Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 42 43 [44] 45 46 ... 2205

Author Topic: Einsteinian Roulette: OOC and NEW PLAYER INFO  (Read 2522594 times)

Dorsidwarf

  • Bay Watcher
  • [INTERSTELLAR]
    • View Profile
Re: Einsteinian Roulette OOC
« Reply #645 on: February 08, 2014, 01:04:08 pm »

We post apps in the ship thread, right?
Logged
Quote from: Rodney Ootkins
Everything is going to be alright

Parisbre56

  • Bay Watcher
  • I can haz skullz?
    • View Profile
    • parisbre56 Discord
Re: Einsteinian Roulette OOC
« Reply #646 on: February 08, 2014, 01:11:44 pm »

Wherever piecewise may see them, but yes, mostly on the "on ship" thread.

Tavik Toth

  • Bay Watcher
  • Oh dear....
    • View Profile
Re: Einsteinian Roulette OOC
« Reply #647 on: February 08, 2014, 01:24:38 pm »

How many times has Jack died now? I can't seem to remember right now.
Logged

NAV

  • Bay Watcher
  • I have an idea!
    • View Profile
Re: Einsteinian Roulette OOC
« Reply #648 on: February 08, 2014, 01:27:56 pm »

Twice. Once fighting Ivan, and once fighting the amp specialist.
Logged
Highmax…dead, flesh torn from him, though his skill with the sword was unmatched…military…Nearly destroyed .. Rhunorah... dead... Mastahcheese returns...dead. Gaul...alive, still locked in combat. NAV...Alive, drinking booze....
The face on the toaster does not look like one of mercy.

Tavik Toth

  • Bay Watcher
  • Oh dear....
    • View Profile
Re: Einsteinian Roulette OOC
« Reply #649 on: February 08, 2014, 01:30:01 pm »

Twice. Once fighting Ivan, and once fighting the amp specialist.

Im amazed how Jack isn't a robot yet. Or even half robot by now.
Logged

Radio Controlled

  • Bay Watcher
  • Morals? Ethics? Conscience? HA!
    • View Profile
Re: Einsteinian Roulette OOC
« Reply #650 on: February 08, 2014, 01:35:20 pm »

Quote
I refute all y'all with my sciences and physics.
Sorry man, but hey, at least we aren't fouling up any other threads where people were trying to actually, y'know, play the game.

Quote
And even then, that's assuming battle in space even lasts very long, which it won't, for one critical reason: Heat. Any spacecraft is going to need radiators, larger ones for their rockets, powerplants, and weapons systems (except rockets or missiles), and smaller ones for their life support. Both are critical to the craft's continued operation. Shoot a hole in a radiator and it no longer functions. In a powerplant radiator, that powerplant must either shut down or catastrophically overheat. For the rocket radiator, you'll melt your ship down if you fire the rocket without it. Weapons radiators work similar to powerplant radiators, with damage forcing the weapon offline lest it destroy itself and likely a good portion of the ship through excess heat. Destroy the life support radiator, and the crew will cook alive in their own waste heat.
And did I mention that your radiators are going to be the largest part of your craft, not to mention the one most visible to everyone (apart from rocket exhaust), and thus, easier to target?
Sure, you can use heatsinks, but they won't last more than a few minutes. The above, apart from life support, create an absolutely insane amount of waste heat, and even the best heatsink (water ice that can flash to steam) won't take much of that heat for very long before becoming worthless.
Quick question: are you speaking from the reference frame of real life, or ER? Cause I've been doing this from an in-game point of view. And with automanips, getting rid of your heat means having a few decent heatsinks, after which you just activate said automanip to instacool your sink to 1K. A bit of a crutch, maybe, and whether this is cost-effective (automanips and batteries being expensive) remains to be seen.

Really, fighters being all but impossible in real life I think most of us could agree on, but whether they're a good use of resources in-game might be up for debate (though I severely doubt it).

