|
Post by Nicademus Delvardus IV on Nov 16, 2023 18:08:32 GMT -8
Discussion's spark started with this thread. Thanks to the remarks and points made by Esthh, it has come to the thoughts of the Databank on the data involving weapons, mainly pertaining to anything above the Support classes. Right now, there are definitive numbers with each list of weapons that the entry can utilize. This can be a bit daunting for some as they aren't sure what could be counted as enough for say a 4 in the Star Frigate area. Now the change thought of is that we eliminate the numbers for a list/explanation of what the entry utilizes. So, with the general list, we would see what the entry can use. Example being "The Imperial I-class Star Destroyer utilizes a primary array of XX-9 heavy turbolaser batteries. In addition, it can bring to bear ion cannons, both turrets and cannons, additional turbolaser turrets, post-defense laser cannons, and heavy tractor beam projectors." Alternatively, it can be list place above the texts, but below the usual stats we look for for each entry. As part of the process, we will ask the submitter "is there anything special about the armament?" At which, the submitter must be honest in terms of the weapons utilized (no number needed) in said list. Nothing can left out for the sake of "keeping secrets" or "hidden arsenals". This way the Databank Operator can advise the submitter on any restrictions/restraints depending on the weapons wanting to be used. Furthermore, if anything happens that causes the submitter to be accused by another player, say due to weapons being used, the Databank can refer back to the answers given and advise/act accordingly. The aim is to simplify the area and not make it so possibly daunting for submitters. Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Nicademus Delvardus IV on Nov 16, 2023 22:37:52 GMT -8
Here is an example of what this change could look like:
Versus what it looked like before:
Overall, a lot less text and armament stands out more so. Although listing it as an explanation in the usual area where weapons are noted is still an option. This is just an example of what it can look like.
|
|
Taung H'rel
Retired High Councilor
Posts: 468
Affiliation: Galactic Empire
|
Post by Taung H'rel on Nov 20, 2023 13:32:05 GMT -8
I would prefer the first option over the second.
Numbers separate from the description as things can be lost or overlooked in the description or other verbiage.
Second reason is that is the way Wookiepedia has things arranged and would be the default presentation of information should anyone try to look up stats or history for any given ship class.
|
|
|
Post by Zion Morviael [RETIRED] on Nov 20, 2023 18:17:46 GMT -8
to be clear, Nicademus was merely providing an example of what the Imperious-class Star Destroyer entry would look like post change, where we merely list out the types of armaments, as opposed to the numbers of them. We won't be tracking specific numbers of guns, since the Offensive stat will cover the "strength" of how hard something can hit. Whereas the list of armaments will indicate any sort of "special" damage/weapons (ion canons, long range turbolasers, etc) that people will need to be aware of and account for.
|
|
Taung H'rel
Retired High Councilor
Posts: 468
Affiliation: Galactic Empire
|
Post by Taung H'rel on Nov 20, 2023 18:26:07 GMT -8
That would change the way that weapons are measured would it not?
A an example being a ship loaded with anti starfighter loadout hits quite differently from one that is loaded up for anti ship.
The bigger guns hit harder. Would that change completely uow the number would look like.
A thought if things go in that direction would be to split up light medium and heavy weapons with their own numbers.
An example might look like the below.
Anti starfighter: 4 Anti-ship: 3 Heavy anti ship: 1
As an example of a starfighter or light purpose cruiser.
It would indicate where the ships strengths and purposes are rather than assigning ships with 2 very different strengths the same number in the current MAD system.
|
|
|
Post by Zion Morviael [RETIRED] on Nov 20, 2023 19:12:41 GMT -8
Nope, not sure why it would change how weapons are measured? The ship strength would still be the same, you just wouldn't have gun counts associated with individual weapons. A 4 stat in Offense is still going to be a 4 stat in Offense. We're trying to get out of the weeds of specificity and keep an overall framework that gives an idea of damage.
But to address your point, a ship with primarily or only anti-starfighter weapons will score lower in the MAD stats than a ship built with turbolasers in mind. It would be a very niche and odd scenario where two such roled ships would managed to both score the same Offensive MAD stat. But in saying that, much of the point of the Description text and listing out armaments would be to aid in better understanding how that Offensive stat would apply.
|
|
|
Post by Nicademus Delvardus IV on Nov 20, 2023 20:36:40 GMT -8
Such stats can be explained though without having to add more stats to the entry's layout. It can be listed that there are point-defense lasers in the armament listing and explain it further in the entry. One could even explain how this x-class cruiser is particularly good at being a screen against bombers and starfighters.
The way the Databank layouts are set up is to be easy to utilize and understand. Too many stats could potentially complicate the process. We already have had people be uneasy with submitting something because they feel it is complicated as it is when it really isn't.
|
|
Taung H'rel
Retired High Councilor
Posts: 468
Affiliation: Galactic Empire
|
Post by Taung H'rel on Nov 21, 2023 6:45:53 GMT -8
If you have people who think the current system is complex and difficult to understand there is no way their description of a ship or its weapons is not going to clarify other than just using words that have no meaning.
