STGOD: A Dead Art?

[SirNitram]

Because you could make a ship with destroyer-class weapons but double-battleship class shields? It could plink at another battleship all day and do nothing, and the other battleship wouldn't be able to get through its shields without a ton of effort.

It's like strapping a pistol to a mountain and calling that the same total points value as a tank. Except the tank has 100 pts balanced while the pistol/mountain has 1 pt in offense and 99 pts in defense.

I have been repeatedly told to produce the simplest system possible. I am giving the simplest system possible.

[Hawkwings]

Yeah, but you can't go overboard on the simplicity. You could attach a point value to specialized stuff, saying "OK, 10 pts + 10 pts specialized in shields gives the equivalent of a 30pt ship in protection but only 10 in offense."

Otherwise, there would be no point at all in glass cannons and anti-capital defense. Because the glass cannon would die before getting a lot of shots off, and the mountain-ship would get tons of weak shots off.

If the tank fires at the mountain, and the mountain shoots the pistol enough times to equal the energy released by the tank, which one is going to have more damage done to it?

Plus, there's also the issue of shieldships protecting other ships, and glass cannons one-shotting enemies.

[SirNitram]

Yeah, but you can't go overboard on the simplicity. You could attach a point value to specialized stuff, saying "OK, 10 pts + 10 pts specialized in shields gives the equivalent of a 30pt ship in protection but only 10 in offense."

I could, but I won't. Only in the most stupid of extreme examples does such actually show up.

And don't even try 'Overboard on simplicity'. We can, it's called 'You have this man BB's, CA's, DD's, and FG's. They're all identical.' and we tried that once.

Otherwise, there would be no point at all in glass cannons and anti-capital defense. Because the glass cannon would die before getting a lot of shots off, and the mountain-ship would get tons of weak shots off.

Very good, there's no point to either of those.

If the tank fires at the mountain, and the mountain shoots the pistol enough times to equal the energy released by the tank, which one is going to have more damage done to it?

Are you going to repeat this brain-damaged assault on sense constantly, or just until I tell you to STFU?

[Hawkwings]

Otherwise, there would be no point at all in glass cannons and anti-capital defense. Because the glass cannon would die before getting a lot of shots off, and the mountain-ship would get tons of weak shots off.

Very good, there's no point to either of those.

Except that there is a point. You get the biggest gun you can, strap it to some engines, and shoot it at the biggest, fattest target the enemy has. You do a lot of damage for a cheap price, with the downside being that it has no defense. Similarly, you have your shield ships soak up damage while the rest of the fleet focuses on shooting up the enemy.

If the tank fires at the mountain, and the mountain shoots the pistol enough times to equal the energy released by the tank, which one is going to have more damage done to it?

Are you going to repeat this brain-damaged assault on sense constantly, or just until I tell you to STFU?

It's not the perfect metaphor, but what is? The point being, there's differences in capability. Or are you saying that a 100-pt swarm of 50 destroyers is going to be able to kill a 100-pt battleship? Same points value, but massive weapons differences. At some point, the pinpricks aren't going to hurt.

EDIT: and yes, I'm aware that the 100pt swarm does not equal the mountain.

[Tanasinn]

How is improved shields a specializaiton? It works vs anything harmful, so it's a flat point increase.

It's (obviously) dead issue, but my shields in particular were specialized in that they only got a defensive bonus vs. capital ship fire, but none vs. fighters, bombers, and very light craft (destroyers, corvettes, etc.). Just figured I'd explain what I meant. =3

[Hawkwings]

Basically, what I'm saying is that a flat points increase also increases the *offensive* capabilities of the ship, and doesn't increase the defensive capabilities as much as specialization would.

[SirNitram]

Otherwise, there would be no point at all in glass cannons and anti-capital defense. Because the glass cannon would die before getting a lot of shots off, and the mountain-ship would get tons of weak shots off.

Very good, there's no point to either of those.

