• 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 stararmy@gmail.com 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

Starship Submission Guidelines by Faction and Role

Navian said:
@Doshii Jun, have you considered how this might have helped you understand Edto's intent behind the Vekimen ship submissions, and before that, for him to codify his vision for them in a way we could all understand clearly and provide feedback on?
Click to expand...
I have not considered it. Having now done so, would it have helped?

No.

When it came to the Vekimen submissions, ultimately the issue was not one of tech level or even intent, though it was on that plane the submission was argued. This is especially true because, reading back, even Edto wasn't clear or precise on what he actually wanted or what he thought he warranted.

It was about Edto wanting respect. I was not respectful of his race or his submissions. He wanted to be low-tech, but claim more. I was unwilling to budge. Even if I'd had a guide from him before hand telling me what he supposedly wanted, I would have told him what I told him often: "You're low-tech. You can't have this. Go back again."

I'll give you that it isn't entirely hate, and that it can be more related to "deception." But the deception is, I believe, best handled (not to toot my own horn) how I handled it.

Call submitters and, for that matter, FMs and GMs on their crap and make them fix it. If they don't, reject them. I don't mind that process working at a certain governmental-type pace or efficiency. It means that ideas are hashed and compromises can be had. Likewise, it means that heads can be thumped.

If he can't express his vision in a way that we can understand in a thread, I don't expect him to do any better when it's done via a wikipage.

When it comes to Yamatai, I think Wes has done the smartest thing he can do, and I'd encourage other FMs to do the same. Consolidate power. Make yourself the final arbiter.
 
Hmm. I would have said that the issue was that Edto's vision for this faction wasn't internally consistent, and he didn't realize it, so I thought codifying it would have helped him resolve that. Even if not, writing it down in an article seems like it would have given everyone else a chance to point out the problem and deal with it sooner--and with more people interested--than how it worked out, when the issue only came out after he'd written several relevant submissions.

I'd respect a race more if it had a clear outline than if it seemed vague and inconsistent and I couldn't figure out what it was, so there's that angle, too. On the downside, having more people involved in reviewing that outline could have made him more resentful... but it still would have been over sooner, and with less wasted effort from you and him. If you're really sure, I guess this thread's over until we find someone more optimistic about trying it out.
 
What you're suggesting here sounds OK on the surface. However, in practice you're asking for the FM to, upon faction creation, and submission know exactly how they want their tech to be. That's already how it is, but not so clearly codified.

Edto made it clear early on that the Vekimen were low tech. So did I. It was in the initial submission, but he just viewed it differently than I did. If I'd had a guide, it would not have changed. He pushed the envelope outright and kept doing it. He didn't stick to the script.

Now, I'm not giving him much credit. He got better. But I think he got better because he had to get an idea of just what the hell he wanted AND what qualified. You don't get that very well without study, time-in and experience.

You could write out the guide, realize it doesn't get you X, then ask/demand to rewrite the guide. That puts the whole mess up for grabs again.

Edto's case doesn't happen every time. Ametheliana had a vision at the get-go. Arieg is very specific in the style of tech he pursues. In those cases, you can read into what they're going to do and there's no concern. You'll fight about other things, but you'll know their vision. As long as they stick to it? Brilliant.
 
I wasn't quite asking for FMs to complete these articles upon faction creation, at most I was suggesting they determine what ships they want and what sort of ships they will have in general, before they start making or receiving submissions for them. The word 'exactly' really shouldn't go there, these articles are meant to be improved over time. In particular, I'd expect them to be revised every time a new ship is designed. That seems to keep the pace from being too onerous.

If someone says their faction fights with sticks and stones and then they submit one with muskets, I'd tell them to settle for using slingers instead... but I think that would be easier if they wrote it down first, to preempt any elaborate attempts to explain how easy it is to make guns using their real-world knowledge (tm) or whatever other tactic they'd like to use to bamboozle me into making a bad worldbuilding decision.

Asking to update/revise the guide goes through the NTSE just like the original guide, so like anything else that's submitted to help the setting the FM should be cautious. FM rights do not protect FMs from themselves, and I don't think they should, so they'd have no right to demand anything. If they created something they don't like, they can let someone else become the FM for it... I think that's alright. Once something's been submitted and reviewed, if it's approved, that means we're all emotionally invested in it, and it's no longer just theirs.

