Print

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

[syvarris]

Nope.  That's pretty much what I expected; That program (or, rather, my statements on how OP it was) was what got the tinker thread named "Saint's Death Warrant", if I remember correctly.  I kinda disagree with AUX already being a powerful stat; AUX may be more multifunctional, but exo or uncon are far better for combat... and combat is 80% of the game.  But, yes, replacing dex and str would be OP.

[Egan_BW]

Now to make a program that combines input from an MMI and the user's exoskeleton to allow replacing Con rolls with Exo... 

[NAV]

The game is not 80% combat that's absurd. There is a huge amound of exploring, experimenting, non-combat problem solving, tinkering, or just fucking around.

Aux is hands down the most useful of the non-combat skills, making it the second most useful skill any character can have.

[syvarris]

You don't need to roll for those, though.  Having +2 AUX is helpful for them, because it gives you more options, but there's little reason to go past +2 aux.  I won't disagree that it's the best noncombat skill, though.

[Radio Controlled]

On the topic of selling sods for personal use, the council advises not to allow it for several reasons. Some of the biggest are that it'd be very easy for people to use the sod as an 'extension' of itself, and micromanage it from a safe distance so that it's nearly like you inhabiting a physically perfect remote body, which would even further reduce danger and involvement of characters. It also opens up the possibility of shenanigans like people using sods brains to take over (part of) their body and get perfect stats for things they aren't well versed in at all, which might upset the game balance of certain stats (cause eg con can be perfectly outsourced to a sod, but exo not). There were other reasons, but these are the main gameplay relate ones. Yes, the comparison with eg. a gunnerbot was made, but in that case the possible uses are much more limited (and attempts to expand on their use would involve rolls and possibly tokens in itself already).

However, deployment of sod forces on missions as 'mission equipment' like in the arbiter mission does seem fine. It allows more/easier gm control over their use and makes preventing abuse easier. People can as such always request sod reinforcements for a mission, then pw/the mission commander can decide if it'd be a good idea or if certain limitations should be used (like how the sods weren't allowed to  actually go down into the colony and do the mission itself in the arbiter mission).

Obviously, it follows from this that royalties and custom ordered sods are not applicable. PW was asked his opinion on our result, and seemed to agree to the gameplay related aspects of it (though of course one can check this with him if so desired).

[syvarris]

To the first point, using the sod as a remote body, couldn't that just be banned?  Say that you have to be on mission if you want your sod there?  Also, going on how squishy sods have been historically, I don't think this would last long or be a major problem anyway.  Maybe it would be if you put it in an assaultsuit, I guess.

As for using the sod as a way to get perfect skills, again, can't it just be banned?  Or better, balanced?  In-game, there's no reason I can't make an aux program which replaces dex and str with aux, aside from balance, so why can't the same be done for sods?  Alternatively, Empiricist was working on a "thoughtsphere", which would let people be controlled by a sod.  Make that cost a certain amount of tokens, plus the cost of a sod.  Then, tell PW to treat sod thoughtspheres like that AM melee combat program--effective, but completely useless at defence.  This would fit how sods have acted in the past.  Plus, it would be expensive.

Lastly, you say sods could be used to get perfect skills, but NPCs with perfect skills differ notably from PCs with perfect skills.  I'm struck with the memory of Anton and Auron having a firefight with a sod squad, and the sods being quite inaccurate.

[Radio Controlled]

Yes, the comment that we could just try to ban/balance any issues we came upon was indeed raised. However, in the end the general idea was that not only would that be a very difficult thing to get right (not to mention the creative roundabouts you guys could undoubtedly think off that we'd miss), we thought that in general allowing personal sods, as opposed to the current system for their use, wouldn't be a good idea. That said, if pw comes to us and says "I really want to allow selling sods, help me balance it" then we would do that. But what he asked was what we thought in general on the idea, so that's what we gave. If he changes his mind and calls on our assistance, then we will again do our job and balance it best we can.

And the primary issue wasn't even that people would try to control them from the sword (which is indeed easily banned), and more that they would still go on mission, but hang back quite far and use sods to do anything that's remotely dangerous or risky. Like, say, using sods to go into the colony in the arbiter mission while their operators stay on the surface. It'd influence player risk substantially and take their character out of the equation too much. That'd be hard to just ban because it's not as binary as control from the Sword is.

[Nikitian]

^{_{@Council Pfft. Wusses. Hiding behind "gameplay" reasons. :- P
(Sorry, RC, I kind of understand the pressure and the purposes of the Council (even if we don't always agree, to gently understate), but someone needs to speak up.)}}

The only real reason why sods should not be allowed for player characters to own is IC one: this is slavery. Full stop.
And then, if we condone slavery, sods are actually more valuable than former convicts (fresh out of stasis, without any skills to speak of) - so do we want to be able to buy other former convicts as slaves? And would we want the possibility of actually being sold to slavery in return?.. I don't think so.

