Page: 1 2
Lucas P
Emperor
Global user
Registered: 09-2005
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 3362
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
J.A.H. Shipwrights Sharisa-Class Stock Gunship Feedback
This thread is for comments and suggestions concerning the Sharisa-Class Stock Gunship Image and Information page posted in the gallery.
Please remember that this is NOT a WIP thread -- any modification projects need to be posted in the appropriate thread in the Original WIPs Forum.
--- Only 2 things are infinite; The Universe, and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the former. - Albert Einstein
 |
|
10/7/2006, 6:32 am
|
|
auer
Imperial Tourist
Global user
Registered: 01-2006
Location: hungary
Posts: 13
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: J.A.H. Shipwrights Sharisa-Class Stock Gunship Feedback
i have a question
If the Kaoumini people tall, above average than the bunks why so short?
I mean this bunks not copmforbale for a tall human.
|
|
10/12/2006, 8:14 am
|
|
tpkc klick
Kuati Merchant Prince
Global user
Registered: 12-2005
Location: Binghamton, New York
Posts: 565
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: J.A.H. Shipwrights Sharisa-Class Stock Gunship Feedback
Th bunk is actually very big. Compare it to a real-world king-size bed:
The king-size bed is 205cm long, while the Sharisa's bunk, without the wall padding removed, is 225 cm long (245 cm with the padding removed for a taller individual). The bunks are also military issue, (having slept in military bunks, I can tell you they tend to be just big enough to fit on and just comfortable enough to fall asleep) so they are not going to be large and luxurious.
Many of the old SWDpA and SWDA ships have unusually large bunks, I suspect because it's hard to get a grasp on how big something is when looking at it in Bluescale. It wasn't until we launched the Nella and the Corona that real-world size beds were used.
---
wow, flood, heat wave, tornado...holy **** Mike, time to move, don't you think? -Lucas P
|
|
10/12/2006, 9:53 am
|
|
The VOID
Emperor's Hand
Global user
Registered: 03-2006
Location: European Union
Posts: 2372
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: J.A.H. Shipwrights Sharisa-Class Stock Gunship Feedback
Same thing with toilets, showers and many other things. Space is costly on a starship and the humans in Star Wars are also a bit smaller than the average human in a western country is today. Mostly because people in our 70's were all a tiny bit smaller and it made Vader look bigger. 
Military beds are scaled so that you can sleep in a stable side position. You don't need to do the leg stretching in your bunk. You can do that in front of it.
--- "The sand people are easily startled, but they will soon be back, and in greater numbers." — Obi-Wan Kenobi
|
|
10/12/2006, 11:28 am
|
|
WardenWolf
Imperial Tourist
Global user
Registered: 07-2006
Location: USA
Posts: 265
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: J.A.H. Shipwrights Sharisa-Class Stock Gunship Feedback
Smaller in the 70's?!! Really, Void, I don't think an inch to an inch and a half really means much.
Mark Hamill - average height
Harrison Ford - tall
David Prowse - tall (James Earl Jones is, too)
Alec Guiness - little tall
Carrie Fisher - way short
Peter Mayhew - freakishly tall
Natalie Portman - short
Ewan McGregor - average or so
Hayden Christensen - tall
Christopher Lee - tall
I could go on and on, but the point is that the cast runs through a pretty normal spread of heights. Especially when you include all the extras.
It isn't fair or rational to equate "human" heights of the 1970's with a "long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away".
And quit with the use of "military bed", there is no such thing. There is only what is designed to be. I slept on all sizes of beds when I was in the army, and not a single one of them was a "military bed"...
And what the hell is a "stable side position"? I've slept on army issue cots where you really could only sleep on your back...
Basic Training/AIT - full sized twin mattress
ALL my barracks rooms - full sized twin
Married housing - king (army's bed, not mine)
Field and Deployment - cots (long but narrow)
What you're really going for is the size of a navy bunk, but those, too change from one place to the next. A bunk in a small submarine is not as large as one found on an aircraft carrier. Admittedly not by much, but even so the difference exists.
Don't take any of this as an attack, but really understand what I'm trying to get across here. You are labeling something as standardized which in real life is no such thing.
- Jake
|
|
10/12/2006, 1:54 pm
|
|
auer
Imperial Tourist
Global user
Registered: 01-2006
Location: hungary
Posts: 13
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: J.A.H. Shipwrights Sharisa-Class Stock Gunship Feedback
ok thx
i never sleep military bed but sleepy man can anywhere sleep...
|
|
10/16/2006, 12:02 am
|
|
tpkc klick
Kuati Merchant Prince
Global user
Registered: 12-2005
Location: Binghamton, New York
Posts: 565
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: J.A.H. Shipwrights Sharisa-Class Stock Gunship Feedback
Jake, I agree, our use of the term "military bed" was somewhat imprecise. I was thinking of the field cot I primarily slept on while training with the IDF, as well some of the integrated bunks on naval ships, particularly submarines (submariner's bunks were the primary source of inspiration for the the Sharisa's bunkroom) and I imagine VOID was using the term in the same way.
