Reintroducing the 8 on tier weapon rule.

I didn't realize that this thread had turned into one where we sought to remove the Approval Mods.

I didn't realize we were trying to set SARP back to an age where a lack of quality control left us with hundreds of low-quality/one-off articles.

But I do think that there's a word of common-sense to the idea that the rule of 8 shouldn't be a rule. The problem of not using it as a rule, however, is that people will likely cry and demand a different NTSE mod and hope/convince them to not care about something. The idea that an NTSE mod can be bypassed by another taking on moderation is honestly very dangerous to me as (as pointed out) each NTSE mod has different standards and this DOES apply to their approvals.

If there's dispute between two moderators as to the status of something, I think Wes should be brought in to allow this issue to not devolve into something and instead take a more official standpoint.

I do not think we need to go back to a point-buy system ever. No one is here to min-max their tabletop stat sheets. The guidelines work better because they're looser. Weapon limits should be laxed, but 8 at-tier makes a good basis for a guideline as there are many ships that were grandfathered in but the sheer amount of guns isn't going to truly be hindered for ships. As someone who makes them and suits, I've not found the limit to be a problem even once, but know Wes was opposed to it.

So maybe it'd be a good idea to consider reinstating it as a guideline/reference start, versus a limit. @Wes would be the one that makes that sort of decision, however. Anytime we remove the numerical gaming power and make things that keep us in the land of civil and not absurd gun-stacking that caused the very issue of "too many guns" on ships, the system improves and encourages people to think less statistic and more about how to create an RP-worthy ship.

That's my two cents, though. Just a guy who has consistently had some of the smoothest passes and interactions with the NTSE in the last year or so.

Edit

Zack said:

We got rid of mods for character approval, and look how that turned out. A better system involves less work for everyone.

Click to expand...

Just as a side note, these were and still very much are a thing in recent times. And they were working quite well for helping players create characters.

Less work doesn't mean better, but more efficient use of our work does. This is why guidelines and flexibility are important, as it allows us to adjust and amend whatever and whenever we deal with something as a community, GM's, and FM's.

Maybe we can try doing things your way, and also try doing things my way, and see which way is better Legix? I think the easier and better method is always going to win out and if we can’t make a rules set that is easier than the current system of arguing with a dozen approval mods over what everyone thinks is acceptable then we’ve already failed.


At a quick glance, USO puts out more than 20x the number of articles that get approved in comparison to Nepleslia. I don’t think Nepland is really comparable there since it doesn’t really show up a whole lot in the NTSE.

This is NOT what this thread is about Zack, and if you'll kindly stay on topic, I have a feeling it'd be much appreciated.

This thread is ONLY about reinstating the 8 on tier weapon rule. Do not try to push your agenda here.

edit:

Legix said:

But I do think that there's a word of common-sense to the idea that the rule of 8 shouldn't be a rule. The problem of not using it as a rule, however, is that people will likely cry and demand a different NTSE mod and hope/convince them to not care about something. The idea that an NTSE mod can be bypassed by another taking on moderation is honestly very dangerous to me as (as pointed out) each NTSE mod has different standards and this DOES apply to their approvals.

Click to expand...

This has become a very real problem in recent times, with people asking for mods that they know will favor them instead of giving impartial reviews. A strong set of rules, or at least guidelines, will prevent this sort of political nonsense in the NTSE, or at least cut it down.

So focus on that, but also keep in mind we need to have a way to keep improving.

I'm gonna agree with Zack on one thing in this thread so far, for DRv3: The system does not reliably and firmly account for rapid-fire weapons as well as "continuous" weapons.



I think putting a small modification so that damage ratings are based on how much damage can be done in number of seconds x might fix that. (Replace x with a number of your choice, which would not change.)

This would let rapid-fire and "continuous" weapons function in the system rather easily: If your assault rifle shoots 10 rounds a second and the DR calculation is based on 6 seconds of firing (That's a long time for that many bullets, but I'm using an example here), then the DR of that rifle/its shots would be based on that amount of damage - let's say that does decent anti-armor, Tier 5 damage. That means that you're shooting, say, a Mindy for 6 seconds to disable/destroy it and/or kill its pilot.

How would this work with "single shot" weapons? Well, if it really can only shoot once in that 6 second span (Again, the time here is an example) then we know that it'll do that much damage in a single shot.



(Personally, I would like to see a time value of somewhere between 2 and 3 seconds for this idea. That, however, is not something that should be set in stone.)

-This idea is simply a suggestion, and alternative suggestions might also work - some, possibly even better than mine.

I’ve got a ton to say on that, but maybe we should start a new thread about it instead of discussing it here?

Zack is right in that case, this is just for reintroducing the 8 on tier rule.

