The Kaggath Returns!

[Wolfninjajedi]

Eventually though two different eras will collide, but it might be an idea when matching.

 

There wouldn't need any eras to colide just have it all be separate tournys.

[tunewalker]

Honestly I think the Tech Rule itself just needs some re-working. I am still under the belief that "advanced" is "advanced" and there are no greater or lesser levels of "advanced for time". My thoughts on this are every ship that was advanced for its time was advanced for various reasons, maybe it was alien tech, maybe it was a technilogical break through. The fact is the other did not exist at the same time as each other usually. Because of this I believe its truly impossible to judge one "advanced for time" as greater then the other. Also I think it undermines the purpose of the rule in general. The rule was established so that if some one chose an ancient ship and then some one else went and chose something from Legacy Era we could compare the 2 with out some one saying "well Turbo laser tech has come a long way since then".

 

 

What I am trying to say is an Advanced for its time ship from an earlier era and one from a later era preformed the overall same role. A means to give the owner of the tech an advantage in battle. While different era's or different means may have different results that very well could be the mark of the quality of the standard designs of that time and not neccisarily are mark on advanced vs advanced. To me Advanced should be standardized to avoid any confusion. I personally think thats what the tech rule originally stood for, standardizing tech through the era, I feel for Advanced tech it should be the same.

[Beniboybling]

Honestly I think the Tech Rule itself just needs some re-working. I am still under the belief that "advanced" is "advanced" and there are no greater or lesser levels of "advanced for time". My thoughts on this are every ship that was advanced for its time was advanced for various reasons, maybe it was alien tech, maybe it was a technilogical break through. The fact is the other did not exist at the same time as each other usually. Because of this I believe its truly impossible to judge one "advanced for time" as greater then the other. Also I think it undermines the purpose of the rule in general. The rule was established so that if some one chose an ancient ship and then some one else went and chose something from Legacy Era we could compare the 2 with out some one saying "well Turbo laser tech has come a long way since then".

 

 

What I am trying to say is an Advanced for its time ship from an earlier era and one from a later era preformed the overall same role. A means to give the owner of the tech an advantage in battle. While different era's or different means may have different results that very well could be the mark of the quality of the standard designs of that time and not neccisarily are mark on advanced vs advanced. To me Advanced should be standardized to avoid any confusion. I personally think thats what the tech rule originally stood for, standardizing tech through the era, I feel for Advanced tech it should be the same.

Advanced for its time in relation to its contemporaries you mean. So basically if there is argument to suggest that X pwned its contemporaries because it was just so good, that can be brought up in the Kaggath as argument against the enemy. If the other faction is also demonstrably superior to its contemporaries, we compare how well they did against them and make a decision. I think thought that reducing "advanced" to a status or class if you will would be inaccurate.

 

For example if this was made a rule, in the past Kaggath the Rakata enhanced stealth fleet that was capable of taking on the entire Republic and Imperial fleets and winning would be deemed equal to the New Republic Fleets which were just really good. I think their is a distinction here, Rakata technology places them in another league.

 

We need to be prepared to be accurate, as much as we'd like too we can't cut corners. Some vessels are more advanced than others, this isn't an opinion, this is a fact. And I try to make my Kaggaths as accurate as possible.

[tunewalker]

Advanced for its time in relation to its contemporaries you mean. So basically if there is argument to suggest that X pwned its contemporaries because it was just so good, that can be brought up in the Kaggath as argument against the enemy. If the other faction is also demonstrably superior to its contemporaries, we compare how well they did against them and make a decision. I think thought that reducing "advanced" to a status or class if you will would be inaccurate.

 

For example if this was made a rule, in the past Kaggath the Rakata enhanced stealth fleet that was capable of taking on the entire Republic and Imperial fleets and winning would be deemed equal to the New Republic Fleets which were just really good. I think their is a distinction here, Rakata technology places them in another league.

 

We need to be prepared to be accurate, as much as we'd like too we can't cut corners. Some vessels are more advanced than others, this isn't an opinion, this is a fact. And I try to make my Kaggaths as accurate as possible.

