Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 260 261 [262] 263 264 ... 301

Author Topic: Wands Race - [Arstotzka] {COMPLETED}  (Read 392919 times)

VoidSlayer

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Wands Race - [Arstotzka]
« Reply #3915 on: July 16, 2017, 05:37:09 pm »

So we used the upgraded aethergems in the useless flying thing and not in the mundane where it would actually have mattered, great.

evictedSaint

  • Bay Watcher
  • if (ANNOYED_W_FANS==true) { KILL_CHAR(rand()); }
    • View Profile
Re: Wands Race - [Arstotzka]
« Reply #3916 on: July 16, 2017, 05:40:33 pm »

So we used the upgraded aethergems in the useless flying thing and not in the mundane where it would actually have mattered, great.

I didn't mention it, but yes the Mundane now fires at 3 minutes per round.

Andres

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Wands Race - [Arstotzka]
« Reply #3917 on: July 16, 2017, 05:45:16 pm »

Gems that are double-charged seem to "wear down" over multiple charging/discharging cycles.
Shouldn't regenerative crystal negate this?

Quote
Expense Credit 1
2 - Magegems: Chiefwaffles, Andrea
1 - Save the credit: Andres

Expense Credit 2
3 - Save the credit: Chiefwaffles, Andrea, Andres

Orders
4 - Do not reveal the F43 in the next battle report: Andres, Helmacon, Kadzar, Chiefwaffles
« Last Edit: July 16, 2017, 06:06:00 pm by Andres »
Logged
All fanfics are heresy, each and every one, especially the shipping ones. Those are by far the worst.

RAM

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Wands Race - [Arstotzka]
« Reply #3918 on: July 16, 2017, 07:03:09 pm »

RAM, this isn't a revision. I'm just stating what I believe are the natural benefits of using an expense credit on Magegems. There isn't any complexity or ambition here. It's just what should automatically happen when we upgrade the Magegems. If something is reasonable within the lines of automatic retrofitting as a consequence of the expense credit, then it should be in.

A Cheap AS-R1 means every single soldier in our army gets one. That's great. The AS-R1 may not replace the sword just yet, but every single soldier in our army having even a single shot in advance at approaching enemies or aerial foes is a huge advantage.

And we're not sacrificing anything by getting better Aethergems. Better capacity is good. We're not using a revision to do it. We're not sacrificing any other aspect to do it. With better Magegems means better Aethergems. It's that simple.
You are speculating. I believe some of that speculation to be misleading, I am attempting to correct any misconceptions. I do not see what it being a revision would matter.

Swords are mostly useless, as are small arms. One for every soldier would not really change much. It would certainly help, but not so much as to actually change any outcomes. They are using flying tanks, they are the equivalent of bolt-action rifles, the value there is not enough to justify losing the expense credit. A single shot won't hit often unless you are dealing with an extreme elite. And a shot against much of their stuff will do precisely nothing, assuming that it even gets into their range, and even a damaging hit is a long way short of a fatal one. So small-arms are not really worth consideration, not in the scope of something as valuable as an expense credit.

We sacrifice size with aethergems using new magems. We just got out of a proposed revision that cited that numerous generator aeithergems plus a magem could be the same size as a normal aethergem, somehow, implying that the generator component is minuscule. Now apparently the magems are so small that using a larger one doesn't matter? Aethergems appear to be a power-supply attached to a battery. Expense credit would make the batteries more numerous, not smaller. Using a battery with a larger capacity would mean using a battery with a larger volume. The resulting Aethergem would be largr than the alternative, thus resulting is something that was too large for any existing products and multiplying the obvious problems that it already has, as evidenced by the interceptor debacle.
...
Okay, maybe a bit long-winded there.
Observation: Aethergem = source + magem.
Proposal: Aethergem = source + higher-ranked magem of the same cost.
Problem: Higher-ranked magems are bigger, and thus are a problem in any instance in which volume is an issue, such as trying to prevent a ridiculous aircraft from being ludicrously huge in addition to all its numerous and fundamental problems in both design and purpose, or such as trying to transport a large volume of the things to the front lines, or such as trying to have you industry somewhat compact rather than forcing everyone to walk around massive power stations in order to get to their workplace or ship goods to a distributor...

