Proposed Setting Revisions for 2011

[Doshii Jun]

I have to admit, I'm wondering what's broke. That might be due to Fred's way of playing things, but I haven't seen any problem with how things are roleplayed out.

Are there that many people interested in PvP that we need to throw out the bathwater?

 

[Zack]

Fred's plot is extremely isolated from the others. This is mainly for people who want to interact with other parts of the setting rather than remaining on their own island.


... So what are we talking about now? When FTL can and can't be used is already clearly covered with our current rules. Unless we're talking about tweaking the rules to promote a certain playstyle, we aren't talking about any rules changes anymore.

 

[Wes]

We're talking about a range cap and abolishment of FTL weaponry (thus the IC reason for a range cap).

 

[Doshii Jun]

Fred's plot is extremely isolated from the others. This is mainly for people who want to interact with other parts of the setting rather than remaining on their own island.

Granted, but that is not at what I was getting.

Setting interaction of the kind we're talking about in these changes is for when one player, or faction, faces off against another player or faction, instead of an NPC enemy where the two players can work out an RP scenario.

I don't have a problem with a range cap or the FTL weaponry ban, but I want to know the "why" behind it and if there's enough people to warrant the change.

Much of this came from you, Zack, and the benefits lean toward your playstyle. I want to know if other people desire the same things you do.

Also, with Wes wanting more ground battles, these proposed changes don't affect anything. Guns still shoot like guns and people still run (or float) like people.

 

[Fred]

We're talking about a range cap and abolishment of FTL weaponry (thus the IC reason for a range cap).

Distorsion shields. The farther away a weapon is fired, the more likely the distorsion shields will be to bend or deflect the shot away. Homing warheads end up being the only reliable longer range weapons thanks to that given how they can adjust themselves in midflight to compensate.

* * *

If you want to revise anti-FTL, you're going to have to attend to its intended purpose.

It seems by experience that a ship being stopped 1 AU away and then having to wait roughly 499 lightseconds to get to more desirable ship-to-ship engagement ranges doesn't suit very well for plotships like Miharu and Eucharis in which combat is more fast-paced and less tactical.

So, what's the objective?

• Preventing a ship from escaping? If so, in an escape scenario, how will a plotship credibly escape while still allowing anti-FTL the ability to fulfill its purpose?
• Preventing a ship from entering a certain zone at superluminal speeds? Then what?
• Pursuing another vessel and dragging it down from superluminal speeds?
• Slowing down FTL weapons to grant acceptable/interactable delay-to-impact events?

If ships are going to fight at speeds around 5000kps (or accounting for acceleration), with railguns being more viable and all that, engagement ranges will be closer. How much will that reflect with the distances in space, with our weapon ranges and their effective delays to hit? How much our faster superluminal interplanetary/interstellar propulsion systems are going to be reflected in that especially considering how they perform?

It's all well to plan changes, but SARP is very patchwork that way with lots of inconsistencies in between its various little bits and pieces. Some of that will have to be established.

Allow me to offer another tangent: what if we throw anti-FTL tech out of the window? Are there things we could do which would make anti-FTL unnecessary? Or offer possibly better alternates? Interdiction is a used staple for us, but it came from Ayenee and was pretty much inspired off Star Wars in the first place. Maybe we can adjust things in the first place to not need it. After all, if our engagement ranges are in the 3 lightseconds... who needs a 12c FTL torpedo? It could be a 0.9c torpedo would accomplish the same intended purpose quite better at that point if our roleplays have little focus on FTL cruise missiles.

Another bit to consider: why railguns? Why even keep them around when our lasers/beam weapons have better delays to impact? Are there ways to demonstrate their advantages? Are they in fact capsules carrying ordonnance - an unguided-type of torpedo warhead? What about pushing such objects to relativistic speeds and having hit a ship? How can we excuse survival when such would potentially obliterate a planet? Are beam weapons truly as powerful as such projectiles by comparison? Do we want them to be?

 

[Wes]

Allow me to offer another tangent: what if we throw anti-FTL tech out of the window? Are there things we could do which would make anti-FTL unnecessary? Or offer possibly better alternates? Interdiction is a used staple for us, but it came from Ayenee and was pretty much inspired off Star Wars in the first place

I would love to get rid of Interdiction entirely. However, we have become dependent on it for one reason...it is used against ships with CDD or CFS "warp drive" to counter their ability to move, maneuver, and fire while at FTL speeds. This is why my original revision proposal made all SARP FTL drives into fold systems where ships simply disappear and then appear instead of actually traveling FTL like a Star Trek ship does.

