Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Tsuchigumo550]

((It's not just earthworms. There's other kinds of worms, too, you know...))

((I don't see how this addresses the point. If you've got "worms" filling the "eat dead stuff and make things plants can eat better" role, what does the size of the real-world Annelida or Nematoda have to do with anything whatsoever?))

((Earthworms don't do everything, you know.))

((...and your point is? I see no point here whatsoever.

Draw me a picture, because I am not getting the connection between "Earthworms aren't the only type of worms that exist" and "To create an ecosystem that won't fall apart in this game requires more than one creature in the decomposer slot."))

((There's more than one step in decomposition. That's my point. Most organisms, worms included, only do one step. Is that clear enough for you?))

We're GODS. We can create a worm that does one step, or we can create a worm that does everything. Perfect Earth Simulator, this is not. Some things are and SHOULD be abstracted.

We don't have bacteria. We don't NEED bacteria. Nowhere did we specifically say "BY THE WAY. THIS ORGANISM I JUST MADE FROM NOTHING THAT LIVES ON A PRETTY ROCK I JUST MADE TEN SECONDS AGO? YEAH. TOTALLY NEEDS THINGS I HAVEN"T DREAMED UP YET" or better yet "OH, BEFORE I MAKE A CREATURE, BETTER MAKE THE HUNDREDS OF PREREQUISITE THINGS."

There's no food.

None.

No one has created anything that these people can eat with any degree of safety. My fungus KILLS things. This is a problem we have been presented, and like in any RtD, we need to overcome it. With food webs. Because for as much complexity an ecosystem has, you can boil it down to who does what job. Take a reasonable amount of abstraction with it, and things can get done in the time a turn takes.

Considering the world started as NOTHING, I think it's safe to say that if we didn't explicitly put it there- no, if the results of our rolls as dictated by Irony put it there- it's just not there. At all. It isn't there, it dosen't need to be there, it dosen't exist anywhere in, outside of, anywhere in the knowledge of, or anywhere within the realm of feasibly happening without us knowing about it MILES ahead of time.

[GreatWyrmGold]

((I described the problem at one point as moving the goal-posts. This was incorrect.

The problem is that we aren't sure where the playing field is.))

[hops]

((I'm pretty sure this is "Roll to Forge the World", not "Roll to Biosystem Science"))

[IronyOwl]

((I described the problem at one point as moving the goal-posts. This was incorrect.

The problem is that we aren't sure where the playing field is.))

((The problem is that you've assumed where the playing field is and refuse to listen to explanations to the contrary.

You could have asked "Hey, how many types of animals do we need?" or "Say, won't a lack of biodiversity be a problem?" or "Wait, what's necessary to have a tribe that won't starve again?"

Instead you went on a tirade about, amongst other things, how I need to handwave thousands of undefined but assumed species in, because otherwise I'm going to cause the ecosystem to crash because RL ecosystems don't always do so well without thousands of species.))

[Tiruin]

((I described the problem at one point as moving the goal-posts. This was incorrect.

The problem is that we aren't sure where the playing field is.))

((@GWG: You could've asked first before going into what seems to be a holistic argument on the case at hand >.>

We, are quite sure where the playing field is.

But then the argument had to devolve into nitpicking which had appropriately no basis on the current matter.

PPE: Irony.))

[GreatWyrmGold]

((The problem is that (if I'm reading it correctly), we need to make all the little bits that form a functioning ecosystem.

I thought I was making it pretty clear that this was my problem, and Irony failing to correct my misunderstanding made me more certain of it.

I'm still not convinced that that's not how it is. That will wait for Irony to respond to my feels-painfully-obvious post.))

((And I got ninja'd.))

((I described the problem at one point as moving the goal-posts. This was incorrect.

The problem is that we aren't sure where the playing field is.))

((The problem is that you've assumed where the playing field is and refuse to listen to explanations to the contrary.
You could have asked "Hey, how many types of animals do we need?" or "Say, won't a lack of biodiversity be a problem?" or "Wait, what's necessary to have a tribe that won't starve again?"
Instead you went on a tirade about, amongst other things, how I need to handwave thousands of undefined but assumed species in, because otherwise I'm going to cause the ecosystem to crash because RL ecosystems don't always do so well without thousands of species.))

