The Rancor Pit Forum Index
Welcome to The Rancor Pit forums!

The Rancor Pit Forum Index
FAQ   ::   Search   ::   Memberlist   ::   Usergroups   ::   Register   ::   Profile   ::   Log in to check your private messages   ::   Log in

Build-Your-Own-Stardrive Chart
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> House Rules -> Build-Your-Own-Stardrive Chart Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Orion
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 16 May 2008
Posts: 146

PostPosted: Sat May 05, 2012 1:19 am    Post subject: Re: X-Wing Breakdown Reply with quote

Bren wrote:
Actually it seems like you are saying that you sometimes do need to have engineering skills to succeed and almost always need enginerring skills to succeed without problems.
Well since the RPG requires you be a good mechanic to even take the skills, arguments could be made about that statement being correct, but it was not my intention to make engineering skills be a requirement, just that they should be more beneficial to the process. I have always felt that the engineering skills are underutilized, but that's not the main reason I brought this up. The main reason I brought this up was to give atgxtg a means of reconciling the lighter masses he was starting to use with the values in GG6, as efficiency of retrofit could be applied to any equipment installed.

Bren wrote:
While wrenching on things will not work for modifying the Challenger shuttle, it does work in Star Wars for modifying the Millenium Falcon - that's my point. The Falcon isn't quirky because upgrades are intrinsically hard or because neither Han nor Chewie is an engineer. The Falcon is quirky because (a) that's dramatically interesting for plot and (b) the Falcon has been upgraded past the point of normal success. The latter is what the upgrade rules in the RPG address. And for this variation in success can be handled with the exisiting rules by including complications and setting appropriate difficulties for multiple modifications on the same ship or ship system. That will ensure that competent starship mechanics 4D -6D skill will still be able to make some modifications, but if they try to approach the levels of over customization of the Falcon they will end (unless they are extremely and repeatedly lucky) up with quirks.

And that level of extreme customization is exactly where a qualified starship engineer or designer will do a better job - because systematically there (A) engineering skill gives them bonus dice. Alternately if you prefer it could lower the difficulty of the actual "repair."
What you and the rules are saying, is that it works correctly, works with problems or it doesn't work at all, whereas I'm saying that it can also mean that you saved mass.

Bren wrote:
The repair/upgrade rules in the RAW work more or less like how souping up automobiles worked in the analog world of 1900-1960 and I think that is the tone or intent for freighter modifications in Star Wars. The game assumes that modifying spaceships is as easy as a couple of teenagers souping up their jalopy. And as I am not an engineer, personally that's about the level of detail that works for me. YMMV.
As someone that has a hot rod. though mines of the late 60's era, and built the 300+ hp motor, when I was a teenager, by using a Chilton's manual and magazine articles, well and picking the brains of anyone I found that had knowledge on the subject, I can tell you it's easy to make mistakes and not find out about them until later, sometimes much later. I have friend's that have hot rod's as well, and through them know even more people in the hobby. One of my friends does what's called index racing with his cars, for those that don't know it's similar to bracket racing, but everyone in the same class races against the same time index, in my buddies case it's 9.6 seconds, any faster and you break out of the class. His car was too fast it ran 9.4's, so he tried using a throttle stop, a device that limits the physical movement of the throttle, to slow the car down, seems like a no brainer right, except his car got faster, it now ran 9.3's.