((I still don't like dynamic bonuses greater than +-1, feels cheap.))
watch and wait for Morul from my perch.
I agree with Lenglon.
Yeah, me too.
Count me in. Maybe getting a maximum of +2 when you're really good at something, but other than that, using dynamic bonuses (meant to simulate something having greater success chance if you take your time preparing it) like this could really unbalance and slow down the game.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2014, 01:37:14 pm by Radio Controlled »
Logged


Einsteinian Roulette Wiki
Quote from: you know who you are
21:26   <XYZ>: I know nothing about this, but I have strong opinions about it.
Fucking hell, you guys are worse than the demons.

TCM

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Einsteinian Roulette OOC
« Reply #651 on: February 08, 2014, 01:47:10 pm »

Quote
I refute all y'all with my sciences and physics.
Sorry man, but hey, at least we aren't fouling up any other threads where people were trying to actually, y'know, play the game.

It's no one's fault, I'm just trying to keep up. Well, attempting to. The whole "Fighter Modules wouldn't perform in D*08.5 Altitude Because of Markos's 12th Law Stating that the Circumference of a Fifth-Dementional Object has to be at least 5^98 Ultrameters" is a bit much for someone not too well versed in this type of stuff. >_<
Logged
Because trying to stuff Fate/Whatever's engrish and the title of a 17th century book on statecraft into Pokemon syntax tends to make the content incomprehensible.

Sean Mirrsen

  • Bay Watcher
  • Bearer of the Psionic Flame
    • View Profile
Re: Einsteinian Roulette OOC
« Reply #652 on: February 08, 2014, 01:49:25 pm »

Speaking of dynamic bonuses, I remind anyone who ever plans on using drones, scout eyes, or their ilk, to ask around for any software granting a dynamic bonus to their use. Because it's a thing.
Logged
Multiworld Madness Archive:
Game One, Discontinued at World 3.
Game Two, Discontinued at World 1.

"Europe has to grow out of the mindset that Europe's problems are the world's problems, but the world's problems are not Europe's problems."
- Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, Minister of External Affairs, India

Phoenix Flame

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Einsteinian Roulette OOC
« Reply #653 on: February 08, 2014, 02:47:07 pm »

((I still don't like dynamic bonuses greater than +-1, feels cheap.))
watch and wait for Morul from my perch.
I agree with Lenglon.

I've been bouncing around some ideas for this, now obviously PW is the boss and I'm fresh off the boat so I haven't really had a chance to get a feel for how they work but I do see where you're coming from so here's some ideas to think about that aren't just "Scrap all dynamic bonuses >1", not endorsing any of them particularly just getting them out in the open as additional possibilities:

1) Dynamic bonuses could be capped at your total bonus to the action: This is based on the idea that whilst preparation can help if you have the faintest idea what you're doing no amount of preparation will make a layman able to perform neurosurgery any better particularly.

2) For level N of Dynamic bonus takes (f?)N turns to charge (i.e. at its most basic +1 is one turn, +2 is two turns... but you could easily make it longer if a bigger restraint was required), has the advantage that it's tweakable fairly easy and allows for reasonable prep in a safe scenario but heavily discourages people doing more than take a quick aim action equivalent when under pressure.

3) both of the above (Ths is the one I think I'll get as close to endorsing... but then I'm the kind of person who tends to play games at fairly brutal realism levels :D)
Logged

GreatWyrmGold

  • Bay Watcher
  • Sane, by the local standards.
    • View Profile
Re: Einsteinian Roulette OOC
« Reply #654 on: February 08, 2014, 04:49:23 pm »

//recieving encrypted file//

Nice. How'd you do it?
Logged
Sig
Are you a GM with players who haven't posted? TheDelinquent Players Help will have Bay12 give you an action!
[GreatWyrmGold] gets a little crown. May it forever be his mark of Cain; let no one argue pointless subjects with him lest they receive the same.

Sean Mirrsen

  • Bay Watcher
  • Bearer of the Psionic Flame
    • View Profile
Re: Einsteinian Roulette OOC
« Reply #655 on: February 08, 2014, 05:26:03 pm »

Also, returning to the fighters for a moment. As fun as multiquoting posts and repeating what's been already said is fun, I believe in this case just one part will suffice.
Is there a point to this?
Yes. And you are missing it.