Assuming that this would even work, the outcome would make the aethergems perform worse, because the best aethergem is the one with the highest magic generation for the lowest volume and mass. Which is why we used the smallest ones in the doomed aircraft.

Not that we want it to work, it would put the final nail in the coffin of the idea that source-size changes based upon battery-size. Which would mean that the recently proposed aethergem array would go from being a completely ridiculous interpretation into a completely impossible one. We are finally showing some traces of economy of scale, which would be really nice if they were gemerators instead of aethergems because then the bigger ones would be more size-efficient if we could afford to mount them. Where as presently we lose the advantage of the source's size efficiency because it is strapped to a dead-weight battery...

I am not completely sold on saving the credit, I just don't feel that sufficient cause has been presented yet.

Gems that are double-charged seem to "wear down" over multiple charging/discharging cycles.
Shouldn't regenerative crystal negate this?

Quote
Expense Credit 1
2 - Magegems: Chiefwaffles, Andrea
2 - Save the credit: Andres, RAM

Expense Credit 2
4 - Save the credit: Chiefwaffles, Andrea, Andres, RAM

Orders
4 - Do not reveal the F43 in the next battle report: Andres, Helmacon, Kadzar, Chiefwaffles
Logged
Vote (1) for the Urist scale!
I shall be eternally happy. I shall be able to construct elf hunting giant mecha. Which can pour magma.
Urist has been forced to use a friend as fertilizer lately.
Read the First Post!

helmacon

  • Bay Watcher
  • Just a smol Angel
    • View Profile
Re: Wands Race - [Arstotzka]
« Reply #3919 on: July 16, 2017, 07:14:21 pm »

Hey look, the revision didn't make the interceptor usable. Who would have thunk it?

We are gonna get slaughtered this round...

Also @RAM CW isn't suggesting we use the expense credit on the R1, but that it might be one of many results of using the expense credit on mage gems.

Personally, I think we ought to do so as well, four other reasons.

 In my opinion, a better way to go about the air craft would have been to use a single, super large mage gem that acts as a fuel tank, instead of putting the generators on it. There is no reason it needs to be self sustaining.

Next turn, let's start fixing broken tech, instead of doing something new.
Logged
Science is Meta gaming IRL. Humans are cheating fucks.

Chiefwaffles

  • Bay Watcher
  • I've been told that waffles are no longer funny.
    • View Profile
Re: Wands Race - [Arstotzka]
« Reply #3920 on: July 16, 2017, 07:26:15 pm »

Quote from: Discord
Chiefwaffles - Today at 5:18 PM
I have two questions:
1.) Ignoring Magegems, are AS-R1s Cheap? They were Expensive then we did the Crystalworks Mk. 2 revision, which lowered the expense of the AS-HAC-1 and many other crystal designs and had mor eability for complicated designs, like the AS-R1.
I'm hoping that the AS-R1 is Cheap because of this. It was Expensive last combat phase, but it wouldn't have really made a difference due to the Magegem limit.

2.) If we do use an Expense Credit on Magegems, do Aethergems get affected too? Since Aethergems use Magegems as a component, I would assume yes?

Andrea [Some time earlier, just being responded to now]
@evictedSaint originally our HA1 shells used A magegems. when we revised magegems we switched to AA magegems for cost reasons. If we now expense magegems to be cheaper, would we be able to implant HA1 shells with A gems again, allowing for more powerful results?

evictedSaint - Today at 5:19 PM
1) magegems are the limiting cost factor of the R1
2) yes
3) yeah, sure

What does this mean?

1.) If we get cheaper Magegems, we get a cheaper AS-R1.
2.) Cheaper Magegems does indeed increase the capacity of Aethergems.
3.) Cheaper Magegems means more powerful Blastshells.


@helmacon:
Couldn't agree with you more on the fixing broken tech thing.


Though there is a problem with the Magegem "fuel tank" idea. Our Aethergems are just better than Magegems.

Right now we need 1 AA Magegem for 1 SPSF-C.
The F43 needs 4x SPSF-Cs every second.