It did this because at wide open throttle it had too much fuel for the motor to efficiently handle, so it slowed it down. After playing around with many positions he finally gave up on it as the car was either too fast or too slow, and just fender raced instead. He needed to change his carburetor, but was worried he might make the car too slow then and not be able to race in the index, so he just left it. Now if he had engineering skills he would have been able to figure out how much carberation the car needed and bought the correct carb to begin with. People seem to think all you have to do is, buy high performance parts and bolt them on, but it more complicated than that, the parts will work but you might not get the expected gains. If the part is made for a race motor and your putting it on a street car that's only had mild work done to it, you not likely to get the gains your hoping for and may even hurt the performance of the motor, so yes people with engineering skills will have less problems as a whole, especially long term problems that don't show up right away.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460

PostPosted: Sat May 05, 2012 12:11 pm    Post subject: Re: X-Wing Breakdown Reply with quote

Bren wrote:
[
The repair/upgrade rules in the RAW work more or less like how souping up automobiles worked in the analog world of 1900-1960 and I think that is the tone or intent for freighter modifications in Star Wars. The game assumes that modifying spaceships is as easy as a couple of teenagers souping up their jalopy. And as I am not an engineer, personally that's about the level of detail that works for me. YMMV.


Yup, that is how it looks to me too. Modding in the RAW seems to be doing things like tweaking your engine to squeeze a few more horsepower out of the things, tossing on better types, installing a spoiler-that sort of thing.

Sure, realistically, Han Solo probably lacks the knowledge and training required to doubt the performance of a spaceship. Certainly not they way he did. But we aren't talking reality here, we are talking Star Wars.



If somebody wants to come up with their own make and model freighter, or make their own engine, that requires Engineering.
.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460

PostPosted: Sat May 05, 2012 1:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Can anybody think of a Starfighter scale ship with a Hull Code (in pips) lower than half it's SPACE speed?

Examples:
TIE/n: Space 10, Hull 2d( 7 pips)
X-Wing: Space 8, Hull 4d (12 pips)
A-Wing: Space 12, Hull 2D+2 (8 pips)
Eta-2: Space 13, Hull 2D+1 (7 pips)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Orion
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 16 May 2008
Posts: 146

PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2012 12:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

atgxtg wrote:
Yup, that is how it looks to me too. Modding in the RAW seems to be doing things like tweaking your engine to squeeze a few more horsepower out of the things, tossing on better types, installing a spoiler-that sort of thing.
Since you don't seem to be interested in my reasons for this, I'll drop it.

atgxtg wrote:
Can anybody think of a Starfighter scale ship with a Hull Code (in pips) lower than half it's SPACE speed?

Examples:
TIE/n: Space 10, Hull 2d( 7 pips)
X-Wing: Space 8, Hull 4d (12 pips)
A-Wing: Space 12, Hull 2D+2 (8 pips)
Eta-2: Space 13, Hull 2D+1 (7 pips)
My version of Gry's Starships lists the Eta-2 as Space 16 which would be outside your criteria, but I don't know which is the correct number. Are you trying to establish a max speed based on the 'airframe'?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460

PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2012 8:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orion wrote:
Since you don't seem to be interested in my reasons for this, I'll drop it.


I didn't say I wasn't interested. I just got busy yesterday and didn't finsih my response yet. Also, as it was getting overlong I thought I7d PM it to you.

Orion wrote:

My version of Gry's Starships lists the Eta-2 as Space 16 which would be outside your criteria, but I don't know which is the correct number.


My version of Gry's compiled stats also has a SPACE speed of 16, but the later writuep converted from SAGA has SPACE 13. I've been using Gs./410 to get SPACE Speed. A Eta-2 `5500G works out to 13 SPACE (134 MGLT), which ,matched up with the SAGA conversion.

Orion wrote:

Are you trying to establish a max speed based on the 'airframe'?


Other way around. I am working up a minimum Hull Structure to take the stresses of a given SPACE and/or Maneuverability rating. For example, if somebody wanted a fighter with a SPACE rating of 10, it should have at least 5 pips of Hull. If not, it takes damage.

