What's new
  • 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
  • 📅 April 2024 is YE 46.3 in the RP.

Tech Wars 101: The Issue and Discussion

Doshii Jun said:
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.
Click to expand...
The only reason I dislike empowering the NTSE is the potential abuse of it. Valid complaints can be dismissed because they weren't presented or typed in a way the NTSE liked. In short, the solution has a hazard of belittling the power the community should have when viewing tech.

Their word being final also brings to question how we as a site would handle resubmitting or reapproving something. The instant it's viewed this needs to happen, I can imagine it starting issues based on "well, the NTSE are absolute! It shouldn't have to come back and be reapproved!"

That's simply my views of the trade off. Empowering them but keeping the site's ability to get involved in submissions and not get tossed out for uncertain/shaky grounds is a key if we'd take that sort of route.
Fred said:
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?
Click to expand...
I want to briefly say that right now, there's only a handful trying to push the slots constantly. I think the system has done its job partially in that it has encouraged smaller armaments. This is the thing we need the most, based on how we've long had an issue of TONSAGUNS. If we remove the limit, then Syaoran has a point. It will be different complaints such as it isn't against the rules. Then Doshii's increased NTSE conclusion power would resolve it.

I think this is why the issue hasn't had resolution. The NTSE needs to likely double-vote and gain some measure more of decisive power within these threads. This would preserve the hope we'd not put 2 NTSE with something to gain from a submission into one. Diversifying the NTSE involved will help ensure the community can be spoken for from, in most cases, similar factioned/thinking groups.

Combine this with some of the themes we have proposed and more work with the FMs to discourage the increasing of absurd weapon numbers and we could potentially make a fine resolution on the issue and prevent the meta creep while knocking some of the creative open a bit more.
 
Submission Rules have been updated.

Old:
Have prior approval of the manager(s) of any factions or corporations producing any product/item.
Click to expand...

New:
  1. Have approval of the manager(s) of any factions or corporations producing any product/item.
    1. FMs should be consulted about the concept before work is started on the article.
    2. FM and article writer should maintain good communication during the development phase.
    3. FMs must post in the submission thread so we know they've seen the article in its submitted format.
Click to expand...
 
I would like to state that I thought the '8 weapon rule' was nice because I'm literally going to be running a single thread RP that involves my cargo ships missile massacre-ing three other ships.
:eek: But Rizzo, that's OP!
I agree! My justification is coming in the ammo bill because missiles are expensive. Albeit, the missiles I'm using will be significantly cheaper than mainstream missiles and will basically be rockets chasing a laser pointer but all the same, the world's finest bullet will always be cheaper than the world's worst missile.
:confused: What? Why?!
Because they require complicated components, electronics, and software.

So, why doesn't each faction just spam the crap out of their enemies with missiles? My opinion; because it's really, really expensive!

But that's not the only thing to consider with shipbuilding. It needs to reflect it's purpose. For example, my WIP fighter is supposed to escort my shipping fleet. So it needs to be 'street legal' in Yamataian space where the gun laws are strictest. That means aether, scalar, and antimatter weapons are off the table.

So in conclusion/tl;dr, I believe that the purpose of a submission should be strongly considered by the NTSE.
 
With Wes' consent, the 8-weapon guideline was recently removed from the DRv3 article.

This said, nothing stops the NTSE to try and encourage submissions to gravitate around this. It's just that presetly, there's no rule and DRv3 is no longer
 
With no discussion about how terrible a move that is? That completely opens up the NTSE to actually start having a problem with racing to see how many weapons you can stuff on a ship.
 
It is not a 'terrible move'. It is compartmentalization. DRv3 has nothing to do with ship building and as I said before, the 8-similar-tier-weapon-as-the unit guideline was something crafted at the behest of Cadetnewb to try to meet something he asked for. I already justified this, so, I'm not going to repeat myself.

If people feel so strongly about it, nothing stops them from creating an article concerning what this really was: a vehicle building metric.

Which now means that someone as cool, handsome and brilliant as you are can now go forth and help create these rules you seemed to pine for. You can use what I previously made as starting point, or not.

Like Captain Planet once said: the power is yours! :D
 
Last edited:
I did a while back with stat tables.

A full blown point buy system under DRv 2

There are plenty of people that would love to use such a system but we are stuck using a system designed by someone who doesn't seem to have any intrest in actually developing a rules system. Now that there is no limit on weapons nothing stops everyone from just taking the largest weapons they can on ships , pushing everything towards one hit kill on everything else.


