That feels like it would run into the QM's states goal of not making dice roll components the automatic answer though IMO. There needs to be some kind of solid argument for why we should not want to take an early tech for a design, even if the arguments for doing so win out in some cases. "We'll get another 2/3 chance for everything to go fine or even better next design if we do poorly" doesn't seem like it'll fill that role.
Linked contents
joe6168
Just a humble lurker
- Location
- Michigan, The lower left glove
[X] Type-2 Impulse Thruster (Type-3: Theoretical -> Experimental, Size: Standard)
While I normally don't mind throwing the dice on experimental technology, but one that hasn't even left the theory crafting stage? That's a bit to much for my taste, let it cook a bit longer.
While I normally don't mind throwing the dice on experimental technology, but one that hasn't even left the theory crafting stage? That's a bit to much for my taste, let it cook a bit longer.
Last edited:
Shard
One and Many
- Location
- Malaysia
I mean.. the point of a prototype is that all the issues are things you fix in the subsequent designs, isn't it? Like, the cost is fairly clear, the ship with the Prototype design is going to comparatively suck, but that's for the benefit of later ships who.. don't have to deal with the suckiness.
- Location
- sweden
Like if a ship is bad or to experimental it would likely have a short run or get redesigned to use more common parts logically and in our case with a more low stakes design as a behind lines ship we have more room to experiment more safely even if it likely builds a reputation of infamy
Then it's just ejectably bad to ever do any prototyping and the like then.
Isn't there also a chance that it turns out better than OTL, though?
A smaller chance of that compared to failure, though.
Sure, but that's the gamble, isn't it? There's also a chance that we'll effectively get the technology early.
I think that permanently making the tech worse might be a bit harsh compared to delaying the completion, but either way there's always a reason to go for it.
I mean this is what you are voting for right now so ??? Like the rules ATM are very explicitly that we get a permanent component debuff until the component is replaced with a new version if we fail experimental/theoretical rolls.
The reason people are proposing harsh penalties as an alternative is that the design intent is to make rushing things risky.
[X] Type-3 Impulse Thruster [Theoretical] (Three Success Rolls: Size -> Thrust -> Prototype Performance)
I'm with you. There may be downsides in terms of getting funding if the prototype seems much further away from the desired performance than everyone was expecting, issues with trade-offs, materials, etc. but IMO a malus on the concept shouldn't be forever. Worst case extend it 2 time units beyond normal deployment if we go full send on a dead end and need to steal the tech from our enemies. Then you could have the situation where you've got standard tech that's alright, your flawed tech that's got advantages and disadvantages (industrial cost, size, with fewer quality rolls), or the fresh prototype tech that could offer advantages but has more challenge rolls (and could get you in another flawed prototype cycle).
I'm with you. There may be downsides in terms of getting funding if the prototype seems much further away from the desired performance than everyone was expecting, issues with trade-offs, materials, etc. but IMO a malus on the concept shouldn't be forever. Worst case extend it 2 time units beyond normal deployment if we go full send on a dead end and need to steal the tech from our enemies. Then you could have the situation where you've got standard tech that's alright, your flawed tech that's got advantages and disadvantages (industrial cost, size, with fewer quality rolls), or the fresh prototype tech that could offer advantages but has more challenge rolls (and could get you in another flawed prototype cycle).
Last edited:
StriderInCosmos
Wanderer in the Worldsea
- Location
- Somewhere in... Terminal Dogma? I think?
It's part of why I made my proposal as to a potential change to the tech advancement rules. It stings us and the ship class in a way I feel is sufficiently harsh in the short and middle-term if we end up rolling poorly, but gives the designers a chance to go back to the drawing board and refine it for the next line of ships, as usually happens in real life. We feel it here, but it opens up the potential for another ship still getting an edge over the last generation's tech a little earlier than expected, rather than as early as we would have wished.
- Location
- Where I an right now
[X] Type-3 Impulse Thruster [Theoretical] (Three Success Rolls: Size -> Thrust -> Prototype Performance)
This is an engineering ship, if this ends up wonky or need extra maintenance, it is the perfect ship for it. Engineers would probably love to tinker for a chance to see if they can improve it.
This is an engineering ship, if this ends up wonky or need extra maintenance, it is the perfect ship for it. Engineers would probably love to tinker for a chance to see if they can improve it.
Ah. Point.
Or they'll complain endlessly about it not working.
Endorfinator
Awkwardly Social
- Location
- California
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Good. Prototypes should carry some actual risk to them and not be the automatic yes that they seem to be in the quest right now. Rushing things along and then screwing up royally should push back the implementation of functional production model. There needs to be real consequences.
Mechanis
Confirmed Extremely Screwed
- Location
- Absconding with Alacrity
Eh, it's not too bad I think. It'll probably look odd without a container on, but compared to some of the real aesthetic stinkers of canon it's not so bad.
on prototyping: I definitely like Strider's idea of being able to have permanent "failure" effects, but then being able to choose to mitigate them; with an inherent one-turn-per-failure time penalty (and the option to just eat said penalty if we don't have extra time.) I feel like that gives the best blend of permanent consequences, player agency, and "what would Starfleet actually do" realism.
That said, the current rules make, in my opinion, the three roll options a wee bit too risky for my blood, so:
[X] Type-2 Impulse Thruster (Type-3: Theoretical -> Experimental, Size: Standard)
NavySeel
"I don't know what I'm doing."
- Location
- Places
They shouldn't be an automatic "No" either. I genuinely don't see how they should slow things down, having practical knowledge of what doesn't' work should speed up how fast you get to the end result, not slow it down.
Shard
One and Many
- Location
- Malaysia
This ship sucking right now is some pretty real consequences IMO. If it also made future ships suck I fail to see what's the point of prototypes.
- Location
- United States
- Pronouns
- He/Him
[X] Type-2 Impulse Thruster (Type-3: Theoretical -> Experimental, Size: Standard)
- Location
- Seattle, Washington
[X] Type-2 Impulse Thruster (Type-3: Theoretical -> Experimental, Size: Standard)