A TIE]ln with 2D Hull (6 pips) could handle up to SPACE 12 without problems, but would take damage at SPACE 13 or higher. The damage taken would be fixed at half the SPACE rating, and would be soaked by the Hull code. So a TIE uprated to SPACE 13 can probably fly about for a bit before suffering any significant damage, but a TIE upgraded to SPACE 20 (just an example) would be taking a 10 point "hit" each turn and probably not last a minute before breaking up. A TIE shoehorned onto 24 tons of a starscream-9 ion drive that could go at SPACE 72 (not going to happen believe it), would take 36 points of damage each round and pretty much break apart as soon as the pilot hit the thrusters.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Orion
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 16 May 2008
Posts: 146

PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2012 2:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

atgxtg wrote:
I didn't say I wasn't interested. I just got busy yesterday and didn't finsih my response yet. Also, as it was getting overlong I thought I7d PM it to you.
Np, I await your PM then. Smile

atgxtg wrote:
My version of Gry's compiled stats also has a SPACE speed of 16, but the later writuep converted from SAGA has SPACE 13. I've been using Gs./410 to get SPACE Speed. A Eta-2 `5500G works out to 13 SPACE (134 MGLT), which ,matched up with the SAGA conversion.
I wonder why they are different, as I thought Gry converted them from SAGA, makes me wonder if Gry's conversion method was off or if SAGA just made an arbitrary change, well it's not important. Are there any other notable differences between Gry's and the SAGA conversions?

atgxtg wrote:
Other way around. I am working up a minimum Hull Structure to take the stresses of a given SPACE and/or Maneuverability rating. For example, if somebody wanted a fighter with a SPACE rating of 10, it should have at least 5 pips of Hull. If not, it takes damage.

A TIE]ln with 2D Hull (6 pips) could handle up to SPACE 12 without problems, but would take damage at SPACE 13 or higher. The damage taken would be fixed at half the SPACE rating, and would be soaked by the Hull code. So a TIE uprated to SPACE 13 can probably fly about for a bit before suffering any significant damage, but a TIE upgraded to SPACE 20 (just an example) would be taking a 10 point "hit" each turn and probably not last a minute before breaking up. A TIE shoehorned onto 24 tons of a starscream-9 ion drive that could go at SPACE 72 (not going to happen believe it), would take 36 points of damage each round and pretty much break apart as soon as the pilot hit the thrusters.
I really need to figure out how to express myself so that you understand me, as what your doing is what I was meaning, by max speed based on the 'airframe', I was meaning the fastest you can go and not cause damage to the craft due to exceeding it's stress limits. The system your talking about seems a good representation of it, I like the concept, but I don't believe the chance of failure is linear when you exceed the specs, while I'm not suggesting a complex model, if this is something that interests you perhaps a simpler method would convey the feel without too much hassle. Perhaps by using multiples of the hull code, if your in the 2-3 range you do it like your suggesting, if it's in the 3-4 range you double the damage done. In any case, it's just a thought, and I really like what your trying to do. Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460

PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2012 5:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orion wrote:
I wonder why they are different, as I thought Gry converted them from SAGA, makes me wonder if Gry's conversion method was off or if SAGA just made an arbitrary change, well it's not important. Are there any other notable differences between Gry's and the SAGA conversions?


I can't say for certain, only the people who wrote up and coverted the stats could give a definetive answer. But I think it was a case of either somebody doing a writeup before the SAGA stats came out, or somebody over at WOTC altering thier stats after getting new info from Lucasfilm-such as the accleration ratings of Eta-2 and other ships for comparsion. Or they downgraded it because X-Wings are slwoer in D6 and they wanted to keep the Eta-2 60% faster than an X-Wing. Or maybe somebody just thought that SPACE 16 was too darn fast.

Yes, a LOT of things in the SAGA conversion books are differernt from thier listings in the compiled stats. It is usually worth hunting down the conversion books and/or searching the forum to find the latests stats for anything not done by WEG. THe good folk around here are nice enough to update the D6 stats for things as new information comes out.

Orion wrote:

[I really need to figure out how to express myself so that you understand me, as what your doing is what I was meaning, by max speed based on the 'airframe',


That's probably my fauilt. I have a very strong tendancy to take things extremely literally when I'm thinking in "technical mode". It nearly got me kicked out of college when I answered the Dean'S question honestly.