The F43 uses up the equivalent of 4 AA Magegems (20 AAA Magegems) every second. It's just not viable to not use Aethergems. I think people are underestimating how good Aethergems are. It's better to upgrade Aethergems and/or the efficiency of the engine and allow for a completely mundane-usable aircraft instead of upgrading Magegems to use for a kind-of-mundane-usable craft.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2017, 07:30:55 pm by Chiefwaffles »
Logged
Quote from: RAM
You should really look to the wilderness for your stealth ideas, it has been doing it much longer than you have after all. Take squids for example, that ink trick works pretty well, and in water too! So you just sneak into the dam upsteam, dump several megatons of distressed squid into it, then break the dam. Boom, you suddenly have enough water-proof stealth for a whole city!

evictedSaint

  • Bay Watcher
  • if (ANNOYED_W_FANS==true) { KILL_CHAR(rand()); }
    • View Profile
Re: Wands Race - [Arstotzka]
« Reply #3921 on: July 16, 2017, 07:47:30 pm »

Aethergems obsolete magegems except in a few rare instances, like explosive ammo.

The F43 requires 4 A-levels per second, or 8 AA-levels, or 40 AAA's.  It uses PSF-C's, not SPSF-C's

RAM

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Wands Race - [Arstotzka]
« Reply #3922 on: July 16, 2017, 08:02:18 pm »

Quote from: Discord
Chiefwaffles - Today at 5:18 PM
I have two questions:
1.) Ignoring Magegems, are AS-R1s Cheap? They were Expensive then we did the Crystalworks Mk. 2 revision, which lowered the expense of the AS-HAC-1 and many other crystal designs and had mor eability for complicated designs, like the AS-R1.
I'm hoping that the AS-R1 is Cheap because of this. It was Expensive last combat phase, but it wouldn't have really made a difference due to the Magegem limit.

2.) If we do use an Expense Credit on Magegems, do Aethergems get affected too? Since Aethergems use Magegems as a component, I would assume yes?

Andrea [Some time earlier, just being responded to now]
@evictedSaint originally our HA1 shells used A magegems. when we revised magegems we switched to AA magegems for cost reasons. If we now expense magegems to be cheaper, would we be able to implant HA1 shells with A gems again, allowing for more powerful results?

evictedSaint - Today at 5:19 PM
1) magegems are the limiting cost factor of the R1
2) yes
3) yeah, sure

What does this mean?

1.) If we get cheaper Magegems, we get a cheaper AS-R1.
2.) Cheaper Magegems does indeed increase the capacity of Aethergems.
3.) Cheaper Magegems means more powerful Blastshells.

Though there is a problem with the Magegem "fuel tank" idea. Our Aethergems are just better than Magegems.
I agree with the problem with the fuel tank. We could, indeed, get more power, but I would only expect it to roughly double or so, maybe a factor of 20 or something if the A is better than the AAA in terms of volume, I am really unclear on that point though. But at best we would have something that could only make a single pass before trying to glide back home, much like an Me-163. Not worthless, but we could probably produce better results by switching entirely over to generators with only a tiny fraction of the storage. Assuming that an aircraft would be worth anything at all when the enemy controls the wind, weather, and has a veritable horde of experienced aerial assets already in place.

'Also, putting the expense credit on batteries would not help much with this. It would make them cheaper, but they would retain the same volume and weight. So if it worked, we could have more of them, but it is no more likely to work. I doubt that it would work, but it is not impossible that we could get a rapid interceptor akin to the Me-163, which would be horrible to try to use in inclement weather and strong winds. Hopefully we can get a nice clear day to fly in...

On the matter of the implications of the partial chat transcript which has a disturbing lack of context or opportunity to review? No, I strenuously disagree on at least one point.