Except that there is a point. You get the biggest gun you can, strap it to some engines, and shoot it at the biggest, fattest target the enemy has. You do a lot of damage for a cheap price, with the downside being that it has no defense. Similarly, you have your shield ships soak up damage while the rest of the fleet focuses on shooting up the enemy.

Not in the simplified method of resolving combat we're having to use. The end result will always wind up the same, except a defensive benefit is actually worse: People will just ignore the peashooter that's invincible and blow away the things that can hurt them.

If the tank fires at the mountain, and the mountain shoots the pistol enough times to equal the energy released by the tank, which one is going to have more damage done to it?

Are you going to repeat this brain-damaged assault on sense constantly, or just until I tell you to STFU?

It's not the perfect metaphor, but what is? The point being, there's differences in capability. Or are you saying that a 100-pt swarm of 50 destroyers is going to be able to kill a 100-pt battleship? Same points value, but massive weapons differences. At some point, the pinpricks aren't going to hurt.

EDIT: and yes, I'm aware that the 100pt swarm does not equal the mountain.

Yes, enough destroyers can bring down battleships. You'd have to be completely ignorant of history to think otherwise! Especially given the tech level we're in, where the weapons of choice don't get much above very large nuclear weapons(Often they are more compact than nukes, but.).

[SirNitram]

Basically, what I'm saying is that a flat points increase also increases the *offensive* capabilities of the ship, and doesn't increase the defensive capabilities as much as specialization would.

Except that the ship will still be shooting while alive and it will even out. We're not adding this point of complexity.

[Hotfoot]

Or are you saying that a 100-pt swarm of 50 destroyers is going to be able to kill a 100-pt battleship?

Given that FIGHTERS are expected to bring down big ships...yes. Given that the firepower of a given frigate is supposed to be larger than that of a fighter, it would only make sense for this to be the case.

Now, 50 points of frigates vs. a 50 Dreadnought, the dreadnought would likely win, but sustain serious damage in the process, regardless if the escorts were escort carriers, escort missile ships, or escort cannon boats.

With 100 points, the frigates are still going to take heavy losses, but a single 100 point Juggernaught is going to suffer from diminishing returns, so chances are good it's going to fall to the swarm. Every weapon in the game is likely to be on rough kiloton scales here people, this isn't a case of frigates firing submachine guns while battleships shoot Yamoto cannons.

[Covenant]

Like Hotfoot said, things increase with scale. Firepower, shields, armor, etc--but in scale. At 100 points, things are getting so big that they're starting to slip beyond the engineering capacity of the day and ships get less and less useful, much like the Yamato. Which was, afterall, ruined by a goddamn plane.

If you want to make a giant ship, 100 points, but bristling with small cannons that can easily track smaller units, high powered engines so it's as fast as a smaller ship, and so on... then it'd be a 50 point battleship with 30 points of +Point Defense, 10 points pf +FTL and 10 points of +EW for sensors and shit.

It's still a 100 point bloated mass, but at least now you've shifted it's cannons down a grade to something theoretically more applicable against a small amount of dudes. Honestly, it's ye olde "big ships survive Nukes" problem. A ship of this era, hit hull-on with a nuclear device, is going to be in a world of pain. A big ship is going to have shields and stuff, but once those go down, it's going to be relatively the same story. Blast out it's acre-wide engine array with a single nuclear-tipped fighter missile and it's going to have serious issues or be scuttled, much like the Yamato was.

This really isn't that big of a limitation. Just make more small ships. Big ships should be the exception, not the rule.

[brianeyci]

Well I'm planning on the biggest ships I can make without diminishing returns, 50, and seven of them. They'll be either shadow raiders battle moons, or giant robots. Whatever, haven't decided yet.

I'm just wondering how many of the nitpickers will be hanging around after two months. I strongly disagree that a person should pick more small ships or more large ships based on the "mechanics." Isn't this supposed to be a story, and if so shouldn't people pick based on what they want their story to be? All this +10 and +5 and +1 is making me yawn. I plan on pming and e-mailing with most people all fleet actions to get them resolved through non-point means, and it'll only go to the mod if worst comes to worst and I can't agree with the person.