(Oh, and in regards to "sods aren't smart, they feel pleasure at obeying orders", etc.: Insert some electrodes into the brain in the right places, put the subjects on drugs, psychologically condition appropriately - and those same "former convicts" would be as pliable and subservient as sods, if maybe even more valuable for possible better initiative and creativity. Oh, and for the record, this is a bit too far even for Maurice.)

In other news, "Doctrine" is approved for Armory inclusion. Waiting up on that write-up RC requested for shuttles to approve them as well.

[Pancaek]

The only real reason why sods should not be allowed for player characters to own is IC one: this is slavery. Full stop.

Sods are not slavery, but a time honored tradition of ARM and an intergral part if its culture. Please present yourself to your commanding officer and/or his cultural attachée for re-education A.S.A.P.

[syvarris]

@Council
I find it kinda annoying that your reason for banning rather than balancing is just "We don't think people should have personal sods."  That seems like something which should be said up front.

See, I want sods on the battlefield, which is my primary motivator for this*.  I think having mook soldier allies is cool, especially if they have some effect on missions.  If we continue to use them as mission equipment, that won't happen--they're just scenery.  Allowing players to buy sods seems like a good, balanced compromise; They're spending tokens to get more power that they control.  I don't expect personal sods to be treated like characters with perfect skills, but I also expect them to be treated slightly better than scenery sods (whether the ones we've fought, or the ones who clear landing zones).

I guess it's pointless to talk about it, though.  If I want sods I have to convince PW they're a good idea.

*I also want money, but I'd be perfectly willing to go without it.

Spoiler: @Nik (click to show/hide)

Okay, whatever your view on sod mental capacities is, we already do far worse than slavery.  Remember manipulators?  They use human brains instead of magazines.  Human brains which are alive, and which we harvested from unwilling people who had lives--hopes, dreams, and loved ones.  Being used in this way causes discomfort, and probably pain, just like using an amp.  It'd be trivial to just stop torturing innocent people, and use only amps, but then all our uncon people would be somewhat weaker, so torture it is.

Everyone in ARM is enslaved already.  We don't admit it, and we hide it, but it's true.  Everyone has a shock implant, and we're all trapped in a ship section made for inmates.  We're allowed out on guided tours, but only to keep up appearances.  I don't even think volunteers from Q'baja are real volunteers--they still suffer stasis dementia and catatonia the same as inmates who've been in stasis for centuries.  We're told we can be released, but are you seriously going to argue that releasing the typical ARM operative into civilization is morally just?  We're killed if we ask to leave.

People like Miyamoto, Maurice, and Saint are given greater power and authority, but we're still slaves.  Steve could kill any of us trivially, so he takes little risk when he allows us some degree of power, and he potentially gains a lot because we're creative in different ways.

We don't refrain from enslaving each other because there's any moral reason to do so.  Just a little while ago, didn't spazy's character try to enslave Dester, with no authority trying to stop him?  We refrain from enslaving each other because it would be a lot of work for little gain.  The primary reasons we're used instead of sods are our ability to use space magic, and our creativity.  The former would likely be damaged or destroyed by sod-level control, and the latter certainly would be.  If your mind control didn't destroy either, then the subject of the control is probably going to hate you, while having the power and creativity to figure out how to harm you in some fashion.  I don't see how this is any better than Steve's bread and circuses system.

[Parisbre56]

You do realise that a minimally equipped sod would cost around 30 tokens or more?
Edit2: And probably wouldn't be very useful in the kind of missions we'll be going from now on?
Edit: That is directed to both Syv and the council.

[Nunzillor]

I think they would be useful for testing in anomalous situations, which are going to become more common.  Personally I still oppose their use, though.

[swordsmith04]

Mewing Fleshmass would be cheaper than a Sod for testing for anomalies.

[Nunzillor]

It should be able to communicate its experiences to a much better degree than a fleshmass, perhaps.  Also it can move around in an anomaly, fire a gun in there, basically do things a fleshmass cannot.  Those are a great compromise, however.

[syvarris]

Why would they be so expensive?  Free would be justified, since we've got tens of thousands of the buggers sitting on the Sword (Unless PW retcons that part of Hephaestus).  More expensive would also be justified, for "trust" reasons.  "Minimally equipped" would be +1 token: a blistol.

Yeah, they probably won't be the best for a lot of our missions, but does that mean they shouldn't be available?  We've got a lot of poor equipment in the armory, which people don't want to remove.

@Nun
Why do you oppose their use?  Do you just dislike the concept, or do you have balance/logic concerns?