• If you were supposed to get an email from the forum but didn't (e.g. to verify your account for registration), email Wes at [email protected] or talk to me on Discord for help. Sometimes the server hits our limit of emails we can send per hour.
  • Get in our Discord chat! Discord.gg/stararmy
  • 📅 July 2024 is YE 46.5 in the RP.

Tech Wars 101: The Issue and Discussion

Honestly, I think the biggest reason missiles are also getting flak and been so questionable because of two things.
  • People wanting to make them very fast and hard to counter.
  • People trying to make them harder to handle or "pop" with point defense.
Just in the briefness sake of addressing it, the NTSE hasn't been handled to stop the missile concerns (I feel) because these two categories aren't really addressed. Some people want to treat each missile as small ships, while others thing they shouldn't be treated like anything beyond ammunition that can be destroyed. The arguments of "shielded vs nonshielded" and "impossible to shoot down until X range and a window capability of Y".

The rate of fire of missiles is lower, certainly, but if they can't be countered despite high rate of fire point defenses due to "being too smart" for point defense? They might as well be critical strike bombs. The system makes any missile/torpedo system fairly strong at equal tiers, which means if they can't be countered then they're catastrophic damage for absolutely little risk. It's why Arieg's missile boats, for example, have come under attack more than anything. Not for using missiles, but because he's suggested and argued the ability to even respond. The ship can fire from so far away, but its missiles have no issue bypassing a ship's defense grid. Another thing to consider is that rate of fire missile systems exist. Micro/mini-missile packets would comprise a high rate-of-fire missile-based system.

Again, this is why I think the missile discussion hasn't been fruitful or very easy to solve. It's not as much in relation to the fact the NTSE have been doing a bad job on it, but that there's people who are abusing the fact of some weapon types inherently and arguing them to be hard/impossible to defeat with hard counters. And this leads us to the root of the issue presented: the mentality of how to handle submissions has led some people to always maximizing their efforts while sometimes even further meta-gaming their packed systems to be hard/impossible to ICly handle.

So, like @Fred said: it wasn't too much of a derail. A good thing to note is that if we enforce a harder standard and theme capability, we can easily amend/add on rules and discussions to see if we need further discussion. But I think the fixes we've presented here have a possibility to simply cure the issues like the missile dilemma on its own.

TLDR: Missiles could end up working themselves out as we focus on handling the NTSE reformation and the various other potential solutions posed earlier. They were on topic, in a sense, but this isn't the place for discussing them.

Wes said:
To see WIP articles, log in to the wiki.
Click to expand...
I think he's like me, of the mindset that the mobile client is a real pain to work with. I think I still haven't logged my phone in.
 
Let's try going here for missile specific stuff. I even put in some opening remarks, but anything missile related can be discussed there, not just my opening remakes.
 
x_x

To be honest, I sincerely thought anykind of derailing was good derailing at the point this thread was reduced to. Zack constructively offered things he thought needed help and I constructively tried to address them. It certainly beat the sounds of wildly yowling angry cats that was going on before.

Offer a different point of interest, then?
 
Well the problem is missiles are a whole topic on their own. And even if we fix the missile problem, that still wont address what this topic was made for, which was looking at the issue of technology progression. So I think missiles, which can be talked about for days should get its own topic so that this can get back to tech progression in general.
 
As a Tech Mod, there are a few key issues that sometimes make it tough to evaluate, and a few potential ones, namely,
  • Current policy regarding missiles
  • Sensor range and stealth detection guidelines
  • Continuous beam weapons in DRv3 (as mentioned by Zack - not the most popular weapon type, but still)
  • FTL combat mechanics (as mentioned by Fred - not sure we got those yet)
With missiles and torpedoes, the size isn't the sole determining factor of how much punch they have. Additionally, I am currently not as sure as I would like to be regarding missiles that also have armor plating and shields of their own for an example. However, I do feel that they should be a sharp contrast to normal weapons; though they can all be fired at once in a Macross Missile Massacre, the missiles can be shot down, and are finite in number carried. How to balance this is vs normal weapons is what I'm uncertain about. Should that allow them to carry over the 8 weapon limit? Less? Not sure.