There was definitely concern about Arieg--enough concern for it to be the flashpoint for the biggest fight this site has had all year, and that's saying something. It looks to me that's because his faction's tech is very poorly-comprehended. It's not advanced, it's standard at most, and yet it's feared because of what others extrapolated from their ship designs. Is my suggestion no good for alleviating those fears, either?

I haven't looked at what Ametheliana is doing at all, and I don't know what Nepleslia has in the works, either... and the Ersetu ships are too much for me to digest, so for a third example I have to look to USO. Even after playing with that faction I still have little to no grasp of what their theme or flavour is supposed to be, it seems to be whatever they feel like that week to me. I don't know if Zack would be willing to write an article or if he'd be willing to stick to it if he did, but even if Alex were to write it for him I think it would resolve every complaint I have about the faction, from the viewpoint of an outsider, at least. Probably not without raising new concerns from the revelations it made, but that's progress.

My concept of the Ersetu and their ships right now is vague, when people talk about them I don't know what they're talking about. Maybe it's good enough to know 'they're like British navy ships from the 19th century', maybe it isn't. I won't know until I'm in a plot with one, probably. Is that something this could help avoid? Probably. Is it worth Gunsight's time? Probably not... he doesn't seem to need any more clarity, because the sources of inspiration he has to draw from don't seem at any risk of stepping on anyone's toes, so far.

I guess it doesn't matter how many benefits there are if no one wants to provide them.
 
I think this gets to where we disagree. I don't mind the attempted bamboozle. Because then the submitter (were I doing it) gets properly righted and learns.

If there was any mistake I made, it was being too lenient. I won't carry the regret, but I acknowledge the error. I should've just smacked it down.

Navian said:
Asking to update/revise the guide goes through the NTSE just like the original guide, so like anything else that's submitted to help the setting the FM should be cautious.
Click to expand...
Oh hell no. Because then the guide gets resubmitted first, then the submission comes through. And then people argue that the class or role or whatever doesn't fit what was proposed, yadda yadda the war begins. That's a layer of complication the NTSE doesn't need.

Navian said:
Once something's been submitted and reviewed, if it's approved, that means we're all emotionally invested in it, and it's no longer just theirs.
Click to expand...
The warring. Oh lord. Not even once. I respect the sentiment, but we've proved a willingness to weaponize it. I would not want to put that him on the mantelpiece.

Navian said:
Even after playing with that faction I still have little to no grasp of what their theme or flavour is supposed to be, it seems to be whatever they feel like that week to me.
Click to expand...
Nailed it in one. The theme is Wazu and Zack. Thus, skepticism is the response.

Navian said:
even if Alex were to write it for him I think it would resolve every complaint I have about the faction, from the viewpoint of an outsider, at least. Probably not without raising new concerns from the revelations it made, but that's progress.
Click to expand...
I guess this is part of what bugs me about what you ask.

I hate "pre-approvals." When submitters came to me and asked me to see if something was good enough for the NTSE, I told them to just submit it. That's what this feels like. I don't want false hopes injected into the process. Walk up to the firing line and be ready to take some bullets.

This is on an FM level, I know. Even so, it's something they can point to and say, "Look my ship fits, let it be passed." No way.
Or! You could ask Guns. Talk with him. Engage. I much prefer that less-efficient process. That's if it doesn't come through the art, faction pages, etc.

Really, bottom line: You're absolutely right. I have no power to demand it, but if I did, I would insist on the slower, more tedious process. I think it's better for the site as a whole.

If it helps, consider my macro-pursuit -- heavily tightening the number of submissions a faction can have inside a month. As in, one. Or have a 6-month moratorium on submissions altogether.
 
I think there's a missing piece here. Generally when a moderator is too lenient, it's because they have low energy or are trying to avoid what may be an unnecessary conflict.

In either case, it proceeds to follow from attempted bamboozling (or related activities), because it takes energy to parse through it, to satisfy people, to refute them, to deal with their cronies and bystanders and so on and so forth.

I think there's a causal connection between the staff being left open to attempted trickery and the staff being too lenient.

Oh hell no. Because then the guide gets resubmitted first, then the submission comes through. And then people argue that the class or role or whatever doesn't fit what was proposed, yadda yadda the war begins.
Click to expand...
Now that you mention it, this would be a serious problem if the FM was also the ship designer and was trying to game the system... though I'm not sure it's for the reason you described. It'd be more the basic 'you can't tell me what what I wrote means!', uh... garbage.

