Print

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

[10ebbor10]

Uhm, you're aware this is a project based system right?

Those 3 dice are only good enough to start the project. Finishing it can take 3-6 more, depending on the requirements and rolls.
Then there's also resource cost and space.

All the weapons in the world aren't going to save us if we don't have a single bit of point defense and they do, and then they're hitting us more then we're hitting them by a lot and they can then spend a larger percentage of their resources on offensive then we can because they need to repair less of their own stuff.

I disagree with this. I believe that because of the fact that the GM has said that damage is inevitable, the presence of extra weapons will inflict more damage on on the enemy than the presence of extra defenses will help us.

Having 2 defenses and 1 weapon will be a lot worse for us than 2 weapons and 1 defense.

[Happerry]

I disagree, but at this point it's a matter of opinion, so I'll table the argument until we get a combat round through and can quote evidence at each other.

[Powder Miner]

Nirur’s votes got dropped so I’ll put em back in.

Designs:
-Infrastructure :
--- "Itinerant" RC Mining Drones: (1) SC
--- Seraph Stellarator Fusion Reactor: (4) SC, 10ebbor10, Powder Miner, Nirur
--- "Harvester" Automatic Mining Probes: (4) Happerry, 10ebbor10, Powder Miner, Doomblade
--- Atmospherics System Conversion (3) 10ebbor10, Powder Miner, Nirur
--- Rock Docking Module: (1) Talion
--- Laser Contained Carbon Mining Beam: (1) Talion


-Defenses :
---"Sanctuary" Layered Defense Armor: (4) SC, Happerry, TricMagic, Doomblade
---Cherubim Interceptor Laser Array: (1) Happerry{You forgot to type this}

-Weapons:
---Thor Railgun: (1) TricMagic
---Bomblet Launch Module: (4) Talion, Doomblade, TricMagic, Nirur
Dice spent :
- 9 dice : (2) 10ebbor10, Powder Miner
-3 each design: (3) Powder Miner, TricMagic, Doomblade

Company Title
Void Conglomerate: (3) SC, Rockeater, Nirur
"The Company" is perfectly fine: (2) Happerry, 10ebbor10
Exploratory Systems, Incorporated: (2) Powder Miner, TricMagic
The Executive Branch: (2) Talion, Doomblade


Ark Renaming
The StarSweeper{or S.S.}: (1) TricMagic

Sorry, I'm just a bit impatient. We should be able to come to a consensus by tomorrow. Well, other than the C Title.

Night all`
[/quote]No time before work breaks ends, quick opinion on names
Void Conglomerate isn’t half bad but I find it a bit poetic for a company
The Executive Branch I find reeeeally hamhanded
“The Company” gives off a mysterious shady vibe, not my preference but it’s fine
Exploratory Systems, Incorporated I came up with because it sounds like an actual business name and gives on an 80s sci-fi vibe

[Madman198237]

I like the idea of Exploratory Systems, Inc. Oh hey it's in the votebox.

So I'd like to note that laser weapons are generally not as good as alternatives. It's easier to mitigate heating damage than raw kinetic impact. Furthermore, I will agree that weaponry is better, generally, than armor. Though we will NEED a missile defense system ASAP, since missiles are generally more powerful than other weaponry, but take the tradeoff of being easier to shoot down. Also, they're more accurate, and in space that matters a lot. So a missile defense system, probably using lasers. That way, we can work our way up to using a combination of lasers and magnetic-field-producing drones to make a plasma shield. The lasers will heat incoming projectiles, and then the plasma shield will finish evaporating them into plasma and contain them.

But that's more of a future design than a "right now" sort of design.

Designs:
-Infrastructure :
--- "Itinerant" RC Mining Drones: (1) SC
--- Seraph Stellarator Fusion Reactor: (5) SC, 10ebbor10, Powder Miner, Nirur, Madman
--- "Harvester" Automatic Mining Probes: (4) Happerry, 10ebbor10, Powder Miner, Doomblade
--- Atmospherics System Conversion (4) 10ebbor10, Powder Miner, Nirur, Madman
--- Rock Docking Module: (1) Talion
--- Laser Contained Carbon Mining Beam: (1) Talion


-Defenses :
---"Sanctuary" Layered Defense Armor: (4) SC, Happerry, TricMagic, Doomblade
---Cherubim Interceptor Laser Array: (2) Happerry, Madman