 

you and I both know that I could debate you on this point for over a hundred posts with out either of us giving ground quite litterally getting to the point of Rayla's Quote of the match last round right? And the fact that I can form a debate on this very subject is the reason for my suggestion of the standardization.

 

Because number of plot holes.... well 1 we have no direct statement nor proof that the entirety of either fleet is there. Most likely they arent because they dont wan to tip their hands to the enemy. They still have a war to fight against the sith/republic they arent going to commit everything. Tehy are especially not going to tip the stuff they are trying to keep secret. I would not be surprised if both only sent half there available fleets. (Malgus taking 30% of the Sith fleet, then each attack wiping out 10% of each fleet every attack over about 4-5 attacks bring both down to 60% of their strength they both commit half of that 60% and Malgus's fleet was only outnumbered 2:1 with the help of the Flex cannon and potentially superior tactitians. If he hit more locals then it brings it down even further to the point where malgus was not likely outnumbered nearly as much as believed. Then you will note I also stated that the difference in the standards of the time could be different. While they may be he "xyz" of their time that does not mean the XYZ wasnt better for its time.

 

And of course we can go on and on and on about this whole thing for days you and I both know that. You want accuracy i understand that, but its a question of HOW accurate do you really think it is right now, I challenge that accuracy. Though I am guessing you are likely to leave it as is and suggest any discrepencies in advanced vs advanced like the one I gave above or the other numerable potential plot holes to it I actually do a better job of bringing up in actual debates instead of just trying to get a blanket rule change.

Edited March 2, 2014 by tunewalker

[Beniboybling]

Using a specific scenario where the evidence we had was thin is all well and good. But this won't always and hasn't always been the case. In the event that a unit is blatantly more advanced than another supposedly "advanced" ship - this rule would prevent that advantage from being recognised, and so produce inaccurate results.

 

Even in this particular case, its quite obvious that Rakata technology is going to give an already highly advanced warship an edge against one that has simply been very well designed, which the stealth fleet already was.

Edited March 2, 2014 by Beniboybling

[tunewalker]

Using a specific scenario where the evidence we had was thin is all well and good. But this won't always and hasn't always been the case. In the event that a unit is blatantly more advanced than another supposedly "advanced" ship - this rule would prevent that advantage from being recognised, and so produce inaccurate results.

 

Even in this particular case, its quite obvious that Rakata technology is going to give an already highly advanced warship an edge against one that has simply been very well designed, which the stealth fleet already was.

 

Essentially you are saying this

 

"Though I am guessing you are likely to leave it as is and suggest any discrepencies in advanced vs advanced like the one I gave above or the other numerable potential plot holes to it I actually do a better job of bringing up in actual debates instead of just trying to get a blanket rule change."

[Beniboybling]

Essentially you are saying this

 

"Though I am guessing you are likely to leave it as is and suggest any discrepencies in advanced vs advanced like the one I gave above or the other numerable potential plot holes to it I actually do a better job of bringing up in actual debates instead of just trying to get a blanket rule change."

Yeah, or something...

[StarSquirrel]

I agree with Tune sort of, and agree with you a bit to.

 

Specific Abilities/"Unique Tech" (stealth, better reactors/materials, better computers....) shouldn't be dismissed as it might be in Tune's proposal. We know certain fleets had unique technology that gave them the advances they had over their opponents, but to say something is in general "more advanced" causes problems. Essentially, unique abilities should have their contribution debated instead of ascribed to them.

 

X= "advanced fleet"

Y= "fleet of X's era."

Z= "Rival Kaggath fleet"

 

Making a blanket statement "The X fleet is awesome because they beat Y in their time" does not work for me. I'd rather we be made to discuss WHY it would work against Z enemy. Think of it more as "Unique Tech" instead of "Advanced Tech"

 

If X fleet beat Y, but Y sucked technologically that doesn't mean X should immediately be superior to Z. It should be more on a case-by-case basis imo. Now I also think the balance needs to be protected so basic advances (like turbolasers, shields, etc...) should be entirely flatlined across eras as the main part of the tech rule establishes.

