[Rules] Weapon Limitations

One worry I have is how prevalent the 2E, or really any weapon limit exception ship, will become. If suddenly you start seeing ships with weapon counts flying in the face of the status quo everywhere instead of being used as well, hero ships, that could create some problems.

The limits are there for a reason.

It might be simpler to assign a point value to each weapon (based on tier) and a point capacity to each ship tier or type.

The amount of frustration here is hard to articulate.

We've already had this conversation several times. You guys are just repeating the same things that were said from the last few years of this conversation. How can there be any hope that you'll be able to solve this simple problem when you haven't managed to make any progress on it for years?

Other sites are already considering a curated-template system to solve the problem, but focusing on the specifics kinda misses the point: Other people can test changes and move forward. This site is just completely stuck with no hope of improvement by going through its normal channels. Worse yet, its likely staff will just remove this rule unilaterally if it does get passed again just like last time because they don't understand the problems with the NTSE or how the rules affect what is going on there.

We just had an example of how this rule fixes one glaring problem with the NTSE. So just put it back already. Then we can get to the next step which is figuring out how to continue improving without going around in circles.

Ahem...

FrostJaeger said:

Note: This thread is not for discussing potential issues with DRv3 - such as missiles and rate-of-fire - nor is it for discussing potential issues with the NTSE. If you want to discuss either of the above, make a separate thread. Inflammatory/off-topic/toxic/troll posts can and will be reported to staff members.

Click to expand...

I'd also like to point out that assigning weapons point values and ships weapon points to spend is a step firmly backwards. We have a system here that works, so let's make it work better instead of trying to reinvent the whole thing.

Believe it or not, I can kind of relate with Zack. I'm smacked pretty hard by the irony too.

Regarding a point system based purely on lethality (and therefore probably just as faillible)... it's not something I saw as ideal because it comes against the same limitations and just gives even more intimidating numbers:



Tier 1 through 6 are present for academic reasons: I don't really consider that these units, often humanoid, really work with this as they're not a vehicle proper. As weapons though, well, bigger ships could have some use for them like... say... anti-armor turrets.

So, here are the values if you want them... but I think it's a really bad idea.

Though I'm unable to do it at the moment, this evening I'm going to be doing a complete rework of this submission and splitting off the DRv3-related portion into another article.

@Wes - based upon what you said here and in DMs, I've completely reworked the submission article and updated the original post.

@FrostJaeger that is a very comprehensive guide. Thank you for taking time to make that wiki page readable and easy to understand.

I just looked it over, and I have to agree wholeheartedly. This article covered everything I think it needs to.

I agree, I looked it over and I feel all of the questions that have been raised in this thread about it are covered.

Looks great. Approved.

Thanks @Wes

Don't know if this is officially fully approved? There is no approved tag. I wont say much, but if you guys want to do a weapon limitations system. Rather than doing a tier based point system, it probably would've been more interesting to make if more of a 'hard point' system. Like Gun boats have X amount of point defense mounts, X amount of 'main guns' and X amount of normal gun mounts. (and upto what tier can be put in be based on the ship's teir.) I haven't worked the numbers but it might be easier for people to comprehend a weapon limit system when it's done by the weapon's purpose, and not by it's damage value. That's just my two cents though.

Wes said:

Look great. Approved.

Click to expand...

@Syaoran.

I think having more flexibility with weapons is better personally, not restricting it to a set number of slots for everything lit you described, but that’s just my opinion.

I saw Wes' post, but I'm saying the thread wasn't marked as approved. So I was just putting that in.

I was disappointed to not have been consulted before Approval, until I read this:

FrostJaeger said:

Spike Launchers of Devastation™

Click to expand...

Okay, I can at least say my funny-bone has been tickled.

But... if there's an oversight in this, it's how Tier Equivalent Weapons are added. Though how they function is well-explained afterwards, there's no mention early on of why they are there, which would likely generate a "why did they bother with this?" observation on the reader's part. I myself think they really feel tacked on.

For the former flaw, an distinction made early on; perhaps On-Tier weapons can have a short description such as "this allotment is usually reserved for the unit's main armament" and then the Tier-Equivalent Group for "secondary weaponry" and such. Just so that it's made more evocative to the reader on what does what.

As for the feeling that tier-weapon-groups are tacked on, maybe it would feel less so if they're not merely just an equivalent to 2 on-tier-weapons.

Right now, the distinction is:
- Less or equal than 8 on-tier-weapons
- Less or equal than 2 tier-equivalent-weapon-groups

That means, on a Tier 10 ship, that I could pack a single extremely powerful Tier 13 weapon, but then unlike ships before Wes' ruling, I would be able to afford having four more Tier 9 weapons. So, before Wes' ruling, this hypothetical corvette of mine with a light anti-capital weapon would have paid the price by not having anything else to defend itself with. Thanks to Wes' ruling, it can get away with it and have some extra weapons to boot.

So, from where I sit, there's potential abuse that's possible. I don't think Wes would take kindly to some independent-built frigates being able to possibly blow his Eikan cruisers in a single strike.

But maybe there's something interesting that can be done with this and fix two problems at once. Maybe we can change the proportions.

Such as:
- Less or equal than 4 on-tier-weapons
- Less or equal than 6 tier-equivalent-weapon-groups

While I'm not a fan of the rigidity I feel out of the above, this insurres that the on-tier weapons can never be used to combine into a weapon more than 2 steps above the unit's native tier is possible (the Tier 11 Plumeria's main gun is a +2 tier weapon). However, creating a Plumeria with a 4/6 arrangement would not be possible (wouldn't be able to fit in the positron cannons), so maybe 6/4 would be a better idea to consider.

Or, perhaps, going from 8/2 to 6/4, 4/6 and then 2/8 could have some impact on the way or style the ship is built... though what that would be for currently escapes me.

I think 6/4 could work. You could fit at most a +2 tier main weapon, 2 on tier weapons, and then some secondaries and point defense. Anyone else in favor of that?

With 6/4 you have 1 +2, 1 +1, and then a whole load of tiny little guns. It's not as high damage but it'll do.

Problem is, it also feels a little cut-and-pastey. All ships would look somewhat similar in their articles. But then again, yes, I had the same exact thought with the +3 main gun and the 4 -1 tier sidearms that would delete a fair few ships above its weight and still be able to tell the little guys to knock it off with the -1 tier guns.

@Wes - May I go ahead and change the on-tier weapon/tier-equivalent weapon group ratio from 8/2 to 6/4?

What about 7/3?