I'm definitely going to wait for awhile before doing anything, for all the point pussies to fade out. Then read through all the IC threads in one afternoon. I can't be bothered to pay attention to a hundred different rulings or 50 pages. If that means mods will rule against me when I RP, then so be it. I don't plan on bothering the mods unless I run into an ass anyway.

[Covenant]

It's a story with an underlying set of physical rules by which people play by. Things can't be "Everything Goes" if you're playing relatively competatively with other people. The rules limit things to a degree that it establishes the borders of the sandbox and lets everything else be legal, which lets people do whatever they want in terms of story and RP, just not in terms of killing their neighbors.

People who want to RP something amazing are free to do so, so long as it doesn't involve obliterating someone else who wants to play. The Mechanics represent the technical limitations of our time period, not an artificial premise. People of the current tech could not build an ISD. People who try to make something approximating one will run into technical problems that give you diminishing returns. It's just engineering.

[Adrian Laguna]

Every weapon in the game is likely to be on rough kiloton scales here people, this isn't a case of frigates firing submachine guns while battleships shoot Yamoto cannons.

Kiloton scales? Try megatons.




That's a W-56 warhead and RV. It has a yield of 1200 kilotons (1.2 MT) and was introduced into the US arsenal in 1963. Hundreds of years into the future and a warhead of that size would have a considerably higher yield. You could easily carry dozens, if not hundreds, of those in a dedicated missile/torpedo warship.

Honestly, it's ye olde "big ships survive Nukes" problem. A ship of this era, hit hull-on with a nuclear device, is going to be in a world of pain. A big ship is going to have shields and stuff, but once those go down, it's going to be relatively the same story. Blast out it's acre-wide engine array with a single nuclear-tipped fighter missile and it's going to have serious issues or be scuttled, much like the Yamato was.

Speak for yourself, my ships don't have shields.

[brianeyci]

It's a story with an underlying set of physical rules by which people play by. Things can't be "Everything Goes" if you're playing relatively competatively with other people. The rules limit things to a degree that it establishes the borders of the sandbox and lets everything else be legal, which lets people do whatever they want in terms of story and RP, just not in terms of killing their neighbors.

People who want to RP something amazing are free to do so, so long as it doesn't involve obliterating someone else who wants to play. The Mechanics represent the technical limitations of our time period, not an artificial premise. People of the current tech could not build an ISD. People who try to make something approximating one will run into technical problems that give you diminishing returns. It's just engineering.

Of course things can't be everything goes.

But 50 points is 50 points and people who are thinking far too much about points are just annoying. The thread's inflated to 50 pages because of questions that almost seem obvious to me, and I'm just a first timer who's lurked these threads and the STGODS before. If someone puts +5 into electronic warfare... so what. Instead of the added complexity why not a 55 point ship. 50 points should just always beat 50 points no matter what, that's what point for point match means if I understand English right. But some people seem to be trying to eke out more "value" for each point with more on defense and less on offense and arguing like Hawkings, as if this was some kind of balance issue. It isn't. The point system should be a final resort in my opinion, not the first choice.

IB was right -- people need to chill about the points. I don't care if someone has +5 to point defense guns or +10 to anti-cloak tachyon sensors or +69 to anti rape trap. Just add it to the agregrate points of the ship itself. I don't see a problem with that. And let your words do the talking in the RP.

In my opinion specializations would be better served by tagging and not points. What does +10 to shields actually mean? Instead just tag shields, and have a flat point cost for all tagged ships. One tag per ship, maybe two or three if you have a larger ship. Bye bye semantic whoring. Is +5 on a destroyer make it as fast as +5 on a battleship? Is that what a STGOD is about? What if someone has +5 to shields and someone else has +6, does it really matter? Please.

