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.
Previously submitted? Nope, though it contains elements from this and this.
Well, here you have it, ladies and/or gentlemen. The expanded, fleshed-out, more-thoroughly-explained (no offense @Fred) replacement/re-installment/I don't even know because I typed this up at 4 in the morning for DRv3'sweapon limitations.
I'd like to thank @Arbitrated, @META_mahn, @Talarn, and the rest of the SARPChat Discord server for acting as reviewers/moral support/editors/etc. and @Fred for creating the basis of the system in the first place, but, uh, yeah, that's pretty much all I have to say due to being really, really tired at the time of writing.
As before, would @Wes, @Doshii Jun, @Fred, @Ametheliana, and @CadetNewb (plus anyone else who has constructive criticism) mind looking at this thing (or a derivative of it, anyways) one more time?
Also, one other minor request @Wes: Would you lock and/or move the original thread to the "Rejected or Abandoned Submissions" sub-forum, please? In my opinion, this submission kind of, uh, supersedes the older one in terms of purpose and scope.
P.S.: @Zack My apologies for not replying to the 4th Elysian Empire submission in a more timely fashion; I'll be doing so tomorrow - and it's something I'll do my best to be more "on top of" in the future.
The thing that irritates me the most about all this is that I am seeing a whole bunch of "I can make something better" or "This is too complicated". But I am seeing hardly any way to make this better. This submission was open for discussion, and this submission was open to be improve, but I don't see any of you really trying to do that. Navian is the only one who's done it and that's been discussed already because what was being said was super vague and not clear enough to make any changes to this article or to base a new system off of.
I don't think that is right at all. We all know there needs to be some kind of limitation in play. And we all know Frost's can be improved. But unless you have some concrete thing to put down, why are you so against it that you guys would endorse insulting it. Maybe Frost just tried to create something for as smooth a transition from what we already had, to this as possible. And what does he get for it? You all pile on insults and rude statements, but I don't see any of you making a single move to -improve- his submission.
In all my years of being in RP communities this one has the biggest problem with this. If I was staff I'd have said unless someone actually makes some kinda guidelines, be it for construction rules, or for NTSE guidelines on approving 'fair' ships then this would get approved. Because no matter how much you guys say "It's not a problem right now", that's only because we had rules. And when we didn't the NTSE had to judge. And when they did people whined about bias. The NTSE is a thankless job? I have -literally- seen NTSE mods avoid doing someone's submission because they don't want to put up with that person's habits. If that's not a sign of frustration I'm not sure what is, and we should be trying to make that job easier to deal with so we don't have people dropping out form it. There is no 'trust the NTSE to do it's job' either. Because the number of times Wes gets called for an article, or people say "I want a different mod" is too high, and even if that person is wrong about their opinion of that NTSE mod, it doesn't change the lack of trust, and trust is not built over night.
In a perfect world we wouldn't need this or anything else for that matter, but we're far from perfect, and this community is far from united on it's ideas of how ship construction should be. So in the grand scheme of things that leaves us with two options. The first is that we just let people build ships how they want, and let the NTSE deal with it. Which will get stressful because every call they make can be labeled bias. It wont happen every time but you all know it's gonna happen. The second option is create -something- to try and alleviate some of the stress, and have the players work at least a little harder on their submission design.
TL;DR:Why has this become more about how right or wrong Frost is, and not about making something that can better our community? If Frost's idea isn't good give him some concrete things to improve it with.
The way to make the submission better is to accept how v3 works and have moderators who are willing to put the screws to submitters who deliver OP submissions.
It also takes having submitters understand and respect what the mod tells them. No fighting. No straight appeal to Wes. When a mod tells you what to do, you do it. Period.
Jaegerman's submission isn't complex by itself. But that doesn't make it necessary or useful. I think he's trying to take the most honorable route available to fix an issue, but it's one that doesn't need a new ruleset.
The amount of effort to get that result though is tremendous. And the players likely wont accept not being able to petition Wes, unless there is some other compromise. Because the simple fact is a significant portion of players have at least 1 mod they don't really trust. And just saying "Trust them" isn't going to make them trust them.
If the solution can work out that'd be the ideal one, but I personally can't see that being solved any time soon, and what I see is it only getting solved with either players getting to pick who judges there submission(which is bad for obvious reasons), the NTSE gaining more accountability in some way so the players can call foul when they think it's foul, or the NTSE being given more complex guidelines on how to approve submissions so there's less room for bias.
I like the idea of it but personally making a system seems like a more practical solution to me, because all you have to do is make rules on what's allowed. You don't have to juggle with the balance of power.
TL;DR:Why has this become more about how right or wrong Frost is, and not about making something that can better our community? If Frost's idea isn't good give him some concrete things to improve it with.
I can actually answer that for you Syaoran; the vote. It is putting this on a limited time where at the end of which, it threatens to force this submission onto the community. To prevent this, the best and most logical option is to refute the submission as best as possible. Once it's voted down, then I'd offer to give much more positive feedback, since I'm not fighting against bad information and a timer.
Again, that's all I can do for the time being - it's likely an unintended side effect of the vote.
The way to make the submission better is to accept how v3 works and have moderators who are willing to put the screws to submitters who deliver OP submissions.
It also takes having submitters understand and respect what the mod tells them. No fighting. No straight appeal to Wes. When a mod tells you what to do, you do it. Period.
Jaegerman's submission isn't complex by itself. But that doesn't make it necessary or useful. I think he's trying to take the most honorable route available to fix an issue, but it's one that doesn't need a new ruleset.
