• 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

[Nepleslia] Rok'Veru-Class Carrier

SUBLIMEinal

Well-Known Member
Rok'Veru-Class Carrier

So, it's been a while since I've done this, so feel free to rip this to shreds.

I'd been meaning to put together an upgraded version of the Shaika that didn't suck for a long time, as I wrote and submitted the Shaika completely within 12 hours as a personal challenge. So yeah, here's the Rok'Veru class.

This would be produced maybe one per fleet, possibly as a flagship.
 
Is the T4B civilian? It says it is only fielded by NAM and SMODIN.
 
It should count as a civilian design as far as the NTSE rules for submitting new military ships are concerned, (it is unarmed, and a logistics vehicle).
 
This review is for: Rok'Veru-Class Carrier

The submitted article is/has…
[ ] A general topic sentence under the title header
[ ] Artwork (illustrations are required for Starships, Vehicles, Hand weapons or Small Arms, Uniforms for military forces or large corporations and new alien species not from the race of the day CCG)
[X] Needed and/or useful to the setting
[ ] 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…
[X] Overpowered (or cutting tech for a faction with little or no roleplay)
[X] Obtusely redundant
[X] Contain copy pasta descriptions of systems or interior compartments
[X] Unauthorized by faction managers or player-controlled corporation
[X] Contain references to IC events that have not occurred (SM must authorize retcons)
[X] Use second-person language (“you” or “your”) unless it is an instructional guide aimed at players.
[X] Use bombastic language (“virtually immune,” “nearly indestructible,” “insanely powerful,” “horrible effects”)
[ ] Use an unbalanced header/text ratio (many headers but sections are one-liners) Possibly in the systems, but not a huge deal since they are linked.
[X] Use major unapproved sub-articles that should be submitted separately
[X] Lacking Detail
[X] Images hosted on sites other than stararmy.com (Photobucket, Imageshack, etc are not allowed)

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


Summary

FTL speed not listed

Artwork blows

I intend to finish this review by: JUNE 10 2011



There are a few minor things (highlighted in red and yellow above) that need help and also this could really use some decent artwork that we can be proud of.
 
Ship image has been updated with one I designed last night and finished up earlier tonight. Sub approved of the model change so I've uploaded.
 
That's looking more spaceship like. It's good to see cooperation like this. Could you add more views?

Artwork aside, it the issues in red and yellow are the issues that are holding this back and they need fixing.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…