 

Essentially, remove the "Advanced Clause" of the rule and let us debate "Unique Tech" each match with the basic abilities of all fleets flatlined.

[Beniboybling]

I think we are assuming ghat there are fixed rules to this, there are not. All the rule does is allow for the argument to be made that X is advanced for its time and therefore advanced for the Kaggath. Whether it is or not and to what extent it is is open for debate. Overcomplicating the issue with whatever the hell the above is will only make things worse.

[Selenial]

I think we are assuming ghat there are fixed rules to this, there are not. All the rule does is allow for the argument to be made that X is advanced for its time and therefore advanced for the Kaggath. Whether it is or not and to what extent it is is open for debate. Overcomplicating the issue with whatever the hell the above is will only make things worse.

 

So when can we expect Aurbere vs Warren?

[Beniboybling]

So when can we expect Aurbere vs Warren?

Well Aurbere said he was away from the weekend, so probably tommorow.

[StarSquirrel]

I think we are assuming ghat there are fixed rules to this, there are not. All the rule does is allow for the argument to be made that X is advanced for its time and therefore advanced for the Kaggath. Whether it is or not and to what extent it is is open for debate. Overcomplicating the issue with whatever the hell the above is will only make things worse.

 

That is the problem Beni, right there. That one, single, lone, solitary sentence.

 

Something being "advanced for its time" is relative to what it faced. If what it faced sucked then why the hell should it get special consideration for sucking less than the other guy? Just give up the "advanced for its time" crap and let us debate on a case-by-case basis whether something should be considered as a useful tool instead of just "how useful".

 

Essentially, we want to ensure that things like MSF's Rakata tech can be debated without you being super biased toward it crushing everything and considering it advanced, ergo, better than say Mon Cal shields because it beat an unknown number of ships that, honestly, have yet to do much of anything impressive anyway. (this is just a recent example that came to mind, don't try to attack the example keep on point.)

 

And I'm not overcomplicating anything, just hoping to help you see our point better. I'm sorry if it confused you.

 

And I wasn't going to make a big deal, but your last sentence rubbed me the wrong way.

[Beniboybling]

That is the problem Beni, right there. That one, single, lone, solitary sentence.

 

Something being "advanced for its time" is relative to what it faced. If what it faced sucked then why the hell should it get special consideration for sucking less than the other guy? Just give up the "advanced for its time" crap and let us debate on a case-by-case basis whether something should be considered as a useful tool instead of just "how useful".

 

Essentially, we want to ensure that things like MSF's Rakata tech can be debated without you being super biased toward it crushing everything and considering it advanced, ergo, better than say Mon Cal shields because it beat an unknown number of ships that, honestly, have yet to do much of anything impressive anyway. (this is just a recent example that came to mind, don't try to attack the example keep on point.)

 

And I'm not overcomplicating anything, just hoping to help you see our point better. I'm sorry if it confused you.

 

And I wasn't going to make a big deal, but your last sentence rubbed me the wrong way.

This is how the system currently works.

 

Anyway I see no issue with the rule, and you are not providing any comprehensible alternatives.

 

I'm also confused as to why you feel I am being "super biased toward it crushing everything and considering it advanced" - perhaps you'd like to provide some examples. I think this just comes down to you have a different opinion.

 

Altogether you are making very little sense.

Edited March 2, 2014 by Beniboybling

[Selenial]

That is the problem Beni, right there. That one, single, lone, solitary sentence.

 

Something being "advanced for its time" is relative to what it faced. If what it faced sucked then why the hell should it get special consideration for sucking less than the other guy? Just give up the "advanced for its time" crap and let us debate on a case-by-case basis whether something should be considered as a useful tool instead of just "how useful".

 

Essentially, we want to ensure that things like MSF's Rakata tech can be debated without you being super biased toward it crushing everything and considering it advanced, ergo, better than say Mon Cal shields because it beat an unknown number of ships that, honestly, have yet to do much of anything impressive anyway. (this is just a recent example that came to mind, don't try to attack the example keep on point.)