I am extrapolating a realistic scenario where, based on two specific constants - that Point Defense is accurate and strong enough to shoot down a hypothetical fighter, and that ships are valuable enough to avoid destroying them outright in favor of capture - a mobile, compact weapons platform launched from a parent ship - a "fighter" - gains a prominent role on the space "battlefield". Both of those are reasonable assumptions, you have to agree. One is the reason this entire argument is taking place, and the other is just the reality of a universe with ultimately limited resources and, as a more prominent constant, scroogey accountants.

« Last Edit: February 08, 2014, 05:29:24 pm by Sean Mirrsen »
Logged
Multiworld Madness Archive:
Game One, Discontinued at World 3.
Game Two, Discontinued at World 1.

"Europe has to grow out of the mindset that Europe's problems are the world's problems, but the world's problems are not Europe's problems."
- Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, Minister of External Affairs, India

GreatWyrmGold

  • Bay Watcher
  • Sane, by the local standards.
    • View Profile
Re: Einsteinian Roulette OOC
« Reply #656 on: February 08, 2014, 06:02:28 pm »

Also, returning to the fighters for a moment. As fun as multiquoting posts and repeating what's been already said is fun, I believe in this case just one part will suffice.
Is there a point to this?
Yes. And you are missing it.

I am extrapolating a realistic scenario where, based on two specific constants - that Point Defense is accurate and strong enough to shoot down a hypothetical fighter, and that ships are valuable enough to avoid destroying them outright in favor of capture - a mobile, compact weapons platform launched from a parent ship - a "fighter" - gains a prominent role on the space "battlefield". Both of those are reasonable assumptions, you have to agree. One is the reason this entire argument is taking place, and the other is just the reality of a universe with ultimately limited resources and, as a more prominent constant, scroogey accountants.
Way to get me to agree with you.
Anyways, the former is a pretty damn good reason AGAINST fighters and the second is oretty much unrelated to this whole issue. I don't see how they lead to your idea of fighters being useful. I also just noticed something about your argument...
Quote
Unless they're tiny magnetically-attached tanks scooting along the armor, they will have a stationary network of supporting features - rails, what have you. These rails will become the priority target, as the side that can knock the opponents' rails out first can be the first to defeat the opponents' mobile PD, and proceed with the rest of the attack plan.
You never actually explain why the magtanks wouldn't work.

And again, your "evolution" path requires a specific line of steps, of jumps in ideas, which I just don't see as being the likeliest or most logical ones. Most importantly, you are taking the idea of "mobile weapons become new paradigm" to unreasonable levels, where the mobility of the weapons reach a point where increasing it costs more than it's worth. A fighter takes a LOT more resources to make and support than a railturret or a magtank or something, for one, and being silhouetted against the non-metal depths of space (as well as a hell of a lot larger), plus their reliance on their limited reaction mass, makes them easier to hit...which counteracts the whole point of mobility.
Logged
Sig
Are you a GM with players who haven't posted? TheDelinquent Players Help will have Bay12 give you an action!
[GreatWyrmGold] gets a little crown. May it forever be his mark of Cain; let no one argue pointless subjects with him lest they receive the same.

Xantalos

  • Bay Watcher
  • Your Friendly Salvation
    • View Profile
Re: Einsteinian Roulette OOC
« Reply #657 on: February 08, 2014, 06:19:12 pm »

What are you guys arguing about?
Logged
Sig! Onol
Quote from: BFEL
XANTALOS, THE KARATEBOMINATION
Quote from: Toaster
((The Xantalos Die: [1, 1, 1, 6, 6, 6]))

Sean Mirrsen

  • Bay Watcher
  • Bearer of the Psionic Flame
    • View Profile
Re: Einsteinian Roulette OOC
« Reply #658 on: February 08, 2014, 06:55:37 pm »

Way to get me to agree with you.
You do have to agree, however - because you do, evidently. Both of those are entirely reasonable assumptions.

