Rejected Submission [Submission Rules] Armament Limitations

Syaoran... Great, now you're arguing with someone who specifically said they weren't going to restate their opinion... Fine, I'll fill in.

First, why care if this vote is 'fair'? Wes didn't have to put it up to a vote at all, and he doesn't have to accept the result, either. It's what we get that matters, not what we want or believe. And we can't vote to determine the future, we can only vote for what choices to make. That means we should be considering which decision is the right one, not whether this is a fair competition. I expect Wes will honour the results of the poll, but the results of the poll don't determine which option is right, only which option was voted for. Any information is helpful... so long as it's not misleading.

And last, Wes wasn't saying we should design how to build ships based on how many weapons will fit inside them. We don't treat ships' interior designs realistically to begin with, they tend to have a lot of open space and not much machinery, and we certainly don't remove cool things because they're inefficient unless our goal is to make the design look more efficient. SARP is soft sci-fi. Design are meant to be cool and appropriate for the genre, which shifts somewhat between factions, but has some unifying themes. They're not meant to rigorous and 'balanced' in thorough detail--they're not meant to be optimized.

What Wes was saying is that he doesn't think this submission will serve its purpose and that it comes into conflict with the methods we use to design ships in general, ones that are more intuitive. There's more to that than just what will fit, which is why he said 'common sense things like...' He thanked you for listening, but he didn't know you were only going to hear the part of the line he put in quotation marks.

In response to Rizzo: I agree completely!

Watching this discussion, I feel that someone needs to make an objective assessment of the arguments here.

Perhaps these limits are too much, I can't say for sure. Either way, there should be a limit to how powerful a vehicle should be relative to it's size. Regardless of how many rules there are on the site, there should be at least some sort of guideline as to how many weapons a ship can have. As to what format that can take, there are essentially two options.

1. NTSE arbitration (existing)

Pros
- Human reviewers can make informed decisions on a case by case basis.
- Rules are flexible, and can be adjusted if the reviewer deems it necessary.

Cons
- Takes longer to approve submissions.
- Humans make mistakes.

Rule-based framework (proposed)

Pros
- All submissions are held to the same standard.
- Defined rules mean faster approvals.

Cons
- Don't not always account for special cases.
- Imperfect rules may limit creativity.

This is my attempt at an impartial assessment, so I won't disclose my actual opinion on the subject.

If you think I missed anything, don't hesitate to let me know!

@SyaoranOkay then, how big is the cooling system?
There's no air in space so all that heat needs to go somewhere. One way or another every action has a reaction. You shoot, the gun gets hot. If it gets too hot it breaks.

Something else to account for is weight. Guns are heavy. A ship that is 'all gun' will be heavy. Other ships will outmaneuver it, if it's heavy enough it'll be space bound.

@Navian I'm not arguing with Wes, I'm pointing out what I think is a flaw in his idea. He doesn't have to respond. And notice how he didn't. Also my main point of discussion is also with Rizzo not Wes. Please orient that properly.

@Rizzo See that's just it though Rizzo, more and more things you have to account for start showing up. Trying to taking into account, weight, size, energy usage and any other resources, will get much much more complicated to make consistent rulings unless we do a huge elaboration on the details of setting technology, so much so that this idea that's being commonly said as 'Too complex' will be much easier.

Having a system with inconsistent rulings as to what is allowed defeats the purpose, because literally the 8 weapon limit was made in the first place because there was no consistent standard, and probably because of a lot of frustration caused by accusations of unfairness and bias.

So what will happen when inevitably when the question is asked IC why we can't equip additional weapon X even though it would fit?

Also let me add this because I think this is pretty important to say. You can not rely on people to stay well within the realm of 'reasonable' if nothing stops them. The majority of people will be reasonable, but rules exist because of outliers in the first place. Not everyone is just going to make a ship because they think it's cool. There will be people who try to optimize it and make it the best. Because there are people who want to 'win' or 'be number one' because that's what's fun for them.

I understand that people don't want to get in the way of designing cool ships, but in that case numbers can be picked that are reasonable and allow cool ships. This doesn't have to be an all or nothing kind of thing. The state this systme is in it can easily be resigned and tweaked to fit needs if people would try.

Rizzo said:

So what will happen when inevitably when the question is asked IC why we can't equip additional weapon X even though it would fit?

Click to expand...

In that case you can simply say "The ship's systems can't handle any more effectively" and you don't have to both with is the science accurate, because you've placed an OOC limit dictating that system standards only allow X weapons.

I'm kind of amazed that there are nearly 40 votes total. That's a big turn up, much bigger than what an NTSE case usually get. I'm not even sure during the voting period that DRv3 even garnered this much attention.