Basically, it's a denial that 'the death of the author' concept is a real thing that we have to live by when creating content... which might be a common attitude here, also now that I think about it. I keep hearing people tell me that they can't know something better than I do because I was the one who wrote it.

I sort of just shrug, but I never realized it might be because they're just scared that they can't gain the same level of knowledge on them I have just by reading what's canon. That I might fight back against them instead of pointing out that their interpretation is just as valid as my own. Urk. If this was really true, it means they should have told me to write more...

The warring. Oh lord. Not even once. I respect the sentiment, but we've proved a willingness to weaponize it. I would not want to put that him on the mantelpiece.
Click to expand...
It bothers me that we can't say things here that are not only true, but essential, just because it might burst someone's bubble... but I guess that's why I'm not a politician.

This problem only exists if the FM writing the article doesn't understand the difference between a role description and idea for a new ship. Though... even people who've read this thread might be confused about that (and I mean even people who understood what I wrote.) I'd probably have to see multiple examples of either before I could articulate how to distinguish them by sight, even though I know the difference intuitively. And I'd still fumble with it. So that's a problem.

There is a functional difference rather than a technical or aesthetic one, though, and that's that a ship concept is a description of what a ship is, whereas a role description explains what a ship is meant to do. A good role description will be an idea seed for any number of novel designs that meet its criteria. If it's written as a request for a specific design, that's like begging the question.

Which... yes, not every FM is going to be above doing, and it would not surprise me if some of them could slip these past the NTSE with a 100% success rate.. at least until the mods became biased against them, the arguments spawned from which are another headache we don't want.

In summary, this shouldn't feel like what you described, but it probably would--because it could very well be exactly what it feels like. The only way we could stop that is by getting all the FMs to do their jobs in this regard. Which is never going to happen. (This is why we can't have nice things.)

This is on an FM level, I know. Even so, it's something they can point to and say, "Look my ship fits, let it be passed." No way.
Click to expand...
This is way off-base, though. Just because a ship meets its role criteria (and does the job its faction wants it to do) doesn't mean it's approved (and is appropriate for the setting). That's like saying that if you tell someone to build you a 300 square foot house with so and so amenities, and they do, you have to accept it even if it's filled with death metal at all hours from an indiscernible source, or has the smell, flavour, and texture of cottage cheese.

All the questions still get to be asked, and I think it's an exaggeration to say that someone being able to point out, quite truthfully, that they accomplished their own objective would give them more power over the NTSE mods than the ability to raise their eyebrows. (If they were feeling charitable, maybe they could offer the FM a gold star?)

I still think the correct response if this happened would be to remove from the guidelines whatever line of text they attempted to beat the mods with, or failing that, to remove the FMs. And I think this would be a good way to flush them out and exterminate (by means of status loss) any FMs who would ever do this. But, I guess I understand if we'd rather live in fear of them. No, really, I understand, I'm not being sarcastic. I live in fear all the time.

I much prefer that less-efficient process.
Click to expand...
After this I'm wondering if you'd prefer all the lore was passed down by word of mouth and the wiki was only used to store notes, not to educate people...

I know there's some people around who would prefer the site's customs and history only be learned the hard way, and who hate the idea that a newcomer to the site can get a better idea of the canon cultures than some veterans have, just by reading about them instead of assuming experience equals expertise.

We're definitely going to disagree on this point.

If it helps, consider my macro-pursuit -- heavily tightening the number of submissions a faction can have inside a month. As in, one. Or have a 6-month moratorium on submissions altogether.
Click to expand...
And we're even more definitely going to agree on this one.

It struck me upon reading this that an ineffable sense of malaise washes over me every time I look at the setting submissions forum and see there's more than one new, unread submission for the same faction.

I've seen that countless times even when I was checking once daily. Often there'd be four submissions approved before I checked even one of them. Bi-weekly would be more my speed than monthly, but monthly is more my speed than twice daily.
 
LISTEN, I've got to head to bed. More replies tomorrow.

But know this upon your waking hour: you're alright with me.
 
If fitting into the guidelines the FM makes doesn't get you automatically approved, and being outside the guidelines doesn't get you rejected, what actual benefit stems from the guidelines? You say a clear understanding of what the faction is trying to do, but if you don't -have- to follow it to get approved, then you don't actually need that clear understanding to make a proper submission. Also, it's possible to make something an FM likes that they didn't even know they wanted in the first place.

