the What Size Do I Fit In? section explicitly stating that the given sizes are averages - not when:
    • The wording of the size descriptions for Tiers 4, 5, and 6 are as vaguely-written as they are. The measurements of a doorframe, Alex, are provided for reference, not for usage as hard rules.
    • The wording of the size descriptions for Tiers 7, 8, and 9 already implies that they are average values. It’s precisely why the word “around” was included - these are guidelines, not hard rules.
  2. I see no reason why additional overlap is necessary in the size descriptions of Tiers 7, 8, and 9 - not when there’s already plenty of overlap to begin with.
  3. See the first bullet point of #1 for the reason the numerical values included in the size descriptions for Tiers 4, 5, and 6 will not be removed.
  4. See this post for the reasons why I will not be changing the values of the sizing guidelines for Tiers 7, 8, and 9.
  5. I will be keeping the the Kirie as a Tier 5 example and the Aggressor as a Tier 6 example for the following reasons:
    • The Kirie’s dimensions are relatively equal to the Hostile’s dimensions.
    • The Kirie’s dimensions are greatly surpassed by the Aggressor’s dimensions.
    • The only fundamental design difference between the Kirie and the Hostile is that the extremities of the latter’s pilot are more vulnerable - due to said extremities occupying internal cavities in the armor’s limbs - as the extremities of the former’s pilot are protected to a greater degree due to the fetal position the pilot must assume in the unit’s torso.
 
In the future, can we be more careful when changing the Tiers of things during efforts like this? Such a thing usually requires independent approval rather than a blanket change like this. I'm guessing changing the Kirie and Keiko is easier this time since this was due to DRv2 changing to DRv3 being clunky and other perceptions changing, but we can't let this become a common thing without obsolescing articles all over the place and people not realizing such changes are being done.

I must also insist on it being more forthcoming. If Tier 6 is becoming a Transitional Mecha Tier, it should be labeled as such outright. Anything less is confusing. Something that is between PA and Mecha and stated as such.
 
Last edited:
This hasn't been approved yet.

I'm also still rather lukewarm on the changes made to Tier 5 and 6. I don't see Frostjaeger sticking to his guns in that respect as necessarily congruent to revision approval as long as Wes doesn't himself like it.

Because, let's face it, people have been tolerant and have discussed it... but other than Frostjaeger's thoroughness, I would hardly call the reception being positive across the board.
 
Let's make this clear by taking stock of who's in support of what. Who thinks that we SHOULD:



  1. Do the following but with alterations made as the community sees fit
  • Add a note to the top of the size chart that all sizes are average and that deviation is acceptable within reason.
  • Create overlap in tiers 7 and up, possibly 4 and up but that's probably too hard to judge well.
  • Remove Numerical references for size within tiers 4-6.
  • Redefine tier 7's size reccomendations to being from 5-12 meters, tier 8's size reccomendations to being 10-25 meters and tier 9's size reccomendations to being 18 meters and up. (These numbers can be discussed)
  • Move the Kirie back to tier 6, and the Aggressor back to tier 7.
2. And who thinks that we should just do what frost is saying with no alterations?​
 
I can’t really care too much about the changes.

I like the idea of throwing in the example of an average doorframe’s size, but try not to just...recategorize stuff.

The Kirie can stick as a Tier 6. An average door is 6ft8in. While yes, things can crouch down and possibly sort of butt-slide shufflewalk in, this will effectively cut your height down by a THIRD so a proper Tier 6 PA is like...almost 10, 11 feet tall. This feels like it’s entering the mecha zone, also known as: “it feels too big.”

Keep the door as a reference, but only as a guideline on how tall a PA roughly should be.
 
I really don't think 11 feet is too big for power armor, and it's not nearly mecha-sized. But it does seem there's a lot of disagreement there. The line between armor and mech seems pretty thin, to be honest.
 
Alrighty-o. Following a lengthy discussion over Discord with @Alex Hart and @META_mahn, I've made several major changes to the article. As I'm extremely tired at the moment, I'll include a link to the wiki changelog and type out what I actually did tomorrow. I can say, however, that pretty much all that was proposed here has been implemented in some form or another.
 
Last edited:
As promised, I've updated the opening post to reflect the various changes that I made to the article last night. I was originally going to include the Maximus (RUSE) as a Tier 8 (Medium Mecha) example; after discussing its inclusion with @Legix, however - something I should have done with you regarding the Kirie, @Toshiro, and I apologize for not doing so - I decided to omit it in favor of the Corona Heavy Gunship instead. This is because, well, I realized that yeah: the Maximus should be a Tier 9 (Heavy Mecha) unit - despite its small size - thanks to the following:
  • Nepleslia is one of Star Army's two core factions.
  • Nepleslia has an extremely long and bloody history of ground combat - so it's kind of a given that they know how to make an extremely well-designed tank.
  • Nepleslia has an established theme of designing units with ludicrous amounts of armor plating.
  • The RUSE's article details its purpose as being a "heavy main battle tank" - which neither Tier 7 nor Tier 8 allow it to fulfill.
The problem with this is that it makes the Maximus (RUSE) an exception to the rules (similar to the Plumeria Refit's external torpedoes not counting towards its weapon limit, even though they technically should), thus to avoid any potential confusion in the future I didn't include it as an example.
 
We really don’t need to be adding more technical debt by adding rules that require additional rewrites when the NTSE is still choked full of unreviewed submissions.

We also don’t need to be adding special exemptions as a band-aid to cover rules which don’t work well for the players. This will lead to more arguing over specifics during approvals and only serve to further increase the problems in the NTSE.

We should be looking to slim down the rules, not add to them.
 
I think since it’s an example of size, including the Maximus should be OK.

Also, why omit the Kirie? I’m not quite sure what reason there is not to include it at tier 6.
 
The Kirie wasn't omitted, @Alex Hart - that was a poor choice of wording on my behalf (>.<); as for the Maximus, I'm not going to include it because at 13.5 meters long the Maximus - based primarily on size, which, as far as I know, is how new submissions are supposed to be reviewed - is, in my opinion, simply too small to be considered as a Tier 9 (Heavy Mecha) unit. After some further discussion with Meta and Alex, I've also updated the opening post to reflect some additional changes I've made to some of the starship size descriptions.
 
Last edited:
Given that the concerns about this submission appear - in my personal opinion - to have been addressed, would you mind looking this over again, please, @Wes?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…