What's new
Star Army

Star ArmyⓇ is a landmark of forum roleplaying. Opened in 2002, Star Army is like an internet clubhouse for people who love roleplaying, art, and worldbuilding. Anyone 18 or older may join for free. New members are welcome! Use the "Register" button below.

Note: This is a play-by-post RPG site. If you're looking for the tabletop miniatures wargame "5150: Star Army" instead, see Two Hour Wargames.

  • 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
  • 📅 October and November 2024 are YE 46.8 in the RP.

[Site Wide] Weapon Template Update

Status
Not open for further replies.
Arieg

Arieg

DEFCON Everybody Dies
Upvote 0 Downvote
I'm a bit confused why we really needed a new template. As far as I can see, your template has roughly the same information but asks for a lot less describing and seems to rely on one-word/insert-here answers. It doesn't seem like the template is really good for anything beyond printing out thousands of weapons with little to no identity put into them, focusing on their statistical differences versus explaining and defining them in bigger sections.

TBH this seems just like a way to try and rush the standardization of Pact's obscenely large arsenal and interchanging parts, without taking into account we don't need to standardize gun/weapon procedure because there's such an obscene amount within the setting as-is. And the template step definitely doesn't look as appealing with these giant lists of factors, bulleted after one-another.

Edit: Also, does it occur to you that the additions you've made actually force more realism upon the guns? While I think that can be good, it makes sci-fi elements further from that and more entrenched in realism. That will stifle creativity if we force more realism within the gun's functionality into the template as a necessity. This is really only barred from a small group, such as yourself, and further highlights the reason I think we don't need this. The template "update" is really just a way to try and make it functionally more appealing to you, versus easy for the majority of users and creators to likely enjoy. Not everyone studies guns enough to understand things like the arming mechanisms of weapons, nor should they.
 
Last edited:
Whee I'm here.

Okay. So here I am talking about this gun stuff. Well, more that I'm here to give my input.

The big reason why I think I can't approve this submission is that it isn't necessary. In fact it isn't just unnecessary, it harms the spirit of roleplay.

For all roleplay, yes, you need something everyone can agree on that is hard and set. And we agree on many things founded in pseudoscience here in SARP, I believe.

But at the end of the day there is always a degree of abstraction in roleplay. We don't bother with crossbows jamming in fantasy roleplay, it's too much of a hassle to deal with all the time. We don't deal with specific damages caused by weapons, we abstract that as the DR system.

Going specific at times may help the spirit of roleplay with immersion, but going this deep isn't very good. It's great if you want to build a custom gun in SARP -- and that's all fine and dandy -- but you shouldn't expect everyone to put themselves in such a high level of realism for a gun. The average player doesn't need to care about this, the average submitter doesn't want to care about this because it makes their job harder.

Simply put this makes things "too" real, as in it goes too in-depth when most things can be abstracted, such as the sights (people can write those on themselves), the entire firing system block, et cetera.

I'm afraid I'll have to deny this. As much as I love complex systems, I can't hold anyone else up to match my love for them. The average person does not like complexity, the average person likes simplicity.
 
It's really not that much more complex than the current template..
 
ArsenicJohn said:
It's really not that much more complex than the current template..
Click to expand...
Fixed a few of the layout issues, including some support for more exotic multi-mode weapons like the LASR, fixed some links, and broadened the sections to reduce the sizes in each of the bullet points.
 
Personally, I don't think this is 'too specific' at all, especially since most of the added info can be summed up in a couple of words. I'm not sure if its 'easier' than the old template, but at least its more logical and doesn't repeat itself with some information. As a submitter, I'd be perfectly fine adding more info to my gun if people wanted it. As a player, this only increases some readability with the more pertinent RP information (DR, number of rounds, etc) up towards the top. If anything, I think the table that lists the operation modes is worth the new template in and of itself. If submitter usability is a concern, maybe make some of the added details optional or just say that they can be a few words. Example: Sighting System - Iron sights, 4x optical scope. Boom, done.
 