Right now, resolution of this vote means one of two things:

- The DRv3 8-same-tier-weapons guideline initially put in the DRv3 article (and later removed by me to leave DRv3 purely as a nomenclature guide) it retained, albeit with single-shot missiles taken into consideration. Many setting elements have already been converted (a lot by Frost himself) successfully by it, and their values today don't appear unreasonable.

So, historically, the '8-same-tier-weapons' thing actually has a good track record. Detractors can put up some philosophies as wrong, but the results speak for themselves: more new submissions and the grandfathered ones hold up to scrutinery. Even if the 8-same-tier-weapons guideline is no longer adhered to, the conversion work isn't put to waste because it was still a pretty good basis to go on for most ships.

Its failing is that it doesn't deal with outliers very well, which was compounded by people adhering to it with inflexibility due to concerns related to 'fairness'. The other thread Frost started is more or less a compromise on what flexibility was previously available to use when submitting an item - some rules of haggling, per say, because Zack did not enjoy differing mods having differing standards. I can see how that concern makes sense, and addressing it might greatly alleiviate the flaws in the approach. Ideally, demonstration of weapon emplacements with good justifications will enable the human element behind the submission process to bridge any further inadequacies.

It's essentially a devil we know and have shown we can live with.

- Going without brings us back to a point before DRv2. With disparate mods going by 'common sense'. With slander on favoritism likely coming up when precedents will - rightly or wrongly - be raised.

This is also a devil we know that we have shown we could deal with, though way back there there was a reason we jumped to a point-buy system Zack made.

* * *

In essence, Air Admiral is correct:

Air Admiral said:

1. NTSE arbitration (existing)

Pros
- Human reviewers can make informed decisions on a case by case basis.
- Rules are flexible, and can be adjusted if the reviewer deems it necessary.

Cons
- Takes longer to approve submissions.
- Humans make mistakes.

Rule-based framework (proposed)

Pros
- All submissions are held to the same standard.
- Defined rules mean faster approvals.

Cons
- Don't not always account for special cases.
- Imperfect rules may limit creativity.

Click to expand...

You have the fully-fledged point-buy system at one extreme (Zack's previous work). Going without at the other. What this thread represents is something of a potential middle-ground candidate. It is fact that we've gone pendulum throughout the years from one side to the other. I know the claim @Wes makes, but it's also shortsighted because history has proven him wrong. It has proven @Zack wrong. It has proven me wrong.

The reason why my vote remains "Yes" is because this instance is a demonstration of learning from that experience. I don't consider the process complete, but if this tanks, it'll just beget a new attempt later in the future. The attempt won't be wrong, because it will still seek to fulfill a need.

If that's the case just make me a submission mod, I have had 3 years in engineering classes for design and quality control which includes making sure things are realistic so they don't just break

Rizzo said:

If that's the case just make me a submission mod, I have had 3 years in engineering classes for design and quality control which includes making sure things are realistic so they don't just break

Click to expand...

You're only one person though Rizzo, that would massively slow down submissions and stress you out in times of massive influx. And even if you do know, think about what that would do to the submission base? Once a bunch of submissions end up incorrect with numbers, people will start feeling like they have to know their engineering to even submit a ship, because most people can't just throw something out there to be criticized that they themselves don't feel is actually correct.

Syaoran, you missed Rizzo's point as well--his post wasn't about a 'size-based design system'. His conclusion is in the last paragraph. Missile ships have limitations that prevent them from being 'overpowered' in 'reality'; there are many factors involved and it's difficult to account for them all.

This submission doesn't even try, and yet the stated motivation for it was to address exactly this issue. ???

I'm not sure if you're arguing for the sake of arguing or preaching to the choir at this point. That depends on whether you're trying to say that we don't need to do anything because the mods can just handle it, which seems to contradict what you said earlier, or trying to say we need guidelines that help us determine what's 'reasonable', instead of concrete rules that bind everyone.

No numbers needed. Just need to know how they intend to portray it. If they do A I'll ask them to do B IC. If it's a laser boat I'll ask them to describe heat management and if it's just not possible then yeah, they'll need to educate themselves.

Okay, let make one thing clear. Especially for you, @Navian

On request from NTSE mods, I designed this in DRv3. The 8-same-tier-weapon thing came from me when I tried to find some commonality in the ships I was converting - Yamatai faction ships which I beleived would be good benchmarks for the rest of the setting - and it was instated. Adapting it for one-shot missiles was also my brainchild (Frost just double the number I settled on, which I can live with - he's converted more than I did, perhaps he knows best)

Frostjaeger is the guy that worked a lot with what I created. When I pulled it out of the DRv3 article, he volunteered to create a different article and flesh it out some to adapt for some of the shortcomings. As I said earlier in the thread, I agreed with most of the raw data because I recognized it, and was also okay with it because its judgment of its performance wouldn't impact the nomenclature guide.