Doshii is correct though. The first, last and best line of defense we have against OP submissions would be Ametheliana and I, along with any others who join as Mods. We're tasked with keeping not only submissions in check, but each other as well. Rules and guidelines are mainly a crutch and not to be relied on as I've recently pointed out. The critical thinking of tech mods is both more reliable and accurate than such rules ever will be. However, as Doshii pointed out, there is also another problem that should be kept in mind. The act of players appealing to Wes should be frowned upon since they directly undermine our authority as Mods, though Wes does mean well. The act of a player calling Wes over the tech mods should be treated as an "Appeal to Caesar" - an ultimate and final solution that is taken only after all other NTSE mods have been appealed to first.
The amount of effort to get that result though is tremendous. And the players likely wont accept not being able to petition Wes, unless there is some other compromise. Because the simple fact is a significant portion of players have at least 1 mod they don't really trust. And just saying "Trust them" isn't going to make them trust them.
I'm not going to beat around the bush; because of a lot of slander going around on the site - some of which Wes had just deleted from this very thread - I don't have the best of reputation.
But here's the thing.
If something I do is suspect, or if I make a mistake, players can go right ahead and call me out on it, and if I still disagree? They can call Ame to check on my work. I've been in this game for a long time, so I know that very, very well, so slanderous accusations of me being biased can go get deleted like the others. It's the basis of good governance; a system of checks and balance folks, and I'm not going to get around it so long as Ame does her job well, and I trust her to do her job well. However, what I particularly don't like is that anyone that starts fear mongering that I'm biased and have been giving friends an easy pass are also insulting Ametheliana's ability and competence as an NTSE Mod.
Quadless pyjacks, all of them. Anyways, I'm going to call it a night.
Cadet for teh last part of your post, you have to understand my statement is in reply to a message about changing the process so players can't go and argue with the NTSE or get other NTSE involved. The system we have now with checks and balances is passable, but only when it comes to the end result. Sometimes the road to that result takes forever and/or is insanely stressful. That's not really good no matter how you look at it.
As for the making something else, I wish you did that from the start, cause the problem is going to be getting traction up again if this gets shot down. Not saying it'll be impossible, but it'll be harder than it needed to be. But all and all, until something better is actually put together for me to see, I support Frost's idea, because there's no guarantee something 'in the works' will ever finish.
One thing that annoys me of the way the submission guidelines have been treated. Frankly, the 8-same-tier weapon budget worked well as long as "submission fairness" did not come into the equation. It gave a baseline idea (which Cadetnewb wanted) on what could be aimed for with a warship of that size. One could say the basis is 'fast warships boasting spinal mounts and few extras' - which the Plumeria, Eikan and Sharie kind of are compared to the other warships we have around.
But I always expected haggling to happen and for it to remain a flexible figure. For example, if I had a ship skirting the line in size between medium starship and heavy starship... I thought it was reasonable to accommodate a submission running out of weapon space by adding one or two items to the weapon budget (10x Tier 11 weapons is far less significant than 8x tier 12 weapons). Say, someone might have pointed out the Chiaki's lack of intrastellar propulsion and I would have probably been amenable to giving something back in return.
Someone somewhere is going to gloat on the site, but let's recognize what they was: an unofficial form of point-buy, kept that way in the interest of flexibility. But this form of amenability sparked alarm in others due to double-standards being something that could happen. Mods are only human, and organic processes aren't steady.
I know the 8-same-tier-weapons budget is not outlandish because it comes from somewhere. It's an observable commonality on Wes' ships, and if there's any baseline I think we can rely on, it's the setting admin's submissions as primary benchmark. but to appeal to both the effort invested by Frostjaeger, accommodate Zack, and respond to the dilemmas Cadetnewb tried to relate, maybe we ought to use this as springboard for a simple point-buy system base on what we have so far for DRv3.
I won't vouch for the quality of the examples I'm about to provide, as I just made them up, but I thought we could make that up in with simple 3-step selections:
Damage control:
1- Minimal backup systems
2- Auxiliary systems, emergency reserves
3- Significant system redundancies and backup systems
Barrier systems:
1- protection against space hazards
2- defensive field systems (bubble)
3- military-grade system (double-sided for small-craft/six-sided for starships)
Travel range (how fast could depend on ship armor weight):
1- Interplanetary (transatmospheric)
2- Interstellar (subspace travel - which is like CDD)
3- Fast interstellar (hyperspace travel - like fold drives)
Auxiliary craft:
1- Limited smallcraft and escape pods (ejection seat for small craft)
2- Equivalent to several shuttlecraft, ample number of escape pods
3- Carrier capabilities to support multiple units (proportional to vehicle)
Cargo capacity:
1- Limited (small closet-spaces beyond landing facilities)
2- Dedicated cargo bay(s), significant stores of extra supplies.
3- Significant cargo-storage space
I thought I'd try to draw inspiration from Zack's stuff, but I couldn't find it, so going in blind. I basically wanted to go on a basis of "small, average, large" assets in each field as an example. And somewhere beyond that, we have our 8 weapon budget
So, the total budget might actually be more around 16ish. The above is exploratory and in no way proven to work.
I really wanted to avoid a point-buy system, but you guys aren't allowing for that kind of leeway.
I like the idea of haggling, but I hate the idea of having to do it with a bunch of different people. I'm very much in favor of just writing down what is acceptable.
You don't have to get as granular as the stat tables either. You (Fred) already laid the basis of the system with the unarmored option. A simple system just like that where a ship gives up X to get Y would be fantastic. Maybe knock off another damage tier to get a few more weapons? Or a negative modifier to speed to get more armor? Or just a list of 'negatives' you can apply to your ship in exchange for taking something from the list of positives.
The important part is just writing down what's acceptable.
I just randomly made the above writeup. The problem I find is that very few ships are actually going to fit in it. Larger ships like the eikan and Sharie tend to have everything, and the Sharie was already watered down as far as it can go (I had to convince Wes that the turret rate-of-fire made up for the equivalency they had with the Plumeria's main gun). But the Sharie has a fighter wing and shopping malls. I'm not sure there's any tradeoff possible there, but if I stick to making things proportional to ship size (like the armament currently is), then every ship is likely to have tradeoffs when people don't actually want tradeoffs, they want everything.
