Print

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

[Radio Controlled]

It's the psychological factor that matters.

An understandable point, but a rather irrational one, no? I get that people like ease of mind and never having to worry about ammo, but I don't think that weighs up against having to invent and balance new mechanics, as compared to just lowering the price until it works.

Also, I thought it was impossible to refill automanips?

Also, pretty sure everyone wants the one that stops bullets and the one that stops unreasonable heating of the body. Maybe one that acts like a kinetic parachute, though that might just be me.

Where do you get this info? Because I don't remember there being a large demand for it.

[Toaster]

It's the psychological factor that matters.

An understandable point, but a rather irrational one, no?

Good thing that humans are never irrational, right?

[Radio Controlled]

It's the psychological factor that matters.

An understandable point, but a rather irrational one, no?

Good thing that humans are never irrational, right?

I know right? Imagine if they were!

World would be a mess.

[Harry Baldman]

It's the psychological factor that matters.

An understandable point, but a rather irrational one, no? I get that people like ease of mind and never having to worry about ammo, but I don't think that weighs up against having to invent and balance new mechanics, as compared to just lowering the price until it works.

Also, I thought it was impossible to refill automanips?

Also, pretty sure everyone wants the one that stops bullets and the one that stops unreasonable heating of the body. Maybe one that acts like a kinetic parachute, though that might just be me.

Where do you get this info? Because I don't remember there being a large demand for it.

Psychological needs are just as perfectly rational as the need to have fun. Fulfilling a psychological need (such as the need to argue about and iterate things) is clearly a form of gratification, no? Also, it's more likely we'll get new mechanics than a price fix, methinks. New mechanics are exciting and fulfill a psychological need for some people, after all.

As for refilling automanips, bear in mind that I only know that automanipulators cost 7 tokens, can run out of juice and that we can potentially buy them. Any more than that is unknown to me, and piecewise hasn't exactly told us much about them yet as far as I've read.

And about my info, I'm pretty sure people would like the automanipulators that give them easily relatable safety barriers, although having a microwave automanipulator lightsaber also wouldn't be too bad.

[Radio Controlled]

Psychological needs are just as perfectly rational as the need to have fun. Fulfilling a psychological need (such as the need to argue about and iterate things) is clearly a form of gratification, no? Also, it's more likely we'll get new mechanics than a price fix, methinks. New mechanics are exciting and fulfill a psychological need for some people, after all.

From a 'current game mechanics' standpoint, it's not the most rational though, I think. From that startpoint, trying to get the most bang for your buck seems more logical. If you however, go from the goal of 'try to maximize fun', and you somehow get satisfaction out of inventing new mechanics instead of working within the boundaries set up by the gm, then it might make sense. But you can justify just about anything with that ("why would antagonise everyone and try to kill other pc's on purpose?"
"Oh, I find that hilarious, and I'm maximizing my fun.")

As for refilling automanips, bear in mind that I only know that automanipulators cost 7 tokens, can run out of juice and that we can potentially buy them. Any more than that is unknown to me, and piecewise hasn't exactly told us much about them yet as far as I've read.

Automanips are priced per piece and can vary in cost, depending on what they do. I think pw has said you cannot refill them, but can buy more initial charges for higher initial cost.

And about my info, I'm pretty sure people would like the automanipulators that give them easily relatable safety barriers, although having a microwave automanipulator lightsaber also wouldn't be too bad.

Ah, but if you can get the same level of protection cheaper with regular armor, would that still be the case?

[Harry Baldman]

@Radio: Well, if someone wants to maximize their fun by killing everyone, then it's the solemn duty of everyone else to kill them to maximize their own fun. That's how utilitarianism works!

I'll believe you on the automanipulator pricing and refills, because that gives me even less of a reason to even consider getting one.

As for automanipulators, they can do one thing that armor can't - they can protect your delicate insides from magical intervention.

[Radio Controlled]

@Radio: Well, if someone wants to maximize their fun by killing everyone, then it's the solemn duty of everyone else to kill them to maximize their own fun. That's how utilitarianism works!

And what if (purely hypothetical of course) said person succeeds, and kills the game by murdering each new character as he spawns? Don't point to gm intervention, this is just the logical extension of everyone maximizing their own fun sans outside intervention.

Pehaps 'maximizing overall fun' is a better measure?

Also:

in normative ethics, a tradition stemming from the late 18th- and 19th-century English philosophers and economists Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill that an action is right if it tends to promote happiness and wrong if it tends to produce the reverse of happiness—not just the happiness of the performer of the action but also that of everyone affected by it. Such a theory is in opposition to egoism, the view that a person should pursue his own self-interest, even at the expense of others, and to any ethical theory that regards some acts or types of acts as right or wrong independently of their consequences. Utilitarianism also differs from ethical theories that make the rightness or wrongness of an act dependent upon the motive of the agent; for, according to the Utilitarian, it is possible for the right thing to be done from a bad motive.