 

[Firebrand]

Allow me to offer another tangent: what if we throw anti-FTL tech out of the window? Are there things we could do which would make anti-FTL unnecessary? Or offer possibly better alternates? Interdiction is a used staple for us, but it came from Ayenee and was pretty much inspired off Star Wars in the first place

I would love to get rid of Interdiction entirely. However, we have become dependent on it for one reason...it is used against ships with CDD or CFS "warp drive" to counter their ability to move, maneuver, and fire while at FTL speeds. This is why my original revision proposal made all SARP FTL drives into fold systems where ships simply disappear and then appear instead of actually traveling FTL like a Star Trek ship does.

I like Wes's Idea for a fold system.

A Fold System would mean that we have no use for Interdiction, and would solve a good deal of our problems.

 

[MissingNo]

Or, with a restriction/ban on FTL weapons, Interdiction wouldn't be required. Ships would be forced to take all combat into realspace.

Also, unless all maneuvering is done by computer with no pilot input (save for nekos, who have computer brains...but would their conscious thoughts be fast enough, I wonder?), there should be no human way for a pilot to plot and execute a series of light-speed maneuvers that allow for weapons to be fired in the meantime. The Picard Maneuver (the Stargazer trick, not the tunic tug) was a single warp jump, and even then it was an iffy thing.

The other option is, if people can pull off warping maneuvers with weapons fire, it could become a chess match crossed with fencing: Each ship is warping/CDDing to different locations in the battlefield (say, within a solar system-sized area) trying to dodge the other ship's weapons while at the same time trying to get in position and anticipate the other's drop-out-of-warp location so they can fire their weapons in time to hit when the target drops into realspace...It would be fun to see on screen either in video game format or in a show, but text-based and roleplayed out it could get a bit confusing. Also, if computers are the only ones to process information fast enough to calculate trajectories and lines-of-fire, then it could become a battle between ship AIs with the crews only along for the ride.

 

[Soresu]

I just can't see every species in the universe developing the same FTL system. In my mind it just doesn't process. Why can't we just have variety instead of a single system? :\

 

[Fred]

I would love to get rid of Interdiction entirely. However, we have become dependent on it for one reason...it is used against ships with CDD or CFS "warp drive" to counter their ability to move, maneuver, and fire while at FTL speeds. This is why my original revision proposal made all SARP FTL drives into fold systems where ships simply disappear and then appear instead of actually traveling FTL like a Star Trek ship does.

I believe that's false. It's based on the incorrect premise that having a translation-type superluminal drive pales in utility in comparison to a teleportation-flavored one. I saw you perform micro-fold jumps under circumstances fold was never supposed to be used, to perform the very same FTL maneuvers you seem so set against presently. No, fold isn't exempt from what you're actually trying to eliminate.

I'll openly admit that I'm biased. I despise hyperspace fold. Most especially its imagery.

I'm going to make a more niche reference: Star Trek never showed the need for interdiction. The series has had plenty of pursuit scenes were it managed to have one ship overtake another. It showed plenty of instances where damage to the warp engines impeded the ability to escape. They managed.

I'm going to throw another related thing out: Star Trek Online. Sector Space travel in STO is pretty much equivalent to our fold interstellar travel... with fancy visuals. Warp speed is used to transition into a system, and to planet to planet... but there's also a reason why ships appear a certain distance away and then proceed to an item of interest under impulse power. There's also a reason why ships don't go barging into battle going at full impulse power, and why they can't manage to commit the power to quickly escape until they commit resources and abilities to it.

...and it works. The science behind it might not be entirely accurate, but it carries its job out from the dramaturgic perspective.

So, don't come and say that linear superluminal travel is the problem issue here. It's not. In fact, everything we could do under the flag of FTL combat, we likely still can do at 0.3c - and why? Because 100 000kps is... one second you're here and the next you're 100 000 kilometers away (which is very, very far in scale when your biggest ships are 2km long). We don't even need our vaunted classification for FTL combat to achieve that because our STL drives, even today, are still extremely fast enough to amount to the same anyhow.