---
wow, flood, heat wave, tornado...holy **** Mike, time to move, don't you think? -Lucas P
|
|
10/16/2006, 12:18 am
|
|
The VOID
Emperor's Hand
Global user
Registered: 03-2006
Location: European Union
Posts: 2372
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: J.A.H. Shipwrights Sharisa-Class Stock Gunship Feedback
I have been thinking about this for some time, but I came to the conclusion, that it needs some discussion.
While the Sharisa is a very elegant and sleak design, very well drawn and sweet to look at, the stats of the ship tend to leave a sour aftertaste.
I know it is opportune to explain exceptional performance with high cost, but eventually, that does not do much good, because often it looks more like a convenient way to get rid of issues.
I have noticed that some other people in other forums showed a similar reaction to the ship and I think it would be a good idea to work on that. A ship that is beautifull but almost useless to most gamers because of its exotic origin is not the best expansion to the Star Wars universe. Most of all, stats that won't be used by most people, because they are considered exaggerated are not very usefull, either. While the story of the ship does not have to be discussed, the stats are something very different.
I am not a friend of the D6 game mechanics, but when providing D6 stats, these stats clasify the place that any given vessel takes in the food chain of ships within this system. Looking at the Sharisa, I see a ship that does not fit well into the existing foodchain and that is "uber" in quite some ways.
The Star Wars Galaxy has manufacturing corporations that can draw from hundreds of years of experience, elaborated testing procedures and the luxury of cutting edge production facilities. Any minor manufacturer will have a hard time to keep up with them, let alone to surpass them.
We could discuss wether or not this is true for a long time, but the essential question is, wether or not we really want to provide stats that unavoidably produce that kind of sentiments.
Therfor I think the stats of the ship should receive a major overhaul to fit into the existing pecking order and they should result in a good ship, but not in a ship that surpasses almost everything else in any given stat.
This is the set of stats that produces the most problems, putting the credibility of the design in question:
Maneuverability: 3D+1
Space: 10
Hull: 5D+2
Shields: 4D+1
To sum that up in relations:
The Sharisa is faster than an Incom X-Wing Space Superiority Starfighter (Space 8), almost as fast as a TIE Interceptor (Space 11), while at the same time it is as maneuverable as both ships (3D and 3D+2). It has to be noted, that ships in the D6 system are much slower and less maneuverable, the bigger they are.
Despite this almost tremendous performance, the Sharisa also surpasses much heavier craft, when it comes to shields and armor, beeing better armored than an Imperial Guardian light Cruiser (Hull 5D) and better shielded than any given ship of Starfighter scale, where the averare is 1-2D and the Milennium Falcon alone surpasses all with a shield rating of 3D.
There are exceptions to this BUT: Whenever there is any single ship that is matched in one stat by the Sharisa, it falls behind in other aspects.
A Sharisa, that is competitive in all important aspects with the top performers of every given stat, is no credible. We wish to provide credible designs and deckplans and the stats we provide have to be a part of that.
Beeing conservative and modest when it comes to stats serves much better, than topping off everything else in any given class.
This is my advice:
Pick any given stat of this list and stick to it. Then adjust the rest.
Maneuverability: 3D+1
Space: 10
Hull: 5D+2
Shields: 4D+1
It may be fast as hell for its size, faster than any other stock ship of its size and class, but speed comes for a prize. Even a drastic reduction of Hull to 4D and Shields to 2D would leave the Sharisa with excellent characteristics, given its other statistics and abilities. I also don't see shield and energy systems inside this ship, that could justify 4D+1 shields, which are effectively competitive with the shields of larger capital ships (including scale differences!).
Most of all, the Sharisa simply doesn't look nor feel like the brutal hard hitting assault brute, that the stats seem to describe. This ship looks fast, elegant and well designed, but it has design flaws that rule out such massive ratings.
Even with a hull twice as thick it would not appear to be the flying armor-brick that the stats show and it should be noted that system position has a great influence on effective ratings. The center-bow powercore is just one example, where the armor of the ship will do only little good to protect it from any direct hit. The thrusters suffer from similar exposure, as do most other systems.
The Sharisa packs a lot of firepower and speed, but it should pay for that with a drastically reduced ability to take abuse. It is also mentioned that the ships systems are tightly packed and hard to modify. These are not the characteristics of a ship that can take much actual abuse in battle. If it is tightly packed, any hit will damage something important, which effectively reduces the hull rating it can credibly sustain.
Personally, I also think that the turbolaser cannons are exaggerated within the D6 universe. They fit in the D20 systems, where turbolasers are present in much smaller craft, but in D6 they seem to be out of place. Especially since the secondary armament are heavy laser cannons. I would expect a ship of this size and purpose to be armed either with the two turbolasers (damage reduced by at least 1D) and a secondary armamaent of laser cannons. Even then, the 2 laser cannons of the Sharisa do as much damage as the four fire-linked cannons of an X-Wing and the guns of an X-Wing are even slightly larger. They are even more comparable in size to the two guns of the Y-Wing, which do 5D damage fire-linked.
