bioweapons (which seems strategically inadvisable and hilariously impractical in most cases I can think of
Then I think we might be lacking sufficient imagination. Bio-engineering could be useful in other ways than direct 'killing the enemy' ways. And if you need ways of... removing large amounts of populace while leaving infrastructure intact, (bio)chemical weapons are very cost-effective (I have an idea vaguely worked out in a word document somewhere for a disguisable viral attack vector with programmable delay).
The usual problem with bioweapons is low selectivity for victims and relative unpredictability in spread and effect, the consequences being hard to limit or contain (and the infrastructure not necessarily remaining intact, either, considering a possible panic in the case of an epidemic), hence why they're not very good in planetary warfare and basically unused in modern times for any purpose other than insane buggers having a crack at half-assed terrorism, and in a space setting there's a rather large problem with deployment, considering how space travel appears to work (such as the Sword appearing in orbit being a bit of a giveaway that bad things are about to go down - I guess you could send smaller vessels, of course, but I'm not sure how those would go undetected, either, or how they could deploy their payload in an efficient manner). All in all, a neutron bomb just seems like the more efficient solution if you want to preserve infrastructure as much as possible at the expense of populace, horribly radioactive environs be damned.
I mean, with viral attacks there's always that proliferation-lethality balance to be observed, weird mutations that can happen to it (especially if you add a considerable capacity for zoonosis to keep the danger train moving, should you wish to do so), lots of potentially messy or underwhelming outcomes depending on the design, that sort of thing. Possibly not worth bothering with at all, depending on levels of medicine and similar things available, to say nothing of the idea that one needs to eliminate or hurt the populace in the first place, given that they have little to no military relevance (soldiers are sods, officers are special, lots of fabrication and economy is probably automated (and if it isn't, the level of technology we're dealing with is probably adequately dealt with our weapons in the first place, such as with that sun king guy) and what workers are present are likely to be less than loyal to the local government, provided adequate compensation can be provided). Provided your goal isn't to wipe out their civilian middle managers, who are just as likely to be more useful alive.
Hm. If you're not tired and annoyed by this yet, perhaps the more technical OOC thread would be better to discuss it.
So, because PW is not the entirety of human knowledge coalesced into one being, those of us with specialties should be punished (with a random chance of unwanted 'side-effects' and a 1/6 chance of complete failure) for trying to make something based on reality? In a game where the laws of reality are implicitly (and perhaps explicitly somewhere, but I'm not going to go hunting for quotes that I'm not sure even exist) followed to as great a point as possible (recall PW asking me the potential effects of someone being shot while wearing my MCP suit?), except where explicitly broken.
(And by the way, I very much dislike what I and some others do while tinkering being called technobabble. That term has serious negative connotations, at least to me - those of being fraudulent or trying (badly) to cover up plotholes and instill suspension of disbelief.
Also, almost everything I say can be traced to somewhere on the internet (usually Wikipedia) with a casual search. And the application of a bit of creative logic, in most instances.)
We can make stuff dangerous without messing with player ability to contribute.
Probably not a 1/6 chance of complete failure, but something of that nature. Once again, a lot of the tech involved may use real-world principles, but as far as I'm aware the final, fully functional designs aren't exactly available and tested in the real world (or were crazy-ass projects from, like, the sixties or something), and thus there's no reason they
have to work exactly as well as originally envisioned without troubles. The rolling exists to provide certainty in how to approach a design if one has no real clue what to do with it, and serves as a guideline in laying out the problems with it. It's keeping authority in the hands of the GM rather than somebody with a difficult-to-comprehend argument. Like I may have mentioned, a matter of principle and opinion, a purist's thought process on how things should work. Also a half-baked thought that I came up with on the spot and tried to elaborate through defense, which is my common method of approaching new ideas.
Also, I'm using technobabble as shorthand for a dense explanation rich in difficult technical terms that serves to suspend disbelief, and tinkering in ER is the systematic, gradual suspension of disbelief in the workability of a particular item. Technobabble in which you show your work is nevertheless technobabble in this usage, which apparently isn't common. Sorry about the degradation. The intent wasn't to say your designs are fraudulent or nonsensical, but rather that they serve to suspend disbelief through confusion rather than clarity sometimes through no intent of your own, but rather through the finite patience and time of your less-specialized peers.
As for making newly-designed stuff dangerous, that's usually possible through errors in design - if a tinker gets to have their way (which rolling is designed to prevent), there are no errors in design, and as far as I know the balancing committee tends to, through inherent goodwill for their fellow man, err on the side of decreasing usefulness rather than increasing potential danger (also known as the boring way of balancing). I could be wrong, certainly, since I am admittedly less than well read on the subject, only being aware of the committee's rebalancing of the electrocrystal machinegun. Now, if the balancing committee started introducing fun flaws rather than nerfing existing capabilities (and increasing token prices to eliminate said flaws with more added elements), then we'd be in business.
Author
Topic: Einsteinian Roulette: OOC and NEW PLAYER INFO (Read 2488306 times)