I don't mean to brag but I have had courses in engineering. As an appliance technician I can almost see through service panels at this point and know exactly what parts I will find. I've just been doing it for so long that I look at everything mechanically, and believe me that is a curse on my social life. This gives me an appreciation for the mechanics behind a submission.

Generally speaking I can look at a 3D model and just know if it is over or under armed for its design. Like Wes I believe the rule of 8 is not going to be a good system for us to use. My issue with it is that it does not take into consideration the purpose or design of the creation and smuthers creativity by enforcing uniformity. I actually despise that.

What is more, Wes did not like this this as he doesn't want a table top RPG and I believe many of our members would agree that the tech submissions should be more about the story than anything else. I encourage us all to use the system we have. If you would prefer a specific moderator, tag them and ask them to review your submission. If a moderator is unfairly biased report them

I'm not opposed to the 8-same-tier-weapon as a concept. Cadetnewb wanted something like that, and it's what I could cobble up. It seemed promising at the time, since it actually did fit several test cases (Plumeria, Eikan, Sharie).

What I got increasingly pissy about was about Zack's scathing remarks on the failings of that ship-building guideline being pointed in the direction of "DRv3" which actually was - in majority - a nomenclature guide more than anything else.

So, I removed it and Frostjaeger swiftly got onboard with instating it as something different. I won't say I didn't see shortcomings in the article's presentation, but it was Frostjaeger's, not mine, and I tried to respect that I wasn't the author. Despite the shortcomings of that approach, it promoted discussion, and even got Zack and I talking about tweaking the number of available weapons based on a few very binary factors (Zack wanted options, I wanted them to stay very simple).

But Wes swooped in and the rest is - as they say - history.

DRv3, as a thing, wasn't built to really help you build starships so much as it was to help give a scale for damage and tell you how you can call it, even in universe. I think the expression of lethality in the article is on point, though when evaluating the complete effectiveness of a weapon, I actually always intended it to be one piece of a larger puzzle; the weapon's actual description.

If you like to adhere to the 8-same-tier-weapons, I don't see much harm in it. Frostjaeger proved is works most of the time. But it's also proven not to be a perfect solution. From a moderator standpoint, you might fix a few problems, but you'll get new ones too... especially with edge cases.

I think part of the problem is this huge disconnect between the perceived effectiveness of DRv3 and just how terrible it is at so many things.

It causes problems for ship design, since we now have no guidelines on what is and isn’t acceptable.

It causes problems for damage estimation because it is so bad at its intended function. Machine guns and auto-cannons just wreck everything, beams and single shot weapons like missiles are nearly unusable due to lack of guidelines in the NTSE.

It also makes estimating lethality kinda pointless because your typical fast firing weapon now just obliterates anything within 3 tiers so you’re pretty much invulnerable or you’re mush.

DVr3 is bad to the point of being unusable for its intended purpose. The 8 tier rule doesn’t fix that, but it does help address one part of DRv3’s laundry list of problems.

Again: the next step is to have a weekly rule review where new rules can be created and evaluated before being rolled out on a trial basis since with or without 8tier we still need to fix the NTSE.

Using DRv3 is not a rule, it's only a rule that pages should have stats for it.

I'm cool with it as is. I feel it does its job. Sometimes, I feel the objections made for it are in cases as if it's a square peg made to fit in a round hole. I go "Just make the peg small enough to fit in the hole" and I feel the return objection is like "No, it's square!"

That said, I encourage @Wes to reread Zack's last post and decide how he feels about it. It's not feedback that I agree with, but it's been consistent feedback that built overtime - it doesn't come out of nowhere and it directly appeals to things he values more. If it's something that needs to be addressed beyond what I recommended, that's up to Wes to figure out.

To be honest, what I was toying was the idea of expanding DRv3 to account for sizes 16-though-18 to account for actual starbases. That's one thing I've noticed was brushed up against as a shortcoming and - hey - it doesn't really have to be. The stuff ceiling-ing at 18 will have the same problems the stuff at 15 currently do, but at least ships will be less affected (except for crazy dreadnoughts people insist be humunguous).

Setting consistency requires that I at least try to make use of the rules we have. But a better question might be why would we use DRv3 at all? It’s not made by people who regularly use the NTSE and is largely ignored by everyone except when arguing over it in the NTSE. There appears to be no upside if we take the position of “you don’t have to use it, except for when you do”

Also, please don’t add more tiers above 15. 15 is bad enough as it is, making the larger ships completely immune to smaller ships. At Tier 18 you’d have stations that are entirely immune to nearly everything on the site. Having more tiers isn’t going to add value to the storytelling, or fix the problems with the NTSE.