*headdesk*
So, in spirit of "Keep It Simple Stupid", Zack's right. Focusing on what would be haggled for is probably better than going for an exhaustive listing. but the exhaustive listing might cover Cadetnewb's "I've got a big battleship, I can cram stuff in!" consideration.
What haggling seemed reasonable, thus far, during the lifespan of the eight-same-tier-weapon guideline that I remember:
- Have a weaker barrier system than you're entitled to? I'm willing to let you have an extra weapons.
- Don't have a fold drive when most ships do? Here, have an extra weapon in your budget.
- The weapons you want don't fit, but your submission's size borderline might fit in the next higher size? here, have 1 to 2 extra weapons (still less powerful than jumping categories).
I figure that ideally, the number of 'extras' you get shouldn't exceed 7 (if we keep to the base of 8)
The Sharie problem I outlined has me draw a bit blank on this. x_x
Okay, my last post was somewhat scatterbrained. I got my thoughts more organized. Sorry for double-posting.
First off: @FrostJaeger are you okay with us discussing that haggling? If that much makes Zack content, it's bound to alleviate concerns from other people at the same time and it still builds on the current foundation. Give a shout if you'd rather go for article approval rather than continuing the discussion - I was in similar shoes when having DRv3 submitted, so, I can relate with your current plight. I believe it's contextually accurate, as it rests on the same foundation and is still relevant to weapon budget, just on a greater scope.
I looked over the DRv3 Article to see where flexibility/haggling was possible, trading in caveats for extra boons. Let's keep in mind this is mostly for vehicles, mecha and up. We have:
Regarding Defense tier:
Unarmored. Having a ship not bear armor plating. This is pretty significant, it's like any weapon that hits you is going to hurt your unit worse than units of that tier usually do. We know it may carry the intrinsic advantage of being faster (or stealthy, depending on material). Really only a significant tradeoff for a warship.
Fortified. Lose from weapon allotment and/or speed penalty, raise effective tier for defense. Just as significant as less armor in impact. Essentially the reverse of Unarmored. Possibly could involve armor only, barrier only but treating them separate involves more complexity
Regarding Barriers:
Limited coverage. We know that there's a baseline for barriers. Double-sided only starts happening around the Mecha category, but becomes common for Starships. If a starship chooses for less capable field systems - a light starship going for simple bubble barrier - then concessions are possible.
Half-Strength. Right now, barriers are treated as able to soak in two lethal hits. This kind of handicap that it can only handle one.
(no barrier was a possibility, but this feels more like a technological limitation than a tradeoff to me)
Regarding Propulsion:
No fold drive. Removing a common FTL function. May entitle the ship to tradeoffs. (for instance, it's a tradeoff a Chiaki escort might have used to be Fortified)
(No Flight Capability was a possibility, but I wasn't sure it was appropriate as that feels more like a design decision. Mostly a way to have groundbound tanks able to boast more firepower?)
Regarding Size:
Almost next size tier. If the desired ship hardware doesn't fit, striding the line between one tier and another in size can justify accommodating an extra weapon or two (because giving a few bonuses is not as empowering as having the ship become one of the smallest of next size tier)
Limitation on extra weapon allotment: never more than 7. Having 8 would essentially give a smaller ship equivalent assets to a ship a tier greater. Even with tradeoffs this shouldn't be possible.
Magnitude left ambiguous for the moment. Not yet sure what would be worth what.
Also, I don't think this ought to necessarily prevent future haggling. Just that when we actually settle on a point we can give and take on, to document it. Also, a point to be flexible on should likely involve peer-oversight for quality control, in order to avoid one mod making one up only to have others give it a double-take later on (in essence, it could be a bit of a living document; basically, it's okay not to think up all of the possibilities right now)
I did not mean something else - the reason I said your criticism was unconstructive and off-topic is because although it provides an "alternative approach," that approach to the best of my knowledge has never been fully elaborated upon or discussed, nor has it been added to the wiki. It also - in my own personal opinion, and please, correct me on this if I am indeed wrong - would require an extraodinarily complex set of "unnatural and cumbersome" rules.
I'm not the one refusing to elaborate on or discuss a new approach--I'm the only one who suggested one, in detail. It hasn't been added to the wiki because we haven't decided how to implement it yet. In fact, we haven't even decided to give it a try. In fact, we're not even considering giving it a try, because you're already insisting on this plan, and the two strategies are incompatible.
My proposal to complete this plan using your strategy (the suggestion I spent one paragraph on before you replied the first time) would require an extraordinarily complex set of unnatural and cumbersome rules, yes. But no, the alternative I spent hundreds and hundreds of words repeatedly explaining before and after that should not, because its intent is to define what ships we want or need for each faction to streamline the process. In other words, they'd make it less cumbersome to create and interpret new content than it is with no rules at all.
Since this would also provide enough detail to clearly define what sort of designs we want, the results also wouldn't be unnatural--we'd be pointed directly toward what would be a natural growth of our current selection, in a way we're mostly blind-guessing at right now. It would be enlightening.
For those who prefer a muddle where they can shout to be heard and drown out other voices, or where they know their vision clashes with that of others in their faction or with the setting as a whole but want to use the NTSE as a battleground for a secret war--all while using claims that they're fighting for 'fairness' or 'creative freedom' as a shield--this will not be a popular solution... but then, neither were the speed limits, or any other clear and comprehensible guidelines that exist anywhere.
If there's any big downside, it's that the guidelines I proposed would require wiki updates every time a new ship design is desired or approved... though this isn't any more severe than needing to do the same thing whenever a character joins a new plot.
