-
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 [email protected] 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
[Rules] Weapon Limitations
- Thread starter FrostJaeger
- Start date
- Status
I think honestly, whatever we decide on, there's going to be an "optimized" way of doing it, but I also think that cut and past-y ships won't be a problem unless everyone starts suddenly just trying to maximize their weapons all the time.
As to your suggestion Wes, I'm not sure what benefit or consequence that would have. I think it would mostly just shift the 'optimum way' from 1 +2, 1+1 and lots of little ones, to 1+2, 3 on tier, and lots of other ones. Whether that's better or worse, I'm not really sure.
As to your suggestion Wes, I'm not sure what benefit or consequence that would have. I think it would mostly just shift the 'optimum way' from 1 +2, 1+1 and lots of little ones, to 1+2, 3 on tier, and lots of other ones. Whether that's better or worse, I'm not really sure.
@Wes - Changes applied; will update the loadout example later today, probably in the evening.
META_mahn
Well-Known Member
At least 7/3 allows for semi-symmetrical ships. 6/4 looks a little like a German Maus, with its one HUGE barrel and a tiny little one on the side. I’d rather just cap it to “can’t have a +3 Weapon” because damage ships aren’t a bad thing — but +3 can go around and own everything that flies in space.
I’d rather see a curbing of how effective damage is, rather than cap down damage itself. IE writing that on-tier hits simply deal “massive damage” and adjusting the curve from there.
I’d rather see a curbing of how effective damage is, rather than cap down damage itself. IE writing that on-tier hits simply deal “massive damage” and adjusting the curve from there.
Might I suggest that we change the wording from "The rule we offer is: a maximum of 7 on-tier weapons (OTWs) and a max of 10 Tier-Equivalent Weapon Groups (TEWGs). "
To
"The rule we offer is: a maximum of 7 on-tier weapons (OTWs) that can be converted normally into lower tier weapon groups and higher tier single weapons, and an extra 3 Tier-Equivalent Weapon Groups (TEWGs) which can only contain weapons on or below the tier of the ship or vehicle the weapons are on."
Personally, I think this is easier to understand, since the way you wrote it could be confused and taken to mean that you are allowed 7 on tier weapons, convertible up and down, as well as 10 on tier weapon groups.
Also, you should update the example @FrostJaeger.
To
"The rule we offer is: a maximum of 7 on-tier weapons (OTWs) that can be converted normally into lower tier weapon groups and higher tier single weapons, and an extra 3 Tier-Equivalent Weapon Groups (TEWGs) which can only contain weapons on or below the tier of the ship or vehicle the weapons are on."
Personally, I think this is easier to understand, since the way you wrote it could be confused and taken to mean that you are allowed 7 on tier weapons, convertible up and down, as well as 10 on tier weapon groups.
Also, you should update the example @FrostJaeger.
META_mahn
Well-Known Member
Fred
Retired Staff
I'm not Wes, but I do happen to be awesome.
This empowers me with the ability to inform you that the initial idea was to grandfather the old submissions in as much as possible to reflect effective intent even if they happen to go beyond.
Stage whisper: An Iori-star fortress doesn't fit.
This empowers me with the ability to inform you that the initial idea was to grandfather the old submissions in as much as possible to reflect effective intent even if they happen to go beyond.
Stage whisper: An Iori-star fortress doesn't fit.
Last edited:
Toshiro
Well-Known Member
If we're stuck with 7 on-tier weapons instead of the maximum of 10, I worry about the death of gunship-type vessels that are likely to spend 4 of those 7 points on a single gun by design. This is even worse than I initially feared, and completely kills that Chiaki variant I had planned. It also means that the Plumeria and Chiaki refits, if they need modified to fit, might as well be retconned to their previous states (if those even fit) due to how heavily this neuters things. It also means no missile tubes if you want any other reasonable weapons on your sub-Tier 12 SAoY ship.
I'd be lying if I said that the amount of work I put in the Plumeria and Chiaki refits feels completely wasted right now.
I'd be lying if I said that the amount of work I put in the Plumeria and Chiaki refits feels completely wasted right now.