I agree that 15 is a good number. Although I'd point out that with the proposed 8 point system, a single weapon style corvette can mount a single tier 13 weapon which is two below meaning that they can deal Moderate Damage to a tier 15 ship. Remember that a Tier X weapon impacting a Tier X defense is a Potentially lethal hit. To me, this feels about right. There needs to be enough difference between to seperate various roles.

Keep in mind that a tier 15 freighter with paper thin skin covering its cargo and a Tier 15 warship both have the same amount of protection against tier 13 weapons hits. Also consider that you can’t have anything like a breaching charge modeled in DRv3 since it would have to be carried by a soldier, and as such couldn’t penitrate a tier 15 hull even if it was a freighter.

Every part of DRv3 would have to be reworked to be a viable rules set for the NTSE to go off of. It is going to be a large undertaking and we should focus on doing things right this time, namely: proper process, research, and trial runs for new rules.

Zack said:

Keep in mind that a tier 15 freighter with paper thin skin covering its cargo and a Tier 15 warship both have the same amount of protection against tier 13 weapons hits. Also consider that you can’t have anything like a breaching charge modeled in DRv3 since it would have to be carried by a soldier, and as such couldn’t penitrate a tier 15 hull even if it was a freighter.

Click to expand...

Actually... a Tier 15 freighter (wow, big) with super-thin skin would count as unarmored. It would count as a tier under, meaning it would be much more easily savaged by anything that would be shrugged off by its similarily-sized counterparts. Of course, the damage it'd take wouldn't be lethal coming from smaller units because the ship still happens to be really damn big. A positron shell that would total a Yui-class destroyer would just blow up a small part of this massive freighter, meaning it wouldn't come close anywhere close to being lethal.

I mean, stab a mouse with a sewing needle and then stab a dog with the same sewing needle. Odds are the dog is more likely to walk away from the encounter. Same principle here.

Also, lethality applies to an entire ship. It's meant to help reflect how good it is versus a weapon at not being killed (or vice-versa); and it works as much on toughness as it does on overall scale. But that's nothing overly rigid, but it's not absolute even on minutiae. If you're targeting an airlock with a breaching charge, you don't go and consider that airlock Tier 15 too; that's sheer madness. As a GM whom read the article, you could go "Oh, I'll treat the airlock as a Tier 7 target" because stuff likely to kill a tank is probably pretty likely to get to punch a hole in an apperture like that in one-go.

That isn't how DRv3 works though. Unarmored is an optional thing you can take and it comes with a speed buff. Ontop of that your Tier 15 shield (which you have to take if you're a tier 15 ship as the NTSE doesn't allow for differently tier'd shields) you're still immune to smaller weapons in a 'completely and totally immune' way and not a 'it does damage, but just not a lot' way.

Even if you take the unarmored modifier, then your super-freighter still has the damage tolerance of a battleship. These are ships that are only hundreds of meters big facing weapons in the lower planet-killing range. A single Tier 10-ish shot should be more than enough to destroy a 2km big asteroid completely, and I think it will reasonably do a lot more damage to the freighter than DRv3 would suggest.

Then if you consider sub-parts of the ship to have different DR values you end up with an entirely new can of worms. You could list each ship's individual component DR which isn't entirely unreasonable (if handled through component articles) but I don't think anyone will do it, and certainly no one does that now. Or you could make up DR values on the spot for parts like the airlock door but why would anyone do that? If you're going to make stuff up on the spot you don't first think what DR value it would be, then compare the weapon strength, then look up the DR damage table to determine how lethal your gun is to the door... you just go "Yeah, that shotgun could totally cut through drywall" and move on from there.

--

To bring it all back to the point: How does any of that help the NTSE? It seems each mod has their own idea of what is acceptable under DRv3 so approval threads that should be short end up circling the drain about what is and isn't acceptable under DRv3.

As wes said, if the rule is only that DRv3 rules be listed on the page, why are they even coming up in NTSE submissions at all?

How about something like "Ships should not possess more than 8 to 10 weapons of their own tier?"

I would just like to say something from my own perspective. Take it with a grain of salt.

DVR3 went way over my head. It was one of the reasons I never wanted to make any new ships even though I talked about, because I would have to sit there and try to calculate it all out, which I honestly cant do. It's harder than my drug calculations at school, which are no cake walk.

What I'm getting at is, I don't find it very friendly to new people (or myself) who want to create new ships or armors. ((Or maybe it's just me who can't understand it.))

Anywho, that's just my opinion and it probably doesn't matter. But here is my two cents.

@Ametheliana while I agree that having a hard limit is a good idea, I do not think we should be putting even *more* work on other creators, not everyone enjoys having to figure out numbers and such (I sure as heck do not) so if this rule does go into effect again we need to figure out a means to make it so that it doesn't cause any unnecessary problems for creators.