Complex rules can be gamed, lawyered, exploited and distorted, and this can make them very popular and enjoyable. I don't think they're appropriate here, though.
Rules are not set in stone, @Navian, and can always be updated to address loopholes within them; furthermore, isn't noticing overpowered setting submissions - be they on purpose or unintentional - one of the primary reasons we have NTSE moderators in the first place?
I'm aware they're not set in stone. I'm considering both possibilities, where we don't bother to finish the rules you're adding or where we do. They both don't look good to me (nor does the middle ground between the two). But, I did suggest ways to address the loopholes. I'll get to that in a moment.
Yes, the reason we have moderators is to reject submissions we don't want (note, occasionally we do want overpowered submissions, for story purposes). But the reason for these guidelines you're working on is to help the NTSE staff do their job. One thing guidelines of the sort I suggested can help them with is figuring out whether a design is meant to be overpowered or not, and whether it really is or just is on paper, since they'll be able to see what role the designer was aiming to fill before they even read the submission.
Not to be rude, but then why have you "delayed finding a more permanent solution" by outlining the basic structure of your proposal in a Setting Discussion thread?
That really does deserve to be in scare quotes. The reason I haven't taken that approach is because the plan I have is incompatible with the plan you have, and we still haven't reached a consensus on which path to take. Taking both simultaneously would be worse than taking either in many ways. I could say the same for why you haven't read the basic outline of my proposal in this thread and are still attempting to push yours through, belligerently. Though, really that seems to be because you made it so far before getting (and hearing) a second opinion that it's become a sunk cost.
Please, do enlighten us, @Navian, since you seem to be so well-versed in the Armament Limitations - precisely what "holes" are you referring to? I'd highly appreciate it if you provided me with some constructive criticism by pointing them out so that I can address them.
I already did, more than once, including on this very page of discussion. The TL;DR: Rate of fire, accuracy, range, non-damage effects, how weapons interact with defenses, and other special features aren't accounted for. How these rules apply to point defense weapons is especially unclear, but resolving that would be the first of many more addenda to make. If we ever finished, we'd have a complete game system.
If you're going to say this, please... open with it, rather than saying it after you've thrown a salvo of debate points... especially when most in the form of readily answerable rhetorical questions. I am willing to leave everyone to figure this out on their own, but make up your mind--do you want criticism, or do you want me to leave you alone?
I'm actually getting angry, so let me address the very last part of your post first @FrostJaeger
Despite the desire for otherwise, topics will always be up for debate so long as we are democratic enough to hold a vote, and the reason is very simple; to refute or defend the various opinions and positions we take for the benefit of the voters. They'll listen and read what we each have to say on the topic and vote according to what side they feel has made the better point. I'll even say it's practically heresy to hold a vote while forbidding debate. I don't want to sound like some dumb college SJW-Special-Snowflake, but I have to say it - that sounds Un-American. Flat out.
Seeing as how debating has continued in complete ignorance of what @Ametheliana said here and what I repeated here, I guess I'll have to concede the point seeing as how no one paid any attention to it in the first place.
Now, with that aside, I'll explain further why this submission is a burden on everyone.
We can all do the math - that's not the problem - but the real problem is that players are going to find themselves doing it over, and over and over again until they find the perfect 8. The reason for this is very simple; it's the new meta-game you would create should this submission be passed. Yes, you're right that somebody's ship can just go with 7.5 rather than a full 8, but what you leave out, is that they are inferior. It might not seem by much, but it is cold, hard fact that such ships won't just be inferior. No, it's actually worse than that.
It is cold, hard fact that they are mathematically inferior. Though I myself don't care if my own vessels aren't in the meta, this will drive other players right up the wall. They will want to find the perfect combination of weapons to put on their ships to avoid this at all costs. And guess what? As a tech mod, I still have to take the extra steps of not only double checking to make sure that the ships are compliant with this proposed rule, but advise any and all players who want an optimum configuration the very moment they ask me for help regarding it. As a moderator of the NTSE, I am OBLIGATED to do this for EVERYONE, no exceptions.
With all due respect, why are you presuming to know how other content submitters would react? Those that don't want to be "mathematically inferior" - those that care enough about how "effective" their fictional starship/mecha/whatever is - would most likely either be able to figure it out themselves or, like you said, consult a moderator (or myself) for assistance. Those that don't give a damn about the numbers - those that just want to roleplay and contribute to the setting - most likely would simply shrug and say "So what?"
Furthermore, the vast majority of Nepleslian Star Navy's ships (all except two or three of them, in fact) have less than a "full 8" weapons - and would you consider them to be "underpowered" or "obsolete" under this new metagame you're prophesizing about?
But the poor construction of this submission - no offense to your own person, just the facts of the submission's state of being - doesn't stop here.
You say that 3km example ship I talked about is actually a supercarrier? Wrong, because that is how a player do. The player who submitted this ship wants it to be a battleship and wants your help on how to do it. You know what that means? That means you have to work with a 3km long battleship that can't use any of its physically empty space to mount a single gun because it's got either 8 torpedo tubes or 64 single-use VLSs. Ones that, despite taking up a mere pinprick of its physical size, already consumes its entire allotment of firepower. And this is with a ship that's practically the same size as a First Order Star Destroyer. That's practically a sci-fi staple in terms of size and it's already hopelessly gimped.
The problem with this argument, @CadetNewb, is that you're operating under the assumption that a battleship absolutely has to fire missiles capable of taking out a similarly-sized ship with a single shot. You know what I would tell that hypothetical player of yours? I'd tell them to try using Tier 12 or Tier missiles instead - and I'd point out the fact that it's usually a good idea to save some space for a gun emplacement or two and some point defense weaponry.
