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

[Twinwolf]

Honestly, ideally they won’t get this far, and it’s not immediately relevant. It’s largely irrelevant which we fortify and where we put the node. Also why continuing to call it gravite when most other players and the gm have gone with caelium?

I did misread the radio tech - I read it as 1 or above. My bad but I don’t think it’s relevant enough to change.

Finally, why not obsolete the original smg? The new one is better is strictly better and we keep the old design if we want to work off it anyway. It’s literally an active detriment not to obsolete it.

[Jilladilla]

Well, next turn where to fortify and where to place resources is a bit more obvious; Fortifications as far up as possible, Resources as far back as possible.


Alas, poor Sub-Gatling Gun; you were too pure for this world, you died so young... Rest in peace.

Fortify:
Plateaus: (3) Twinwolf, NUKE9.13, Jilladilla
Salvios: (1) Taricus
Lowlands: (1) Yami

Resource:
Caelium Node in the Plateaus: (4) Twinwolf, NUKE9.13, Taricus, Jilladilla
Chemical Compounds in the Lowlands: (1): Yami

Obsolete SMG-12?
Yes: (4) Twinwolf, NUKE9.13, Taricus, Jilladilla
No: (1) Yami

[Yami]

Spoiler: Designs (click to show/hide)

Infantry
SMG-12 Sub-Machine Gun: Essentially a low-powered hand-cranked personal Gatling Gun fired from the hip and fed 10mm pistol rounds through a box magazine under the weapon. Difficult to aim, as there is a crank mounted on top of the thing. Occasionally fails to load chambers, resulting in the nickname "The Stuttergun". Still, it's a big step in personal automatic firearms. Costs 4 Ore and 2 Wood. (CHEAP)

--SMG-12a Sub-Machine Gun: Replaces the crank system with an open bolt blowback system, with the added benefit that it can actually be aimed. Rate of fire drops but reliability increases. Costs 3 Ore and 2 Wood. (CHEAP)

Finally, why not obsolete the original smg? The new one is better is strictly better and we keep the old design if we want to work off it anyway. It’s literally an active detriment not to obsolete it.

Fair question.  Our new SMG is a pretty solid design, and well worth the effort.  Cheaper to boot.  "Rate of fire drops but reliability increases."  "Dirt and mud can cause some issues, but the weapon is fairly easy to clean"  Seems like a solid offensive SMG.  We give it to soldiers meant to go shoot the enemy.

I see the classic as defensive gear to hand our artillery teams to make them feel valued and protected.  It's meant to fill an area with bullets, a suppressive weapon where-in aiming isn't as important.  A trench weapon we need not maintain as meticulously that'll see be useful in a pinch in defending our lines.

Besides, "The padding is immaculate."

Also, I believe the phrasing "Rate of fire drops but reliability increases." is meant to say reliability in firing every shot rather'n stuttering it's fire like the original was known for or in hitting what you're trying to.  Not to say, over all reliability in usage, since the earlier version mentioned nothing about needing cleaning, and seriously, we just crank the thing to churn out bullets.  Sure, it has it's issues.  I just don't see the point in tossing them all rather'n dropping them down to a few defensive weapons where-in I think they'd do a better job than our newer assault SMG.

We would be tossing aside perfectly good gear to obsolete it.

Also why continuing to call it gravite when most other players and the gm have gone with caelium?

I simply refuse to bow to peer pressure.  Or the Enemy.

~Yami, Mad Genius Scientist.

[Baffler]

Sounds like a solid plan to me.

Fortify:
Plateaus: (5) Twinwolf, NUKE9.13, Jilladilla, Baffler
Salvios: (1) Taricus
Lowlands: (1) Yami

Resource:
Caelium Node in the Plateaus: (5) Twinwolf, NUKE9.13, Taricus, Jilladilla, Baffler
Chemical Compounds in the Lowlands: (1): Yami

Obsolete SMG-12?
Yes: (5) Twinwolf, NUKE9.13, Taricus, Jilladilla, Baffler
No: (1) Yami

[Maximum Spin]

Fortify:
Plateaus: (6) Twinwolf, NUKE9.13, Jilladilla, Baffler, Maximum Spin
Salvios: (1) Taricus
Lowlands: (1) Yami

Resource:
Caelium Node in the Plateaus: (6) Twinwolf, NUKE9.13, Taricus, Jilladilla, Baffler, Maximum Spin
Chemical Compounds in the Lowlands: (1): Yami

Obsolete SMG-12?
Yes: (6) Twinwolf, NUKE9.13, Taricus, Jilladilla, Baffler, Maximum Spin
No: (1) Yami

Paperdude, can we get clarification on whether "an Entrenchment Level above 1" in the radio description means ≥1 or ≥2? I see Twinwolf thinks ≥2 (as implied by regarding the former as 'misreading'), but in my dialect that always means ≥1 even though that admittedly doesn't really make literal sense. So I want to be sure.

[Man of Paper]

Twinwolf is correct, Radio Coverage begins at 2 Entrenchment.

EDIT: Also it looks like you guys are pretty much decided, so I feel comfortable locking votes unless the radio clarification changes things.

