Fleet Rules: R&D times

[Sumor Rayial]

After my last thread and finding that nothing was ever decided about R&D times, I IMed Vis and after a short discussion we came up with the following times.

up to 200 meters ship/starfighter/Ground Vehicle R&D=10 day research time
200 to 600 meters ship R&D=20 day research time
600 to 1100 meters ship R&D=30 day research time
1100 to 2000 meters ship R&D=40 day research time
If upgrading to a new mark of vessel, divide R&D time by two.

Any comments, questions, beefs, chickens, or vegitables?

[Varlon Konrad]

Can I get mashed taters with that? :lol

On topic, however, I don't have any beef with it. And anything else over 2 klicks is 90 I'm presuming?

[Syron Ward]

I'm assuming projects already at least halfway being R&D'd or that have already been R&D'd don't apply to this new rule?

[Darth Viscera]

And anything else over 2 klicks is 90 I'm presuming?

That be the case :).


I'm assuming projects already at least halfway being R&D'd or that have already been R&D'd don't apply to this new rule?

yup yup, Herr Sturmbannfuhrer

[Darth Viscera]

100 to 2000 meters ship R&D=40 day research time

Summs, I believe I made a typo there. It should be 1100 meters to 2000 meters.

[Khendon Sevon]

This shall be a great rule! No more wasting 30 days on shuttle designs and whatnot!

[Syron Ward]

Alright, I suppose this needs consultation. In the 'New Tech' thread I never got to a research time for the Disruptor Laser thing. What would you guys think appropriate, 70 days? A 20 post research thread, or something like that?

[Adm Garm Bel Iblis]

I'm glad this came up, because I ran into this question as soon as I started.

First question:

I had an idea for a new kind of command ship. I only wanted to say that I was flying in something other than the same SSD or MC Cruiser others do. There is nothing radical about the design at all. I simply took the stats for an MC-100, an SSD, and made some arbitrary number changes so that it fell in the middle.

I was told I had to have 40 days of development time for this before I waited 40 more days to build the thing. IMO, I don't see why. Again, there is NOTHING special about this tech. It's comperable to all other command ships out there ... smaller even, with nothing wacky like gravity wells or anything of that nature.

I'm willing to put some R&D time into this, but I think 40 days for a new name of a ship with identical capabilities is a bit excessive.

The stats can be found HERE (http://www.swforums.net/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11747). Is there any chance I can get a break on R&D time? At first I didn't think I needed any, so I just started construction. I'll change completion time to whatever I need to (and reassign that shipyard to another construction project while I'm still in r&d phase)

Second Question:

How long for R&D time of technology that has nothing to do with a new ship or size of ship? Everyone seems to have this tunnel vision that NEW means bigger or something.

My idea, in short, is new shield technology that will be applicable to light capital ships only. I was just going to take the full 40 days for it, but since it is only for small ships (Carracks, frigates) ... is it now 30 days?

I started the RP for that project HERE (http://www.swforums.net/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11752).

Just curious. I want to make sure everything is in compliance to avoid OOC hassles.

[Evil Hobgoblin]

Personally, I don't think the idea behind the "Disruptor Laser" is acceptable myself. Turbolasers are already prone to blowouts on a low level and I think it would massively increase with the power requirements you want to give it. If it was agreed by all that this weapon could be created and stabilized, I personally believe that it should come with a failure stipulation regarding battles and other forms of extended usage (like tromping through asteroid fields). Handheld disruptor weapons come with similar dangers, and upscaling them doesn't necessarily dispense with them.

[Adm Garm Bel Iblis]

PS: I think the majority of the players were -against- the idea of the disruptor laser at all. Let me add my vote here ... I don't think the disruptor laser should be allowed. It is something that you might think sounds all nice and innocent, but can be WAY too easily exploited.

[Marcus Telcontar]

A distruptor sounds like something from Star Trek to me.

[Sumor Rayial]

1) Took a look at those specs and I'm not really sure where they would fit. It is a new class of ship as far as I can tell.

Now, from what I know (and it's not much on NR ships) MC's are all basically the same ships just on different scales. So if it was looking like a MC then yes it would cut down on your research time. However the thing is over 9 Km long. That would usually encur a 90 day research time, so I don't really know where this would fall.

2) New weapons or sheilds or other things of that nature I believe fall into the first section, so 10 days. That's just my feelings, have to see what others say on the subject.

[Neros Longstreet]

No offense either of you, but nobody else in the thread where I brought it up is complaining anymore, and I realized all the risks involved before I even brought it up. Power requirements, overheating, all of it. It doesn't matter whether or not you think it's safe. What we do with it is our business. I don't think it sounds all nice and innocent either. It's a weapon, and all weapons have their weaknesses. Here's the compromise we made:


*The blast will have the same effect against shielding that regular heavy turbolasers have.

