• 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 [email protected] 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
  • 📅 July 2024 is YE 46.5 in the RP.

Approved Submission [Nepleslia] Na-YF/A-6X(A) "Scythe" Stealth Fighter/Interceptor

F

FrostJaeger

Banned Member
  • Submission Type: Starfighter
  • Submission URL: Linky
  • Faction: Democratic Imperium of Nepleslia (Nepleslian Star Navy)
  • FM Approved Yet? No, @Gunhand4171
  • Faction requires art? Yes.

    For Reviewers:
    • Contains Unapproved Sub-Articles? Nope.
    • Contains New art? Yes.
    • Previously Submitted? Nope.


    Notes:

    Although it doesn't contain any unapproved sub-articles, the article itself does contain a link to an unapproved article, which I've also submitted for review.

    Essentially, Nepleslia's version (in my humble opinion) of the awe-inspiring Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor.

    Dedicated to @Archander for being the one who started it all - it took an entire year, but finally.........she's ready to spread her wings and take flight. o7
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
This suggestion has been implemented. Votes are no longer accepted.
How does it have more hull and shield points than the rules allow? Is there an IC explanation or is it like that because you want your new ship to be super rad? Threshold 5 also seems a little advanced for NepTech, but that's just an opinion so I guess take it with a grain of salt.

Why is the Na-FA4 referred to as a "flying deathtrap"? Don't really remember that in anything I've read. Doing a quick forum search (including for "flying death trap"), nothing comes up IC. Is there any historical roleplay to back up Nepleslians disliking the FA4 or is it an OOC jab?
 
@raz Regarding your first point, I've fixed those - and I apologize for allowing that mistake to occur in the first place. The second I'll be addressing in a later post (which I'll be writing after I have dinner).
 
Last edited:
As promised @raz, the second post. To begin, the "flying deathtrap" is not an OOC jab, rather it's the.........summation (for lack if a better term) of the "superstitions" surrounding the starfighter.

  • Heram J. Wazu was branded a criminal by multiple (and respected) Nepleslian figures of authority, as evidenced by events at the Second International Relations Conference and was one of the primary designers of the Na-FA4, as listed here.
  • Another listed designer, the Drei AI, had loyalties that were suspected to be.........questionable, at best (according to its wiki article) - thus leading to its replacement with the ACE AI.
  • The ship itself quite literally had no primary direct-fire armament usable in atmospheric conditions - apart from three lasers that could, at best, be used three times each.
Considering the above, would it not be a logical assumption to infer that the fighter jockeys of the NSN would give the FA-4 a poor reputation, based upon the fact that it was designed by a criminal and fundamentally lacking in terms of non-jammable firepower?
 
So when I came back to the site I assumed that most of my stuff just went unused. Turns out not only did someone make a plot based around my old dive bomber, but my old fighters even got nick names, The Quatro and the Pole-Runner.

I also don't get where you think the lasers can't be used in atmosphere, but I understand the confusion about the used three times each thing. The desco turret can pump out 3SDR through any emitter as much as it wants, but it can't pump out 4SDR worth of lasers. This means that all the lasers on the FA4 can hit any target within any of its firing arcs.


As for Wazu? There was plenty going on there that was a lot of fun. After helping defeat the Elysians and then feeling guilty about it he took steps to prevent his work from being used for evil again. His loyalty came into question when Nepleslian players starting making their characters clairvoyant... but what Wazu does in his spare time doesn't make his stuff any less good.
 
Ok, first, the language is too bombastic for my taste, and there's lots of dot-dot-dot going on. Same with the parenthesis everywhere. If you guys could at least get rid of all the .... and ( ) in the article to make them into proper sentences, I'd really appreciate that. The rest of the article is looking ok, and the same goes for the unapproved sub-article. Neutrons aren't my thing - it doesn't have that 'Nam feel to it - but if it's what you want, it's what you'll get at this rate. I'll go over it one more time tomorrow after clinical, and likely approve it then.
 
@FrostJaeger @Gunhand4171

Ok, I'll approve the article, but its language just needs to be cleaned up. If you want to keep it as is though, tell me why. You can also take the big warning box at the external hardpoints and just integrate it into the explanation sentence as well; it's neater that way, and a simple underline or bold will do the job with sticking out just enough.
 
CadetNewb said:
Ok, I'll approve the article, but its language just needs to be cleaned up.
Click to expand...

From a reviewer's standpoint, is it okay that this fighter surpasses the shield rule for "Very Advanced" tech, which is "1.0 x Base Structural Points"? The threshold rules further imply that, even if a vehicle technically has more than "x" SP, that ship still has a hard cap outlined in the main shield rules. So a ship with 16 Structural points can only ever have 16 points of shields.

EDIT: This assumes that a "Stealth Fighter Interceptor" is "medium" class on the vehicle scale, boosted to +1 hull point rather than a "heavy" class that's had its SP reduced.
 
Last edited:
@raz

I'm actually assuming it's at least a Heavy Stealth Fighter/Interceptor, and in exchange for improved maneuverability, has sacrificed its armor. The moment it switches to any armor classified as heavy, it's going to lose that edge OOC and IC. In comparison to more prolific designs, such as those used by Yamatai, it's also much larger as well, so that's something to consider too. @FrostJaeger - I have to ask, how was this fighter craft meant to compare to something like Yamatai's top of the line fighter, the Nodachi?
 