Source: http://www.utilitarianism.com/utilitarianism.html

As for automanipulators, they can do one thing that armor can't - they can protect your delicate insides from magical intervention.

Indeed, but that doesn't mean that they are inbalanced as they are. In fact, one could justify their high cost by saying they can protect against something nothing else can.

[Xantalos]

killing people discussion

...

[Gentlefish]

killing people discussion

...

Can we get a sign in the birthing tube room?

"Don't Feed The Xan"

[Harry Baldman]

@Radio: I know how actual utilitarianism works, of course. My version was for people incapable of empathy. Not that any of us are, naturally. I am obviously as terrible at being facetious as one might suspect, in other news. Also, it is poor form to point to something entirely impossible as a counterexample. After all, GM intervention is a way of the GM maximizing their own fun, possibly at the expense of someone else. I'm not even sure what I'm arguing for, and whether I'm even arguing, because I have no real point to make here. I guess I was originally trying to point out that saying something is irrational merely means you need to upgrade your rationality to understand the chain of reasoning that led to the supposedly irrational idea? And then you thought that I was talking about game balance, and then I played along?

At any rate, I'm not really trying to argue to make automanipulators cheaper, either, since I'm pretty sure only high-ranking people of ARM that are still dumb enough to go into the field of battle would need protection of their insides from amp assassins, and those bastards need all the costs they can get. Everyone else is sufficiently expendable to not need them for any possible situation, and yes, armor would be an acceptable substitute mostly. And automanipulator weaponry, while providing a liberating feeling for weapons designers who salivate at the thought of not being bound by the laws of physics in any way, are ultimately fully unnecessary, since weapons are woefully overproduced and not particularly relevant to anything.

Although, now that I think about it, might be useful to get a gravity automanipulator that gives you a box that, along with all of its contents, is nearly weightless. Probably doesn't work that way, of course, unless it's the size of a car and can power itself indefinitely. Speaking of, automanipulator car. Somebody make that.

[Gentlefish]

Wait.

perpetual motion is possible in this universe, isn't it?

[Radio Controlled]

Also, it is poor form to point to something entirely impossible as a counterexample.

I dunno, is it? Says who? Either way, I was just trying to take that particular stance to its extreme to show when it might not work out in practice using an extreme example to make a point. But hey, I can give a better example: what if someone took pleasure out of complaining and arguing endlessly in OOC even when people have stopped said person to stop? Does the policy of 'everyone maximize his own happiness' still lead to the most desirable outcome?

I guess I was originally trying to point out that saying something is irrational merely means you need to upgrade your rationality to understand the chain of reasoning that led to the supposedly irrational idea?

Ah, now this I don't fully agree with. As I pointed out in the beginning, I do understand how one would come to this point. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's the most rational way forward, starting from certain as of yet undefined parameters. Let us re-examine the original question:

Item A might be unbalanced. Let's assume it indeed is. What now? Do we:
1) suck it up and go on (no work needed, all is well)
2) change a number until it's balanced
3) invent a new mechanic, balance it, try to weed out loopholes, and all that jazz (more work than the previous option, I'd wager)

My view is that, if 1) isn't an option, then 2) is superior ( number 3 is an option, of course, but should not be the default one, I'm arguing). Why? Because pw has stated before he doesn't really enjoy these kinds of things, evidenced by the time she said tinker can give him a headache. Hell, it's why the council is there, to help him with the minutiae, so he can focus on the game and the story. So, if we assume the gm prefers us to stay in the boundaries he has set out himself before where possible, and that his fun (and ability to continue playing) with the game is rather more important than that of any one particular player (if he drops, the whole thing stops. If half the players stop, we can keep on trucking), then the more rational way forward is to try and stay within the game's boundaries (which in this case means changing the token cost) and solve the problem before we consider new mechanics and all the work that entails.

I know how actual utilitarianism works, of course.

Gonna give you the benefit of the doubt for this one 

since I'm pretty sure only high-ranking people of ARM that are still dumb enough to go into the field of battle would need protection of their insides from amp assassins, and those bastards need all the costs they can get.

HAH. A cheap shot, but I laughed. To quote a famous yellow man: it's funny 'cause it's true.

[NAV]

On an unrelated note, is anyone on mission considering buying a synthbody?

Yes. But not the type you have. I want to exchange the strength bonus for a dex bonus because the str wouldn't stack with a mk3.

[piecewise]

Sorry diplomatic team, I've been having a hard time getting a hold of my dropbox stuff, which makes doing map stuff impossible.

[Nikitian]

Well, 'it happens.
Is that a temporary setback? Or are you permanently locked out? ...Is anything of value lost beyond recall?