Print

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

Space-Time

2 (14.3%)

Hammer Time

3 (21.4%)

Time...to die.

6 (42.9%)

Peanut Butter Jelly Time

3 (21.4%)

Total Members Voted: 14

[Man of Paper]

Aye, I'm definitely going to be adding all the little bits we've been working with, like the gavpowder, into the Components section, and making sure they're clearly defined. I wasn't totally up to doing the bookkeeping for every detail (since it clearly wasn't something I was doing well at first anyway), but I'm getting that it's important to do to make sure there's easy reference for whatever comes up.

[Twinwolf]

I recall in DMs you mentioned that it's possible reinforcing the engines would add ore cost. What about changing the gavrillium used to be more stable? Would that bump up gavrillium cost or have no effective cost change but be harder? You've also mentioned that we could swap gav-engines to using gavrillium-U. Do you mind saying how that might effect them, since you've implied it would have some fairly notable effects?

Do we know the degree of explosive force needed to cause the detonation in gav-engines? Say, would a grenade have to go off on top of it, or would simply being at the edge of it's effective range cause a cook-off? Would a bullet that hit it cause it, an AP bullet, or would it have to be a somehow exploding one? The only example we have is Keratas detonating from an artillery shell, which is sort of just logical given they're Keratas, so I'm trying to figure out how big of a problem it actually is.

[Man of Paper]

If you decide to stabilize the gavrilium, it'd essentially just be making a gavrilium variant, which, as you've worked with gavrilium the whole game, would not be very difficult. I might've misspoken when I said something about swapping to Gavrilium-U (my arguments have been getting mixed up in my brain as the issue keeps compounding itself): that was in reference to the gavpowder. If Gav-U was retroactively used in the powder then base Gavrilium would not have the reactive quality the use of gavrilium in the gavpowder gave it, meaning the engines would act how you've all figured they would. However that'd still require looking into as Gav-U is very unstable under explosive force as seen in the M1/M2, and so would wind up causing issues in the weaponry in that the molten gavrilium within the weapon would likely cause damage. To be fair, we could also say that you've treated this issue already with the GA2's gavpowder modifications, however that costs Chemical Compounds, and I don't want to impose that cost on every design.

A direct hit from a large caliber weapon on a completely unprotected engine rod would cause it to cook off. If it's within a vehicle or protected in some way, unless AP rounds are used, I wouldn't have basic firearms setting it off. With explosions, however, a blast capable of damaging whatever's using the gavengine (with more than a few cuts and scrapes) is likely to set it off. That is, being in a grenade's effective range isn't enough, it needs to be close enough for significant impact through whatever compartment the engine is housed in. It's honestly not going to be much worse than our standard vehicles using a powered-by-explosions combustion engine+fuel reservoir.

[NUKE9.13]

You crushed gavrilium and used it in cordite to amplify the effects of rapid expansion of heat propelling the bullet forward. This is not augmenting the gavrilium, it's defining an interaction between a relatively low 'n' slow explosive force and the gavrilium. You are adding Gavrilium to something to manipulate the other material, not adding something to Gavrilium to change how it acts from the base Gavrilium (i.e. chemical treatment in the modified gavpowder). Anyone stating "make it work like it's supposed to", if you want to do more than frustrate me, is going to need to make a solid argument without lynching me as to why.

The intention, I'm pretty sure, was to make a more powerful propellant, by providing energy-dense fuel in the form of powdered gavrilium. Gavrilium could already be slowly burnt as fuel as a standard property; powdering it, increasing the surface area, would let it burn more quickly, in a manner useful in a propellant. This is treating gavrilium as analogous to coal; a lump of coal will burn slowly, powdered coal will explode.

And not once did I say gavrilium wasn't explosive. It didn't work as an explosive the first time you tried it.

