Centurion Arms
  2034 active members
  239 are online

Year

20

Day

235

Time

10:47:37

Guest
Login
snewsgnewsmessagegeneralfactioninventorycombatroom
Page 1 2
Year 9 Day 191 12:17
R&D is really, really, REALLY far away in terms of development. Yet, there plenty of factions besides the NR (RA, w/e you want to call it) and Empire who have ships, items and other entities that are only produceable by them.

Did they obtain such perks back when would-be faction leaders had to talk it out with the admins before the faction was made?

Did they simply ask for them?

Did the admins just think the group deserved them?

Was it a gift obtained through a contest or somesuch?

Just curious, really.


Edited By: Osen Suki on Year 9 Day 198 13:01
____________

Tai`to Kale\'s Respawn.

Yeah, I\'m guessing I\'ll need this...
Back before production, right when it was about to be released, datacards were handed out to factions, with the "canon" datacards given out to the "canon" manufacturer.


And this won't ever happen again, right?


____________

Tai`to Kale\'s Respawn.

Yeah, I\'m guessing I\'ll need this...
Krote Kalmar

not unless new cannon evidence for new cannon factions
comes out


____________

ncbar.png
So, newer canon factions would have a chance to get some unique stuff as long as they provided proper documentation/evidence?


____________

Tai`to Kale\'s Respawn.

Yeah, I\'m guessing I\'ll need this...
No. As far as I know, new datacards will only be given through Research & Development. The time for "free datacards" has come and passed.


Year 9 Day 198 13:24
Ok, understood.

While I'm asking questions:

why does the Ubrikkian Luxury Space Yacht have a docking bay if it's volume capacity can't even hold a single fighter of most types? Was this intentional? (I don't even remember that ship having a docking bay the last time i looked at it)

Why is it that most landspeeders have flight grade repulsorlifts? landspeeders don't fly...

There are also a few landspeeders listed under 'ground vehicles' while others are listed under 'speeders', Which is supposed to be their correct designation by SWC standards?

Why is it that shipboard weapons seem inconsistent? Sometimes, a quad laser is referred as such and other times it is referred to as multiple heavy lasers (Example: Heavy lasers: 12 instead of quad lasers: 3.) Other times, laser canon batteries are referred to as single lasers in the case of some entities. Any particular reason for this?

Thanks for your time.


Edited By: Osen Suki on Year 9 Day 198 13:30
____________

Tai`to Kale\'s Respawn.

Yeah, I\'m guessing I\'ll need this...
Year 9 Day 198 13:32
In terms of which ships have docking bays, this was originally designed to attempt to canonize ships to some extent. This may result in ships being unable to dock very much because we don't have as wide a selection of ships as SW as a whole, but the ship stats will also be reviewed for combat, so at the moment it's a moot point and no changes to entities will be made until then.

Vehicle repulsorlifts refer to their ability to ascend to the atmosphere, not to fly. Vehicles cannot orbit a planet or travel through space.

With weaponry, quad lasers are joined, individual heavy lasers are not, regardless of quantity, if they are listed in that manner. It is a technical difference between the weaponry, and how this will come into play (or if this will be revised for the combat rules) remains to be seen. Again, entity stats will not be adjusted until then because we do not yet have a clear rules set to calibrate this with.


____________

swcforumsig

Year 9 Day 198 13:44
seeing as atmosphere is higher than 'hovering 1 or 2 meters above the ground' Landspeeders shouldn't have this ability, no point in arguing, though.

As for quadlasers, that's my point. Some ships which have quadlasers in canon, here have a lot of lasers instead. I originally thought that this was because quadlasers didn't exist in the SWC, but this was later changed; some ships had their multiple lasers retroactively turned into quads, making the current inconsistency.

The question then becomes: what is the reason for this?


____________

Tai`to Kale\'s Respawn.

Yeah, I\'m guessing I\'ll need this...
Year 9 Day 198 14:16
Can you present any specific examples of ships that have quadlasers in canon that have multiple lasers in SWC? As Syn has already stated, a quadlaser and four indiviudal lasers are different things. Perhaps specific canon evidence was brought up in the past, and the admin made adjustments to certain ships based on that evidence. Evidence for some ships however, like the ones to which you may refer, may have not yet surfaced saying that these ships have quadlasers, and so they were not changed.