*The blast will have to destroy armor the same as heavy turbolasers, just at 2x faster rate. ie: If a heavy turbolaser takes 10 seconds to punch through armor, it would only take the Disruptor Laser 5. Half the time.

*The Disruptor Laser unit on the ship will have to recharge 15 seconds before it can fire again(regular turbolasers are only 2 seconds)

*The blast will only have 1/2 the range of a regular heavy turbolaser


I'm sorry if I came out angry, it's just some rl problems. I know I shouldn't bring it in here, but ah.. you guys know how it is.

Now, the above will be the outcome when the R&D is finished. I will restate my question..

How do you guys want DF to go about this? Shall we R&D it for around 70 days, or rp it out for 20 posts or so?

[Dalethria Mal Pannis]

The reason I was not debating anymore is because I don't do numbers. That is Sanis' area of expertise. I am still personally against the distruptor.

[Syron Ward]

Alright, I'll just bloody ask it!

Is there anyone at all who roleplays that supports the idea of a Disruptor - Star Wars, not Star Trek - that could be used on a capital ship? Mind you, don't post again if you're against it, just anyone who supports or condones the use of Disruptor energy in this way. Anyone at all.

I'm not going to clutter the page up with a new thread, because anyone who cares about R&D would look here anyway. If less than three rpers post a support/condone, then I will drop the argument.

[Evil Hobgoblin]

No offense either of you, but nobody else in the thread where I brought it up is complaining anymore, and I realized all the risks involved before I even brought it up. Power requirements, overheating, all of it. It doesn't matter whether or not you think it's safe. What we do with it is our business.

I'd like to note to you that it is also the business of the Fleet Moderators, of which I am one. (My primary screen name is Pierce Tondry) The entire point of having people in a capacity to oversee what's going on in this realm is to keep things fair.

I will say that there is an interesting loophole of sorts. If you can find in a Star Wars novel or comic some use of a ship-based disruptor cannon, it is legal until such time as it is grossly misused. At that point, it would simply be a matter of developing necessary research and build times.

[Syron Ward]

I am sorry Hob if I offended you. However, I am 99% sure there is no space-faring, or ground vessel boasting Disruptor Lasers in Star Wars. I'm not 100% sure because I have not read every single book and watched every cartoon, but I am 99% because I've researched it and found no reference. So yes, it is a matter of researching and build times, in my eyes anyway.

[Evil Hobgoblin]

You didn't offend me at all. I simply think it's a wise thing to remind peeps who are frustrated with the current system why we have Fleet Moderators and such. It is our job to make decisions that could potentially affect gameplay when a clear yes or no cannot be gleaned from the general public. We don't purposefully try to thwart people's plans, just keep things fair.

[Syron Ward]

I am officialy dropping the subject on Disruptors. Death Fleet will cease plans for R&D immediately.

[Darth Viscera]

Now, from what I know (and it's not much on NR ships) MC's are all basically the same ships just on different scales. So if it was looking like a MC then yes it would cut down on your research time. However the thing is over 9 Km long. That would usually encur a 90 day research time, so I don't really know where this would fall.

I concur with Summs on this one. It is a new class of ship. It's also greater than 2km, which means that unless it's an SSD, it's subject to the 90 day rule, wherein its research, development and construction is completed in 90 days utilizing one shipyard.


New weapons or sheilds or other things of that nature I believe fall into the first section, so 10 days. That's just my feelings, have to see what others say on the subject.

I concur on this point as well. 10 days for an individual technology sounds very reasonable.

[Sumor Rayial]

If there isn't any arguments for why this shouldn't become a part of the fleet rules can we get a SWFans official to make it official?

[Jubei SaDherat Vader]

I'll speak with Tondry on this and present an official ruling on it soon.

[Pierce Tondry]

Sanis and I have conferred and come to an agreement on the matter.

The one caveat I had with them was in the area of Combat Vehicles. It is my personal belief that those facilities should be different from the facilities used to design spacefaring ships. I have no problems with the times Vis and Summs have drawn up, particularly since they are two of the people most likely to use them, but I just think Combat Vehicle R & D should be a separate category in large part because Combat Vehicles are designed to work in different environments than the vacuum of space. That is not, however, an unchangeable opinion.

If other people agree with me on this, then we can utilize those times in our current ruleset draft. I should also note that I think Combat Vehicle designs should only take a week, as Combat Vehicles can live with some bugs that would be fatal to starcraft.

[Sumor Rayial]

Well the time is just time, it doesn't neccissarily reflect how or where the tech is developed. I don't know about Vis, but the Conclave will have a seperate set of facilities for the ground forces.

And a week sounds fine to me.