Look at the Imperious above. It has 5 heavy batteries but it don't worry cause it's the bestest ever!
Can't explain why or how, just claiming it's more efficient, not stringer, just more efficient. Not how it's more efficient, simply making the claim.
Its like saying my lightsaber is stronger than yours, I can't tell you how it works, but trust me it is.
How do I take that into account on the boards? Just assume that it's going to break an active blade? How much stronger is it? Is it longer? Shorter? Fatter? More intense? Imbued with space wizard magic of level 87?
It is becuase I say it is is a very poor explanation that translates very poorly to writing with other people in a quasi competitive nature of RP.
The biggest complaint I got when I was making lots of ships is "You have to tell me it's weakness" Which is a bunch of bull#^@*, and shows a complete lack of imagination on the opponents side.
Less detail creates fog, the more generic and increasingly vague claims only creates denser fog.
|
|
|
Post by Zion Morviael [RETIRED] on Nov 21, 2023 13:06:52 GMT -8
I think you might be slightly misunderstanding the change here.
The MAD stats are staying, they aren't going away. you'll always have the numbers associated with agility, defense, offense, and speed, and you'll use those numbers to determine what an enemy ships strength is relative to your own. Now, how you apply that in combat? well that's where the collaborative part of roleplaying comes in. But the point of the system is to better give people an idea of how much damage is being dealt vs how much damage they should be taking.
In the simplest example if you have two Star Destroyers and one of them has an Offensive stat of 2 and the other Star Destroyer has a defensive stat of 4, then your shields are definitely strong enough to withstand that damage.
that part of the system is not changing. What is changing, and what is being simplified, is the requirement/need to have gun counts on your ship. Under the change, you'd just list out what types of weapons are on there and what you think the Offensive stat is based on those details. As long as we know what sorts of weapons are on there and any details in the description about the ship and what its intent is, then we can check and agree "yup, that looks accurate and good".
This isn't Chaos where you have to bullet point a list of your ships strengths and weaknesses (you can if you want, can even put it in the description of your ship. But it's not a requirement). Nor is this JvS 1.0 or 1.5 where the Patent Office became a mess and a number of people were just picking fights with everyone and their dog just 'cause. The Databank is working to change and adjust its operation based on the change in operation and mood of the community. A lot of people aren't on JvS for that quasi competitiveness and prefer to work with and collaborate with others to create a story where both sides can, hopefully, get the result and endpoint they are after.
|
|
Taung H'rel
Retired High Councilor
Posts: 468
Affiliation: Galactic Empire
|
Post by Taung H'rel on Nov 21, 2023 14:10:48 GMT -8
So it's an illogical and subjective system. Got it.
Becuase a ship with 1575 weapons is totally in the same class as an ISD. IRI Impregnable.
And the Munificent with 8m diameter turbolasers that can melt a 1000km moon has the same punch... Or the Onager, or a Xyston, or the Sith starfighter that can take on a star destroyer..
This is not to call people out or throw shade, but to point out the lack of logic.
Say what you want about the PO, but it had more interaction than entire regions of space and the numbers made black and white measurements that came out of people going "well it looks fine to me". Which is exactly the direction this seems to have gone and is continueing along.
|
|
|
Post by Nicademus Delvardus IV on Nov 21, 2023 15:46:12 GMT -8
The system has worked for five years now, flawed to one side, good to others. Of course, with adjustments, such as what we aim to do here. Originally, the Databank was meant truly for Fleet rosters that had very little in terms of flexibility, compared to say the Republic and Imperial navies, but it has grown to be an expression of creation that anyone can use. And we intend to keep it easy to utilize for anyone, both new and old.
|
|
Mike Frantz
Databank Operations
That Guy
Posts: 712
Affiliation: The Jedi Order
|
Post by Mike Frantz on Nov 21, 2023 16:43:43 GMT -8
Until others weigh in on the specifics of this proposal I do want to address some of the greater concerns to the system, although in truth that should probably be it's own discussion but I'm a bit too lazy (or busy) to create that thread myself right this moment.
First of all, the system is subjective (no matter how you do a system in a fictional universe with half-science and space magic, some level of subjectivity will be there), though as one of the original authors the illogical comment hurts a bit, mostly because it took us soooo long of going through our options to get to what we ended up on. Now it is definitely not a perfect system, and I'm sure there are ways to improve it. Though to do that we should all make sure we are on the same page of understanding about why the system is the way it is. First of all the MAD system was designed primarily as a way to allow for the creation of custom ships by comparing custom ships to canon ones that we already had benchmarks for. The numbers were designed to serve as that basis for comparison, as well as a limit on how "powerful" custom ships could be so that we could avoid the arms races of the past.