I'd keep that door open on CDD-like propulsion and wouldn't be so quick to discard it if I was you... simply because revising the Dos and Don'ts of your propulsion is really where you need to pay attention to.

 

[Firebrand]

Why don't we give FTL of all forms a lengthy recharge time?

 

[Wes]

Because then people could just haul more generators around.

 

[Firebrand]

Because then people could just haul more generators around.

Then we say that because of the mechanics of FTL, charging your drive too fast burns it out.

And maybe redesign Anti-FTL to require large bulky generators and emitters.

 

[Zack]

The reason ships in STO can't go to warp is because travel powers are disabled while in combat. This is essentially how interdiction fields work however it is enforced by game rules rather than something in game that can be used directly by the characters. Sense we want a reason why things work the way they do in SARP the STO method is not a valid option.

(Though the idea of just running straight to the end level boss in SARP does have comic effect and ships do seem to use their cloaking devices as LOL instant win. STO was a mess of bad gameplay choices spoiling an otherwise fun starship combat game.)


Frankly interdiction works really well for this setting in balancing out how powerful any FTL device is going to be. Currently how the system works is:
I want to get some place fast | FTL drives
I want to keep the enemy from using their FTL drives | Interdiction
But I want to be able to escape the enemy | Anti-Interdiction

All of these are staples of how SARP works now so if you want to remove one you'll have to replace it with something else, but without a clear goal to achieve by a rules update I don't see how any progress can be made.

 

[Cy83r K0rp53]

The interdiction system is weird though, I mean, no matter what the best you can do is reduce the interdiction field by one level?

Maybe some sorta geometric progression?

Counter-Interdiction is at least equal to Interdiction || ID-1
CID is at least twice ID || ID-2
CID is at least x factors of ID || ID-x

Since all interdiction systems are vaunted as equal in power, you just have to count the number of generators; the supposed ranges these fields extend is sufficient to carry even a massive fleet within the collective CID envelope.

Now, I'm anticipating a lot of grumbling on the aspect of accounting for numbers, but judging by the predisposition of the current administration, you're already accounting for tiny things like medical kits, so something as important as a CID generator should receive the same loving attention to detail, right?

This way, I think, we can still have reliable FTL gun platforms while making them... not quite as feasible (read: overpowered). You can still make 'em, but most of their systems will be composed of FTL, ID, and CID generators.

Furthermore, Interdiction fields already provide a sufficient defense against this style of attack, though just not the space between the platform and the target's ID field.

 

[Fred]

*shakes head* You're missing the point Uso.

As Interdiction is being used, and anti-FTL countermeasures will be used in turn. The way the give and take of those have been working has obviously not felt satisfactory to a great many.

Tweaking the way our FTL propulsion functions in order to apply combat limitations which would make Interdiction/Anti-FTL countermeasures redundant factors would be the way to go, as well as validating other means of preventing movement such as targeting another ship's engines to weaken/disable them, tagging them with a graviton beam... etcetera.

For starters, we did circumvent the power need that could be compensated with extra generators by giving a time delay to the formation of an hyperspace event... so, I could see CDD having their warp field bubble or whatever take time to form. The idea isn't to invalidate using FTL movement so much as make it a significant sacrifice.

The idea I broached earlier, tying each FTL type to a layer shield protection implied that within a combat venue, diverting your resources from protection to mobility touched on that. I also don't think the "they'd just put in more generators" clause is all that good, seeing ships would still be limited by what systems they can carry anyhow. If everyship has as many generators as they can... all ships of the same size-class remain essentially equal.

Also, conflict in space usually invariably occurs around points of interests such as planets. We already have kind of semi-established that using fold isn't exactly safe within a starsystem due to greater amounts of debris, particles and such (the same way as nebulas). In the same veins the gravity well of planets could make them tricky to approach by vessels and for safety reasons they'd emerge out of CDD speed a certain distance away and close in.

Seeing how space installations are usually built around points of interests and that we ever so rarely have conflicts plainly in deep space... that seems to cover most of the issues that interdiction covered anyways. Put those installations significantly deep enough within said gravity well and any new arrival will have to commit to navigating a ways to reach it... thus fulfilling the defensibility people wanted out of much larger interdiction fields anyhow. It's also probably be on a scale much more appropriate than the super huge 499 lightsecond Astronomical Unit (1 AU).