Orion wrote:

I was meaning the fastest you can go and not cause damage to the craft due to exceeding it's stress limits. The system your talking about seems a good representation of it, I like the concept, but I don't believe the chance of failure is linear when you exceed the specs,


The stresses are linear, in space. That is why is tends to be easier to ignore most of the real world for this stuff. Remember those times in class when when the teacher used to say "in a vacuum" when referring to a problem in order to keep it simple? This is where that holds true. It is a simple case of Force = Mass X Acceleration.

Now, in an atmosphere, the drag force would increase with the square of the velocity, and that tends to be a bigger factor that the acceleration. That might be why you are thinking of a non-linear progression. It's probably why starfighters can't go much faster than conventional aircraft.

We could go with a square progression for atmospheric craft, but why get that complicated? We could just assume that shields and/or inertial dampers can soak up enough of the force to go with the same linear progression and keep things simple.

With Hull rolls to soak damage each round, a ship pushing it's airframe past's it's specs isn't going to last too long. The pilot might luck out for a round or two. Good for him. Any TIE pilot with a ship with SPACE 20 trying to soak 10 damage each round with a 2D hull isn't going to be around for long.


Orion wrote:
and I really like what your trying to do. Very Happy


THat's nice. I hope that this will end up being a useful set of rules for everyone. I relaize that I won't be every to please everybody completely, but with luck I might be able to mostly please most of the people. At the least give them something to work from or to do better than.

Much of this stuff is going to get simplied and streamlined before it's done, too. My goal is to use these guidelines to build engines, sensors and other components for some standard "size classes" of ships. Then everybody can use the standard components to modifyexisting ships, use the guidelines to make new or custom components, or even to design a ships from scratch. Most of the TEC and details are really "behind the scenes" stuff so that I can keep things consistent and to prevent any loopholes cropping up that could be exploited to "break" this.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Orion
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 16 May 2008
Posts: 146

PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2012 8:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

atgxtg wrote:
That's probably my fauilt. I have a very strong tendancy to take things extremely literally when I'm thinking in "technical mode". It nearly got me kicked out of college when I answered the Dean'S question honestly.
Sounds like me a lot of times as well, though I don't have any almost kicked out of college stories, must have been quite the question.

atgxtg wrote:
The stresses are linear, in space. That is why is tends to be easier to ignore most of the real world for this stuff. Remember those times in class when when the teacher used to say "in a vacuum" when referring to a problem in order to keep it simple? This is where that holds true. It is a simple case of Force = Mass X Acceleration.
I remember and I'm just not sure SW space constitutes a vacuum. Wink

atgxtg wrote:
Now, in an atmosphere, the drag force would increase with the square of the velocity, and that tends to be a bigger factor that the acceleration. That might be why you are thinking of a non-linear progression. It's probably why starfighters can't go much faster than conventional aircraft.
Are you formulating the atmospheric speed for them or just assigning off existing data, because spaceships have to fly through atmospheres to get to space. Not trying to add complexity but it would make an excuse if you wanted to make the stress overload non-linear.

atgxtg wrote:
THat's nice. I hope that this will end up being a useful set of rules for everyone. I relaize that I won't be every to please everybody completely, but with luck I might be able to mostly please most of the people. At the least give them something to work from or to do better than.

Much of this stuff is going to get simplied and streamlined before it's done, too. My goal is to use these guidelines to build engines, sensors and other components for some standard "size classes" of ships. Then everybody can use the standard components to modifyexisting ships, use the guidelines to make new or custom components, or even to design a ships from scratch. Most of the TEC and details are really "behind the scenes" stuff so that I can keep things consistent and to prevent any loopholes cropping up that could be exploited to "break" this.
It's an ambitious project, that's for sure and I'm thrilled that your doing it. I for one would love to have a copy of the non-simplified 'rules' as well, as you may end up making abstractions that I would have preferred to do another way, if I understand the background behind them, it makes it easier to customize things without causing something else to break. Not that I don't think your going to do a good job, I've just never met a group of rules, I didn't want to tweak, in some way, if you know what I mean.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460

PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 1:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orion wrote:
Sounds like me a lot of times as well, though I don't have any almost kicked out of college stories, must have been quite the question.