And you wonder why I'm angry. Wonder why I'm absolutely livid. Or worse, maybe you think you know why I'm angry, but don't actually know? You would pile more work on me, and everyone else, just because you're scared of ONE guy who likes to put lots of missiles on his ships.
Please don't assume to know what my personal fears are, @CadetNewb, because - as this instance demonstrates - you're incorrect regarding them.
I'm not scared of "ONE guy who likes to puts lots of missiles on his ships," I'm scared of the fact that one guy, in particular, appears to believe that the ships and technology he designs are the equivalent of modern military seafaring vessels competing against the World War-II era ships and technology everyone else uses. I'm afraid of the implications that this mentality of one-upmanship, that this mindset of "I always having to perfect and one step ahead of everyone else, and to hell with anyone who says otherwise!" has - and I'm afraid of the chaos and unnecessary work that these metagaming views would cause should they be allowed to persist. I'm afraid of the "modernization process" that literally everyone else will have to suffer through because of one guy's deliberate and repeated efforts to introduce overpowered ships and technology into the settting.
But the thing is, it's ok if you're worried about someone building OP ships with way too much firepower. You could just alert the tech mod, or tech mods plural even if you want it looked at more thoroughly. Any competent tech mod will say it outguns everything else at a glance if it actually does.
Funny thing is, I already tried doing that. The majority of the concerns I voiced were, to the best of my knowledge, either ignored completely or never addressed.
You could even ask someone more suited to making a set of rules to do just that - I would gladly do that if this was put on hold so the two could be compared - but instead we have this insistence that we rely on this subpar submission.
If you, @Navian, or literally anyone else in this thread wants to submit a different system for review (or even just start a discussion thread!), please feel free to do so.. I'm not stopping you, nor am I trying to "insist" upon anything - @Wes was the one who introduced the concept of "approval" via poll, and I decided to have it be open for 48 hours in order to prevent this "discussion" from dragging out for weeks or, God help us all, months.
Fine. You know what? Let's say we did go with this. You see, many of you seem to forget that I'm an NTSE Mod, so let me try to be extremely clear. I have all the knowledge and experience that has come from serving SARP in this position for years at my disposal. Knowledge and experience that I've used to let me find out whether or not this is a subpar submission. And here's the kicker, the way I absolutely know it's a bad submission. I could follow this submission and still build something OP easily, and not just easily. Very easily.
The thing that irritates me the most about all this is that I am seeing a whole bunch of "I can make something better" or "This is too complicated". But I am seeing hardly any way to make this better. This submission was open for discussion, and this submission was open to be improve, but I don't see any of you really trying to do that. Navian is the only one who's done it and that's been discussed already because what was being said was super vague and not clear enough to make any changes to this article or to base a new system off of.
I don't think that is right at all. We all know there needs to be some kind of limitation in play. And we all know Frost's can be improved. But unless you have some concrete thing to put down, why are you so against it that you guys would endorse insulting it. Maybe Frost just tried to create something for as smooth a transition from what we already had, to this as possible. And what does he get for it? You all pile on insults and rude statements, but I don't see any of you making a single move to -improve- his submission.
In all my years of being in RP communities this one has the biggest problem with this. If I was staff I'd have said unless someone actually makes some kinda guidelines, be it for construction rules, or for NTSE guidelines on approving 'fair' ships then this would get approved. Because no matter how much you guys say "It's not a problem right now", that's only because we had rules. And when we didn't the NTSE had to judge. And when they did people whined about bias. The NTSE is a thankless job? I have -literally- seen NTSE mods avoid doing someone's submission because they don't want to put up with that person's habits. If that's not a sign of frustration I'm not sure what is, and we should be trying to make that job easier to deal with so we don't have people dropping out form it. There is no 'trust the NTSE to do it's job' either. Because the number of times Wes gets called for an article, or people say "I want a different mod" is too high, and even if that person is wrong about their opinion of that NTSE mod, it doesn't change the lack of trust, and trust is not built over night.
In a perfect world we wouldn't need this or anything else for that matter, but we're far from perfect, and this community is far from united on it's ideas of how ship construction should be. So in the grand scheme of things that leaves us with two options. The first is that we just let people build ships how they want, and let the NTSE deal with it. Which will get stressful because every call they make can be labeled bias. It wont happen every time but you all know it's gonna happen. The second option is create -something- to try and alleviate some of the stress, and have the players work at least a little harder on their submission design.
TL;DR:Why has this become more about how right or wrong Frost is, and not about making something that can better our community? If Frost's idea isn't good give him some concrete things to improve it with.
I can actually answer that for you Syaoran; the vote. It is putting this on a limited time where at the end of which, it threatens to force this submission onto the community. To prevent this, the best and most logical option is to refute the submission as best as possible. Once it's voted down, then I'd offer to give much more positive feedback, since I'm not fighting against bad information and a timer.
Again, that's all I can do for the time being - it's likely an unintended side effect of the vote.
Like I said above, the poll was the brainchild of @Wes, not me - and how is outright denying a submission based upon a generous time limit "logical" in any fashion? What "bad information" are you referring to? The only "bad information" I've seen in this thread so far are the hostile (and thankfully deleted) posts that yourself and others made - and lastly, how is "this submission [being forced] onto the community" when it's being decided by a community vote? Are you attempting to imply that the opinions of those who voted "Yes" aren't relevant to this community?
The way to make the submission better is to accept how v3 works and have moderators who are willing to put the screws to submitters who deliver OP submissions.
It also takes having submitters understand and respect what the mod tells them. No fighting. No straight appeal to Wes. When a mod tells you what to do, you do it. Period.
Jaegerman's submission isn't complex by itself. But that doesn't make it necessary or useful. I think he's trying to take the most honorable route available to fix an issue, but it's one that doesn't need a new ruleset.