Sensor range has been brought up before as well. When Kai and I worked on Origin like mad back in the day, we wanted things to be reasonable but not OP. However, this sometimes gives people the impression the company can't make military grade sensors and such at times. If we had some sort of rough guildline regarding sensors and stealth, that would cut a lot of the drama down.

Beam weapons haven't been an issue for me yet, but I suspect that it's only a matter of time. Same with FTL jump/combat mechanics to be honest. Getting those more firmly defined would prevent a lot of headache.
 
I personally treat continuous beam weapons the same way I would treat a weapon such an aether saber.
You describe the weapon, mention its specifications and then let the GMmake his own ruling, just like he would with a machinegun.

The 8 weapon limit strikes me as one of the worst ideas ever. It certainly worked to find common ground between a few KFY ships, but I didn't expect it to be so tightly adhered to for the sake of fairness and justice. A lot of things would be falling into place today, and Zack wouldn't be asking for more rules because there'd be no need of it.

We do not want a stat-based ship building system.
 
Something that I haven't seen anyone else touch on is that sensor range and detection both have a very strong relationship with the size of a ship and its sensor arrays. Even the most advanced scout ship still has a smaller sensor range than a battleship due to simple geometry, while the battleship is easier to detect than the scout ship for the same reason. Technology still has a significant role, especially when it comes to exotic FTL sensors and super-stealth systems, but if the size of the ship isn't considered the main factor, it seriously weirds up any attempt to understand how a fleet or system defense network operates.

I do not think we can afford to consider combat balance when it comes to weapon systems. Even game systems that are specifically designed to have balanced space combat (which is a minority of those with space combat, most expect it to be used as a narrative device because it's 'rocket tag' by nature) require immense standardization, fine-tuning, and lots of math to work. I don't think fleet sizes should be as open to input, either. Thinking of Star Army as a game is awkward at all, even if it's thought of as a role-playing game. Thinking of it as a strategy game is way off the deep end.

So, my suggestion would be that we go with what works for writing stories and make sure reviewers keep that in mind, and impose it on any articles that are made. If someone is trying to game the system instead of designing something that makes sense for their faction, that's what needs to be rejected, and anything that seems to subvert established rules in order to achieve a desired result, rather than just to create something to RP about, also needs to be rejected. We need goals for tech and submissions, so they can be judged for how well they meet those goals.

Tech that changes the status quo with new advancements, as opposed to new tech that simply rounds out a faction's current arsenal with things it should plausibly have already, should not be submitted, much less approved, until the new direction for the faction has been agreed upon first. The NTSE is a forum for judging whether new content is what we're looking for, not for belatedly finding out what goals faction leaders are working toward. We need to know what we're looking for, and we don't want people writing full submissions before we know if what they're trying to do is even something we want to consider.

A guideline that requests reviewers reject submissions that don't meet a faction's objectives should discourage all kinds of attempts to raise the setting's power level, unless it's already been defined that the faction is in a build-up phase and we all have forewarning of what fields of technology they're attempting to make rapid advancements in, and what they're working toward, ultimately. Aside from keeping faction managers from being blindsided or under constant stress, this would also generate more potential for espionage and diplomatic RP, since new developments won't come as such a surprise. This can all be done before the first submission in the new effort is written.
 
Navian said:
A guideline that requests reviewers reject submissions that don't meet a faction's objectives should discourage all kinds of attempts to raise the setting's power level, unless it's already been defined that the faction is in a build-up phase and we all have forewarning of what fields of technology they're attempting to make rapid advancements in, and what they're working toward, ultimately.
Click to expand...
We already require FMs to sign off on anything made for their factions.
 
We do, and the two situations in which that doesn't work are the most common situations: Where either the submission is written by the FM, or the author of the submission collaborates with the FM to create the submission. Requiring the FM to sign off only solves the problem if they refuse to do so. I'd say that calls for another solution.
 
Fred said:
[...]

The 8 weapon limit strikes me as one of the worst ideas ever. It certainly worked to find common ground between a few KFY ships, but I didn't expect it to be so tightly adhered to for the sake of fairness and justice. A lot of things would be falling into place today, and Zack wouldn't be asking for more rules because there'd be no need of it.

We do not want a stat-based ship building system.
Click to expand...

The problem is, without the 8 weapon limit we'll start seeing more and more submissions similar to a particular 324 SDR light cruiser - just in DRv3 instead of DRv2 - as people keep adding more and more missiles (or other weapons) onto starships in order to keep pace with the arms race of the week.