The misunderstanding here is described by Twin above; nowhere in the results for the M1 did you make it clear that Gavrilium-U was a thing that existed separately from regular Gavrilium. The wording seemed to imply that the property described applied to all Gavrilium. In other words, a solid lump of Gavrilium will not explode, was our understanding. Hence why we powdered it in Gavpowder, as something that burns (or melts) in a solid lump can explode when powdered.

As I said, perhaps you were looking for utilizing the reaction of the Gavrilium-U, and it would be no problem to swap to that and act like you never made gavpowder using base gavrilium. That has it's own issues, but it's fine, my poor bookkeeping and finding my AR legs for the first turn and a half can be blamed for the miscommunication there.

The option of changing Gavpowder so that it leaves behind a bunch of slag, in other words.
Well, we did roll poorly, so getting a buggy result would've been fair. I would at the time have argued that, being powdered, the Gavrilium would not behave the same way as a solid lump; the particles would go past melting and be dispersed from the barrel whilst superheated, leaving at most a slight residue, not significant amounts of slag.
If we go with a solution that involves us having to use a revision to fix a problem, I'd prefer this one, as once the powder is fixed, everything would work the way we were led to believe it did.

And before anything is said, yes I know in hindsight I could have been clearer about the engines going off. Live and learn and all that.

Specifically, consistency in how results are reported would've been nice. We were told what new properties Gavrilium got as a result of the M1 and the Gavengine, but received no such notice when creating the GA1 (nor was the new volatile nature added to the description in our design list)- and thus had no reason to suspect new properties had been added.


Also, I'd like to apologise again for any distress I may have caused. I absolutely did not intend to cause any. Any criticism I have made has always been intended as constructive. I will fully admit to being quite impassioned about a number of things, but at no point did I think, or intend to convey, that you were acting maliciously or stupidly. If my commentary has appeared more pitchforky and less reasoned, well, I didn't see it that way, but my apologies if it came across that way, and I will try to rectify that.

Also also, to clarify, I never sought for things to work better for us than we deserve from our dice rolls. In the case of Caelium/Gravite, for example, I wasn't concerned that Caelium was worse, but that it wouldn't work the way we intended Gravite to. In this case, I would've objected just as much (well, perhaps a little less) if Gavrilium had unexpectedly turned out betterthan we thought in a similar manner, where miscommunication and unclear wording were at play. I'm concerned with fair play, not conniving advantages from the GM.

(PPE: Ninja'd a bunch of times, sorry if this is a little confusing/doesn't address recent posts.)

[Man of Paper]

The slag wouldn't necessarily be gunking up the barrel constantly, but it would have the effect of reducing reliability as it'd create build-up over time, which ultimately in game mechanic terms is simply a small reduction in reliability. I see what you're saying in regards to the powder though: honestly my knowledge of various reactions is lacking, and I didn't know powdered coal would explode, so I can totally see now why there's the misunderstanding there.

And yeah, I can't apologize enough for my issues with consistency. It really comes down to laziness and exhaustion, but you all already know why that's the case in regards to my current circumstances, so I won't harp on it further for the sake of not wanting to look like I'm trying to use an excuse for pity or sympathy in an effort to get things my way. I decided to run this, so it's on me and me alone to make sure I do shit right.

For the sake of not having to tell most of you you're fine, while I don't like calling out specific people, Madman's largely the one who's got to tone it down. While there has been some saltiness from a few of you, it's mostly not more than expected from an AR, or from anything that uses a GM/DM.

However Madman, and I call you out specifically right now (now being whenever you see this I guess) because I feel like you don't want to come across as a bell-end, otherwise I'd just dismiss you and everything you've said. You don't need to hit enter or click post as soon as you say something you feel like saying. I used to be an internet asshole, intentionally and unintentionally, and it took some work to improve my digital image. Start by trying to put yourself in the other person's shoes. Ask yourself: "Would this offend me if I was on the receiving end of this?" "Is my tone accurately portrayed?" "Am I pushing too hard?" I'm not trying to put you down, just sometimes it takes someone going "cut it out" for you to realize you might be doing something wrong. I'd PM this, but I think it's also an important lesson for anyone who hasn't had it yet.