I request that the full checklist be used for submission evaluation, as I think there are several rules that are currently not being followed.
  • Speed standards
  • Damage rating rules
    • Shield values don't match hull values
    • Shield threshold is too high
    • SDR 2 weapons on a starfighter violate the rules
  • Wiki style guidelines - blank header sections
    upload_2016-8-24_22-16-15.png
 
@Wes @FrostJaeger @Gunhand4171

If the main concern of having an SDR 2 or above weapon on a vehicle is the shot bypassing shield threshold and hitting hull directly, I suggest we make a new rule to address that. Basically, have it specifically stated that weapons mounted on vehicles cannot bypass threshold. This can be due to power limitations or over-miniaturization or reduced efficiency or whatever.

This is important due to the effects it has on the setting's vehicles. Since we can't mount a singular weapon above SDR 1, the current meta is to have multiple ADR 5/SDR 1 weapons to get the desired amount of damage output the creator is looking for. However, this makes all the ships start looking and behaving the same in terms of armament; they all end up as a bunch of guns slapped onto a system or platform and reduces variety in the setting, making it rather stale. By making this new rule, the vehicle's total damage output will remain the same, but won't bypass a ship's shield, leaving the vehicle vs ship meta intact, but allowing more variety in the setting itself.

As for the speed, shield and hull issues, that's deliberately rebalanced to make it very different in its behavior and feel setting-wise. The hull was reduced from what it should have been normally - between 20 and 25 ADR - to allocate more priority to having much better shields and speed. This should be acceptable, since it's not getting extra points I believe. However, the stats are still on the table, and I'm open to seeing your thoughts on this.
 
Here's my concerns:
  • The weapons seem designed backwards from the RP stats instead of just designing the craft and giving it normal stats. The whole thing with the creator looking to get OOC numbers out of an IC submission is a flawed mentality. Really, I'm increasingly convinced creators of new ships shouldn't get to choose the RP stats and that the staff should do it for them.
  • There's no threshold-bypassing weapons. This is just the way the damage system works. The thing that makes this submission awkward is that it tries to bypass the rules.
  • SDR weapons are not allowed on ADR-scale vehicles (SDR 1 excepted since that's ADR 5)
  • Overall, this submission is overpowered.
The bottom line is we're not going to make exceptions to the rules for this submission, so it needs to be changed to fit the rules. Once that's fixed we can move forward.
 
@Wes

I'm not advocating a weapon that bypasses the threshold. Instead, the rule update I'm suggesting does three things; 1) prevent an ADR class vehicle from brute forcing through a ship's shield threshold, 2) ensure that submissions are not OP, and 3) ensure that submissions remain as the creators envision.

The last part is perhaps the most important since RP revolves around this.

Right now, we don't allow ADR vehicles to have SDR weapons because they could pierce a smaller ship's shield threshold like another ship would, right? If that's the case, why not make a rule so that SDR weapons on a vehicle will always count as SDR 1 + SDR 1 + SDR 1, as would be the case with this weapon? That way, even if such a weapon hits a ship with a shield threshold of 1, the shots will have to hammer down the shields first. The same would go in a vehicle vs. vehicle situation; it would only count as multiple ADR 5 weapons hitting in succession and not unbalance things. If we keep the DR system as-is, the current meta of always having multiple ADR 5/SDR 1 guns on fighters and vehicles will remain, which makes all fighters start looking very uniform and similar in that regard.

EDIT:

As for tech mods assigning DR values to submissions, it's not a good idea, and I say that as a tech mod. Bring the idea up with Nashoba and Doshii, and I'm quite sure they'll also say it's a bad idea. It's more work and drama, which we don't need.
 
@Gunhand4171 @FrostJaeger

I've just gotten off of a Skype chat with Wes, and his current stance is that ADR scale vehicles are not allowed to mount weapons above their rating, regardless of the concessions made to mount said weapons. At this point, I would suggest altering the armaments of the fighter so that it does not have any weapons above the ADR 5/SDR 1 level. In the meanwhile, I'll see if I can start up another thread about this problem with the current DR system.
 
As long as @Wes is saying that this is his current stance and not a rule that should have been applied in the past.

Several Yamataian starfighters have weapons that punch above ADR5.

While we can't use past submissions to justify the weapon on this one, to my knowledge there's no rule in the Submission Rules or the Damage Rating that says an Armor-class unit cannot do damage above its class. If that rule is in a post somewhere, can we get linked to it?

Saying it's overpowered from a reviewer's perspective is another matter, and if you want to say so, I think that can be justified (even though I felt it was reasonable for the fighter to have said weapon).
 
I agree with what you're saying here Doshii, and was about to make a post on it. There is no rule specifically saying that ADR class platforms cannot mount SDR level weapons. At least, I just don't see it there. This submission is technically 100% OK by the rules.
 
The whole point of the tiers in the Damage Rating system was to stop power tiny armors and fighters from being able to effortlessly destroy starships. Putting starship weapons on fighters would fundamentally break the setting because fighters would be as powerful as the ships that launch them, making ships not even worth making because they'd just be easily blown up. Star Army is a setting where starships rule, not fighters. Keep fighters and armor out of the starship damage range.
 
The problem is, though the DR system divides things into different tiers, it doesn't explicitly state that it is forbidden to mount more powerful weapons on them. Especially if In-Character, it is possible to do so. Additionally, even if we allowed fighters to mount SDR level weapons, nothing would particularly change IC either so long as the proper rules are made to prevent that from occurring. Of which, there are none written down on the wiki anywhere as far as we can tell.

But even then, with this submission in specific?

What is the difference between an SDR 2 weapon and having two ADR 5/SDR 1 weapons instead? As far as I can tell, nothing other than interactions with shield threshold, to which I suggested a fix as well. So, why restrict this, especially if the craft is psychically capable of mounting just one SDR 2 weapon rather than two ADR 5/SDR 1 guns?
 
RPG-D RPGfix
Back
Top