I don't want a stat-based shipbuilding system either, but hasn't this thread amply demonstrated that without some rules, without some standards, certain parties will simply keep attempting to "game the system" no matter what is said by others?
 
Aren't those exceptions, though?

We can let fear win and turn our shipbuilding into a number game for every submitter.

Or we can maintain vigilance and prevent the few to go for the number game.

Could it not be an instance where succumbing to worry and arming ourselves against one thing actually make matters worse? Kind of like, declaring martial law over a few cat burglars?
 
Related to my suggestion in the missile thread... if you make it so all else being equal, a ship that has more weapons does less damage per weapon because most of them miss, it's no longer a worry how many weapons a ship has. It seems better to focus deciding what the ship can do based on its role, purpose, and manufacturer than based on the design's gritty details. Star Army isn't about optimal spaceship design.
 
Last edited:
I know you hate the 8 weapon limitation, and I myself am tempted to get rid of it too to simplify matters, but do we have any other alternative @Fred ? Something that can help control laserboating?
 
Navian said:
We do, and the two situations in which that doesn't work are the most common situations: Where either the submission is written by the FM, or the author of the submission collaborates with the FM to create the submission. Requiring the FM to sign off only solves the problem if they refuse to do so. I'd say that calls for another solution.
Click to expand...
For the record, we had the requirement of FM approval so people wouldn't make things that FMs didn't want, which was a problem in the past.

People eventually got hip to the idea that it was better to just work with the FM on some level -- closely or just a pre-approval -- to craft a submission. FM gets what they want or need, submitter crosses a hurdle off the list.

FM approval might be good if it was done in a fashion where the FM did not work with submitters or pre-approve submissions. However, that results in burnt feelings sometimes. I don't think it's worth it.

It would help if the FMs had a wider, cohesive vision for the site.
 
All of this talk of speeds and numbers is way too granular for me, it's going way over my head. I can't really help past the 'what feels right' thoughts I've given so far. I've got an idea for some tech I'd like to make a page for and get approved and all of that, but the idea of actually having to fill out all of these stats is making me back down pretty hard. I know what I want it to look like and do, and past that it's all pretty much gibberish to me, so it's depressing that I'll probably just never write the article.
 
Right, I wasn't saying that FMs shouldn't work with those submitting articles for their faction. I was saying that requiring FM approval does nothing to help with tech wars, which are usually led or supported by the FMs of the factions involved. It's not realistic to expect FMs to tell submitters 'No, this submission would help our faction too much at the expense of others.'

It makes more sense to call on the NTSE moderators to say 'No, this submission would go against the objectives your FM set out and that we've already agreed upon', or 'This submission appears designed to upset our goals for the setting, not to support them. We're not looking for this kind of submission.'
 
Navian said:
It makes more sense to call on the NTSE moderators to say 'No, this submission would go against the objectives your FM set out and that we've already agreed upon', or 'This submission appears designed to upset our goals for the setting, not to support them. We're not looking for this kind of submission.'
Click to expand...
Until there's stated goals for the setting by which mods can judge articles, and those mods' words are final, this will not work.

Mods have the rules to do it. They just need the guidance and the backing to put people down who complain.
 
@Reynolds

What feels right for you is going to be very different from what feels right for someone else.

The solution to just about every problem here is to define what is acceptable. That deffinition can be as simple as 'These are the numbers you use' or we could get as complex as we like, but there needs to be something.
 
@Fred I don't think any one really -wants- a stat based ship building system. But the real problem is if we don't have some defined limits, then then the NTSE tries to stop someone from making something because it's too metagamed, you get a "The rules say it's okay" reply. And then the submitter goes and takes it to Wes. The restrictions are about fairness, but also their biggest work is in giving the NTSE grounds to disapprove something without being labeled as biased or spiteful, and they don't get stressed out, and we keep our NTSE. This is probably the most important thing because as long as I've been here I think the only time at least one person on the NTSE wasn't stressed out form NTSE work was the first year, and it still might have been then, just I didn't notice.

We need to not just consider our players, but also how much stress those exceptions put on the NTSE, cause if they quit, things get bad for us all.
 
RPG-D RPGfix
Back
Top