 

And I'm not overcomplicating anything, just hoping to help you see our point better. I'm sorry if it confused you.

 

And I wasn't going to make a big deal, but your last sentence rubbed me the wrong way.

 

This makes no sense to me.

 

The Harrowers were incredibly advanced for their time as it was, Palpatine based one of his most powerful ships off Harrowers, yeh, 3,000 years later and they are Still an inspiration.

 

They had advanced weaponry and shields that made Harrowers more powerful than Republic Cruisers in 1v1's, adding Rakata Tech on top of that made them ridiculously OP.

 

How you can say ships in the Old Republic haven't shown anything good is beyond me, for their time, they were the most Advanced warships out there, entire Leagues above ships that had been designed 50 or so years before.

 

Besides, one could argue that Mon Cala shields weren't as good as you say they were, because they were the standard later on in Galactic History.

 

Essentially what you're asking is that everyone picks ships from years after the battle of Endor, because no way in hell could a Harrower from the Sith Empire face off against a Mon Cala ship without the Universal Tech rule, even though Harrowers were as advanced for their time as the Mon Cala cruisers.

 

And I find it funny you call Beni Biased, when it took about 20 quotes on the battles, the ships, and the navy itself to convince him of their strength.

[Beniboybling]

I think the issue is that people seem to think there is an Advanced Tech Rule. There is not. There is merely a clause in the Universal Tech Rule that makes clear that if you have a particular piece of technology that was leaps and bounds ahead of the rest, or just plain archaic. It won't be considered on par with everything else.

 

If this clause did not exist, the whole thing would act like a warzone bolster. Everything would be equal. A Destroyer with Rakata Tech for example would be equal to a Destroyer patched together by century old tech.

 

And that's just dumb.

 

Now Tunewalker raised the valid point that its difficult when placed in an imaginary era just how much more advanced these units are, and therefore proposed we introduce an advanced class.

 

But that I feel could lead to the exact same situation as above.

 

I have little understand of what StarSquirrel is getting at or suggesting.

[Beniboybling]

This makes no sense to me.

 

The Harrowers were incredibly advanced for their time as it was, Palpatine based one of his most powerful ships off Harrowers, yeh, 3,000 years later and they are Still an inspiration.

 

They had advanced weaponry and shields that made Harrowers more powerful than Republic Cruisers in 1v1's, adding Rakata Tech on top of that made them ridiculously OP.

 

How you can say ships in the Old Republic haven't shown anything good is beyond me, for their time, they were the most Advanced warships out there, entire Leagues above ships that had been designed 50 or so years before.

 

Besides, one could argue that Mon Cala shields weren't as good as you say they were, because they were the standard later on in Galactic History.

 

Essentially what you're asking is that everyone picks ships from years after the battle of Endor, because no way in hell could a Harrower from the Sith Empire face off against a Mon Cala ship without the Universal Tech rule, even though Harrowers were as advanced for their time as the Mon Cala cruisers.

 

And I find it funny you call Beni Biased, when it took about 20 quotes on the battles, the ships, and the navy itself to convince him of their strength.

Agreed, it just seems to be a complaint concerning my decision that Rakata technology made the Harrowers head and shoulders above Tunewalkers forces. But I don't see what relation this has to the tech rule, and how or more importantly why the rule could or should be changed to prevent that.

 

It was debated "on a case-by-case basis"

 

Though I am considerably perplexed by this statement

 

'whether something should be considered as a useful tool instead of just "how useful'.

 

??? A useful tool? What does this mean? Surely all tools are useful but how useful it is of paramount importance?

 

I don't think he's been paying much attention to the debate either, no blanket statements have been made. Because believe me we debated the advantages of stealth and Rakata tech inside and out.

Edited March 2, 2014 by Beniboybling

[StarSquirrel]

Well, a few replies...

 

Alright

• Sel, I picked the Mandalorian Navy which predates even the Harrower, I have absolutely nothing against the OR nor any desire to make people pick only Post-ROTJ ships. I know you like biting my head off, just try not to choke on it.
  