Regardless, any change would be superficial and insignificant because of combat not being implemented. These changes would have no effect until that time.


____________

Raphael Javiae Kiltron III
Year 9 Day 198 14:35
For the sake of an example: the lancer class frigate has 20 quad lasers in canon, but it has 80 single lasers in SWC. This seems to be the case for other ships as well.

And as i said before, i just wanted to know why is it that this inconsistency (Ships which have quads in canon are split into those which do in SWC and those which don't.) is present.

I don't really mind a whole lot (Specially since it has no effect right now), but i would like to know anyway.


____________

Tai`to Kale\'s Respawn.

Yeah, I\'m guessing I\'ll need this...
Year 9 Day 198 15:06
The ships we have here were all implemented at different points in time and by different people, so there are inconsistencies in terms of weaponry, speed, etc. This is in part because different sources were used by different rules teams before the rules team ceased to exist entirely.

A while back, an effort was made to follow one distinct source of canon and modify all ships accordingly, but this was dismissed because, as I have mentioned, the stats all need to be calibrated in accordance with our own set of combat rules.

So the short story, again, is don't worry about it. The stats are not final, and weaponry affects nothing yet. At best it provides an example of the ships approximate power in relation to other ships. Until we have combat rules, consider them placeholder stats.


____________

swcforumsig

Year 9 Day 198 17:12
Okay. I was just a little bugged by two different terms being used for the same thing on the same set of rules.

Thank you for the answers, your patience AND above all, actually bothering to understand the long string of incoherences that i sometimes seem to type down.

Edit, question: Is the Y-head corvette supposed to be This? If not, then what is it? Don't say 'a ship', i mean canonwise.


Edited By: Osen Suki on Year 9 Day 199 16:53
____________

Tai`to Kale\'s Respawn.

Yeah, I\'m guessing I\'ll need this...
Year 9 Day 199 18:41
No, it is supposed to be a Y-Head Corvette. Plenty of google matches for it.


____________

swcforumsig

Year 9 Day 199 19:45
Funny though that the 3D model used for our Y-head was actually made to have a 3D model of the ship that Osen linked to.


Year 9 Day 199 21:23
And one of our ships, not to mention our foxhole, were previously images of B5 ships. I'm not sure how that's relevant; the Y-Head is its own ship.


____________

swcforumsig

Year 9 Day 200 16:29
All i get when i search for the y-head corvette is stuff related to the ship i linked to.

So, the Y-head is a SWC original ship, then?


____________

Tai`to Kale\'s Respawn.

Yeah, I\'m guessing I\'ll need this...
Year 9 Day 200 16:40
No.. try another google search, because most results are not for the SWC ship at all, but rather to dispute the source of the original ship. It does not have a very distinct canon source, meaning such a ship would not have been added to SWC in the more recent past, but it was not created for SWC.


____________

swcforumsig

Year 9 Day 200 16:52
The 'Y-head corvette' came to be out of an artist's interpretation of the Braha'tok-class gunship/Dornean ship after it was spotted on the background of ROTJ, but before it was named or the larger model was revealed.

In essence, the artist drew what he could make out of the blurry little ship and made up the rest.

That makes them the same ship canonwise. This is the reason I'm a little confused about this.

I'll take it that the SWC's Y-head took the artist's interpretation (The inaccurate depiction) and used it as a new ship entirely separate from the Braha'tok-class gunship/Dornean ship.


Edited By: Osen Suki on Year 9 Day 200 16:53
____________

Tai`to Kale\'s Respawn.

Yeah, I\'m guessing I\'ll need this...
Year 9 Day 200 19:45
You will find tons of errors at swc my friend, I would not bother with it to much if I was you, and at its very best it is a waste of time. You need to be very well connected, know the right people and kiss the right I wont say the last word as that is swearing. Sometime in the future something called R&D may fix some of it, but just maybe and that is as in a big maybe.

Kind Regards
Talak Drakar



Page 1 2