Last edited:
Zack
Inactive Member
Agreed,
It also feels a lot like the people who don't often work on starships are setting the rules for the people that do. I kinda just want to make GM-only stuff so I don't have to work around these rules. Every ship now has to have the same speed / armor / weapons layout with what seems like meaningless variation. No Ion Cannon frigates, no heavily armored ships, no fast racing craft, no 'anything that I find interesting'.
It also feels a lot like the people who don't often work on starships are setting the rules for the people that do. I kinda just want to make GM-only stuff so I don't have to work around these rules. Every ship now has to have the same speed / armor / weapons layout with what seems like meaningless variation. No Ion Cannon frigates, no heavily armored ships, no fast racing craft, no 'anything that I find interesting'.
Fred
Retired Staff
I'm not too wild on the 7/3 myself. Might as well just keep 8/2 if it's going to be such a small change. Unless the objective is preventing Tier+3. Honestly, I was kind of hoping for someone to build on how it could be made more flexible somehow. Oh well.
However, @Toshiro , it's nowhere as bad as you're putting it for you. You happen to be losing the possibility to have a tier-equivalent weapon on the Plumeria - something that's medium anti-starship (which is equivalent to a positron railgun), but in return you're getting possibly up to 6 light anti-starship weapons with the 7/3 setup.
The 7/3 setup does also give the debatable benefit of preventing using all your 8 on-tier weapons to combine them into a single Tier+3 weapon; the Plumeria's main gun is Tier+2, a Light Anti-Capital weapon. Look at that maingun on the Plumeria; the ship is practically built around it, and that's already a +2 tier weapon. The Ion-frigate example is kind of hogwash; the Ion-frigate would probably be very happy with Tier+2 itself.
Basically, things got better for you, not worse. You don't need a Tier 14 weapon on a Plumeria. And you needed tons of turrets anyways.
However, @Toshiro , it's nowhere as bad as you're putting it for you. You happen to be losing the possibility to have a tier-equivalent weapon on the Plumeria - something that's medium anti-starship (which is equivalent to a positron railgun), but in return you're getting possibly up to 6 light anti-starship weapons with the 7/3 setup.
The 7/3 setup does also give the debatable benefit of preventing using all your 8 on-tier weapons to combine them into a single Tier+3 weapon; the Plumeria's main gun is Tier+2, a Light Anti-Capital weapon. Look at that maingun on the Plumeria; the ship is practically built around it, and that's already a +2 tier weapon. The Ion-frigate example is kind of hogwash; the Ion-frigate would probably be very happy with Tier+2 itself.
Basically, things got better for you, not worse. You don't need a Tier 14 weapon on a Plumeria. And you needed tons of turrets anyways.
META_mahn
Well-Known Member
I think the objective is preventing +3. In which case I think we should just prohibit +3 weapons on any given ship. And yes, Toshiro's job got a little better. He got essentially 2 extra TEWPs (Tier Equivalent Weapon Points) to spend on more gun.
And actually, Fred is right.
This is the Ion frigate. 2/3 of the ship is devoted solely to that gun.
This is the Plumeria. 2/3 of the ship is also gun.
We don't need +3 guns, you're right. We really can't go beyond this.
And actually, Fred is right.
This is the Ion frigate. 2/3 of the ship is devoted solely to that gun.
This is the Plumeria. 2/3 of the ship is also gun.
We don't need +3 guns, you're right. We really can't go beyond this.
Zack
Inactive Member
That is entirely arbitrary though. Why not allow one big gun that is the same thing as having a lot of smaller guns?
'The thing built around one big gun' is a classic ship design trope. I also think everyone would agree that the ion cannon frigate looks immensely better than the turret spam 'first day on deviant art' star-ships that are all over the place.
Worse yet, there is no reason for preventing ships from having tier 3+ guns. The system is already setup to make that just as powerful as 8 on Tier guns. The only reason not to allow a Tier 4+ weapon is that you'd have to bump the on tier weapon allowance up to 16.
'The thing built around one big gun' is a classic ship design trope. I also think everyone would agree that the ion cannon frigate looks immensely better than the turret spam 'first day on deviant art' star-ships that are all over the place.
Worse yet, there is no reason for preventing ships from having tier 3+ guns. The system is already setup to make that just as powerful as 8 on Tier guns. The only reason not to allow a Tier 4+ weapon is that you'd have to bump the on tier weapon allowance up to 16.
- Status
