Standard Format for Vehicle Profiles

[Fllflourine]

With the new vehicle profiles that have been made, I feel like now is a good time to discuss a format for vehicle profiles in the future. To qualify as a vehicle, it should meet this definition:

any means in or by which someone travels or something is carried or conveyed; a means of conveyance or transport:
	~ Dictionary.com​

The "something" part can include things like weapons and other equipment, so Drones and other unmanned vehicles are not excluded from being a vehicle.

So far, I think this is a good format:

EDIT: Anything italicized (and not bolded) is optional, or will be excluded in the next revision of the format.

Tier: The tier of the vehicle

Name: The name of the vehicle

Origin: The work the vehicle originates from.

Classification: What type of vehicle is it?

Dimensions: The vehicles length, width, and height (If Dimensions are not specified, either through calcs or cano sources, put Unknow)

Mass/Weight: How heavy/massive is the vehicle?

Crew: How many people are needed to drive the vehicle? (May be merged with Needed Prerequisite(s) for Use)

Needed Prerequisite for Use: What is needed before the vehicle can be used?

In use by: Who, or what uses this vehicle?

Powered by: What powers/drives this vehicle?

Operational Timeframe: How long can the vehicle remain active?

Attack Potency: How powerful are the vehicle's weaponry?

Range: How far can the vehicle drive/it's attacks reach?

Speed: How fast can the vehicle drive?

Terrain: The preferred operating terrain for a vehicle

Material: What mainly makes up the vehicle?

Durability: How durable is the vehicle?

Weaknesses: What are the vehicle's notable drawbacks and weaknesses?

Weaponry:

List the weaponry of the vehicle or provide a link


Do weight, height, and length seem redundant? Or would they be necessary? I am also thinking of removing Pilots, as that could just be merged with Needed Prerequisites for Use.

 

[Antvasima]

I suppose that such a standard format page would be a good idea. I will highlight the thread for more input.

 

[Mefre]

I would say weigth has something to say, as it may perform diffrent on things as: planets with lower/ higher gravity, swamp terrain, and especially on ice since it may be to heavy for the ice to carry. Also when planes or other vehicles in the air are about to crash, weigth would have a lot to say how bad it would be.

Heigth would also be pretty usefull, as it would show where the vehicle can drive without bumping into things, especially in cities as they have these heigth meassures in front of tunels and gas stations everywhere

 

[Lasatar]

I'd say use Mass rather than weight. Centre of Gravity would be useful, but also hard to find and usually not important unless in specific situations (forget I brought it up).

Hieght and Length would definitely be useful. Breadth would be useful as well. Maybe all three can be put into one category labelled "Dimensions".

In any case, this will be helpful. Also, what differenciates Vehicles and Weapons? Many Vehicles could be considered weapons, and some weapons could be considered Vehicles. A clarification would be helpful.

 

[Soldier_Blue]

Instead of "Pilot(s)", how about "Pilot(s)/Crew"? Dimensions I'm okay with but mass of the vehicle seems redundant. I'm sure others agree. Putting those should be optional in my opinion.

 

[Mefre]

also there should be a "Manuverbility" or atleast something goes into that section in my opinion as the vehicle's abillity to turn/ and change direction would have a lot to say in things like: space shipbattles, in cities or places where you have to turn in various speeds.

Maybe like on creature profiles we use reaction speed, but on vehicles we could use manuver/ Turning speed?

 

[Lasatar]

Manuverability does sound important. If it is some kind of plane or jet, it obviously wouldn't be able to stop or turn properly. However, a Harrier is capable of hovering in one spot, and moving vertically. Obviously, the Harrier has move manuverability than the plane. Helicopters have lower speed, but even more manuverability. This is probably a very important category.

 

[Colonel_Krukov]

I agree with what people said about adding manoeuvrability. The vehicle dimensions should be an optional thing as they may be difficult to find as they are not always provided. I agree with the merging of the pilot an prerequisite use sections, as a pilot is a requirement for operating the vehicle.

 

[Drellix]

I agree with adding maneuverability to the profiles, as that is a important aspect of a vehicle.

 

[Antvasima]

Perhaps it would be best if I move this to the staff only board.

 

[Antvasima]

Anyway, "maneuverability" is likely a too impractical addition, as it is hard to gauge in precise terms.

 

[Promestein]

Maneuverability seems to hard to gauge. A lack of maneuverability should be listed as a weakness. Anyways, the format looks fine to me.

 

[Fllflourine]

I'd say use Mass rather than weight. Centre of Gravity would be useful, but also hard to find and usually not important unless in specific situations (forget I brought it up).
Hieght and Length would definitely be useful. Breadth would be useful as well. Maybe all three can be put into one category labelled "Dimensions".

In any case, this will be helpful. Also, what differenciates Vehicles and Weapons? Many Vehicles could be considered weapons, and some weapons could be considered Vehicles. A clarification would be helpful.

When I google "vehicles", it defines it as:

a thing used for transporting people or goods, especially on land, such as a car, truck, or cart.
	~ Google​

Dictionary.com defines it as:

any means in or by which someone travels or something is carried or conveyed; a means of conveyance or transport:
	~ Dictionary.com​

I am thinking that if it doesn't fit such definitions, it would go into weapon.

For Maneuverability, I am leaning towards Antv and Prom's suggestions, they are both hard to gauge, but the closest I have toward it is turn time and rate of climb.

Grouping width, height, and length into dimensions would be a good idea imo. I think we could use both mass and weight, but I am not sure which one is more important, though I am leaning towards mass, and we can always find dimensions/mass through calcs.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, size and mass are often also quite impractical to estimate, so they would have to be optional additions.

 

[Antvasima]

Ditto for "Powered by", "Terrain" , and "Material".

 

[Antvasima]

So, did anything happen regarding this suggestion?

 

[Ryukama]

Ditto for "Powered by", "Terrain" , and "Material".

I agree these are best to either be excluded from the format or optional.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you for the input.

 

[Fllflourine]

Edited OP, I also agree that powered by, terrain, and material should be excluded/optional, but what about operational timeframe? Maneuverability seems a bit hard to gauge, should we deal with it like we do Stamina/Intelligence? i.e. The vehicle is highly maneuverable, capable of making a turn in a very short timeframe while bleeding little energy.

 

[DontTalk]

Let me just say that all vehicles listed should technically fall under weapons and hence follow the Standard Format for Weapon Profiles.

I say that because the entire reason such a thing as a speed stat was ever added to weapon profiles, was because things like tanks and airplanes were considered to be included. (or in other words it was intended to work that way to this point)

 

[Antvasima]

Okay, so you think that a Vehicles standard format page is redundant then?

 

[DontTalk]

Given that almost all vehicles would be weapons as well I think making them completely separate is redundant.

Some things like "Operational Timeframe" and "Prerequisite for Use" might be useful additions to the standard weapon format though (maybe with the former reformulated to include things like how much stamina use of the weapon drains and limits of ammunition etc).

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I suppose that rewriting all of the vehicle pages would also be unnecessary work.