Doshii is correct though. The first, last and best line of defense we have against OP submissions would be Ametheliana and I, along with any others who join as Mods. We're tasked with keeping not only submissions in check, but each other as well. Rules and guidelines are mainly a crutch and not to be relied on as I've recently pointed out. The critical thinking of tech mods is both more reliable and accurate than such rules ever will be. However, as Doshii pointed out, there is also another problem that should be kept in mind. The act of players appealing to Wes should be frowned upon since they directly undermine our authority as Mods, though Wes does mean well. The act of a player calling Wes over the tech mods should be treated as an "Appeal to Caesar" - an ultimate and final solution that is taken only after all other NTSE mods have been appealed to first.
Like I said before, this submission is not intended to replace or strip power from the NTSE moderators. It is a tool for them to utilize. Nothing more, nothing less.
The amount of effort to get that result though is tremendous. And the players likely wont accept not being able to petition Wes, unless there is some other compromise. Because the simple fact is a significant portion of players have at least 1 mod they don't really trust. And just saying "Trust them" isn't going to make them trust them.
If the solution can work out that'd be the ideal one, but I personally can't see that being solved any time soon, and what I see is it only getting solved with either players getting to pick who judges there submission(which is bad for obvious reasons), the NTSE gaining more accountability in some way so the players can call foul when they think it's foul, or the NTSE being given more complex guidelines on how to approve submissions so there's less room for bias.
I like the idea of it but personally making a system seems like a more practical solution to me, because all you have to do is make rules on what's allowed. You don't have to juggle with the balance of power.
I'm not going to beat around the bush; because of a lot of slander going around on the site - some of which Wes had just deleted from this very thread - I don't have the best of reputation.
But here's the thing.
If something I do is suspect, or if I make a mistake, players can go right ahead and call me out on it, and if I still disagree? They can call Ame to check on my work. I've been in this game for a long time, so I know that very, very well, so slanderous accusations of me being biased can go get deleted like the others. It's the basis of good governance; a system of checks and balance folks, and I'm not going to get around it so long as Ame does her job well, and I trust her to do her job well. However, what I particularly don't like is that anyone that starts fear mongering that I'm biased and have been giving friends an easy pass are also insulting Ametheliana's ability and competence as an NTSE Mod.
Quadless pyjacks, all of them. Anyways, I'm going to call it a night.
Not that I disagree with what you said, but uh...how is the (excellent, by the way) competence and ability of @Ametheliana related to your own? Although both of you are NTSE moderators, the last time I checked you weren't the same individual...
I did not mean something else - the reason I said your criticism was unconstructive and off-topic is because although it provides an "alternative approach," that approach to the best of my knowledge has never been fully elaborated upon or discussed, nor has it been added to the wiki. It also - in my own personal opinion, and please, correct me on this if I am indeed wrong - would require an extraodinarily complex set of "unnatural and cumbersome" rules.
I'm not the one refusing to elaborate on or discuss a new approach--I'm the only one who suggested one, in detail. It hasn't been added to the wiki because we haven't decided how to implement it yet. In fact, we haven't even decided to give it a try. In fact, we're not even considering giving it a try, because you're already insisting on this plan, and the two strategies are incompatible.
For the third time now, I have not "insisted" anything. The poll was not my idea. It was the brainchild of @Wes. The time limit was put in place to prevent this farce of a discussion from continuing for the next three months.
I have not "elaborate[d] on or discuss[ed] a new approach" because that is not the purpose of this thread. Its purpose (originally, at least) was to provide feedback related solely to improving the submission being discussed, not something completely different.
My proposal to complete this plan using your strategy (the suggestion I spent one paragraph on before you replied the first time) would require an extraordinarily complex set of unnatural and cumbersome rules, yes. But no, the alternative I spent hundreds and hundreds of words repeatedly explaining before and after that should not, because its intent is to define what ships we want or need for each faction to streamline the process. In other words, they'd make it less cumbersome to create and interpret new content than it is with no rules at all.
Has it ever occurred to you how painful and arduous getting everyone to agree upon something as extensive (and complex) as a list of starship, mecha, vehicle, and small craft roles would be?
Since this would also provide enough detail to clearly define what sort of designs we want, the results also wouldn't be unnatural--we'd be pointed directly toward what would be a natural growth of our current selection, in a way we're mostly blind-guessing at right now. It would be enlightening.
Though I can only speak for myself, I'd choose "blind-guessing" and having creative freedom except in one area of starship/vehicle/etc. design over being forced into a role-based "cookie cutter mold" any day of the week - and how could you possibly call restricting creator choices "enlightening?" I mean, granted, what I'm proposing also limits one's choices - but at least I don't limit the designs of the entire starship in the process.
For those who prefer a muddle where they can shout to be heard and drown out other voices, or where they know their vision clashes with that of others in their faction or with the setting as a whole but want to use the NTSE as a battleground for a secret war--all while using claims that they're fighting for 'fairness' or 'creative freedom' as a shield--this will not be a popular solution... but then, neither were the speed limits, or any other clear and comprehensible guidelines that exist anywhere.
Congratulations for being the first poster in this thread to actually make me laugh. I found this so amusing, in fact, that I had no choice but to devote an entire section merely to addressing it.
For those who prefer a muddle where they can shout to be heard and drown out other voices, or where they know their vision clashes with that of others in their faction...
Tell me, @Navian, have you ever had a chance to look at the Factions page on the wiki? It has some very informative sections. One of them, in fact, is called Faction Managers - and it contains this interesting tidbit:
The Faction Managers Section said:
Factions have a right to control their assets.
Additions and changes to a faction must be approved by its faction manager.
but want to use the NTSE as a battleground for a secret war--all while using claims that they're fighting for 'fairness' or 'creative freedom' as a shield...
At first, I wasn't even going to bother replying to this - but then you went just a tad too far with that second part. Nice try at concealing your insult there, @Navian.