((The problem is that I thought there was problem X, tried to make this clear...and you never explained that the problem I was complaining about simply didn't exist.

See why I continued to hold my assumptions? You didn't actually disprove them, you tried to go on about how players could create all the species they needed to and didn't need to make that many without actually explaining that the reason for this is that the problem I was complaining about didn't exist.))

((More ninjas? Ninja. Whatever.))

((I described the problem at one point as moving the goal-posts. This was incorrect.

The problem is that we aren't sure where the playing field is.))

((@GWG: You could've asked first before going into what seems to be a holistic argument on the case at hand >.>

We, are quite sure where the playing field is.

But then the argument had to devolve into nitpicking which had appropriately no basis on the current matter.

PPE: Irony.))

((Didn't help that Irony never bothered to explain that I was wrong. You all tried, but you're not the GM so I didn't pay much attention to your interpretation of the rules.))

[IronyOwl]

((I described the problem at one point as moving the goal-posts. This was incorrect.

The problem is that we aren't sure where the playing field is.))

((The problem is that you've assumed where the playing field is and refuse to listen to explanations to the contrary.
You could have asked "Hey, how many types of animals do we need?" or "Say, won't a lack of biodiversity be a problem?" or "Wait, what's necessary to have a tribe that won't starve again?"
Instead you went on a tirade about, amongst other things, how I need to handwave thousands of undefined but assumed species in, because otherwise I'm going to cause the ecosystem to crash because RL ecosystems don't always do so well without thousands of species.))

((The problem is that I thought there was problem X, tried to make this clear...and you never explained that the problem I was complaining about simply didn't exist.

See why I continued to hold my assumptions? You didn't actually disprove them, you tried to go on about how players could create all the species they needed to and didn't need to make that many without actually explaining that the reason for this is that the problem I was complaining about didn't exist.))

((You never made the problem clear. You still haven't made the problem clear.

At first, it seemed like you were whining about not having a world all pre-ready so you could jump straight into the Makin' Elves phase or whatever.

Then it shifted into something about how IRL ecosystems function.

I still don't know exactly what you're trying to say, because I still can't fathom what you think is happening here; you dodged that question when I asked it.

So I'll ask again: If you need thousands or dozens of species of bugs to have a functioning ecosystem, and I'm forcing you to make them one at a time, what exactly am I up to here? Is this entire game one giant trolling attempt, wherein I'm going to force you to toil over bug after weed after bug and then the whole thing's going to collapse anyway? Am I going to halfway through suddenly realize I've demanded the impossible and that it's now my solemn, regretful duty to troll you the rest of the game regardless?

Past the "Nobody wants to make bushes because they're boring" stage, you have NEVER coherently explained just what you think the situation is in a way that makes any sense. You've implied something that didn't make sense, and that's it.


But despite this, I've responded to your objections over and over again, and you've flatly ignored them. That whole worm argument? I told you, straight up, that you needed four living things to make an ecosystem. Do you remember that? This right here:

((What four things are you thinking of that would create a whole ecosystem, and how many of them generate Belief?))

((Grass, deer, wolves, worms. Not necessarily a good ecosystem, but presumably self-sustaining, no?

Admittedly, only two of those would generate belief, and even then only if they suited you well. The fact remains, it'd be entirely possible and far from crippling.))

Cue page after page after page of you insisting that the world will die without 70,000 species of worms. If this wasn't addressing your issue, I don't know what would have been.

Do you know what would have been?))

((Didn't help that Irony never bothered to explain that I was wrong. You all tried, but you're not the GM so I didn't pay much attention to your interpretation of the rules.))

((I thought I was explaining that you were wrong quite frequently.

What did you think I was saying throughout all those walls of text? "Yes that's a good point but I don't care?"))

[GreatWyrmGold]

((Sorry if I refused to accept your over-simplified view of ecology.

Sorry if I didn't understand matters you didn't explain clearly.

Sorry if I assumed you mentioning that there were no bacteria or such until we made them meant that we had to make bacteria.

Sorry if I interpreted your statements that a few more creations would make everything hunky-dory and stuff like that as meaning that you were mostly ignoring the problem, and that I didn't interpret that as "The problem you were trying to address doesn't exist".