Quote
Anyways, the former is a pretty damn good reason AGAINST fighters and the second is oretty much unrelated to this whole issue. I don't see how they lead to your idea of fighters being useful.
Which means you essentially didn't read the whole thing properly. I did explain why the ships being valuable gives rise to PD and counter-PD weapons. If they weren't, the name of the game would be ship-busting weapons, and attacks to destroy rather than capture. Mobile, low-power weapons would mean nothing, as they would not be targeted first, except as a means to get a clear shot at the enemy with a few big guns. Holding weapons in reserve would be meaningless. Missiles would be doubly meaningless with their travel times. PD would exist as a secondary mode of operation for primary weapons, and as a means to quicker destroy enemy lifeboats, and would only see combat use in the rarest of cases. It'd be an entirely different evolution path, so to speak.

Quote
I also just noticed something about your argument...
You never actually explain why the magtanks wouldn't work.
They wouldn't work for the same reason a NASCAR stock car is wouldn't work for the bi-annual Russian Rural Rally Cross Championship. Think of how fast a turret like that would need to go, using the smooth surface of the armor to attach itself firmly and not accidentally fly off when there's a curve or the ship lurches suddenly. Think of what would happen if it hits a strip of armor melted by a laser beam at speed. Depending on how its magnets work and how fast it was going, it might become the inspiration for the detachable drones. :P

In other words, where rail turrets can be boxed in by destroying their rails, magtank turrets can be boxed in by simply shooting up the ship hull around them. Not a perfect weapon by far.

Quote
And again, your "evolution" path requires a specific line of steps, of jumps in ideas, which I just don't see as being the likeliest or most logical ones. Most importantly, you are taking the idea of "mobile weapons become new paradigm" to unreasonable levels, where the mobility of the weapons reach a point where increasing it costs more than it's worth.
I don't think these levels are unreasonable. The jumps of ideas I see are logical - to me, at least, obviously. How would you propose the weapons and tactics to evolve given the initial conditions? I have only outlined one of the possible paths I see - but no matter which path I see, in those conditions all of them lead to the appearance of mobile weapons. Be it as a weapon meant to hide or as a weapon meant to ambush after a supposed defeat, but they appear. I'd be interested in a counter-take.
Quote
A fighter takes a LOT more resources to make and support than a railturret or a magtank or something, for one, and being silhouetted against the non-metal depths of space (as well as a hell of a lot larger), plus their reliance on their limited reaction mass, makes them easier to hit...which counteracts the whole point of mobility.
Again, limited reaction mass. That is really only true for the modern rockets. In the case of a mobile weapon, using the same powerplant to feed the weapon and the engines, interchangeably, you could have more delta-V than whole heavy lift vehicles - with, say, fusion engines. Like the one Simus is currently trying to turn into a missile warhead in VR. Support? They're unlikely to need repairs, have self-sufficient power, and only need to be topped up on fusion fuel every now and then. Maintenance? If they return from an engagement they only need a refuel and a checkup - at all other times they are dormant and don't have moving parts that could wear out or need replacement. They can EVA themselves into a hangar or a drydock. Replacing them is a trivial matter. They incur far less logistical expense than ship-based mobile weapons, the use of which requires constant repairs and drydock time - this alone might be enough to offset their cost.

Again, I can't accurately project that far out, so I'm reaching for specifics. The core of the idea still stands, though. Taken far enough, a war waged by ships too valuable to destroy will move the fighting away from the ships, one way or another.

What are you guys arguing about?
Nothing near tangentially relevant, I think. But it's fun! ^_^
Logged
Multiworld Madness Archive:
Game One, Discontinued at World 3.
Game Two, Discontinued at World 1.

"Europe has to grow out of the mindset that Europe's problems are the world's problems, but the world's problems are not Europe's problems."
- Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, Minister of External Affairs, India

TCM

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Einsteinian Roulette OOC
« Reply #659 on: February 08, 2014, 07:12:20 pm »

What are you guys arguing about?

Who is Best Pony.

PyroDesu goes with Rarity, but GWG counter-argues his many points for AppleJack.
Logged
Because trying to stuff Fate/Whatever's engrish and the title of a 17th century book on statecraft into Pokemon syntax tends to make the content incomprehensible.
Pages: 1 ... 42 43 [44] 45 46 ... 2205