...this will not be a popular solution... but then, neither were the speed limits, or any other clear and comprehensible guidelines that exist anywhere.
If there's any big downside, it's that the guidelines I proposed would require wiki updates every time a new ship design is desired or approved... though this isn't any more severe than needing to do the same thing whenever a character joins a new plot.
Complex rules can be gamed, lawyered, exploited and distorted, and this can make them very popular and enjoyable. I don't think they're appropriate here, though.
I don't think veiled insults are appropriate here either, @Navian, especially since you're implying that anyone who voted "Yes" in the above post as someone who enjoys "gam[ing], lawyer[ing], exploit[ing], and distort[ing]" and the rules.
I mean, if you're going to be uncivil (in spite of what @Ametheliana said here and what I repeated here), at least focus your efforts on me and spare the rest of the community, okay?
Rules are not set in stone, @Navian, and can always be updated to address loopholes within them; furthermore, isn't noticing overpowered setting submissions - be they on purpose or unintentional - one of the primary reasons we have NTSE moderators in the first place?
I'm aware they're not set in stone. I'm considering both possibilities, where we don't bother to finish the rules you're adding or where we do. They both don't look good to me (nor does the middle ground between the two). But, I did suggest ways to address the loopholes. I'll get to that in a moment.
Yes, the reason we have moderators is to reject submissions we don't want (note, occasionally we do want overpowered submissions, for story purposes). But the reason for these guidelines you're working on is to help the NTSE staff do their job. One thing guidelines of the sort I suggested can help them with is figuring out whether a design is meant to be overpowered or not, and whether it really is or just is on paper, since they'll be able to see what role the designer was aiming to fill before they even read the submission.
Not to be rude, but then why have you "delayed finding a more permanent solution" by outlining the basic structure of your proposal in a Setting Discussion thread?
That really does deserve to be in scare quotes. The reason I haven't taken that approach is because the plan I have is incompatible with the plan you have, and we still haven't reached a consensus on which path to take. Taking both simultaneously would be worse than taking either in many ways.
Non-existent "scare quotes" (those were regular quotes, dude) aside, why does it matter if we've reached a consensus or not? How exactly would considering multiple options at once be any worse than this absolute cesspool of a thread?
I could say the same for why you haven't read the basic outline of my proposal in this thread and are still attempting to push yours through, belligerently.
I have indeed read your proposal (off-topic as it was) and, if you'll pardon me for being blunt, I'm not exactly impressed by it, given that - as I've stated in the above sections - it, in my opinion, is just as complex, even more limiting, and would take even longer to discuss here in the forums. Also...how exactly is wanting to keep the thread on-topic considered as me being "belligerent?"
Hardly, given that calling it a "second opinion" actually implies that the opinion in question (and the suggestions related to it) are even remotely related to the topic of the original post.
Please, do enlighten us, @Navian, since you seem to be so well-versed in the Armament Limitations - precisely what "holes" are you referring to? I'd highly appreciate it if you provided me with some constructive criticism by pointing them out so that I can address them.
I already did, more than once, including on this very page of discussion. The TL;DR: Rate of fire, accuracy, range, non-damage effects, how weapons interact with defenses, and other special features aren't accounted for. How these rules apply to point defense weapons is especially unclear, but resolving that would be the first of many more addenda to make. If we ever finished, we'd have a complete game system.
Once again, the reason I didn't cover such topics is because of the fact that if I did so the submission would be at least three or four times more complex and restrictive. Also once again, that's the reason we have NTSE moderators - to take such things into consideration when deciding whether or not a submission is overpowered or suited to the setting.
If you're going to say this, please... open with it, rather than saying it after you've thrown a salvo of debate points... especially when most in the form of readily answerable rhetorical questions. I am willing to leave everyone to figure this out on their own, but make up your mind--do you want criticism, or do you want me to leave you alone?
As I replied to @CadetNewb earlier, I'm not going to bother stating that this topic isn't up for debate (despite @Ametheliana - one of those moderators I keep referring to - explicitly stating it here - seeing as how pretty much everyone here has continued to ignore it.
Okay, my last post was somewhat scatterbrained. I got my thoughts more organized. Sorry for double-posting.
First off: @FrostJaeger are you okay with us discussing that haggling? If that much makes Zack content, it's bound to alleviate concerns from other people at the same time and it still builds on the current foundation. Give a shout if you'd rather go for article approval rather than continuing the discussion - I was in similar shoes when having DRv3 submitted, so, I can relate with your current plight. I believe it's contextually accurate, as it rests on the same foundation and is still relevant to weapon budget, just on a greater scope.
I looked over the DRv3 Article to see where flexibility/haggling was possible, trading in caveats for extra boons. Let's keep in mind this is mostly for vehicles, mecha and up. We have:
Regarding Defense tier:
Unarmored. Having a ship not bear armor plating. This is pretty significant, it's like any weapon that hits you is going to hurt your unit worse than units of that tier usually do. We know it may carry the intrinsic advantage of being faster (or stealthy, depending on material). Really only a significant tradeoff for a warship.
Fortified. Lose from weapon allotment and/or speed penalty, raise effective tier for defense. Just as significant as less armor in impact. Essentially the reverse of Unarmored. Possibly could involve armor only, barrier only but treating them separate involves more complexity
Regarding Barriers:
Limited coverage. We know that there's a baseline for barriers. Double-sided only starts happening around the Mecha category, but becomes common for Starships. If a starship chooses for less capable field systems - a light starship going for simple bubble barrier - then concessions are possible.
Half-Strength. Right now, barriers are treated as able to soak in two lethal hits. This kind of handicap that it can only handle one.
