You sure you've submitted enough designs there, RAM?
I mean, suggesting a whole bunch of designs is fine. But adding them to the list before someone has voted for them is maybe not such a great idea?
Also, just a friendly word of advice, but I suspect people might be more inclined to vote for your ideas if you toned down the 'lolrandumb' a little bit.
...
EDIT: Also, for those saying spending a revision just to de-[Complex] is a waste: whilst it may be possible to combine it with something else, by focusing on it we guarantee a lower difficulty. Occasions in the past where an unrelated revision resulted in the [Complex] tag being dropped probably involved good rolls, I'm guessing.
Starting by singling someone out and referring to their activities in a sarcastic fashion is, well, playful fun could be confused for idle dismissiveness.
"friendly word of advice" is generalyl used in a condescending fashion. I appreciate the advice but feel that it is irrelevant as I am here to have fun and that involves a certain amount of free expression.
"lolrandom" is plenty expressive to get your point across. Adding "dumb" is, perhaps, pushing it a bit too far.
All this combined, the logical interpretation is an expression that I should desist from expressing myself because I do not meet your specific standards, which would be a bit too close to a personal attack to fall within polite behaviour, but one of the advantages of being gullible and insanely living in my own tiny little imaginary world is that I can see the possibility of things being nice when perhaps that is unlikely. Still, it might be of benefit to be a bit more restrained when singling out a single person's behaviour in future. It is easy to start arguments that way and I don't think that to be desireable.
I feel that it is someone wasteful to vote for one's own design. Which leaves me with the problem of being unable to add my own designs to a list which requires votes to be added. And removing items from the list for losing all their votes is extremely toxic to the voting process and should never be considered unless the matter reaches an extreme problem, such as a full couple of dozen items making it difficult to see them all. But it is more of a problem to have vague descriptions that don't inform, such as a string of abbreviations that someone would have to look up to understand, followed by an appropriate but ultimately ambiguous name. Also, each person only has the one vote, unless people are just not bothering to adhere to that... Which means that a single person cannot produce more than one proposal, which would be fine if propsals were evenly distributed, but somethimes one person has more than one idea which seems pretty decent, so the whole "not spot with zero votes" idea seems completely inappropriate to me.
I feel that it is worth focusing on it but not exclusively. Just gaining experience(and thus familiarity) with the technology should be sufficient to remove the complexity. A normal difficulty revision with a prominant engine focus should be plenty to guarantee a loss of complexity. I mean, a get engine is basically just some turbines with a burner in them. I hazard a guess that radar is plenty complex enough to stump us hoplelessly if we lacked experience in the matter. I would also rather like to wait until 41 to remove the complex tag. It makes things difficult for a while, but we would be doing other things in the mean0time and the greater familiarity with the technology would make the adjustments largely trivial. We have already had the jet out for, what? Half a year? It should be pretty easy to figure out where the heat buildups are and what materials are failing from all the worn engines that we have gathered. I think that only removing complexity is massively underestimating our abilities. And one of the most important aspects of this game is accurately judging what you can get away with so that you do not waste an action on something too ambitious or too weak. The enemy just revised a brand new steam catapult and unprecedented redesign and reshaping of their carrier's deck. I am pretty sure that we can pull off a full revision of tweaking the bugs off of our older jet fighter and still lose the complexity considering that the bugs that we need to tweak are mostly centred around the engine.
So I appreciate the sentiment that we don't want to take a risk. I do, however, feel confident that a revision whose primary focus is removing the complexity and adds other things merely as a possible afterthought after the big job of taking off the complexity is done would be too meek of a revision to justify the action expenditure.
Poll
17 (16%)
Author
Topic: Intercontinental Arms Race: Finale (Read 592302 times)