Sorry if I interpreted your simplified-ecology arguments as the start of an ecology debate.

Sorry if you failing to actually say, "Hey! GWG! That's not how it works!" until well into the debate meant that I thought you were defending the system I thought you had rather than...whatever it is you were actually doing.

What were you doing, anyways?))

[Tiruin]

((You didn't ask the right questions  Interpretation followed thusly.

Let's leave it at that, at the moment please?))

[IronyOwl]

((Sorry if I refused to accept your over-simplified view of ecology.

((My over-simplified implementation of ecology in my game, you mean?

Apology accepted.))

Sorry if I didn't understand matters you didn't explain clearly.

((If you mean overall, I was more than willing to explain them if you asked, and you got no shortage of clues when you assumed.

If you mean once the explanations started, feel free to quote areas where I had a chance to explain things and failed, then explain how you'd have explained them and thus resolved the issue.))

Sorry if I assumed you mentioning that there were no bacteria or such until we made them meant that we had to make bacteria.

((This was indeed a crippling attitude.))

Sorry if I interpreted your statements that a few more creations would make everything hunky-dory and stuff like that as meaning that you were mostly ignoring the problem, and that I didn't interpret that as "The problem you were trying to address doesn't exist".

((You should be. Since I'm the one in charge of implementing any problems that exist, assuming that I'm ignoring problems I'm then going to spring on you is rather insulting.))

Sorry if I interpreted your simplified-ecology arguments as the start of an ecology debate.

((Would have been understandable on its own, but you never stopped referencing them in a game sense. It wasn't just "that's not how it works," it was "but then this'll happen!"))

Sorry if you failing to actually say, "Hey! GWG! That's not how it works!" until well into the debate meant that I thought you were defending the system I thought you had rather than...whatever it is you were actually doing.

What were you doing, anyways?))

((I already told you. I linked you a prime example. I was saying "No, GWG, that's not how it works" over and over and over and over.

Look at the worm example. Tell me how I should have phrased that debacle so that you'd have understood that that's not how it works.))

[GreatWyrmGold]

((Sorry if I refused to accept your over-simplified view of ecology.

((My over-simplified implementation of ecology in my game, you mean?
Apology accepted.))

((I believe this falls under "playing field confusion".))

Sorry if I didn't understand matters you didn't explain clearly.

((If you mean overall, I was more than willing to explain them if you asked, and you got no shortage of clues when you assumed.
If you mean once the explanations started, feel free to quote areas where I had a chance to explain things and failed, then explain how you'd have explained them and thus resolved the issue.))

((Let's start with the core issue: How I thought that you were going to have us make every little species.
I would have explained that you didn't have to make every little species. Possibly by saying something like:
"Hey, GWG, you don't actually need to make every little species. We're going to assume that it's present in the regions."))

Sorry if I assumed you mentioning that there were no bacteria or such until we made them meant that we had to make bacteria.

((This was indeed a crippling attitude.))

((And not one you tried to correct.))

Sorry if I interpreted your statements that a few more creations would make everything hunky-dory and stuff like that as meaning that you were mostly ignoring the problem, and that I didn't interpret that as "The problem you were trying to address doesn't exist".

((You should be. Since I'm the one in charge of implementing any problems that exist, assuming that I'm ignoring problems I'm then going to spring on you is rather insulting.))

((You seemed inconsistent.))

Sorry if I interpreted your simplified-ecology arguments as the start of an ecology debate.

((Would have been understandable on its own, but you never stopped referencing them in a game sense. It wasn't just "that's not how it works," it was "but then this'll happen!"))

((From your saying that there were no bacteria, as opposed to saying "We aren't tracking bacteria" or "There are no notable bacteria" or ideally something like "Hey, don't worry about bacteria," it made me think that you actually cared about the lack of bacteria.))

Sorry if you failing to actually say, "Hey! GWG! That's not how it works!" until well into the debate meant that I thought you were defending the system I thought you had rather than...whatever it is you were actually doing.

What were you doing, anyways?))

((I already told you. I linked you a prime example. I was saying "No, GWG, that's not how it works" over and over and over and over.

((Evidently not about the right things, as shown by the fact that the debate went on with me still clueless as to how the system worked.
Maybe explaining how the system works instead of how it doesn't would have helped.))