If you want a clear understanding of a factions theme then that is about encouraging the FM to put a section on their splash page or somewhere else that explains the themes of the faction. It shouldn't be something that's forced into the approval process. Because as long as the FM and SM think it's thematically appropriate, it doesn't matter what it's theme is, what matters then is simply if it's a 'reasonable' submission.
 
Last edited:
If fitting into the guidelines the FM makes doesn't get you automatically approved, and being outside the guidelines doesn't get you rejected, what actual benefit stems from the guidelines?
Click to expand...
Have you... ever... looked up... the definition... of the word 'guideline'?

guide·line
ˈɡīdˌlīn/
noun
  1. a general rule, principle, or piece of advice.
    synonyms: recommendation, instruction, direction, suggestion, advice
This is why I can't take you seriously, here. The purpose of guidelines is to advise and instruct. No matter how hard you attempt to follow advice, instructions, or guidelines, it doesn't matter unless you do it right. Saying that you should get automatically approved because you fit into the guidelines is like saying you should get permission to sit on your IKEA sofa in comfort and style because you technically followed the instructions when assembling it. It doesn't work that way in any way, shape, or form!

If the guidelines don't help us put something together the way we want it to be, then they should be improved. But their purpose is never, has never been, and will never be something to exploit for the sake of obtaining permission for anything. Even rules don't ordinarily serve this purpose except in narrow contexts, like sporting events, and even there they have to come up with rules to discourage the exploitation of them, like through faking injury, or intentional fouls.

Also, it's possible to make something an FM likes that they didn't even know they wanted in the first place.
Click to expand...
These guidelines don't prohibit this, but a designer shouldn't design a ship before the FM agrees to it, as probably everyone else in this thread can attest to. I still think it's helpful for them to define what they want before the work begins. That way they won't get something they didn't know they wanted, they'll get something similar that they want specifically, which will most likely be even better for them.

This is essentially saying 'it's better to half-ass things and muddle through than to put in a focused effort, or even expedite doing so.' Possibly with the implicit exception 'unless that goes on behind closed doors.' I can't tell whether you're oblivious to the amount of work that's put into this already, as Doshii Jun has described, or are instead trying to minimize its importance. Or if you just have no idea what you're arguing with in the first place.

This isn't a fun argument, Syaoran, and I still can't tell whether you're just being this dense, or you're saying things you don't honestly believe in an effort to aggravate me. The effect is the same either way, so the answer is the same either way: Stop doing this.
 
Last edited:
So answer that.
Click to expand...
Did.

Stop twisting my words.
Click to expand...
If you words weren't meant to be twisty, you just stated a truism as if it supported your argument. That's not better.

it's better not to add a bunch of details to something that won't be more helpful than doing it the normal way.
Click to expand...
Another truism? The idea is to add a bunch of details to something that WILL be better than doing it the normal way. If this isn't a truism, it's the basest of strawman arguments.

And then these three:
"What does this actually accomplish that can't be accomplished by the FM putting a paragraph or two on a faction page to explain their tech standing"
Click to expand...
Guidelines. GUIDELINES. GUIDELINES. It accomplishes having guidelines rather than NO GUIDELINES. See definition! Try to comprehend what guidelines are for!
"It is possible for people to come up with things the FM likes that they didn't know they would like, so things like that would never be on the list in the first place"
Click to expand...
Then put them on in the second place! Not everything needs to exist before it's conceived!
"I didn't say it's better to half ass I said it's better to not overwork."
Click to expand...
The purpose of this is to make it less work! The reason half-assing is bad is because it has negative long-term consequences, of which more work needing to be done overall is one of them!

See, I just repeated myself three times even more shortly, just like you did: Clearly, I understood you the first time!
 
"Having guidelines instead of no guidelines" is not an accomplishment when I said "In comparison to doing this" the two paragraphs statement in the faction page would also be guidelines. So having guidelines is not an accomplishment. So no, you did not answer that.

You're stating just as many truisms. Of course, the 'idea' is to do something beneficial. But you've been told by different people how it won't be beneficial and your defense is generally "I think it will be." You have no evidence that your idea will actually be better, and you haven't really tackled any of the questions directly. The most you've given in validating the effectiveness of this is saying how it might've helped with Edto's stuff. Doshi explained that no, it wouldn't have helped, and you went and said well you think it would, and how it would help with -your- problems with Zack's faction. But That's now your personal issues, not the issues of the NTSE or the player base.

This submission has yet to demonstrate how it will solve any problems other than the submitter's own personal peeves. It's a bunch of work for FMs with no actual difference in results of the process.
 