1: Thankyou for verifying that. I thought it a bit dubious that the whole thing would become cheaper with just a single component changed, but apparently it would. Still not worth taking into consideration as to whether or not the expense is worth it.
2: Just wrong. You need to reread, apply thought, and continue to analyse it after you think you heard what you want to hear.
To refresh:
Quote
2.) If we do use an Expense Credit on Magegems, do Aethergems get affected too? Since Aethergems use Magegems as a component, I would assume yes?
2) yes
2.) Cheaper Magegems does indeed increase the capacity of Aethergems.
There is precisely one way that the third statement could be correct, and it is clear that "net total" is not what was intended. You want to take a AA aethergem, remove the AA magem, plug in an A magem, and end up with a AA magem with a greater capacity. That is very clearly not what was stated. Please understand that you asked the wrong question and got a different answer to what you thought you did. Not that cheaper magems are bad, but cheaper gemerators would be better. Also, Evicted is making a huge mistake here, because the cost bottleneck really isn't going to be the magem, and it is just giving us stuff for free at this point, unless antimagic charms are cheap now?
If you can figure out why you are wrong here then you might understand why I keep disagreeing with you. I dislike inaccuracies and many are easy to demonstrate.
3: Actually a good reason to spend the credit. I am still not convinced that it will be worth it. We ought to come up with something really good, but having pretty much wasted this turn we probably need something...
Logged
Vote (1) for the Urist scale!
I shall be eternally happy. I shall be able to construct elf hunting giant mecha. Which can pour magma.
Urist has been forced to use a friend as fertilizer lately.
Read the First Post!

VoidSlayer

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Wands Race - [Arstotzka]
« Reply #3923 on: July 16, 2017, 08:19:05 pm »

The F43 is a completely failed design.  We need something at least ten times more efficient for it to work, but that is not impossible.  We got a -1 to the design roll this turn but if we try something similar next turn it might be eliminated.  We should be using A level gems with a more efficient system, they will be very expensive but it will at least work.

Why are we expense crediting mage gems when we can just expense credit the rifles and cannons directly, allow us to field a lot more of them?

Chiefwaffles

  • Bay Watcher
  • I've been told that waffles are no longer funny.
    • View Profile
Re: Wands Race - [Arstotzka]
« Reply #3924 on: July 16, 2017, 08:23:05 pm »

First, here's a screenshot of my question and Evicted's answers. Exhibit B is a screenshot of Andrea's question that I copy+pasted for Evicted.
Spoiler: Exhibit A (click to show/hide)
Spoiler: Exhibit B (click to show/hide)

Quote
2: Just wrong. You need to reread, apply thought, and continue to analyse it after you think you heard what you want to hear.
Let's not give Moskurg that espionage credit please, RAM.

Quote
2: Just wrong. You need to reread, apply thought, and continue to analyse it after you think you heard what you want to hear.
To refresh:
Quote
2.) If we do use an Expense Credit on Magegems, do Aethergems get affected too? Since Aethergems use Magegems as a component, I would assume yes?
2) yes
2.) Cheaper Magegems does indeed increase the capacity of Aethergems.

There is precisely one way that the third statement could be correct, and it is clear that "net total" is not what was intended. You want to take a AA aethergem, remove the AA magem, plug in an A magem, and end up with a AA magem with a greater capacity. That is very clearly not what was stated. Please understand that you asked the wrong question and got a different answer to what you thought you did. Not that cheaper magems are bad, but cheaper gemerators would be better.

Uh-huh.
Spoiler: Exhibit C (click to show/hide)
Look at the bottom part.



The F43 is a completely failed design.  We need something at least ten times more efficient for it to work, but that is not impossible.  We got a -1 to the design roll this turn but if we try something similar next turn it might be eliminated.  We should be using A level gems with a more efficient system, they will be very expensive but it will at least work.
Very Expensive designs, unless they're big, don't work.
And we can just increase the efficiency of the KPD. We're extremely lucky to have the current KPD be so inefficient (it's wasting tons of energy on unfocused explosions beneath the craft) so we can easily improve it in another design without using more expensive Aethergems.

We should use AAethergems in the next aircraft design though. As nice as a Cheap fighter would be, a good Expensive Fighter > mediocre Cheap Fighter.