• Also, the Harrower is ~800 meters long and designed by a militant culture that had been building and conquering for many centuries. Compare that to the ambiguous >500 meters of the Valor of the peace and diplomacy faction that hasn't seen major conflict for 300 years. The Harrower is a slightly smaller Victory-class Star Destroyer. The Valor is probably the size of the Assault Frigate Mark I. It makes sense that the Harrower is better. It should also be mentioned that the Valor was still faster and more agile than the Harrower. None of that convinces me that the Harrower is tough enough, even with the tech rule, to take on the MC90 1v1 and play as equals.
  
• Why should Tune lose the Mon Cal shield advantage which is recorded an ungodly number of times because it would later be standard? Wouldn't that lend even more support to it considering it was so good it became the norm else one wouldn't do as well? Mon Cal shields wouldn't appear on all factions till the Legacy Era. In the time of the GA it was still an advantage.
  
• As for the "this is already how it works" then fine. If that is how it is supposed to work then I guess I was barking at nothing. Still, if a smaller OR ship starts being compared to much bigger and differently classed Post-RotJ ship (Harrower vs. MC90 or Valor vs. Imperial-II SD for instance) and the OR ship gets called equal purely based on tech rule I'm going to come right back here and point to that quote. Tech covers tech (the power of shields, weapons, engines), not gross differences in size.
  
• As for that quote you cited Beni, it was meant to convey (rather poorly I admit) that tech advances should be considered individually and not as part of the ship itself when you consider it, compared to its rival in that Kaggath.
  

 

I'm willing to stop bugging you about it and move on Beni.

 

Also, I was aware of and read much of the debate and sided with Tune as far as Rakata Tech goes. Just because I don't agree with you hardly means I didn't read it. The blanket statement wasn't made in that debate, it was always in the rules and was something I never really agreed with. See the second to bottom bullet if you're wondering what I mean.

Edited March 2, 2014 by StarSquirrel

[Wolfninjajedi]

Something else buut I can't remember if it was asked before or if I asked it. So am asking again...even if ships are equal, wouldn't this then just come down to who has the more armaments on their ships?

 

I mean you can keep equaling ships all you want, but if one ship has more armaments than the other then it doesn't really matter considering one ship is still gonna go down faster than the other, it just won't be as quick.

[Selenial]

Sel, I picked the Mandalorian Navy which predates even the Harrower, I have absolutely nothing against the OR nor any desire to make people pick only Post-ROTJ ships. I know you like biting my head off, just try not to choke on it.

 

You said a harrower could not come close to an MC-90 because of its shields, if that's true, then picking Legacy Era fleets is surely an auto win.

 

As for the Harrowers, they could barely 1v1 a republic cruiser, and yet Malgus' fleet was supposed to fight off an enemy 8x it's size in Numbers.

That's a huge disparity, and shows that the Rakatan harrowers were obviously super advanced for their time.

 

It doesn't matter if you think all ship of that era sucked, the Harrower was still overwhelmingly powerful for its time, and thus the rule makes perfect sense,

And this seems to be the only case you have qualms with.

 

And that last part was uncalled for.

[Aurbere]

I'm finding that comparing ships of different eras is similar to comparing Force users of different eras. Essentially, we should go by weapons, armor, shields, etc. rather than by what they have done, because we don't really know if a ship of similar class from a different era could do the same.

 

It's the same approach I take to Force users of different eras. For instance, when comparing Vader to Exar Kun, I look at their skills and abilities only because it is possible that Exar Kun could have been just as successful as Vader was.

 

Make sense, or am I just rambling?

[Wolfninjajedi]

I'm finding that comparing ships of different eras is similar to comparing Force users of different eras. Essentially, we should go by weapons, armor, shields, etc. rather than by what they have done, because we don't really know if a ship of similar class from a different era could do the same.

 

It's the same approach I take to Force users of different eras. For instance, when comparing Vader to Exar Kun, I look at their skills and abilities only because it is possible that Exar Kun could have been just as successful as Vader was.

 

Make sense, or am I just rambling?