[Twinwolf]

I think I could agree on fixing it by means of changing Gavpowder and then revising that - main question being of course, how we get rid of the residue. If it makes everything work as we thought it did then that is probably the best option, and less of an issue than having our vehicles (or eventual power armor) cook off from a blow it would otherwise survive. Might open some options by making Gavrillium-U a different thing with apparently different properties.

Also, random question: While I don’t think we’d want any of what they have, is inventing things similar to things used by the enemy or seen in espionage easier than it otherwise would be? If so we might see them hauling around SMGs soon after Harren, or other things.

[Yami]

I'm cool with plan A, play it as it lies.  Honestly, I don't even feel the need to revise away the inherent volatility.  I mean, we're strapping engines on our soldiers backs, it's not like there's going to be a 'safe' way to do that.

~Yami.

[Rockeater]

I'm cool with plan A, play it as it lies.  Honestly, I don't even feel the need to revise away the inherent volatility.  I mean, we're strapping engines on our soldiers backs, it's not like there's going to be a 'safe' way to do that.

~Yami.

But we don't want the entire crew of our vehicles to go in flames from a single grenade, so I prefer to keep with the less that option

My main question is how would it effect the Adbra's designs, would their engine become non-explosive, I assume they would need to spend a revision for that but it's feel a bit unfair if they didn't fixed that because they thouth it was an inate flaw of the metirial and then we suddanly came and just undone this

[Man of Paper]

Since I imagine you'll both be trying to fix this in the same revision phase now, in order to work within the rules I've written, and to provide some sort of balance, it'd work as follows:

The highest roll of the revision would become the proper fix. If the lower roll is still successful, they get the method of stabilization, and their reaction is given a different effect as judged by me to keep balanced (as would happen attempting to create any result that's already been created by the other team anyways). This way one team decides on the fix, while the other still gets to have some say in what the material does. Obviously if there's a failed roll against the successful one then you might get the fix, depending on how low it actually is, but the other reaction you'd get will probably be less-than-desirable. If both teams fail their revision then I wind up laughing at everyone's expense and everyone probably tries again.

Also more clarification because rereading my post I see it's unclear: the Fallout vehicles were my example of what wouldn't happen. They're easier to pop than a standard combustion engine+fuel assembly, but they aren't going to level everything around them.

[Madman198237]

Dangit I hit the wrong button and my post is gone (darnit accidental page refreshes, I was aiming at the next tab over), and now a reasonable paragraph has swelled to a response...well, you see how long it is.

Ah well. Long story short, flour will explode if you mix it with enough air. Spontaneous coal ignition (resulting in detonation of the coal dust in the air, which can blow out watertight doors and magazine bulkheads) is credited with several sunken dreadnoughts/predreadnought battleships. So yeah, things that mix with air or other flammables/oxidizers properly can do things you normally wouldn't expect, including Gavrillium.

I would argue that perhaps the GA1b's roll should be reexamined--was it good enough to fix potential fouling issues? If so, we can just retroactively label it all Gavrillium-U, which if I understand correctly might fix everything? If it wasn't, I guess label it anyway and we'll revise away the issue. After all, if Gavrillium can send and retrieve energy from some sort of demented pocket dimension shared between all pieces of Gavrillium, it can send itself there too, right?

As for my salt, don't read my words as salty and see if that changes things. By and large I don't intend to come across as salty, and I certainly am NOT salty/angry/complaining on this side of the computer screens, so if you're reading everything of mine as salty, try reading it with good humor or sometimes seriousness instead. I also tend to have a sharp sense of humor and will crack jokes in the middle of debates, so if it's insulting just assume it's intended in good humor. And remember that it's easier to remember the bad moments than the good ones, even if the good ones are more numerous.