You know me as someone who does not like to justify and explain things by using single exceptional examples alone and I am convinced that is the right way to do, when dealing with a diversified universe.
If you want many people to use your ship, tune down its stats. More importantly: If you want gamers to use your ship, that are not munchkins and powergamers, tune it down even more and adapt it more to other ships in the Star Wars Galaxy.
Keep what is visible or keep the stats. One of the two does not fit the other. If you love the stats, make the hull twice as thick, sacrifice at least 50% of the internal space for more power systems, redundancy systems, cooling systems, maneuvering thrusters and a set of powerfull and distributed shield projectors. Eventually, you would end up with a totally different ship and I think it is far easier to even the stats.
And don't try to explain too much with the single stat that is cost. Cost does not explain. It only justifies and it does a bad job doing so. An Empire that can build Executor-Class Star Dreadnaughts and Death Stars can easily build hundreds of thousands of Uberfighters in its place and if it does not, that is not much of an indicator that it would not want to. More likely is that it just can't do so as it might wish. The existing mainstream ships represent, what is possible without severe complications. They were not built the way they were, just because all fractions love to have crappy ships. When a single small fraction outperforms the top manufacturers, just because it wanted to replace its Firesprays, that is not credible. It also doesn't work, by the way. Replacing a 120.000 credits ship with a 750.000 ship is crazy. Especially if you have to develop that 750.000 ship first, which raises its effective (including R&D, prototypes, new maintenance facilities, loss of old replacement parts, setting up specialised manufacturing plants,...) cost to at least 1,5 million per ship in the first years! Even with the stock price, you can buy 6 of the old for one of the new and still save 30.000. Including all cost, it will likely be around 20 for the price of 1. What do you think is better to patrol a core world sector and fight off piracy? A massive presence of proven ships or a handfull of ultratech prototypes?
Scaling down the ships performance takes a lot strain from the money justification and allows for a reduction of price. That will not only increase export options it will also spread the ship much better on the market, which in turn improves chances that gamers can actually use and encounter them more than once in their entire lives! You want people to use your designs and tell you about it? Make it at least more possible.
And don't take this as offense. The Sharisa is an excellent and beautifull design. It should have stats and a backround that actually support that instead of discrediting it. As always, this is just my opinion.
--- "The sand people are easily startled, but they will soon be back, and in greater numbers." — Obi-Wan Kenobi
|
|
10/25/2006, 6:23 am
|
|
tpkc klick
Kuati Merchant Prince
Global user
Registered: 12-2005
Location: Binghamton, New York
Posts: 565
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: J.A.H. Shipwrights Sharisa-Class Stock Gunship Feedback
At the risk of sounding blunt, I didn't design the Sharisa for all of you, I designed it for me. I needed a new ship for a bounty hunter, and if other people found the ship useful, that's great for them. It is supposed to be a rare, expensive, powerful ship. Additionally, I developed the ship before the forum split, so I never expected it to be posted in the gallery, and because of this, I did not make it player-friendly.
Another thing to keep in mind about the Sharisa is that it's damn near impossible to modify. Without paying through the nose for a factory kit, you can't increase the stats, and I included this caveat to offset the ship's power (I thought this appropriate because I've come across a number of other ships that have been heavily modified to have performance comparable to the Sharisa).
As for the sleek lines, I don't really see the disconnect between beauty and deadliness (though I suspect many people feel this way because the Sharisa is somewhat reminiscent of the Naboo royal yachts). Many of the most powerful real-world fighters are also the most eye-catching.
The stock home-market version will remain the same, though I might be willing to re-work the stats for the export version (I did say that the 15E version of the ship IS a reduced capability one), though not to the point that it is no longer a formidable opponent.
For those of you who like the Sharisa, I am working on other, more affordable, ships from the same manufacturer for the civilian market, and based on the reception of the Sharisa's styling, I'll try to carry over that look as much as I can.
---
wow, flood, heat wave, tornado...holy **** Mike, time to move, don't you think? -Lucas P
|
|
10/25/2006, 7:28 am
|
|
The VOID
Emperor's Hand
Global user
Registered: 03-2006
Location: European Union
Posts: 2372
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: J.A.H. Shipwrights Sharisa-Class Stock Gunship Feedback
I am not sure you got my point quite right. 
--- "The sand people are easily startled, but they will soon be back, and in greater numbers." — Obi-Wan Kenobi
|
|
10/25/2006, 8:57 am
|
|
Add a reply
Page: 1 2
Powered by AkBBS 0.9.5b - Link to us
- Blogs
- Hall of Honour
- Chat
Click here to get your own free message board
|
You are not logged in (login)
Board's time is: 11/24/2009, 12:46 pm
|
|
|