 

We should buuut as I know it, there aren't exactly details on ship armor, shields and so on. Well...I mean aside from a few anyway. Of course some are just gonna be obvious to which who wins, I mean I don't think anyone would debate a Hammerhead cruiser being able to tango with a Venator or Imperial Star Destroyer.

Edited March 2, 2014 by Wolfninjajedi

[Canino]

I'm finding that comparing ships of different eras is similar to comparing Force users of different eras. Essentially, we should go by weapons, armor, shields, etc. rather than by what they have done, because we don't really know if a ship of similar class from a different era could do the same.

 

It's the same approach I take to Force users of different eras. For instance, when comparing Vader to Exar Kun, I look at their skills and abilities only because it is possible that Exar Kun could have been just as successful as Vader was.

 

Make sense, or am I just rambling?

 

If I understand correctly, you are saying that we should create categories to compare the ships similar to how we compare force users (Sense, Control, Alter) and then compare the ships that way. We could then add on augments and "advanced tech" in at the end. That actually makes a lot of sense. We could go with weaponry, shields, hull, communications, and carrying capacity (?). We could also then compare pilots separately, and add them into a final assessment of said ships.

 

Oh, and I have some nice little things waiting for you in the Kaggath. Things I wished I could have done in ours. But Warren....oh...Warren can....

Edited March 2, 2014 by Canino

[Beniboybling]

Something else buut I can't remember if it was asked before or if I asked it. So am asking again...even if ships are equal, wouldn't this then just come down to who has the more armaments on their ships?

 

I mean you can keep equaling ships all you want, but if one ship has more armaments than the other then it doesn't really matter considering one ship is still gonna go down faster than the other, it just won't be as quick.

No. of batteries are standardized too, we've been over this like five times now. Edited March 2, 2014 by Beniboybling

[Beniboybling]

Well, a few replies...

 

Alright

• Sel, I picked the Mandalorian Navy which predates even the Harrower, I have absolutely nothing against the OR nor any desire to make people pick only Post-ROTJ ships. I know you like biting my head off, just try not to choke on it.
  
• Also, the Harrower is ~800 meters long and designed by a militant culture that had been building and conquering for many centuries. Compare that to the ambiguous >500 meters of the Valor of the peace and diplomacy faction that hasn't seen major conflict for 300 years. The Harrower is a slightly smaller Victory-class Star Destroyer. The Valor is probably the size of the Assault Frigate Mark I. It makes sense that the Harrower is better. It should also be mentioned that the Valor was still faster and more agile than the Harrower. None of that convinces me that the Harrower is tough enough, even with the tech rule, to take on the MC90 1v1 and play as equals.
  
• Why should Tune lose the Mon Cal shield advantage which is recorded an ungodly number of times because it would later be standard? Wouldn't that lend even more support to it considering it was so good it became the norm else one wouldn't do as well? Mon Cal shields wouldn't appear on all factions till the Legacy Era. In the time of the GA it was still an advantage.
  
• As for the "this is already how it works" then fine. If that is how it is supposed to work then I guess I was barking at nothing. Still, if a smaller OR ship starts being compared to much bigger and differently classed Post-RotJ ship (Harrower vs. MC90 or Valor vs. Imperial-II SD for instance) and the OR ship gets called equal purely based on tech rule I'm going to come right back here and point to that quote. Tech covers tech (the power of shields, weapons, engines), not gross differences in size.
  
• As for that quote you cited Beni, it was meant to convey (rather poorly I admit) that tech advances should be considered individually and not as part of the ship itself when you consider it, compared to its rival in that Kaggath.
  

 

I'm willing to stop bugging you about it and move on Beni.

 

Also, I was aware of and read much of the debate and sided with Tune as far as Rakata Tech goes. Just because I don't agree with you hardly means I didn't read it. The blanket statement wasn't made in that debate, it was always in the rules and was something I never really agreed with. See the second to bottom bullet if you're wondering what I mean.

I still don't know what your talking about, so I'm just going to leave this.

[Wolfninjajedi]

No. of batteries are standardized too, we've been over this like five times now.

 

Oh. XD I keep forgetting...