-Weapons:
---Thor Railgun: (1) TricMagic
---Bomblet Launch Module: (4) Talion, Doomblade, TricMagic, Nirur

Dice spent :
- 9 dice : (3) 10ebbor10, Powder Miner, Madman
-3 each design: (3) Powder Miner, TricMagic, Doomblade

Company Title
Void Conglomerate: (3) SC, Rockeater, Nirur
"The Company" is perfectly fine: (2) Happerry, 10ebbor10
Exploratory Systems, Incorporated: (3) Powder Miner, TricMagic, Madman
The Executive Branch: (2) Talion, Doomblade


Ark Renaming
The StarSweeper{or S.S.}: (1) TricMagic
Endeavour: (1) Madman

So, correct me if I read things wrong, but 3 dice is the MINIMUM to start a project. So we don't need to have a "3 each design" category, instead we just need to add a little "3 dice" tag to each design. You can use more or fewer dice per design, but any more than 3 and you need to specify which categories you're rolling at advantage. If we're allowed to do so in this AR?

Anyway, I've tied up the name vote so we don't get a silly name. I'm voting Endeavour for now because it's exploration and such and I'm voting for the exploration corporation name.

[BBBence1111]

There's no chance I convince ya'll to name the company Disney, I assume? Anyway, just checking in. It's way too late o clock to do this kind of stuff.

I'd leave SCP-2722 as a reference for random stuff here but the author was an asshole and removed it and wayback doesn't appear to have the tech page so....

[Doomblade187]

I would support Disney.

[Powder Miner]

Designs:
-Infrastructure :
--- "Itinerant" RC Mining Drones: (1) SC
--- Seraph Stellarator Fusion Reactor: (5) SC, 10ebbor10, Powder Miner, Nirur, Madman
--- "Harvester" Automatic Mining Probes: (4) Happerry, 10ebbor10, Powder Miner, Doomblade
--- Atmospherics System Conversion (4) 10ebbor10, Powder Miner, Nirur, Madman
--- Rock Docking Module: (1) Talion
--- Laser Contained Carbon Mining Beam: (1) Talion


-Defenses :
---"Sanctuary" Layered Defense Armor: (4) SC, Happerry, TricMagic, Doomblade
---Cherubim Interceptor Laser Array: (2) Happerry, Madman

-Weapons:
---Thor Railgun: (1) TricMagic
---Bomblet Launch Module: (4) Talion, Doomblade, TricMagic, Nirur

Dice spent :
- 9 dice : (3) 10ebbor10, Powder Miner, Madman
-3 each design: (3) Powder Miner, TricMagic, Doomblade

Company Title
Void Conglomerate: (3) SC, Rockeater, Nirur
"The Company" is perfectly fine: (2) Happerry, 10ebbor10
Exploratory Systems, Incorporated: (3) Powder Miner, TricMagic, Madman
The Executive Branch: (2) Talion, Doomblade


Ark Renaming
The StarSweeper{or S.S.}: (1) TricMagic
Endeavour: (1) Madman
(ESIA) Henry the Navigator: (1) Powder Miner
(Obviously, if ESI isn’t the name, replace ESIA with equivalent)

Well, perhaps if we’re going for an exploratory ship name, let’s name it after an explorer. Cristopher Columbus? Shockingly unoriginal. Magellan? Tempting, but no. da Gama? Same. No, I propose we name the ship after Henry the Navigator, a Portuguese prince who used his vast wealth to fund the voyages that started the Age of Discovery that contained the folks like Columbus and da Gama and Magellan. ESI (or whatever company our name is) is hoping to use its cash money money to start an entire age of discovery and colonization, except naturally with itself at the head... and since we in ESI intend to be doing enough of this to make a rip roaring enterprise, we better be putting prefixes on our ships, for when there are multiple arks in the ideal future. So, my proposal:

(ESIA) Henry the Navigator

[Kashyyk]

Seeing as it was brought up, I will suggest an alternative voting panel that we have used quite effectively in the Kasgyre Spire Race thread.

All items that you wish to vote on (including advantage dice, project progress and dice saving) are grouped into plans. This way we can avoid duplicate proposals whilst still clearly seeing what people are voting for and being able to come to a real consensus.