Nop. It was if I Minded taking my hat off.



Orion wrote:
I remember and I'm just not sure SW space constitutes a vacuum. Wink


LOL! Maybe not. we get sound, and the fighters move like airplanes. Still, it is the simplest way of handling it.And I think most people would prefer something simple like SPACE=THRUST/MASS as opposed to V=(Thurst/(0.5pCdA))^(1/2). I know I sure do am I'm probably more "crunch happy" than most.




Orion wrote:
Are you formulating the atmospheric speed for them or just assigning off existing data, because spaceships have to fly through atmospheres to get to space. Not trying to add complexity but it would make an excuse if you wanted to make the stress overload non-linear.


I amkeeping it simple and using the preexisting table from 2E and 2R&E, well mostly. The basic table is:

Space:kph (all out)
1:600 kph
2:650 kph
3-750 kph
4-800 kph
5-850 kph
6-950 kph
7-1000 kph
8-1050 kph
9-1150 kph
10-1200 kph
11-1250 kph
12-1300 kph


What I am going to do is use the base table as the default and then allow ships to shift up or down rows based on streamlining.

I might, try to give a smoother progression.



Quote:

It's an ambitious project, that's for sure and I'm thrilled that your doing it.


Yeah, perhaps too ambitious. And I'd probably be thrilled if soembody else where doing it-for just that reason. Wink

Quote:

I for one would love to have a copy of the non-simplified 'rules' as well, as you may end up making abstractions that I would have preferred to do another way, if I understand the background behind them, it makes it easier to customize things without causing something else to break.


I don't blame you, and I agree with your thinking. If I show what am doing and how, then it becomes a lot easier for others to figure out where my head was at when I did up some thing or other that they don't like. Or when I make n error.

I should put the cruncy bits in a sidebar or two somewhere so that people who want to do the math can.

Quote:

Not that I don't think your going to do a good job, I've just never met a group of rules, I didn't want to tweak, in some way, if you know what I mean.


Yup. And it helps to explain the occasional odd design that doesn't look right. At the very least it will help to point out where the system breaks down.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460

PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 1:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bren wrote:
atgxtg wrote:
But, I could come up with a few standardized tonnages, i.e. a 50t ship, 100 ton, 150t, 200t, 250t and so on.
Something about a set of standard tonnages seems...familiar. Wink


Going with this idea, I have taken a look at real world cargo vessels and the SW Sorcebook and I think standardization is the way to go.

I have named the standard cargo containers from the SW Sorcuebook:



The 10m X 10m X 10m, 1000m3, 2,000 ton) container has been christen the Ten Meter Equivalent Unit (TEU), and is the standard unit that the other containers are based on.

Five Meter Equivalent Unit/Half Unit (HEU) (5mx10x10 = 0.5 TEU
Twenty Meter Equivalent Unit (TwEU or "two") (20x10x10) = 2 TEU
Forty Meter Equivalent Unit (FEU) (40x20x10)= 8 TEU

I'm looking at the capacity of the existing large freighters, and hope to swipe and pervert the real world cargo ship categories (based on the twenty foot equivalent unit or TEU) to Star Wars.

This would put the Super Transport XI (25 million tons) in around 12500 TEU which is near the upper end of the New Panamax range in the real world (using the smaller 20ft unit).