Syaoran, you've reduced yourself to calling people names. You can do better than using adjective words like 'idiot' and 'stupid'. Nothing here was sufficient reason to abase yourself to that.

It's my recommendation that you let this lie where it is for the day. Regardless, your message probably got across - there's no point arguing right-from-wrong at this point.
 
Reactions: Wes
having guidelines is not an accomplishment.
Click to expand...
It is if they serve their purpose as guidelines. Some of the reasons they don't were pointed out by Doshii Jun in this post, but you seem incapable of catching up with him. Or understanding what he said, or my responses to him. I don't even know if you tried.

You're stating just as many truisms.
Click to expand...
A truism: 'A statement that is obviously true and says nothing new or interesting.' I am stating obvious truths because you are not accepting them. They're not new because I'm repeating them for your benefit. They're not interesting because it's almost an essential fact that the discussion I'm having with you is not interesting. My only way out of using them is to stop trying, your only way out is to start trying. That's assuming you aren't provoking me on purpose.

This submission
Click to expand...
This is not a submission, it's a discussion thread.
has yet to demonstrate how it will solve any problems
Click to expand...
Overgeneralization, it describes a method for how we can solve some problems, but also that this method would likely create more problems than it solved due to other issues that would need to be dealt with first.
other than the submitter's own personal peeves.
Click to expand...
This goes beyond merely 'twisting words', it's bending reality to make it sound like the issues I have-- many of which are not 'peeves'--are not issues that anyone else would have. Maybe you're hyperfocusing? If I had demonstrated that it would benefit someone else in a way that doesn't benefit me, that wouldn't make it inherently better, either.

I don't think I can demonstrate how it would solve other people's problems, only suggest ways it possibly could--in order to demonstrate this, I'd need to get an FM to test it, and see if it helps them codify their ideas and streamline their process, or if that failed, see if the article still helped their submitters or the NTSE staff do the same when dealing with that faction.

If they wanted to, the people involved could either sabotage the demonstration to make sure that it failed, or they could make sure it succeeded by putting forth an exemplary effort. Even if it was a bad idea, they could demonstrate that it helps them if they wanted to. Your statement doesn't really mean anything, it's just a bold-faced attempt to make me sound bad.

It's a bunch of work for FMs with no actual difference in results of the process.
Click to expand...
You haven't proved this. You haven't reasoned this out. And as we already know, FMs put in a bunch of work like this already--this is not additional work, it's a replacement for some of it that's meant to reduce their workload.
 
@Fred I don't like it when people try to push things on a community that is simply to fix their pet peeves, and I dislike even more when people twist other people's words intentionally to discredit them. But what I dislike most of all would be being saddled with going through and being told to make some kind of detailed guideline outlining my faction's technology policies, for no other purpose than someone prefers I do it that way instead of through normal wiki work.

I'll stop for now, but I really wish more people bring out the problems with this idea.
 
Syaoran.
I don't like it when people try to push things on a community that is simply to fix their pet peeves
Click to expand...
I'm not doing this--neither the thing, nor for that reason.
twist other people's words intentionally to discredit them.
Click to expand...
I'm not doing this (you did).
being told to make some kind of detailed guideline outlining my faction's technology policies
Click to expand...
No one is doing this to you.
I really wish more people bring out the problems with this idea.
Click to expand...
Me too--but only the ones that exist! You've been fighting a windmill this entire time!
 
Last edited:
As for my impressions:

I'm admittedly not very won over by this. It is much better explained than it was before, but displaying a design-style guide (which already almost-exists) doesn't win me over because; while it could be helpful to better define design lineage (I know I've had that on my mind a lot while designing my Himiko-class rebuild, so I can relate) it won't be an appreciable metric against the people that intend to go cross-country.

The guideline can be there. It can be helpful. But can it actually amount to much beyond stating the obvious that'd be observable in, say, the KFY active ship listing? I don't believe it's going to make that great of an impact in stopping outliers. And maybe it shouldn't.

If I take Star Trek's vessels for example, too thick adherence to a design-style would have established the Galaxy and Nebula classes but then been a roadblock to letting something like the Defiant class exist. Which we could conclude that someone talked to their Federation FM with an argument like "If we're going to prepare to fight the Borg, we need to consider making big changes on how we design things to compete" and the FM signed off on it, despite the potential submission diverging a lot from established standards.

Then later on, the exception made possibly becomes a precedent. Which presents another can of worms in itself. The only way I can see dealing with the nuances is organically, with involvement from "very human" NTSE mods.