Look at the worm example. Tell me how I should have phrased that debacle so that you'd have understood that that's not how it works.))

((We shouldn't have gotten into the debacle. If I were you, I would have explained not that you only needed grass, worms, deer, and wolves, but rather that you didn't need to worry about creating anything else.
Actually, if I were you I would have said that you only had to worry about creating deer and wolves, but the idea is the same.))

[HFS]

((...Can we get back to the game, now?))

[Tsuchigumo550]

((Hopefully.

The way I see it, it's not that we don't have bacteria and it's not present.

It isn't there.

That dosen't change anything. We created our beings to live in an area where there was no bacteria. We didn't use the building blocks that way. Hell, we just started spawning things. They're capable of living without it. What they aren't capable of living with is a severe lack of edible food items. If my tree works out, then the problem is solved with something that EVERYONE CAN EAT. Now that they can eat, and they will be able to because that's how they were created and there was no problem with the lack of bacteria because we never designed these creatures to deal with bacteria because there was no bacteria and we would have to create the bacteria and we didn't do that and it's not there so there's no bacteria and it dosen't change one damn thing about the creature's ability to survive.

It's not just the damn bacteria. With the pace of the game, this version of ecology is WELL DESIGNED. The way I see it, things are forming food webs. Easy to glance at and pick up. Very simple. I have to very very heavily side with Irony on this one- I know what it's like to go into a game with soft rules that people try to bend and break and often they don't even know how much stress they're putting on the system because the rules are not super-rigid and have some give.

I'm going to assume that if Irony says it's a problem, it's a problem, but until then it isn't a problem, and if it's not mentioned it works just fine and there's no cause for concern. I don't quite know how to concisely word it, but it's not a problem until someone says it is. Right now, a recurring problem is food. Nothing on the planet is getting enough to eat. That's our only concern. Not that the creatures don't mirror what's on our own plane of reality 1:1, not that there dosen't happen to be a sun, not that we don't seem to have any lakes or oceans or celestial bodies or geologic activity or storms or water cycles or phytoplankton or evolution or space radiation or a magnetic field or anything like that. We don't have anything on that list at all and no one is being affected by it at all.

Tl;dr: It's not fucking there. It dosen't fucking matter. What does matter is we have the top of a food chain and nothing supporting it. There are no worms, no rats, no anything. We do not need the absent features unless we're explicitly told so, and often, creating something new could chain-reaction into new rules. No day night cycle right now. Someone creates a sun and (please someone do this when it happens) sets the planet rotating, and we might have something big happen- say, a day/night system, or a seasons system, appear, because a sun was made. Until then, everything still works without it. The rules of our world don't apply because we are fucking gods and we don't care about the laws of an unrelated universe. Irony has created the base laws- think of this as the boundaries of our powers- and that's the only limit.

If I wanted to make gigantic death worms the size of a galaxy, I could reasonably attempt to do so (probably a celestial body, though) and I could make it be able to BREATHE SPACE and take in energy in an autotrophic ways from nothing. I could then make it polka-dot and call it Pootang the Destroyer. Is that possible here? Absolutely not. It follows absolutely no rules of the world we live in.

I could still reasonably do it, I feel quite sure.

[Digital Hellhound]

Yeah I saw this coming from Day 1. It happens in most games GWG is in, like Pantheon (the main reason Ghaz quit, dontchaknow). Tell me when he's out and we can get back to the game.

EDIT: Err, a bit harsh, but he will never give this up. Never.

[Tiruin]

((I don't know why its continuing past the point which Irony states its his game, and the rules are pretty defined from that standpoint...

It's pretty clear there a-))

((Didn't help that Irony never bothered to explain that I was wrong. You all tried, but you're not the GM so I didn't pay much attention to your interpretation of the rules.))

((:/

I'm really feeling a strawman coming from you GWG. We all tried, and our words also matter in the way that Irony's not arguing on them.

However if you'd like a real life example of minor gods and their uses, I would love to point you to Greek and Roman mythology.

...But really. That last post? Reeks of logical fallacies against IronyOwl.  You need to be clearer with your words for one, and at least explain your pseudo-snark threats that I see there.))