So, when you level judgment on the design or motivation of the submission, all of that actually reflects on me, not Frost. Frost is the friendly hardworking neighborhood guy that just happens to beleive in it and took the initiative to see that it survived, especially considering how much he's worked with it.

So, if you want to raise heat on the issue and intents, I'm your target. Not Frost.

Therefore, here is my reply to your assertion:

Navian said:

This submission doesn't even try

Click to expand...

Bullshit.

Navian said:

Syaoran, you missed Rizzo's point as well--his post wasn't about a 'size-based design system'. His conclusion is in the last paragraph. Missile ships have limitations that prevent them from being 'overpowered' in 'reality'; there are many factors involved and it's difficult to account for them all.

This submission doesn't even try, and yet the stated motivation for it was to address exactly this issue. ???

I'm not sure if you're arguing for the sake of arguing or preaching to the choir at this point. That depends on whether you're trying to say that we don't need to do anything because the mods can just handle it, which seems to contradict what you said earlier, or trying to say we need guidelines that help us determine what's 'reasonable', instead of concrete rules that bind everyone.

Click to expand...

This submission isn't about taking into account all the nuances of missiles. It's about replacing the the weapon limit with one that has a -better- consideration of missiles. That is all. No one said this had a perfect grasp of missiles every nuance.

As for missing Rizzo's point, if I did miss it, he'd have told me what I was talking about didn't apply to his statement. However considering that we have continued to discuss, obviously what I mentioned is within the scope of his idea.

From this point on till I feel you've setteled down however Navian I wont be responding to you, because there's nothing to gain from this. You said "Let's move on" yourself and then your very next post came right back at me. Focus on trying to prove whatever your point is rather than getting something from me.

@Rizzo that is bad for SARP however, because that increases the hurdle for tech submission. And one of the things SARP prides itself on is letting anyone do tech submission. It's just like how the site doesn't have a site wide restriction on needing art for submissions. Because not everyone is artistic or has the money to commission an artist for their submission, but does that mean they shouldn't be allowed to submit? Same goes with scientific knowledge, that shouldn't be a factor in whether or not they're allowed to submit.

@Syaoran are you suggesting that just anyone should be able to make a submission without knowing even a little bit about how it works? We do a lot of rocket science, that doesn't mean that we have to know all of it. I don't find it unreasonable to ask people to do a Google search

Okay, Fred. I was going by the quotes someone else mined of FrostJaeger saying this submission was a response to Arieg's missile boat, and that he was concerned about too many missiles being overpowered. If that wasn't what this was designed for, then I suppose it's not a problem that it doesn't effectively solve that, and it certainly isn't relevant that FrostJaeger dismissed related concerns as being 'out of scope' of the article, since he's not the authority on it. It seems difficult for you to address them remotely through him, though.

Syaoran, I think your use of the line 'whatever your point is' in regards to me, after six pages of this, underlines the problem. I already answered the argument in your first paragraph here. In summary, this is not a good start, and it makes things worse. If you half-read posts and start arguing before you understand what they're saying, no, that's not going to be productive. I can't even seem to get this point through, so sure, let's end that transmission. It's probably getting through as a bunch of static right now, anyway.

Rizzo said:

@Syaoran are you suggesting that just anyone should be able to make a submission without knowing even a little bit about how it works? We do a lot of rocket science, that doesn't mean that we have to know all of it. I don't find it reasonable to ask people to do a Google search

Click to expand...

No one should have to know science to make a tech submission. Yes they should have to have some very basic knowledge, but the source of most of not all that information should be the site itself. If you're making a specialized thing like say how I mess with gravity related devices a lot, yeah I should know how gravity works. But if you're making a starship you shouldn't have to think about real life power expenditure and such. It'd be something else if a power supply said "It provides X energy" and weapons said "They need X energy to operate" But if we went around and did all that, again it'd be more work than this supposedly 'complex' system we already have.

Navian said:

I was going by the quotes someone else mined of FrostJaeger saying this submission was a response to Arieg's missile boat, and that he was concerned about too many missiles being overpowered.

Click to expand...

So you're saying this submission was designed primarily to assassinate Arieg's setting submissions? Can this claim be backed up with a screenshot or something?

Are we really going to do this now? This is just sad. Even if Frost was angry about the missile boat, what does that actually change? This system is -more- favorable to missiles than what it's replacing. So if anything compared to what Fred made, this would be better for Arieg. Are you going to cut out a legitimate submission because the maker might at one point have been angry over something? No matter how angry he was or wasn't that doesn't change the content of this submission, and it doesn't change the fact that it is -better- for missiles than what we had, Fred himself has said that. So obviously even if Frost was angry about it at some point, he obviously didn't let that anger control his submission.