Thus, if we were to adjust the current votes to follow this scheme it would look like this:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Plans:
[1] RC Mining Drones + Fusion Reactor + Armour + save 1: SC
[2] Auto Mining Probes + Fusion Reactor + Atmospheric Conversion + save 1: 10ebbor10, Powder Miner
[1] Fusion Reactor + Atmospheric Conversion + Bomblet Launcher + save 1: Nirur
[1] Fusion Reactor + Atmospheric Conversion + Armour + save 1: Madman
[1] Auto Mining Probes + Armour + Laser Array + save 1: Happery
[1] Auto Mining Probes + Armour + Bomblet + save 1: Doomblade
[1] Rock Docking + Mining Beam + save 4: Talion
[1] Armour + Bomblet + save 4: TricMagic

Proposals:
"Itinerant" RC Mining Drones
Seraph Stellarator Fusion Reactor
"Harvester" Automatic Mining Probes
Atmospherics System Conversion
Rock Docking Module
Laser Contained Carbon Mining Beam
"Sanctuary" Layered Defense Armor
Cherubim Interceptor Laser Array
Thor Railgun
Bomblet Launch Module

As we can see, if the currently leading designs go through (The reactor and 2 picked at random from Mining Probes, Atmospheric Conversion, Armour and Bomblets), we may have only or two people who are actually happy with that, and we're unlikely to have an action set with any synergy at all.

Doing it this way, we reveal just how little agreement there actually is. By convincing people that certain synergistic plans are better, we will have a higher chance of winning than hoping we get synergy out a popularity contest.

[Talion]

Plans:
[1] RC Mining Drones + Fusion Reactor + Armour + save 1: SC
[2] Auto Mining Probes + Fusion Reactor + Atmospheric Conversion + save 1: 10ebbor10, Powder Miner
[1] Fusion Reactor + Atmospheric Conversion + Bomblet Launcher + save 1: Nirur
[1] Fusion Reactor + Atmospheric Conversion + Armour + save 1: Madman
[1] Auto Mining Probes + Armour + Laser Array + save 1: Happery
[1] Auto Mining Probes + Armour + Bomblet + save 1: Doomblade
[1] Rock Docking + Mining Beam + save 4: Talion
[1] Armour + Bomblet + save 4: TricMagic

Such a scheme distorts the results, particularly when you can't even manage to accurately represent how people voted. Both TricMagic and I voted for 3 projects for example. In my case because all 3 projects were suggestions I made that had not appeared on the voting options previous to my vote. Thus my votes do not represent a strong ideological position that only the things I voted for should win.

[Kashyyk]

In that case it would be because I missed your names.

Thus my votes do not represent a strong ideological position that only the things I voted for should win.

Then why are you voting? Surely the point of doing so is to try and get the designs you feel are in the team's best interest to be actioned.

[Talion]

In that case it would be because I missed your names.

If you are going to suggest a change in how votes are represented, it is incumbent on you to accurately translate the votes. As votes are a particularly touchy subject, a certain amount of additional rigor is a good idea.

Then why are you voting? Surely the point of doing so is to try and get the designs you feel are in the team's best interest to be actioned.

We are at the very start of an arms race, there are multiple paths of comparable value to the goal. Thus personal preference has a much larger role to play.

[Kashyyk]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but that seems to imply that your personal preference is for us not to be the most effective we could be.

[Talion]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but that seems to imply that your personal preference is for us not to be the most effective we could be.

I'm happy to correct you. It indicates that the idea that there is only one true way to progress is wrong. That it is entirely possible to win with a suboptimal solution, as it is unlikely that either our opponents or we ourselves have an optimal solution available to us at this time due to an insufficient exploration of the problem space. In that sense, there can be multiple plans that are of equivalent value or of small enough difference in value as to be irrelevant. In fact, it is even possible that a plan of lower immediate value would drive us up a different hill with a greater eventual payoff. That being the case, what is most effective loses meaning (for example it is possible to arrive at 5 by 'choosing' between adding 3 to 2 or adding 2 to 3, but that doesn't impact anything that matters).

[Kashyyk]

We'll have to adjust our solution when new data is revealed, but that shouldn't be an excuse to produce a suboptimal one now. Better to adjust from an optimal position than a suboptimal.

And I believe that voting by plan rather than by design is more likely to produce that optimal result.

[TricMagic]

..Powder already shot that down Kashykk.


Also, what's with all the talk about needing weapons, and yet we only have my design with 1 vote?