Why are we expense crediting mage gems when we can just expense credit the rifles and cannons directly, allow us to field a lot more of them?
Because that does the same thing as expense crediting Magegems, but without the bonus parts?
Because Expense Crediting Magegems makes the AS-R1 Cheap, greatly improves Blastshells, makes the Mundane Expensive and thus somewhat-not-useless, and more.
Logged
Quote from: RAM
You should really look to the wilderness for your stealth ideas, it has been doing it much longer than you have after all. Take squids for example, that ink trick works pretty well, and in water too! So you just sneak into the dam upsteam, dump several megatons of distressed squid into it, then break the dam. Boom, you suddenly have enough water-proof stealth for a whole city!

Andres

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Wands Race - [Arstotzka]
« Reply #3925 on: July 16, 2017, 09:34:45 pm »

Quote
Expense Credit 1
3 - Magegems: Chiefwaffles, Andrea, Andres
1 - Save the credit: RAM

Expense Credit 2
4 - Save the credit: Chiefwaffles, Andrea, Andres, RAM

Orders
4 - Do not reveal the F43 in the next battle report: Andres, Helmacon, Kadzar, Chiefwaffles

Glory to Arstotzka.
Logged
All fanfics are heresy, each and every one, especially the shipping ones. Those are by far the worst.

RAM

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Wands Race - [Arstotzka]
« Reply #3926 on: July 16, 2017, 10:19:32 pm »

Uh-huh.
Spoiler: Exhibit C (click to show/hide)
Look at the bottom part.
Okay, you understand, I hope, that that last part there was necessary, and you omitted it the first time, and thus your claims, based upon the evidence available, were completely unfounded, yes? You clearly skipped the part where your data was, partially, confirmed. Can you admit that your initial argument was presented with insufficient evidence?
Second, my point still stands. Please cite precisely where my assertion that aethergems combined with larger magems would be larger, thus resulting in a lower ability to supply power and thus an inferior product. Please also note that if we use them to increase the capacity then we get a worse benefit than if we used them to reduce the cost. You are still failing to actually read what is being said. Evicted never even suggested that increasing the capacity would come without detrimental side-effects, and the sum total of your proposal continues to be "We will take out a small component and replace it with a larger component and the end result will be the same size". And please don't "because magic" that because I do not want to have to explain why that doesn't apply here and it really ought to be obvious enough that I don't have to.

Furthermore, the end result is that we can confirm that the aethergems have fully detachable magems. This means that the size of the magem has no bearing on the generator, and thus its presence is most likely the same. Thus we really ought to stop trying to mix the two.
Logged
Vote (1) for the Urist scale!
I shall be eternally happy. I shall be able to construct elf hunting giant mecha. Which can pour magma.
Urist has been forced to use a friend as fertilizer lately.
Read the First Post!

Chiefwaffles

  • Bay Watcher
  • I've been told that waffles are no longer funny.
    • View Profile
Re: Wands Race - [Arstotzka]
« Reply #3927 on: July 16, 2017, 10:34:04 pm »

Okay.
Logic has been clearly thrown out the window, RAM. I'm not going to engage in this desperate attempt to show that you may technically not be completely wrong any more.

Please just learn to admit when you're wrong, RAM. I'm not trying to put this as a personal attack - admitting when one's wrong is something I could improve on as well, but at this point I'm sure evicted is growing tired of me asking questions to prove that I'm right, and I'm getting pretty tired of it too.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2017, 10:35:40 pm by Chiefwaffles »
Logged
Quote from: RAM
You should really look to the wilderness for your stealth ideas, it has been doing it much longer than you have after all. Take squids for example, that ink trick works pretty well, and in water too! So you just sneak into the dam upsteam, dump several megatons of distressed squid into it, then break the dam. Boom, you suddenly have enough water-proof stealth for a whole city!

helmacon

  • Bay Watcher
  • Just a smol Angel
    • View Profile
Re: Wands Race - [Arstotzka]
« Reply #3928 on: July 16, 2017, 11:00:55 pm »

Guys, please. Keep it in the bedroom.
Logged
Science is Meta gaming IRL. Humans are cheating fucks.

