Rejected Submission RUDaaS Missile

Good point, @Alex Hart - I've edited my post. >.<

Wake up in the morning to math and spreadsheets. This is good.

Anyways, what I’m also saying is that the EMP warhead may have too much bang for its buck. The entire missile is already quite a big flying hunk of damage, so having the EMP on top is a bit ridiculous.

I feel like all of this should have been separate missiles instead of one big giant tech-missile of “lol you die.” That would make it a bit more fair.

I see, as a status effect weapon I guess the overall damage output should be regulated. What do you think would be a better damage rating to The Shield?

I think the EMP warhead is generally what's on there INSTEAD of a damaging warhead. You can have one warhead at a time is my understanding of the matter.

Rizzo said:

I see, as a status effect weapon I guess the overall damage output should be regulated. What do you think would be a better damage rating to The Shield?

Click to expand...

I think it should be marked as “shield damage only” instead of having a big subspace explosive. Let’s keep it on-tier with the rest of the explosives for now. Being able to flatten anything’s shield that’s Tier 12 and under is...quite a few ships.

Edit: Also best idea is to mark it so only one warhead at any given time can explode...but, that’s the issue with this warhead as well. It’s too “Swiss army knife”

Right, it is in fact only one Warhead, the Subspace Detonator is a part of the same warhead but we can ride it however you want. The effect I want to achieve is simply more work for the engineer characters and shield damage as a more practical effect. Theoretically, all of that can be done with one EMP generator that's capable of a high enough output.

If I make this Shield damage, which was absolutely my intention, could the result of a hit that collapses the shield or a hit while the shields are offline be the rolling of the damage generator?

@Rizzo - I believe so, actually; although I don't remember where @Fred said it, I distinctly recall him saying that subspace detonators literally disable active FTL engines and barrier generators - thus the rolls of the damage generator could represent the system damage (via power surges...?) an overloaded engine and/or generator causes as it fails.

Edit: Here's the post I was thinking of.

I was under the impression that this missile mounted one warhead at a time.

@Rizzo The hit that collapses the shields shouldn’t be the one to cause EMP rolls, since the shield capacitors have successfully ranked the shot. However, spill-over damage should cause rolls.

@META_mahn so you're saying it would be damage that exceeds The Shield's capacity that causes damaged, right?

@Alex Hart this isn't the only missile that would have a two stage Warhead. This missile launcher fires missiles that pierce both shieldsand armor. Granted, it is Yam-tech, but still the possibility is present for a hybrid warhead. Whatever we decide I'll go with, but I don't believe it's beyond the scope of the setting.

W2900!

That article is more than a decade old ICly. That actually is one of the articles that we are not supposed to refer back to under the NTSE rules about not doing that.

I think we’ve been trying to phase subspace detonators out of the setting too? I might be wrong about that since they seem to keep poping up.

Plus I think it would defeat the point to drop the shields for a second then hit the ship with EMP. EMP is great for taking down shields and if they aren’t up to be hit they might just turn back on afterward.

Nvm: the shield emitters would be exposed under the shield so a SD then EMP would fry the shields and any unhardened components on the hull. I still think EMP only is enough though, especially when an EMP device can be reused.

Up to you though Rizz

Rizzo isn’t the reviewer and is also not allowed to, since he’s a part of the USO.

@Rizzo Basically. It only makes sense.

Rizzo said:

@Alex Hart this isn't the only missile that would have a two stage Warhead. This missile launcher fires missiles that pierce both shieldsand armor. Granted, it is Yam-tech, but still the possibility is present for a hybrid warhead. Whatever we decide I'll go with, but I don't believe it's beyond the scope of the setting.

Click to expand...

I meant how it can only have one of the warheads that Zack's submitting mounted on it at a time.

Per the article, "The warhead module has data hookups in the rear and front to help the system communicate, but is otherwise empty space for a warhead itself.

• RUDaaS Yuuko-Howitzer Warhead
• RUDaaS REE Warhead
• RUDaaS Multi-Missile Warhead
• RUDaaS Emp Warhead"

This leads me to believe that you can only ever mount one of these several warheads at a given time.

I think Zack was saying it is up to Rizzo because some of these articles are Rizzo's brainchild.

Thanks everybody for clarifying, now that I have a clear understanding I'll go ahead and get it that EMP Warhead and see if it fits the setting a little better.

https://wiki.stararmy.com/doku.php?id=wip:corp:fscorp:rudaas_emp_warhead#weapons
Okay, so I had done a bit of thinking(that's dangerous, am I right?) and redid the chart of it.
@META_mahn Better or worse?

Pretty good. It's decently clear the missile is supposed to be used to blow up shields and cause system damage instead of blow up ships.

This review is for: Rudaas Missile and Sub-Articles

The submitted article is/has…
[✓] A very high level of overall quality
[✓] A general topic sentence under the title header
[✓] Artwork (Required for new species; Strongly recommended for vehicles and hand weapons)
[✓] Needed and/or useful to the setting
[✓] In the proper format/template
[✓] Proofread for spelling and grammar
[✓] Easy to read and understand (not a lengthy mass of technobabble)
[✓] Wikified (terms that could be a link should be a link)
[✓] No red and/or broken links
[✓] Reasonably scientifically plausible
[✓] Reasonably neutral point of view
The submitted article is/does not…
[✓] Overpowered (or cutting tech for a faction with little or no roleplay)
[✓] Obtusely redundant
[✓] Contain copy pasta descriptions of systems or interior compartments
[✓] Unauthorized by faction managers or player-controlled corporation
[✓] Contain references to IC events that have not occurred (SM must authorize retcons)
[✓] Use second-person language (“you” or “your”) unless it is an instructional guide aimed at players.
[✓] Use bombastic language (“virtually immune,” “nearly indestructible,” “insanely powerful,” “horrible effects”)
[✓] Use an unbalanced header/text ratio (many headers but sections are one-liners)
[✓] Use major unapproved sub-articles that should be submitted separately
[✓] Lacking Detail
[✓] Images hosted on sites other than stararmy.com (Photobucket, Imageshack, etc are not allowed)
The article has…
[no] Speeds in compliance with the Starship Speed Standard, if applicable
[✓] 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.

Notes:
I would prefer speeds do not exceed the standard.

Pending

Wait a minute, @Ametheliana. What about the concerns I raised here and the ones @Alex Hart raised here?