Unfortunately you made sure we can't get something approved without DRv3. Now you are making unilateral changes to a system you have forced on other people. Worse yet this system is terrible for technical people that really want to make something unique.

Before it was bland but fair, now the system is just bland.
 
Last edited:
I suggested a Mech Warrior inspired heat based suggestion last year. Basically you can have as many guns as you want but that doesn't mean you can fire them all at once, gotta cool down eventually. That and mass, guns are heavy. The more you have the heavier you are and the slower you move.
 
I understand DRv3 and like it for determining deadliness, but thats pretty much all its good for. I think a point buy system would really help with balancing and creating ships, and I'd like to see it, but I don't know much about it at the moment.
 
@Zack while I think the timing of this move by @Fred wasn't great. You're totally not listening to what he's saying. <.< DRv3 was not meant to place restrictions on ship building. It was meant to to define damage values. Fred is suggesting the -creation- of a separate but complementary 'ship building system' that outlines what can be put on a ship.
 
I agree that it should, indeed, be made to work with and complement DRv3 rather than with a less current damage rating revision.
 
Alex Hart said:
I agree that it should, indeed, be made to work with and complement DRv3 rather than with a less current damage rating revision.
Click to expand...
There is no question about that, it -has- to work with DRv3 because DRv3 is required. DRv3 is just plain better at outlining and defining damage anyway, there is no reason to go back and try to use DRv2.
 
Well, yeah. If Zack wants to do it, then he has to innovate anyways. He's quick to go holier-than-thou on that, but let's not forget there were compelling reasons why the point-buy thing he did fell into disuse not all that long after he introduced it.

As far as the needs of the site needs to go, it looks like a straightjacket of that sort is not desired, so much as a way to curtail outliers.
 
A lot of things I introduce are hated. But when my name isn't on it, or once I'be left the site there tends to be a rush to use those things.

There are people that want a point buy system just like there are people that want input on rules changes before they are made.

One of the major reasons for pushing fairness is often because we can't trust people like Fred to play fair. Remember after Fred's speed revision, it was promised everyone would follow the rules and then Yamatai GMs outright ignored them anyways.

Suddenly taking out that nice bit of compromise for the more technical players reeks of the same kind of unfairness.
 
Zack said:
A lot of things I introduce are hated. But when my name isn't on it, or once I'be left the site there tends to be a rush to use those things.

There are people that want a point buy system just like there are people that want input on rules changes before they are made.

One of the major reasons for pushing fairness is often because we can't trust people like Fred to play fair. Remember after Fred's speed revision, it was promised everyone would follow the rules and then Yamatai GMs outright ignored them anyways.

Suddenly taking out that nice bit of compromise for the more technical players reeks of the same kind of unfairness.
Click to expand...
People don't like things you make because you straight don't listen to people. Also just for the record, a point buy system is a bad idea. Not all weapons are direct damaging weapons, coming up with a way to point buy those is just tedious and annoying. Thinking about EMP weapons, radiation weapons and so on and so forth. And then it gets even worse if you take other things besides weapon systems into account. Like on my Swordbreaker interceptor, though no one has really noticed yet it's probably one of the best space dogfighters because of the inertia drive on it. How do you convert that into a point buy? The more precise a system the more of a headache it is when you have users able to submit their own content, because of all the indirect applications of things.
 
Zack said:
One of the major reasons for pushing fairness is often because we can't trust people like Fred to play fair. Remember after Fred's speed revision, it was promised everyone would follow the rules and then Yamatai GMs outright ignored them anyways.
Click to expand...
Present fact before slandering people in that way. This is not the first time you go on hyperbole over revisionist history.

Zack said:
Suddenly taking out that nice bit of compromise for the more technical players reeks of the same kind of unfairness.
Click to expand...
Why do I have to repeat this so much? I mentioned several times now that anyone that cared sufficiently for it could create a ship-building-oriented article and reintroduce those same points. So far as I heard, @FrostJaeger was already on it.
 
I wonder what part of that you consider not factual? Because it happened and I got a delightful I told you so out of it. I was right about the Yamatai players not playing fair and I was right that the speed revision wouldn't do anything because you didn't bother to figure out travel times, you just made an arbitrary change.

Course a few years later you're back trying to fix the same speed problem.

--

You shouldn't unilaterally change the rules. You were in the wrong to do so. DRv3 removed a lot of features that had been put in place with DRv2, and we shouldn't have to keep fixing parts of the rules just because Fred doesn't like them.
 
RPG-D RPGfix
Back
Top