[Covenant]

It does matter. If you want to leave it entirely up to the players, that's fine, but the numbers listed there are for the mods to reference. It's a way of ballparking a figure without it just being ships of varying size. If that was the case then why not make a 50, a 10, and a 2? If all that matters is total end size, why would anyone ever want a fleet of smaller ships than a fleet of larger ones?

With point specialization, it adds more variety. If you trust everyone here to read through every OOB all the time, and have the same conclusions as you as to what is what, then that's great. But it won't happen. The way we're doing it now allows the Mods to decide in a pinch what the deal is, and avoid issues down the line.

Obviously, the RP is going to swing the numbers. But even so, it's not going to just be "add it up and compare who has more," as that's hardly a game worth playing. Specialization adds some extra cleverness to the game, and with this many people, makes it much easier to officiate. Within reason, anyway.

Adrian--neither do most of mine, but I think we're outliers.

[brianeyci]

It does matter. If you want to leave it entirely up to the players, that's fine, but the numbers listed there are for the mods to reference. It's a way of ballparking a figure without it just being ships of varying size. If that was the case then why not make a 50, a 10, and a 2? If all that matters is total end size, why would anyone ever want a fleet of smaller ships than a fleet of larger ones?

This has already been answered by SirNitram replying to Hawkings and others like Hotfoot. 100 points of fighters can beat a 100 ship. Someone even answered earlier about whether points represent technology level and the answer was no. You could have a 50 meter ship that's 50 points and someone could have a one kilometer ship that's 50 points and they're still equal.

With point specialization, it adds more variety. If you trust everyone here to read through every OOB all the time, and have the same conclusions as you as to what is what, then that's great. But it won't happen. The way we're doing it now allows the Mods to decide in a pinch what the deal is, and avoid issues down the line.

I see RP as the way to add variety, not adding a whole bunch of subsystems nobody cares about. They "way we're doing it now" is clearly stated to be a point-by-point comparison in the first post of the OOB. What I see is not people trying to add in extra cleverness. I see people trying to eke out more value for each point, and that annoys me. I am betting half the people will disappear after two months when the game's in full swing, fully disappointed because they don't know that the main skill required is writing and diplomacy, not point pussy. Max min is annoying in this kind of game.

Obviously, the RP is going to swing the numbers. But even so, it's not going to just be "add it up and compare who has more," as that's hardly a game worth playing. Specialization adds some extra cleverness to the game, and with this many people, makes it much easier to officiate. Within reason, anyway.

It is going to be an add up the points and see who has more: that's what the OOB says right there.

Once a ship passes this threshold, the Mods don't have to enforce a straight 1 point for 1 point parity in straight fights.

Finally, points can be spent on more than just ships, and things will generally be resolved in a 'Who put more points into that' manner

These two sentences tell me there's 1 for 1 point parity for everything except ships over 50 points. In short, add up all the points and compare.

Specialization with points adds nothing to officiating except added complexity. If I have a 50 point ship I expect to kill a 50 point ships at worst if I can't agree with the other player, end of story. Not to get defeated by some prick with too much time on their hands who puts in +5 to electronic warfare. If he does that he's basically working with a 45 point ship and every other aspect of his vessel should suffer except in specialized missions. But specialization with RP is everything.

[Hawkwings]

I can understand the specialization regarding weapons and defenses, and I'll concede that point. But things like EW, FTL speed, interdiction? I think those need points, because space battles aren't straight fights. Sure, the 50 pt battleship has better guns and armor than the 45 pt, but if the 5 pts of ECM mean that the 50pt ship can't hit anything, and the 45pt will beat the 50pt.

Theoretical of course.

The problem with specializing in RP is that if you RP "My ship blankets the battlefield in heavy ECM and projects an interdiction field", without giving points to it, then you just added free capabilities to the ship that have a direct effect on the battle. Suddenly, a 50 pt ship can easily beat another 50 pt ship because the other ship now can't aim. And what did it cost? No decrease in combat capabilities at all. Then the second ship is going to go "Well, my ship has uber-ECCM and hyper-FTL, and then it's just going to keep escalating.

