|
Post by Nicademus Delvardus IV on Apr 15, 2024 14:09:44 GMT -8
Welcome, Mandalorian Jedi! Welcome to JvS.
A really nice background you have written here. Gives a nice picture for what you could become and where you might go. There are definitely good venues with Mandalorians (who have received the Mandalorian Knights, the force users of the old Crusades) and the Jedi who have a couple of notable outposts (and different backgrounds) on Corellia and Ossus.
Do you have an idea where you might wanna go with your character? Any way we might be able to help you get started?
|
|
|
Post by Nicademus Delvardus IV on Feb 14, 2024 18:01:49 GMT -8
I am personally thinking we should keep with one in terms of entry. I feel that Leviathan was a specially designed flagship for the purpose of being able to what its commander felt was necessary being that this individual was Saul Karath. However, at the same time, I am inclined to do two entries namely because we have various refits of ISDs based on designs such as the Anakin Solo.
So let's go with two entries, a base entry one that was used by the general navy and then specially crafted Leviathan refit.
|
|
|
Post by Nicademus Delvardus IV on Feb 13, 2024 18:41:37 GMT -8
Returning to this discussion since we seem to have abandoned any decision regarding the removal of weapon counts from entries, My thoughts are this: Speed should be a 2, Defence I'd consider a 4, maybe 5. So like this?
|
|
|
Post by Nicademus Delvardus IV on Feb 8, 2024 9:57:31 GMT -8
I would like to make a general announcement:
I do wish to apologize, on behalf of the DO, on the lack of response and activity for this subforum. A lot has been happening personally for myself and I know my colleague, Zion, has his own RL with work and such. I have requested Whill support in helping with cleaning up the board and getting submissions squared away. I am returning, myself, to JvS in general after a small unofficial hiatus due to work and moving.
We will be working towards getting things concluded and finished up here at the DO.
Thanks for your patience!
=====================
On another note: if anyone is interested in becoming a member of the DO, do PM me. We are definitely looking for new and old faces since we have lost a couple of our own recently. The added manpower will help with keeping this section of the website running.
|
|
|
Post by Nicademus Delvardus IV on Feb 8, 2024 9:53:27 GMT -8
So main change is greater offensive capabilities at the expense of some defense as well as heightened agility and speed.
Approved!
|
|
|
Post by Nicademus Delvardus IV on Feb 8, 2024 9:50:03 GMT -8
I ask for patience. As of right now, it is just me that can work with the Databank. We need two approvals and I have requested Whill support in getting these looked at and resolved.
|
|
|
Post by Nicademus Delvardus IV on Feb 8, 2024 9:49:48 GMT -8
I ask for patience. As of right now, it is just me that can work with the Databank. We need two approvals and I have requested Whill support in getting these looked at and resolved.
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Post by Nicademus Delvardus IV on Nov 16, 2023 22:29:49 GMT -8
Just in case that discussion thread in the Roleplay Discussion area goes through, this will be the new Imperious article:
Be good to have an example of what it can possibly look like.
|
|
|
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 16:06:34 GMT -8
When it comes to different numbers for batteries, then they are labeled so. Otherwise, if any entry states "battery", the Databank has it set to be 6 barrels by default. We have had instances of quad and twin barreled batteries. We just set a standard/default so that its equal across the board and doesn't confuse us and the submitter every entry.
|
|
|
Post by Nicademus Delvardus IV on Nov 15, 2023 19:51:07 GMT -8
As the Imperious isnt supposed to be a "Super" class but just the next iteration of the Pelleon I would caution taking the authors quotes at face value, and for (as much as it irks me personally) the balancing aspects on the site. A compromise might be to come up with a generally agreed upon size for the Pellaeon and the Imperious, and increase the Imperious weapons proportionately from the Pellaeons and then give it a boost of for just a number 10% more in power and weapons owing to the greater efficiency. Considering the time period, there is a statement made involving the Scythe MC140: "For a time, large multi-kilometer dreadnaughts like the Star Defender saw increased use in Galactic Alliance fleets. However, economic realities changed the Defense Force shipbuilding mindset towards smaller, yet heavily armed and armored vessels." And then, in the Legacy section of the Imperial Fleet article: "Under the Fels, it fought the Galactic Alliance in the Sith–Imperial War of 127-130 ABY. By this time nearly all of the Imperial Navy's arsenal had been replaced. Large battleships had been abandoned almost entirely, though the Navy still favored the Star Destroyer with the Pellaeon-class as its main capital warship. However, it did not build any larger warships beyond the prototype Imperious-class Star Destroyer. Smaller, lighter warships like the Ardent-class fast frigate were more common in its fleets than in the Imperial Period." (Highlighting for the sake of how much text there is). In a ways, yes, it can be meant as the next stage/iteration of the Pellaeon, but it can be considered the "Super" class of this era's fleets. It is unfortunate the time period did not advance further, but it was the largest and most heavily armed ship of the galaxy and only a handful were made. Similar to the Executor-class. Edit: After all, the Allegiance-class Battlecruiser, which could be roughly the same size as an Imperious-class, is considered a Super Star Destroyer. Way I view it, Super is just bigger than the average ISD (<1600 meters). On the matter of the compromise, we do not know what the numbers of the Pellaeon between cannon vs batteries. The article does mention the Pellaeon utilizing batteries, so if that were the case, and going off of the numbers, it would be, for our Databank: Heavy turbolaser (8 - 9 batteries) Turbolaser (8 - 9 batteries) Ion cannon (6 - 7 batteroes) Tractor beam projectors (5 batteries) Proton torpedo launchers (8 - 9 batteries) Interdiction field So roughly just a handful more than the Imperious. Given this, I would say then... 10 Heavy turbolaser batteries 10 Medium turbolaser batteries 8 Heavy Ion cannon batteries 6 Tractor beam projector batteries 10 Proton torpedo launcher batteries 30 to 50 Gravity mines Just double it up in my views. If we went the comprising route. Edit 2: we have also said in the past that if x armaments = say a 4 or 5, then that is what we must believe. We have to remember that this is in comparison to other Heavy SDs, not SDs. After all, the Procurator-class doesn’t have an extensive armament compared to other HSDs but it is still counted as a 4 in offensive. So we could still keep it to the lore armament and keep it at its 5 in comparison to other Heavy SDs. Given its history of having a more efficient way of utilizing that firepower compared to the Pellaeon.
