Issues with reapproved TNO R&Ds
I have some issues with TNO resubmissions."Fire-Class Light Frigate
Class: Light Starfighter Defense Ship
Length: 285 Meters
Hyperdrive x1 (x2 backup)
Speed: 70 Mglt
Shield Rating: 2,600 SBD
Hull Rating: 1,530 RU
Fighters:
2 TIE Devil Squads
1 TIE Devastator Squad"
A light ship that just happens to have shields and hull that place it on par with ships twice or even three times it's size.
I was lead to believe in the course of designing a ship of simular size that ships this small could not be R&Ded to be on par with ships several times their size.
Especially considering the fact that it contains fighters. The space that it takes for fighter storage is said to detract from weapons. Or so it has been stated in R&Ds for strong light frigates.
"Class: TIE Devil
Length: 3 meters
Height: 3 meters
Shields: 0
Hull: 5 RU
Speed: 166 MGLT
Hyperdrive: None"
No DPF rating. Though I would assume that with that kind of a speed rating their manuverability would be compromised as a drawback for such speed.
"TNO Attack Class Sphere
Class: Multipurpose space superiority warship.
Designer: Daemon Hyfe
Crew: 5,000, 600 starfighter pilots. 2,000 Stormtroopers (1.4 brigades)
Cargo Capacity: 1,000 metric tons
Consumables: Up to 3 years
Length: 1,600 meters
Hyperdrive: x1 (x3 backup)
Shield Rating: 18,000 SBD
Hull Rating: 7,000 RU
Fighter Compliment: 55 Squadrons of TIE Devils
Weapons:
50 Heavy Turbolaser Cannons
75 Anti-starfighter Laser Cannons
50 Heavy Ion Cannons
40 Warhead Launchers
5 Tractor Beams "
A ship that is at least two perhaps three times stronger in all areas then virtually any ISD class ship of simular size.
It is more heavily armed then ships of this size period.
265 weapons emplacements and extreme shields and hull ratings allong with massive numbers of inboard fighter craft. Well above anything that would be approved today.
"Designation: Reign-Class Star Destroyer Mark-I
Combat Designation: Heavy Cruiser / Command Starship.
Type: Destroyer
Length: 2,000 meters
Shield Strength: 5,450 SBD
Hull Strength: 5,200 RU"
Shields could be argued but the hull is well above what is approved in the R&D forum submissions.
Comments
#24 3:50am 16/12/03
Read his comments (and mine) further down. They imply that both those ships were reapproved.
And they were, because they were both on the listing. I believe one or more TNO R&Ds were removed at one point (because we weren't using them at the time). But the FCLF has been approved since TNO started, essentially.
And most of TNO's members know how to treat our ships. Kraken is new. Cut him some @#%$ slack.
God knows you guys have made enough mistakes.
#23 3:44am 16/12/03
Kanbal made the alst edit(I'm pretty sure he was the one removing the other ones).
He did say-"You could have saved yourself some trouble, and me in the process, by checking the one I looked over and put up on the approval list. "
About 9 minutes later, he edited the post you speak of. That tells us that he removed the already approved ones, and left the unapproved ones.
#22 2:27am 16/12/03
They were all reapproved, then someone edited out all the important vessels for some reason. I know this becuase I copied the R&D's before that edit was made, thus why I posted and linked the last half of the TNO R&D list.
#21 2:18am 16/12/03
The Fire Light Frigate is in every way over powered. Oh, and note Omnae the reason why it is so powerful is because way back when TRF just started, the staff barely looked at R&Ds. I should know, my R&Ds were VERY, VERY over powered. And I'm pretty sure the Fire Light Cruiser never got reapproved. Kanbal reapproved most of TNO's R&Ds, but not the Fire Light Cruiser.
[url=http://pub33.ezboard.com/fswalliancefrm24.showMessage?topicID=10.topic]pub33.ezboard.com/fswalli...D=10.topic[/url]
Look at that thread. Both the Attack Sphere and Fire Light Frigate were never reapproved.
#20 1:04am 16/12/03
Hmm let's see
Well Kraken got the idea to destroy/cripple around 180 ships in one post with oh yes 4 fires, 28 TIE Defenders and 66 TIE Devils. Plus a fair bit of shield damage.
Look at the Fire and compare it to the Lancer. Can you tell me that's not extremely over-powered?
#19 11:15am 15/12/03
Vonta wants a DPF rating because shes designing an R&D aimed specifically at the destruction of the TIE Devil. Or, more generally, any TNO R&D. I'm guessing it'll be exactly the same, with +1 to every number on the board. Oh, except size, which will be -1.
Meanwhile, back to my point.
Once a design is submitted, it is only ever resubmitted on the staffs order (such as Kanbals resubmission), or in the event of obvious and gross unfairness.
If we were to bend to everyones calls of 'hey, thats overpowered, make them redo it', not only would i go @#%$ insane, but every single ship would be resubmitted every time it was fought.
Until it falls into either of the two categories, no changes will be made.
#18 8:02am 15/12/03
Griff, neither rules nor the truth bend to suite your claims.
No matter what you say.
#17 6:44am 15/12/03
It's not the R&Ds, or the ships that matter, it's who commands them. For example, not to point fingers, but Jan recently brought 15 or so Imperial Star Destroyers to bear against a less powerful force. The end result was almost like Kessel all over again, except the GC was on the recieving end. I have issues too, or have had issues, like the whole Allegiance debacle. I have issues about other ships too, like the CEC Gunship, etc.
#16 6:21am 15/12/03
No, Griff, he doesn't. Look, no matter how many times you say it, it won't be true.
#15 4:37am 15/12/03
[quote]haven't been swooping in with our Attack Spheres and annihilating twenty ships in one post.[/quote]
Drayson does. And he gets away with it.
Nevertheless, I do have a problem with some of these R&Ds, and I believe they deserve some consideration.
#14 4:25am 15/12/03
Oh, and for your information it was Jan that started the "our fighters are better" @#%$. TNO simply refuted their claims and made it clear that our fighters are indeed superior.
#13 4:23am 15/12/03
Vonta. Seriously.
@#%$ OFF.
You're not cool, you're not doing anyone a "favour", and your not helping yourself. Keep your @#%$ war where it belongs: in the IC forum.
This is bullshit.
#12 1:30am 15/12/03
This is stupid.
DPF rating? The reason it's not there is that it was not required at the time of submission. The way you say it makes it seem like it was TNO treachery that left the piece out.
Sheesh.
All of the techs have been approved [i]and[/i] reapproved. These techs were even approved back at TGC. Now that might not mean much, it does show how [i]long[/i] these techs have been approved.
If they are [i]so[/i] illegal, then my question is: Why has it taken so long for anyone to bring it up? After 3 years of fleet rp'ing? And why now, of all times?
When TNO has brought up R&D issues in fleet rp's, it's not because they feel the ships should not have what they have but, rather, that they had not been [i]approved[/i]. Once approved, TNO deals with them.
Since the R&D staff has changed, it is reasonable to conclude they the newer members will focus on other areas or bring their own perspective to the job.
Are you saying that if the current R&D staff are harrassed and given crap to the point that they leave and we put others on that hold to different views, then [i]all[/i] R&D's will have to be resubmitted?
My opinion is, if you wish to keep the R&D's consistent, then:
Stop pissing the R&D Mods off.
Stop harrassing them.
Stop giving them crap.
Maybe they won't leave tired of dealing with it all and a new comes aboard who views and handles the job differently.
#11 12:47am 15/12/03
Shuttles are underrated.
#10 12:38am 15/12/03
Fighters are overrated.
12>>>