That's why we assign those extra capabilities point values, so people don't magic them up in RP.

[rhoenix]

Revision 8 is complete.

Okay now I'm done picking at my OOB.

- Fleet updated
- Infantry slightly adjusted

[Bugsby]

I am totally with brianeyci on this one. This is how combat should work: You make your OOB. That tells what ships you have and what their relative strengths are. You can add little doodads onto your ships: +shields, +ECM, +goat farming. Whatever. The total number of points you spend on your ship is still the ultimate determiner of combat effectiveness.

So why bother put those little plus-doodads in? Flava flave. It really amounts to more fluff. But can it be USEFUL fluff? Sure. It depends on how you RP the battle. A 50-point ship geared all to defense will be the same OVERALL strength as a 50-point ship geared all to attack. But when you are actually RPing the battle out, if you are able to maneuver your all-attack ship into a position where it can be defended and then release a full barrage at close range, the player you are fighting against will have elevated estimates in terms of damage taken. Of course, if the enemy is able to bring weapons to bare on your glass cannons, they die quick.

The above system seems fairly obvious, but that's just how it works. It's not a points-to-points lineup in battle. You actually gotta freakin fight it out. And if you specify that your ships have little quirks, you can use those to your advantage - or a more skilled opponent can exploit them. So if you put all your points into EW, and your opponent posts a crazy flanking attack with cloaked ships, you can respond that your heightened EW makes the maneuver fail, and your opponents cloaked ships take a full salvo with shields down. The downside to this is if you've specified those points away from combat capabilities, when your 50-point ship with +ECM goes against a 50-point ship with no doodads, you will be at a slight disadvantage.

These advantages and disadvantages are not determined by points, per se. Points serve as guidelines to demonstrate the rough capabilities of your ships. With those capabilities in mind, you RP out the battle and take losses accordingly. The numbers work as a guideline and reference for relative strengths. They are not a combat engine.

It's really not that hard.

[brianeyci]

Suddenly, a 50 pt ship can easily beat another 50 pt ship because the other ship now can't aim.

How does this follow if points are considered 1 for 1? Jamming works both ways you know. You jam, you have a harder time hitting.

The only special technology worth mentioning in points at all is planet killing and cloaking in my opinion. Cloaking is already capped at 10 and planet killing is a one-shot 100 point ability. Since there's no such thing as hit and run, interdiction is rather pointless in my opinion. You can simply shoot at someone retreating and keep up. Interdiction is not even mentioned in the OOB, so I don't see a point in specializing in it.

The OOB is quite clear in what can and can't be done by points. I fully expect my 50 point battleship to kick another 50's ass, no matter how much min-maxing the other guy's done by mentioning obscure subsystems. Look at how Nephtys has done her OOB. That is cool. +5 to EW is not.

[Covenant]

The problem with specializing in RP is that if you RP "My ship blankets the battlefield in heavy ECM and projects an interdiction field", without giving points to it, then you just added free capabilities to the ship that have a direct effect on the battle. Suddenly, a 50 pt ship can easily beat another 50 pt ship because the other ship now can't aim. And what did it cost? No decrease in combat capabilities at all. Then the second ship is going to go "Well, my ship has uber-ECCM and hyper-FTL, and then it's just going to keep escalating.

And we can't just expect people to put it in their OOB if they have it, as it's a war of expectations then. Adding a few points in here or there really adds far more meat to the RP, as it ceases to be just a wankfest in which people play out their personal fantasies (which they could do alone in a fanfiction) and it becomes a game where you share the responsibility for crafting the game. I can't imagine anything more maddening than trying to debate with someone about my ship's combat effectiveness without something to point back to.

And if we use point totals, then we've made cost directly equal power, without any room for negotiation. So long as a ship does not exceed 50 points, it's essentially 1 for 1. Without specializations, then it's just who has more, instead of anything else. That's so mind-bogglingly boring!