|
|
|
Post by Nicademus Delvardus IV on Nov 15, 2023 13:33:46 GMT -8
I think the issue is that we have to consider a balance. It is known that these things can slowly demolish a Star Destroyer, that they are very hard to target, and the only time they could be stopped was by a Jedi, likely using the Force, to ensure the Tsils that powered the Needle Starfighters to return to their homeworld. We don't know how many there are needed to be able to take down a Star Destroyer over time. We don't know how many were employed, let alone developed. Labeling them as starfighters would ensure that they must be within the Starfighter Complement limitations and that could help keep the number reasonable as well as limited. Of course, on the other side of things, there isn't really a countermeasure for them (beyond the Force) and we don't allow any sort of R&D. I am not sure even an EMP could likely take these things out since they are operated by a crystal. I am wondering if we need a Whill to weight in something like this. This type of technology could prove to be a bit too imbalanced for any one side to use them. Just for future reference, anything utilizing Ysalamiri technology will always be a no from us. We have had discussions, many times, about creating "bubbles" by having habitats for the creatures inside all kinds of small craft. It has been ruled out, indefinitely, that such things are not allowed.
|
|
|
Post by Nicademus Delvardus IV on Nov 14, 2023 23:34:19 GMT -8
As quoted for the defense:
The Third Outer Rim Fleet being:
I can drop it to 5 if that is better.
|
|
|
Post by Nicademus Delvardus IV on Nov 14, 2023 20:38:06 GMT -8
I would also like to open this thread up to anyone interested in making suggestions/discussion posts in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by Nicademus Delvardus IV on Nov 9, 2023 0:03:35 GMT -8
Original EntryAfter some careful consideration and thought, I believe I would like to increase the size of this ship and adjust its weaponry. LengthAfter looking at a discussion here and here, it is my belief that this vessel should be increased to a Heavy Star Destroyer. This is especially considering that in its lore, it is quoted to be longer/larger than a standard Star Destroyer, which we can assume is the ISD at 1600 meters. Right now, it sits right on the fence of a Heavy variant at 1800 meters. So I would like to increase it to be 1850 to 2000 meters to ensure it is in the Heavy category. WeaponryThe Pellaeon-class is reported to be a lesser version of the Imperious. Its armament is quoted to be: Heavy turbolaser (50) Turbolaser (50) Ion cannon (40) Tractor beam projectors (30) Proton torpedo launchers (50) Interdiction field The canon facts of the Imperious state: Heavy turbolaser batteries (5) Medium turbolaser batteries (5) Heavy Ion cannon batteries (4) Tractor beam projector batteries (3) Proton torpedo launcher batteries (5) Gravity mines Now batteries, in our Databank rules, state it is 6 cannons per battery, which means the Imperious armament is: Heavy turbolaser batteries (30) Medium turbolaser batteries (30) Heavy Ion cannon batteries (24) Tractor beam projector batteries (18) Proton torpedo launcher batteries (30) Gravity mines This is different than what is stated in our present entry. Now, knowing how we do Databank entries now (if you say it is a 4, than it is a 4), and knowing the Imperious more efficient at its power regulation, this may be an entry that goes over the 15 points. It is noted that it had the firepower and shields to take on the whole of the Outer Rim Third Fleet, which was several Pellaeon-class ships and nine Ardent-class frigates. With this all said, this is what I believe the updated version should be:
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Nicademus Delvardus IV on Oct 6, 2023 21:41:12 GMT -8
Thanks for the clarification. Approved!
|
|
|
Post by Nicademus Delvardus IV on Oct 6, 2023 21:40:58 GMT -8
Approved!
|
|