I thought (perhaps I read it wrong) that you brought up the Fallout vehicles in a sentence similar to "explode like but not as much as Fallout vehicles", hence me believing that the vehicle explodes even if it's not a mushroom cloud that kills everyone in a five-meter radius.

So, let me check if I understand your proposed fix:
Both teams are probably going to fix it, but regardless:
The highest successful roll defines the proposed fix as "the fix", but if the other team succeeds they get both "the fix" and a new reaction as well? If everyone fails you get to have some perhaps-undeserved fun at our collective expense and everything explodes/belches poisonous gas/disappears into the SUPER-WARP magical Gavrillium aether.

I think that perhaps it'd make more sense in this case to just go with "highest successful roll defines (And receives) the fix, all other successful rolls get the fix as well". That way, you're not giving out double rewards/a free new reaction to the team with a lower roll.

But you know, this is all just my 2 cents … let's just say "a lot of cents" (value of coinage not guaranteed), and move on.

[Twinwolf]

To be perfectly honest, you kinda come across as the saltiest person on either team. I've generally tried to discuss seriously and assume you are being so as well, and that does not make you seem less aggravated. I think it might be word choice or how you seem to complain at length about things nobody else takes issue with, but either way you certainly come across far more aggressive and salty than you probably intend.

[NUKE9.13]

Thing is, right, the onus of understanding tone can lie with different parties depending on the situation. Sometimes the speaker should be more clear, sometimes the listener should think it over more, sometimes a bit of both.
But if everyone else agrees that you seem salty, the issue probably isn't with everyone else.

Like, you could just say "Sorry I came off as salty, I'll try to fix that"

[Madman198237]

So take it as a "help me improve" thing then, especially in the cases where I can't be less salty since I'm not being salty in general.

The apology appears to have got lost in the page refresh, whoops. So much for my mental checklist. Sorry for the salt.

[Baffler]

Regardless, I agree that the best way forward is to just play it as it presently falls and revise the fuel rods or something to fix the issue. The trick would be to think up something plausible that also doesn't use crazy processes. Right now the only things I can think of are treating them in some way to neutralize them, like trying to define some sort of electrochemical or pH-dependent action that causes a one way rearrangement of the lattice to a more stable form, which would use our existing chemical (and possibly oil) industry but sounds like it'd make the rods noticeably less useful as a power source; or using ore for some kind of metallurgical solution like saying gav-enriched copper or nickel or whatever stabilizes the related forces a bit and contains the undesirable reactions, again at the cost of some effectiveness.

Or we could simply ignore the problem. I mean, it's not like a diesel engine is NOT vulnerable to explosions, and this bit (emphasis mine):

A direct hit from a large caliber weapon on a completely unprotected engine rod would cause it to cook off. If it's within a vehicle or protected in some way, unless AP rounds are used, I wouldn't have basic firearms setting it off. With explosions, however, a blast capable of damaging whatever's using the gavengine (with more than a few cuts and scrapes) is likely to set it off. That is, being in a grenade's effective range isn't enough, it needs to be close enough for significant impact through whatever compartment the engine is housed in. It's honestly not going to be much worse than our standard vehicles using a powered-by-explosions combustion engine+fuel reservoir.

has me thinking that we can probably not be so massively concerned unless we're trying to make powered armor or something with an active gav engine running on the back of it. Perhaps even less so, because even though it's more vulnerable than an equivalent diesel engine its failure is much less catastrophic and can probably be mitigated to a degree that will at least allow crew to escape by simply reworking the exhaust systems and including insulation along with the armoring the engine compartments of vehicles already get. And as far as crew-served weapons like the GGG anything that can deal that kind of damage to the gun is most likely going to either kill the crew or force them to bail anyway.

[Twinwolf]

I mean, we're literally planning to do power armor that does exactly that.

It's not a big problem now. In the future, if we make tougher vehicles or ones that need more than one Gav-engine, it can turn a moderate hit in the wrong place into a lethal one.