RAM

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Wands Race - [Arstotzka]
« Reply #3929 on: July 17, 2017, 12:50:58 am »

I have admitted to being wrong on numerous occasions. It is not a skill that I possess in any quantity but it does occur. If you can cite an instance of me being wrong please quote the specific passage and explain precisely, with detailed descriptions of the semantics, precisely how my statement was incorrect. My standard of explanation seems much higher than yours, though, so you will likely need a much deeper chain of reasoning and more consistent data than you are accustomed to. But if you put in the effort then I am glad to admit that I am wrong, because you will have actually demonstrated such rather than attempting to drop a witty one-liner and then claim that I am wrong by default.

Now, you, however, very clearly made a misleading remark. The statement that was effectively made was "Aethergems get affected" and the statement that you extrapolated from this was "increase the capacity of Aethergems". Do you admit that the first statement could mean anything, and in context it supported the latter less than it supported "aethergems become cheaper" as that would have been applying the same effect to both items as a direct result of their interaction, rather than trying to get a free revision by actually modifying the things in a way that makes it very clear that they are two separate units which is the polar opposite- ugh, can't go five steps without stumbling over another wrong, if you can just pull out the magem and plug in a different one then there is no reason to keep the magem as a part of the design. If we can do this much...
Order: Replace the magems of the aethergems with circuits.
 Normally this would be difficult and have a risk of failure, but apparently we can just hotswap the whole lot from small magems that fit easily to larger magems(that fit like a large peg in a small hole, which is apparently quite well actually?) without an action, so an order to just remove the things entirely out to be free...


Anyway, "aethergems become cheaper" is the most likely scenario in context, given that cheapness is what is happening and a component of the aethergem is becoming cheaper. "aethergems gain incrased capacity" is possible, but unsupported. "aethergems all explode simultaneously and the technology to produce them is permanently lost" is also consistent with "aethergems are affected" asthat would, indeed, be them being affected by the change.
 "2.) Cheaper Magegems does indeed increase the capacity of Aethergems." is not vague or conditional. It "does indeed" state that capacity is the specific thing that is happening. Do you admit this much? Do you admit that this is not supported by the statement "aethergems are affected" and that you did, at that time, have nothing else to go on? Do you further admit that you still do not have any reason to believe that we will not be dealing with larger aethergems due to the inclusion of larger magems(A cheaper A is still A-sized regardless of how cheap it is, expense credit doesn't do anything to their size) and thus, with a larger unit, with identical generating power, they will be less effective in the aircraft, which already has problems with size and weight of its magic-generating apparatus and has not demonstrated any issues at all with respect to magic storage, and, indeed, I challenge you to cite a single instance in which increasing the storage of an aethergem would help any single one of our large projects.

Instead of asking numerous vague ambiguous questions, try asking just direct and brief ones:
Quote
I want to use cheaper magems(from an expense credit) to increase the storage capacity of our aethergems by implanting, for example, A magems into AA aethergems as the A magems would now be abundant enough to do so.
1: Is this possible as part of the expense credit with no revision or design?
2: Will the resulting higer-storage aethergems still be usable in their former roles without any revisions or designs?
3: Will this result in a worse "power to weight" ratio from the affected aethergems?
Had you asked that then you would actually know(or been politely informed that such information was not appropriate or available to disseminate), but you didn't, so you don't.
 You do not know if the high-capacity aethergems would fit in the same slots, but we know that they won't, because we know that larger magems are, in fact, larger, and your plan would involve placing larger magems into existing aethergem designs. Maybe if we had space-warping magic that would not be the case, but we don't. the sum total of this idea is "take out a small component and insert a large one".
 You do not know if they will be less efficient at generating power in th e same volume and weight, but we know that they will be, because it is taking the same generator, and hooking it up to a bigger battery. Surprisingly enough, when you add a larger, heavier component without increasing the performance, then your performance becomes worse relative to volume and weight. Again, maybe if we had space magic we could put all we wanted into a small package with no external changes. But we don't, this is a mechanical proposal with a mechanical outcome.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2017, 03:36:12 am by RAM »
Logged
Vote (1) for the Urist scale!
I shall be eternally happy. I shall be able to construct elf hunting giant mecha. Which can pour magma.
Urist has been forced to use a friend as fertilizer lately.
Read the First Post!
Pages: 1 ... 260 261 [262] 263 264 ... 301