While the old PO did have hard numbers, at the end of the day those numbers were also essentially created by a bunch of people looking at them and going "yeah that looks fine to me", however it was more complex and could at time feel like you needed degrees in math, physics, and computer engineering, to properly understand. Those complexities allowed the possibility for a small number of people to abuse their own knowledge and turned some people away from the possibility of a space combat RP entirely. So we attempted to create something a little easier for everyone to understand as a baseline.
Now all of that background out of the way, I'm intrigued by the possibility of breaking down the offence number into a more "this type of damage at this strength" spread. It does a good job of bridging the gap between a generic "I am this string" number and having to be able to calculate the explosive damage yield of every single barrel of every single weapon of every single ship someone might maybe use in combat someday.
|
|
Darth Sirona
The Sith Eternal
Posts: 287
Traffic Light: Green
|
Post by Darth Sirona on Nov 21, 2023 17:40:29 GMT -8
As someone who has made several submissions on this account and on alts, I just want to go on record saying that the hardest part for me is coming up with (in my opinion) a roughly right sounding amount of weapons to enter into the body of my ship description, so that I can justify giving it the number that will let it fit the role I am making it for. I am here above all to write creatively and cooperatively with folks who also love Star Wars. And to me Star Wars has always been more about the rule of cool over the rule of "whose numbers are bigger." I understand the need for numbers to give a sense of scale to a challenge, but ultimately for me I am going to want to follow what the thematic/dramatically appropriate outcome of a fight should be over what the mathematical outcome would be.
|
|
Taung H'rel
Retired High Councilor
Posts: 468
Affiliation: Galactic Empire
|
Post by Taung H'rel on Nov 21, 2023 17:47:25 GMT -8
I have stated my position so I will not continue further, but I would like to see some of the ships get approved that have been sitting for many months now. Especially if it is all in the writers hands on the boards as it were.
|
|
Luxeria
Member
“Even the strongest mind can be manipulated. It’s simply a matter of finding its weakness.”
Posts: 1,898
Affiliation: Blackguard Reborn
Traffic Light: Green
|
Post by Luxeria on Nov 25, 2023 8:00:05 GMT -8
Debated heavily if I wanted to say anything or just leave it alone, but ultimately felt like sharing my piece on the matter.
As both someone who has been at one time apart of the Databank operators before and after the divide of the RPA and created quite a few ships, I've never much liked the MAD system as it sits, something many DOs will know. I don't care for a system that uses stats this way but determined almost entirely by subjective opinions. I've had disagreements plenty of times because I'm technical minded in this aspect. Many ships that I feel are weaker are approved stronger while others that are stronger are made weaker, the former being more common. Take the Imperious. Moving it to the Heavy category, the stats given to the count of weapons on the Wiki do not scream 5, but a 2. There are frigates that have heavier loadouts. Yes, the HSD will be stronger than a frigate due to size and reactor power, but in comparison to another HSD, it doesn't compete. Sure, it states its has efficient power regulation, but I certainly don't see that as making it stronger and if it does, maybe it goes to a 3.
I've always felt that in attempts to move away from the Patent Office, the MAD system has done a complete 180 and has little to no basis for anything. This has allowed things to constantly shift and change putting ships all over the place, sometimes without updates going to older submissions to reflect newer approvals. Some of the original Imperial ships, especially the Heavys are so under armed compared to newer submissions, but still considered a 4 in offense. I strongly feel stats need to be established. In this case, for speed, choose a metric (atmo speed or mglt) and for each class, create a range for each stat. Yes, the DO have to do work to establish a system, but afterwards, its easy for users. If a canon ship has that stat, you know where it goes. If a custom creation, think about the rating you'd like and simply slap a speed in that range on it. Offense, each type a weapon has a point value assigned to it (lasers 0.5, turbo-1, missiles-1.5, autocannons-20). Then have a point scale for each ship for each stat. Give it weapons then count them up for the point total. whatever range it falls into, that's what it is. If you want it higher or lower, just add or take away. So, yes, ships that held enormous amounts of laser cannon could be considered a 4 if it carried enough. This would make the approval process much simpler, and if a question came up, such as a rank 4 ship with only laser weaponry, it could be discussed if that seems excessive.
But to the main point of this thread, as someone who creates ships and, as stated, more technical minded in the numbers, the weapons counts should remain. I can see them and better understand what I'm up against and their actual strength. Simply saying they have something doesn't mean much to me if I can't compare how the ships stack up. Do you have a high or low count of turbolasers? How much damage am I expecting to actually take? How many batteries of laser cannons? How many openings are there for starfighters to dodge between? Ion cannons? Is the damage from that more significant or minuscule? Yes, it can be brought back to my previous statement that a ship with lots of laser cannons could still help it be a four. But instead of definitive, yes this is why, its all guess work and assumptions.
But that is my piece. Time to put Lux away again. I just know I will continue to give details in custom submissions moving forward, despite what's decided.
|
|