I see specialized points as RP hooks. They're things to base further RP off of in a interesting way within the game. People are free not to use them, and they aren't punished for it. But if I want to say that my ships are incredibly good at whacking missiles out of the sky, then what's the real difference between me just putting in my OOB and me paying points for it too? The difference is that the second option quantifies how good I am, so that someone else can RP about it without putting up a stink. It takes the debate out of the issue and lets people RP.

[Hawkwings]

Very good, there's no point to either of those.

Except that there is a point. You get the biggest gun you can, strap it to some engines, and shoot it at the biggest, fattest target the enemy has. You do a lot of damage for a cheap price, with the downside being that it has no defense. Similarly, you have your shield ships soak up damage while the rest of the fleet focuses on shooting up the enemy.

Not in the simplified method of resolving combat we're having to use. The end result will always wind up the same, except a defensive benefit is actually worse: People will just ignore the peashooter that's invincible and blow away the things that can hurt them.

The way I'm reading that, a combo defense/offense pair of ships vs a big ship with the same total points value isn't going to give the def/off any bonus. What if the def ship can shield other ships though?

Interdiction is useful because it forces the other person to move out of range before jumping, giving you time to chase them down. If they charge up their drives and shields and jump away while you're still trying to shoot it, it's going to get away, but if you force it to get a certain distance away, or charge up the drive longer, then they have a better chance of killing it.

What about the destroyers vs battleship example earlier? What if you spend points making that battleship into a destroyer-eating monster? It's still 50 pts, and should be able to kick another battleship's ass, right? Except that it's only got weapons suited for taking out destroyers. Oops. How do you properly say that without putting it into the OOB and giving it points?

[Bugsby]

What about the destroyers vs battleship example earlier? What if you spend points making that battleship into a destroyer-eating monster? It's still 50 pts, and should be able to kick another battleship's ass, right? Except that it's only got weapons suited for taking out destroyers. Oops. How do you properly say that without putting it into the OOB and giving it points?

You state that this is a 50-point BB with armaments that are specifically designed to take out destroyer-size ships. Then you go into combat, and you RP IT OUT. If you are against 50 points worth of destroyers, you can expect to win the battle. If you are against another 50-point BB, you should probably look into retreat.

It will, of course, bear mentioning in your combat posts that you are maneuvering in such a way as to expose the enemy destroyers to as much fire from this anti-DE BB as you can, as its guns are specialized in that direction.

[rhoenix]

Ok, ok. NOW I'm done nitpicking. And, I even have easy point totals at the bottom this time.

[Hawkwings]

What about the destroyers vs battleship example earlier? What if you spend points making that battleship into a destroyer-eating monster? It's still 50 pts, and should be able to kick another battleship's ass, right? Except that it's only got weapons suited for taking out destroyers. Oops. How do you properly say that without putting it into the OOB and giving it points?

You state that this is a 50-point BB with armaments that are specifically designed to take out destroyer-size ships. Then you go into combat, and you RP IT OUT. If you are against 50 points worth of destroyers, you can expect to win the battle. If you are against another 50-point BB, you should probably look into retreat.

It will, of course, bear mentioning in your combat posts that you are maneuvering in such a way as to expose the enemy destroyers to as much fire from this anti-DE BB as you can, as its guns are specialized in that direction.

So what's to stop you from saying in one battle "This BB is specialized against DDs" but in another battle saying "50 points! 1 to 1! My BB tears up your 49pt BB!"

See the problem here? And of course you could say you have to be consistent, get people to call you out for it, but honestly, who's going to remember? Putting it in the OOB and assigning points is so much easier and makes referencing easier and cuts down on potential griefing.

EDIT: OK, I see what you're saying, describe the ship in the OOB. But then what's the cutoff? I may have given the BB an extra pair of anti-DD guns, and now it's specialized more than other BBs. But it's still not going to be much better against DDs. The points give you an easy reference.