(no barrier was a possibility, but this feels more like a technological limitation than a tradeoff to me)
Regarding Propulsion:
No fold drive. Removing a common FTL function. May entitle the ship to tradeoffs. (for instance, it's a tradeoff a Chiaki escort might have used to be Fortified)
(No Flight Capability was a possibility, but I wasn't sure it was appropriate as that feels more like a design decision. Mostly a way to have groundbound tanks able to boast more firepower?)
Regarding Size:
Almost next size tier. If the desired ship hardware doesn't fit, striding the line between one tier and another in size can justify accommodating an extra weapon or two (because giving a few bonuses is not as empowering as having the ship become one of the smallest of next size tier)
Limitation on extra weapon allotment: never more than 7. Having 8 would essentially give a smaller ship equivalent assets to a ship a tier greater. Even with tradeoffs this shouldn't be possible.
Magnitude left ambiguous for the moment. Not yet sure what would be worth what.
Also, I don't think this ought to necessarily prevent future haggling. Just that when we actually settle on a point we can give and take on, to document it. Also, a point to be flexible on should likely involve peer-oversight for quality control, in order to avoid one mod making one up only to have others give it a double-take later on (in essence, it could be a bit of a living document; basically, it's okay not to think up all of the possibilities right now)
Out of fairness to @Navian, I'm unfortunately going to have to say that I'm more focused on getting this submission approved right now, as opposed to discussing it - though if you want I can copy-paste what you and @Zack wrote into a different thread in order to continue the discussion, as it's something I am definitely intrigued by.
It instates the "how many weapons you can have" section that was in the DRv3 page and places it in a more appropriate context.
It remains consistent with all ships that have thus far been built with DRv3 or converted via DRv3 (therefore, a lot of the work Frost has done converting Nepleslian assets is not put to waste).
It adds the function of using part of the weapon budget to fire single-shot missiles, a functionality which has been discussed but was still missing.
On those grounds, it is in effect an improvement of what we had while not keeping us in the limbo of 'no guidelines' while other solutions/adaptations are done.
I would like the indulgence of considering the article a living document. Rather than fixed in stone, it can be modified in the future (just like how DRv3 has been with changelogs being reported). That way, it can be the springboard for further improvement, such as the 'haggling' that Zack and I just broached (I have no problem discussing it in another thread).
I understand the detracting opinions that were raised.
- For @CadetNewb ; this is at least not any worse than it was. if you're going to be that vehement about this (which is based on what I built), maybe with all your NTSE mod savvyness you should create something you'll have faith will work rather than diss someone whom has been trying to take the initiative.
- For @Navian ; little progress was going to be done with your feedback, at least until you start showing rather than telling.
I do actually believe this is worse than what you and Eistheid built Fred, nevermind using your work as a solid foundation. However, you do have a very good point that I wish I had come to realize sooner. It's literally not worth my time and effort dealing with that massive brick of a post if I just go and build something drastically better. However, I do see that there is one thing in particular that makes my blood boil,
Please don't assume to know what my personal fears are, @CadetNewb, because - as this instance demonstrates - you're incorrect regarding them.
I'm not scared of "ONE guy who likes to puts lots of missiles on his ships," I'm scared of the fact that one guy, in particular, appears to believe that the ships and technology he designs are the equivalent of modern military seafaring vessels competing against the World War-II era ships and technology everyone else uses. I'm afraid of the implications that this mentality of one-upmanship, that this mindset of "I always having to perfect and one step ahead of everyone else, and to hell with anyone who says otherwise!" has - and I'm afraid of the chaos and unnecessary work that these metagaming views would cause should they be allowed to persist. I'm afraid of the "modernization process" that literally everyone else will have to suffer through because of one guy's deliberate and repeated efforts to introduce overpowered ships and technology into the settting.
I was wrong to assume I knew what you were afraid of, I admit that freely, but the thing is, what you actually are afraid of is even worse. I had actually assumed you were better than this.
The reason is very simple. You are literally afraid of what someone else thinks. So what if someone thinks they have the greatest ships ever? Plenty of North Koreans think they have the best army, navy and air force in the entire world and believe that it can turn America into great black glasslands as far as the eye can see. But, who gives a fat fart if the North Koreans think that? You seem to have forgotten that you can do something called disagreeing, and this might be news to you, but disagreeing is ok. We can have different opinions. I even think the missiles are ghetto as hell - that they're a poor man's weapon!
What really matters is if they're actually that much better than everything else or not. If they don't, then an arms race simply won't happen. And if they do? That's where either I or Ametheliana bring the hammer down. Hell, I even put the Indigo On Hold because of these concerns. Though, you clearly stated that's not what you're worried about. You're worried about how someone thinks they got the 'bestest ships evah!'.
I already thought this article was poorly made, but now it looks like it's an emotional knee-jerk reaction. Of course I oppose this.
Can you just stop sniping at each other? Like, be man enough to realize that nothing good is coming from trying to mollify your egoes and stop from trying to have the last word.
It'd be nice. I'm tired of seeing it. It adds nothing to the topic in either directions either. So move on. x_x
Admin note: Some users have been silenced from posting in this thread due to overly aggressive posting that caused multiple people to report them. I know you guys are passionate about the subject but please remember to be civil at all times.
Can you just stop sniping at each other? Like, be man enough to realize that nothing good is coming from trying to mollify your egoes and stop from trying to have the last word.
It'd be nice. I'm tired of seeing it. It adds nothing to the topic in either directions either. So move on. x_x
I agree wholeheartedly, and I apologize to anyone I may have inadvertently offended/come across as rude to/etc. with my previous replies in this thread. From here onwards, I shall only be replying to comments that actually provide helpful feedback regarding this submission.
On a brighter note, as promised @Fredhere's the thread I promised to create in an earlier post; if there's anything you want me to add to/remove from/edit in it, just send me a PM or reply in either one of these threads.