I think I've made it clear, repeatedly in the NTSE board, that weapon articles shouldn't reference 'Damage Rating'. Rather, it should be expressed as its 'purpose', as weapon articles listed purposes such as "anti-starship" in the past.

This submission does not fulfill this; in fact it seems to want to go out of its way to list DR as an entry of its own. Therefore, I can't endorse this at this point in time.
 
Acewing13 said:
Personally, I don't think this is 'too specific' at all, especially since most of the added info can be summed up in a couple of words. I'm not sure if its 'easier' than the old template, but at least its more logical and doesn't repeat itself with some information. As a submitter, I'd be perfectly fine adding more info to my gun if people wanted it. As a player, this only increases some readability with the more pertinent RP information (DR, number of rounds, etc) up towards the top. If anything, I think the table that lists the operation modes is worth the new template in and of itself. If submitter usability is a concern, maybe make some of the added details optional or just say that they can be a few words. Example: Sighting System - Iron sights, 4x optical scope. Boom, done.
Click to expand...

Pretty much if you've played any FPS you get an idea of what to put in the optics to satisfy the NTSE mod.
 
@Acewing13 If a lot of the added sections were named optional, I'd be much quicker on the draw to approve it. Go in depth with your gun if you want but for the average Joe who wants to make a new weapon, Joe shouldn't have to study for an hour on Wikipedia on guns to make his cool new weapon for Yamatai to murder more people with.
 
Acewing13 said:
Personally, I don't think this is 'too specific' at all, especially since most of the added info can be summed up in a couple of words. I'm not sure if its 'easier' than the old template, but at least its more logical and doesn't repeat itself with some information. As a submitter, I'd be perfectly fine adding more info to my gun if people wanted it. As a player, this only increases some readability with the more pertinent RP information (DR, number of rounds, etc) up towards the top. If anything, I think the table that lists the operation modes is worth the new template in and of itself. If submitter usability is a concern, maybe make some of the added details optional or just say that they can be a few words. Example: Sighting System - Iron sights, 4x optical scope. Boom, done.
Click to expand...
The main issue is that it REQUIRES more. I went in and checked what was optional versus required between the old template and this one. The old Template requires 4 less fields, with 7 additional ones being entirely optional. This one requires more with only 3 fields being optional.

I'd be for this if it was just a template fix-up. But it's not. Sighting Systems were already available within the optional Attachments portion, but now people HAVE to list something. Now people have to understand the entirety of a weapon's action to make it. They can't simply design a bolt-operated weapon or an automatic, which newer players realistically care about more.

New players don't need the additional information, nor is it really useful even for those of us who are already in the RP.

Firing Mechanism, just an example, is the prime issue here. It got split into essentially 3 fields within Arieg's new template, forcing people to understand the type of firing mechanisms (such as bolt action, long and short stroke, and so on) even further and to define it further. This is not helpful, as it forces essentially pointless detail to most players and people. This is a clear attempt to push toward a statistical view of weapons rather than a simplistic one. And that's good for a very small minority of SARP.
 
Fred said:
I think I've made it clear, repeatedly in the NTSE board, that weapon articles shouldn't reference 'Damage Rating'. Rather, it should be expressed as its 'purpose', as weapon articles listed purposes such as "anti-starship" in the past.

This submission does not fulfill this; in fact it seems to want to go out of its way to list DR as an entry of its own. Therefore, I can't endorse this at this point in time.
Click to expand...

I thought a DR rating had to be somewhere on the page? As far as purpose and function wouldn't that be for the 'about' section?

Edit: @Fred Added a Role/Purpose section to the article.
 
Last edited:
Also @Fred thanks for saying that, will keep in mind for future submissions.

EDIT: Arieg, DR (I think) is a system of abstraction. It's a simplified "about" section that allows you to not have to read exact specifics, instead allowing you to see "Oh! It does just about this much!"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
RPG-D RPGfix
Back
Top