So, as a major part of the NTSE submission method that fills the need half-the-people that voted for the 8-same-tier-weapons, this comes short of the mark. In hindsight, it comes across as a tangent rather than truly building upon the previous topic.

As something that can help people design a vehicle for a faction, having FMs write design manifestos could turn out being a great resource. It's "information" rather than loaded words like "guidelines" (as it seems to have become in this community) being an euphemism for "rule".
 
Bah!

Let's be very clear about one thing:

The defiant follows all the rules for designing a star trek ship. Bridge is on top. Nacelles have more than 50% los to one another, nacelles are visible from the front, and the deflector dish is placed properly.
 
Reactions: raz
Having a 'design manifesto' for every faction seems like a good idea to me. There was talk in this thread of people making factions too advanced at the start, but it's already hammered home in the species rules that such things are not allowed to occur, so surely it isn't that big of a leap to give new factions a similar sort of curb?

Honestly, I can see that part of the problem with this whole school of thinking is lack of randomness, though. That is what stops a traditional game from becoming stale, since the skill involved is all about hedging your bets without knowing with absolute certainty if you will win or not. It makes people play cautiously instead of vindictively keeping the little guy down.

Perhaps some kind of 'design lineage' system that automatically generates design flaws might spice things up. If a completely original design is posted, it would have to roll on a design flaw chart three times, for instance. Each generation gives it one less flaw. Some kind of time limit should also be in place to stop people from just ironing out these flaws in the space of a month.

This would effect even older, bigger factions like Yamatai, since there are plenty of ships which were evidently developed from scratch, or with alien tech.

That's it. Proposal over. I think this thread has enough mega walls of text.
 
I very much doubt the vote was over whether the weapon cap limitations served as a general method of stopping outliers, and anyway, part of the problem is that it was too specific. As far as this concerns that, I came up with this an alternative, not to stop outliers in itself, but to make them easier to detect, identify, and delineate, so that the NTSE mods would have an easier time stopping them.

I was highly motivated to come up with an alternative because I think any attempt to stop outliers by creating a system of binding, numerical rules is at best doomed, or at worst would eventually become successful and destroy everything SARP stands for as collateral damage. Which is what I think that vote was really about, for the most part--people who want SARP to become something else versus those who want SARP to be what it is. We'll never know because the poll results are hidden (and please don't tell me I have dark motives for saying what I think the big vote was really about, I would never lie about something like that.

Not everyone who voted for either side had the same motivation, so don't tell me I'm accusing everyone or anyone in particular on either side of it of having these motivations, either. I'm only sure about maybe four people total, including myself. And yes, the 'yes' vote was the 'change' vote, if that was ambiguous.)

Posterior-protecting apologies aside, I'm compelled to point out again that--regardless of whether this idea is worthwhile--it would benefit Yamatai as a faction orders of magnitude less than any other, on the basis that Yamatai is not only the oldest faction, but also the only ancient faction that's had both continuous RP and no FM turnover. Factions with new FMs and factions with less precedent (or precedents which have become more forgotten) would benefit more from a resource defining them.

The very excellent counterargument to this Doshi Jun gave me is these same factions with new FMs, that are less well-known or established, like the Vekimen were, for example, are also likely to have no idea how to write down what their faction's themes and goals are. By assuming that everyone could meet the same quality standards--which, unfortunately, is an assumption I will nearly always make because I'm horrified by the implications of the alternative--I neglected to realize that FMs that can make good quality articles are the ones who need them the least, and FMs who need them most desperately will never make them.

Oops.

Though there is some potential for someone who doesn't take long to figure out what they have in mind to benefit greatly from such an outline, still, and it can still help new members who want to design ships catch up on things more rapidly. Unfortunately, this would only make easy things easier, it wouldn't make nigh-on impossible things easy enough not to give us grey hair, which is more what we were looking for.

Sure... we should probably work on reclaiming that word, though. It's usage is very important here, and most newcomers to the site speak English, not SARPian, at least in this regard.

@Primitive Polygon, more random generators has my interest. I'm... uh... ill-at-ease, that as fun as it would be, we're never going to convince people to accept design flaws they don't want, but one step at a time. Once we're not trying to beat each other so often, we might be more willing to make the game (It's not a game! Argh, they've got me doing it!) RP interesting for other reasons.

If we could impose fun stuff on people who just want to win, without them trying to game even harder, I would probably dance with joy, though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…