Your tractor -trailer analogy for a light freighter is looking better and better. In fact, it might even be a bit generous. It looks like the line between tramp freighter and cargo ship is just about around the HEU or TEU mark (1000-2000mt).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Orion
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 16 May 2008
Posts: 146

PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 7:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

atgxtg wrote:
Nop. It was if I Minded taking my hat off.
Laughing , I can see it now, "Would you mind taking your hat off?", "Yes I would, why do you ask?", "Young man, please see me in my office...now."


atgxtg wrote:
The 10m X 10m X 10m, 1000m3, 2,000 ton) container has been christen the Ten Meter Equivalent Unit (TEU), and is the standard unit that the other containers are based on.
You probably already realize this but this also gives you a volume/tonnage ratio for use on the tramps, of 1m3 per 2mt so cargo ratings on them are no longer just mass. Which I'm sure you can use to advantage in your system, but also can help a GM, decide how many tons of an item with the mass/volume ratio similar to Styrofoam a tramp can actually carry.

Also I was wondering if you had given any thought to empty mass versus full mass, with regards to thrust and perhaps even manuvering?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 6:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orion wrote:
Laughing , I can see it now, "Would you mind taking your hat off?", "Yes I would, why do you ask?", "Young man, please see me in my office...now."


Pretty close only he was more angry and there was no please. Five min. later he charged into his office breathing fire. What saved me was my completly confused reaction. It stopped him in mid-shout--he was an ex-marine. One it got back toremoving the hat I asked him why he didn`t just tell me to remove it? By this point he was more confused than I was. Then he started to realize what had happened. He was always direct with me after that.
...
Quote:
, of 1m3 per 2mt so cargo ratings on them are no longer just mass. Which I'm sure you can use to advantage in your system, but also can help a GM, decide how many tons of an item with the mass/volume ratio similar to Styrofoam a tramp can actually carry.



The 2t per cubic meter is pretty comon in WEG and Lucasfilm ship stats. Two is a bit light, but probably takes into account packing materials and dead space.

Quote:

Also I was wondering if you had given any thought to empty mass versus full mass, with regards to thrust and perhaps even manuvering?


Yup. As I use thrust/mass for space speed one can calculate speeds for varios loads. Maneuverability starts off using th same as space.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
willg
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 29 Apr 2014
Posts: 193

PostPosted: Thu Sep 29, 2022 11:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:
Good point. I drew the basis of the template idea from the Saga Edition book, and Archaic was the word they used, so I just stuck with it. Maybe simply "Older" would be sufficient.

As a side note, applying templates could also help the GM flesh out the story a bit more, as in "Well, we have a Space 8 drive available, but I'm not sure you want it..."


I like Archaic, though. Good word

Archaic to my mind would be salvaging a ship's hyperdrive from say a crashed or derelict ship from way back. such as if we were from the Tales of the Jedi or Knights of the Old Republic era and were found in any era from the Prequel, Classic, or Sequel era.

Archaic implies this is an obsolete model, they don't make spares for it anymore and they are uncommon.

You wouldn't use the Dynamic class era hyperdrive on your YT-1200 UNLESS it was a last resort.

Older drives, ok they may not be made and it's no longer available new, but compatible, backward compatible parts or second-hand spares are still out there.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Thu Sep 29, 2022 11:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I was just rereading that post and thinking "Outdated" struck a better balance between the two, as in "not up to current standards, but not a slow, ancient wreck."
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
willg
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 29 Apr 2014
Posts: 193

PostPosted: Thu Sep 29, 2022 2:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:
I was just rereading that post and thinking "Outdated" struck a better balance between the two, as in "not up to current standards, but not a slow, ancient wreck."


Yes. I was reading this post recently and I thought it was quite an Interesting one. Even as a decade-old post, yeah I could see potential uses for such a chart.

Outdated works for me, but Archaic should be its own thing. Slow, salvaged from an ancient wreck. Free but good luck finding replacement parts.

Do you think an incompatibility penalty is a feasible idea?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> House Rules All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 5 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group


v2.0