Let's stay on topic please. Kas specifically asked that this thread not deviate or hijack. Drayson, he doesn't like you, you don't like him, end it there.
As for the rules, you're right Kas, there would be much cheating because as I stated before, a person cannot be unbiased toward himself. Is there any possible way we can use that as a foundation with which to build from? Some way to have anchor points for our ships and a given location?
I have no problem with big fleet battles, it's just that they get real old real quick, and several people with several different opinions of themselves can turn into one gigantic @#%$ fest between two factions. Even the best RPers are going to debate and debate and debate over appropriate damages.
Kraken, you say that will take away from fleet RPing...fleet RPing is all ABOUT calculated damages.
And perhaps any soldiers who survive a battle go up one catagory?
And maybe we could create a system where guns do X damage onto a shield/hull rating each, BUT there are loads of variables which affect the damage. Here are some ways this could be resolved:
-Each variable has an area which it falls within. Ex: Glancing shots do .25-.75 as much as a direct hit, so if it was just barely a hit you could say it was .25, while if it was mostly on-centre you could say .75
-The actual mathematical values of these variables are known only to those battle-mod guys.
-There is a random variable effect which is generated by some auto-die rolling device.
I was thinking more along the lines of a 'Training Faculty', which would 'build' 'augmentations' for your entire planet. For instance, a planet would start out with:
Loyalty: 1 Patriotism: 1 Defense: 1
A yard could build extra levels of loyalty (how easy it would be to incite a revolution), decreasing the ease of which a situation such as that at Abreadgo-Rea(sp) is created. Or, you could build levels of defense, at higher levels your civilians will take up arms when attacked. You could go from levels 1 - 5, each increasing in power. Each 'augmentation' would be displayed in a public manifest, under the planet it is assigned to.
The first thing is going to happen is there will be arguments about whether or not someone's turbolaser was pointing straight, because ,you know, it was hit with a fighter earlier... >_<
Simple is Good. If a mathematical formulae is developed here for damage, it must be very, very simple and easy to use - we don't want to drive any potential fleeters away from fleeting, and we don't want to make the game into a second math class accented by writing. I'll emphasize that again..
We want to keep the emphasis on good writing. We want the system to work in a manner that will allow a good writer, when outnumbered, to escape or defeat his enemy..
If TRF turns away from the core of requiring good writing to succeed, I guarantee you it will die.
This is the internet, any sort of web-based random thingy will turn up different results every time it is used, for every user.
Fleet battles are not something to be determined by math. It entirely takes away from the point of tactical and strategic assault - math-based fleeting will make the phrase "My ship is bigger than yours so it wins!" a legal argument.
If I had to chose a way to fleet, I would choose free form over math any day.
Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Something about having a consequence if your public manifest is more than 2 weeks out of date.(2 weeks given because it is understandable that not everyone has lots and lots of time to devote to TRF) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We already have a rule about this; groups must keep a complete and updated manifest. If someone is blatantly in an infraction of that rule, with no good excuse, a punishment will be meted out.
End quote
If that is the case, what was TNO's good excuse for having their manifest a month and a half out of date? And how come this has happened at least one time before(Abregado-rae is one example, drayson used more Fire Light Frigates then in the manifest)
Jan, again. Stop bringing your IC war into everything OOC. It's annoying, it's useless, and it brings you down.
TNO's manifest is up to date, and all of the ships we've used have been built. You want an excuse? We have 600 capital ships and six members building vessels. We have a dozen threads in which fleets are engaged, taking losses, yards being placed on hold, etc. etc. etc.
I'll ask Kassypoo to delete the last three posts later.
Drayson...if the current series of events is a fair analogy/comparison to what he wants, it's not exactly wrong to use the two in a discussion.
I agree with his idea that there should be a regulated way to decide who has what kind of troops and to reward them for experience.
I also disagree with Drayson...mathematical formula has nothing to do with who has the bigger ship, it has to do with who manages to get what guns off faster, etc. Only problem is it might get complicated.
However...historically math goes hand in hand with tactics. You can't be a great tactician with shitty mathematical skills because so much depends upon it. Ceros has a point though. At the moment there is practically no down and set rules to the point that every single post is bickered and argued over time and time again.
Can calculated damage really do all of this? In “reality,” you know, the quality of a battle isn’t hinged on the chance that a given turbolaser blast can knock the shields of a ship down 3% or 4%; minor probability. A damage formula wouldn’t have mystical powers allowing a blast to connect with its target through an obstruction, and yet you assume that, if you can’t argue the damage that is inflicted by very mathematical principles to begin with, fleeting would be drained of its worth.
Since possible methods of going about this haven’t even been discussed, you must assume that something in the basic concept prevents intelligent fleeting. Specifically, Kraken, what is it? Again, in “reality,” the smaller starship is usually less powerful than the larger one, but would you not agree that other variables, unaffected by the method of counting damage, are involved?
That’s a question to be asked once it’s realized that nothing but the simplicity of the formulation would be relevant to the system’s plausibility.
Fair enough, Drayson. And I imagine that this would surprise you, too? Your comment will speak for itself, in all the cockeyed ways it can, and then I’ll let it go.
The gaps of a system are always flocked to, granted, but at some point they become too exhausting to argue over, if of little enough importance. You’ll find loopholes in most any competitive game, but likely their minor impact overall make them anything but hot topics of argument.
I agree with you on the issue of simplicity, if only partly. I don’t feel that the simplicity of having no system of damage would do the competitive game well, but otherwise, ease of use would definitely be the first priority.
The dozens of OOC, no-end arguments don’t make fleeting particularly attractive either, at least in my opinion.
Again, it would take away nothing but the sketchy amounts of inflicted damage. A formula would apply only to the indisputable facts of engagement, and wouldn’t be able to negate the clever evasion of a smaller vessel, for instance. What would constitute such an evasion, probably the reduction of the attacker’s available weapons, would not be influenced by the mathematics. The equation would have its appropriate domain like any other.