The rest is pretty much just a matter of adjusting things to scale. FTL torpedoes would be largely unneeded in desirable engagement ranges of 3 lightseconds or less. A ship going at 5000kps would cover 1/6 lightsecond in 10 seconds, making the short railgun range with lower relativistic speeds more reasonably feasible. Torpedoes could go at near lightspeed from 0.6 to 0.9c and still very quickly get to their target if that was the intent for them. FTL maneuvers could be replaced with high-speed STL maneuvers, seeing how 0.3c (100 000kps) will cover a lightsecond in 3 seconds, and thus be capable of closing through 3 light seconds under a 10 second time.

 

[SentientRace]

I agree, from what I've read thus far, that instead of giving limitations to generators and whatever other paraphernalia a ship could have, giving limitations to the forces of nature these paraphernalia manipulate would be a much more practical solution for getting rid of interdiction.

If creating a hyperspace event would take 'x' amount of time to create, regardless of however many generators a ship may have, that would make FTL speeds of 'fold' engines still available while keeping it outside of combat due to impracticability.

CDD/CFS engines would simply have to take longer to use their desired effect in a similar way. A 'space bubble' (CDD) or a 'space contraction' (Iroma's MASC) event would simply have a cap at how fast it can be formed the same way it takes time for a fold engine to bring a ship into hyperspace. It's not a limitation of the generators themselves, it is a limitation of the environment it manipulates.

If a CDD/CFS/MASC engine is currently moving the ship at STL speeds, the increase in velocity into FTL speed levels would then be the catalyst to cause additional charge time to achieve those speeds. There could be a 'Light Barrier' in SARP as much as there once was a 'Sound Barrier' which we in the real world couldn't break until recently. While it is possible to break this 'Light Barrier', the time required to break it makes it ineffective for use in combat, be it that the moving 'space bubble' requires greater acceleration only achieved by keeping it at a set acceleration for long enough or that the MASC drive requires enough space to 'compress' to break said barrier, which takes 'x' amount of time to gather.

Make it so that changing directions while within FTL travel is impossible (each FTL direction requires charge-time), and you have yourself a perfectly interdiction-less system.

That way it has no way of being upgraded or circumvented. The time it takes to do so should take at least half an hour, for all types of FTL-capable engines.

FTL engines should only be used for travel. Combat at FTL speeds is ridiculous and tedious.

 

[Frost]

As a new person and an avid Sci-Fi fan, I am entirely for all of the proposed changes, especially the Anti-FTL (Interdiction?). When I heard about Anti-FTL (interdiction), I thought it was a terrible idea to allow from the get-go. Anti-FTL must be a natural phenomenon, like being too close to a blackhole, because the resources required to do it man-made, so to speak, would be enormous and would also affect those using the tech. Thats including the even larger amounts of resources needed to create interdiction countermeasures. Creating FTL to begin with requires enormous amounts of power/resources as it is.

The Frosty Seal of Approval :V

 

[ShotJon]

Okay I will throw my towel in the ring too. Just a few thoguhts on things I think I understand and would like to give opinion too. And since I am too lazy to read alllll those wall of text just move on if I state something that someone else alredy said.

I wouldn't remove Anti-FTL entirely.
On thin is that it is already in setting, second is that it can do for some interesting defense tactics.
BUT I would remove from ships drones and such. Or at elast if ship would like to do Anti-ftl it should be so massive that it can't do anything else much. Otherwise it is nice if battle stations and planets would keep Ant-fti because it would be defensive measure. Slow enemy and give themselves time to prepare for battle and such.

To the FTL weaponry I say no. Or more like it should not be very effective. It could be very innacurate or do small amoutn of damage. Just to give guy who uses it edge, but not that he could win battles before enemy even shows up.

I am not sure creating rules for missing and hittin is necessary. I think every GM knows if there is a chance to hit and how big it could be and decise upon that. But if you want to, there could be range table saying how far is really far and hard to hit.

Also I am not sure PVP rules are much neede. I would have one suggestion about PVP. It should have nonbiased moderator. And if those two player doesn't want to have one then they should not come crying if any of them starts loosing.........

 

[Wes]

I'm glad to see so many opinions and participation from everyone but I'm having trouble getting a clear consensus so I would ask everyone to please vote here:

Survey on Proposed Changes

Form results will be tallied up on Tuesday evening.