[Twinwolf]

The thing about the rate of fire dropping but reliability increasing, is that I think that means the effective rate of fire increases. If we assumed that the original reliably fired every time, then yeah, it would have a higher rate of fire. That was it's main problem though, that it didn't. I think at worst they're identical effective rates, at best just flat better. If you meant to give our artillery teams something I think they'd prefer something that will actually fire when they need it to. Even more so even, since they're not exactly going to be getting it covered in dirt or whatever when they're sitting at an artillery battery.

Also, I see no part of the revision that cheapens it's immaculate padding.

(Also, perhaps consider joining the discord? I feel it'd be easier to make points one way or the other. And the caelium/gravite thing, I think is just easier to book-keep. It's going to be confusing if MoP sees 2 votes for gravite and 2 votes for caelium for whatever purpose)

[Parsely]

Paperdude, can we get clarification on whether "an Entrenchment Level above 1" in the radio description means ≥1 or ≥2? I see Twinwolf thinks ≥2 (as implied by regarding the former as 'misreading'), but in my dialect that always means ≥1 even though that admittedly doesn't really make literal sense. So I want to be sure.

I tutor people and I've noticed that this is something that programming students struggle with sometimes when they're interpreting quiz questions as code. Does rewriting "Above 1" as "greater than 1" help? Since you read >1 as "greater than 1" it can make the equivalence more obvious, and also making the connection that >1 is the same as ≥2 can be a helpful too.

[Maximum Spin]

I tutor people and I've noticed that this is something that programming students struggle with sometimes when they're interpreting quiz questions as code. Does rewriting "Above 1" as "greater than 1" help? Since you read >1 as "greater than 1" it can make the equivalence more obvious, and also making the connection that >1 is the same as ≥2 can be a helpful too.

I definitely wouldn't characterise that as "struggle with", it's just a natural ambiguity in the English language. Eg. if someone in my general region were to, I don't know, ask for a price "not above $50", he's going to reject $50 as too high. Saying "above 1" in that case is flatly wrong because it could be interpreted either way depending on customs. That's why we have mathematical notation to prevent ambiguity. "Greater than 1" would be fine for me, but really you should just be using the symbol >, that's what it's for.

[Madman198237]

If he's going to reject $50 as to high in your example, that's really just incorrect according to the definitions of those words. If something can't be above $50, that implies that it CAN be $50, because $50 is, of course, not above $50.

[Maximum Spin]

If he's going to reject $50 as to high in your example, that's really just incorrect according to the definitions of those words. If something can't be above $50, that implies that it CAN be $50, because $50 is, of course, not above $50.

Yeah, but that's human language for you. I already said it makes no literal sense, it's just how I learned to naturally interpret the intent people usually have behind the specific words.

[Parsely]

I tutor people and I've noticed that this is something that programming students struggle with sometimes when they're interpreting quiz questions as code. Does rewriting "Above 1" as "greater than 1" help? Since you read >1 as "greater than 1" it can make the equivalence more obvious, and also making the connection that >1 is the same as ≥2 can be a helpful too.

I definitely wouldn't characterise that as "struggle with", it's just a natural ambiguity in the English language. Eg. if someone in my general region were to, I don't know, ask for a price "not above $50", he's going to reject $50 as too high. Saying "above 1" in that case is flatly wrong because it could be interpreted either way depending on customs. That's why we have mathematical notation to prevent ambiguity. "Greater than 1" would be fine for me, but really you should just be using the symbol >, that's what it's for.

In this case the language is not ambiguous, humans are. You're proving my point. The students need to learn not to read extra, incorrect meaning into language that, when interpreted literally (as opposed to with acquired context), is not ambiguous, this is part of why people struggle with word problems, and in programming most problems could be called word problems and have some math in them.

In math ">" is equal to "greater than", if you say "greater than" in a math word problem that's the meaning it will always have. The symbol is used for brevity, it doesn't have a different meaning, otherwise "greater than" wouldn't be the correct definition for the symbol.

Fortify:
Plateaus: (7) Twinwolf, NUKE9.13, Jilladilla, Baffler, Maximum Spin, Parsely
Salvios: (1) Taricus
Lowlands: (1) Yami

Resource:
Caelium Node in the Plateaus: (7) Twinwolf, NUKE9.13, Taricus, Jilladilla, Baffler, Maximum Spin, Parsely
Chemical Compounds in the Lowlands: (1): Yami

Obsolete SMG-12?
Yes: (7) Twinwolf, NUKE9.13, Taricus, Jilladilla, Baffler, Maximum Spin, Parsely
No: (1) Yami

[Maximum Spin]

In this case the language is not ambiguous, humans are. You're proving my point. The students need to learn not to read extra, incorrect meaning into language that, when interpreted literally (as opposed to with acquired context), is not ambiguous, this is part of why people struggle with word problems, and in programming most problems could be called word problems and have some math in them.

That's a very, well, autistic way of looking at it, I have to say. The alternative position would be, humans developed and use language to convey intent, so the correct interpretation of a word or phrase is precisely what people usually intend it to mean, and, if you use that word or phrase expecting people to interpret it differently, even if you think it's "literally accurate", you're communicating badly, on purpose.

ETA: I would further posit that "greater than" is not the definition of '>', "greater than" is the English translation of '>'. "Mathematical symbols" is its own domain-specific language designed to guarantee that the symbols can be defined (definition is always in terms of concepts, not words, which is why we don't seize up when given a recursive definition) to convey a specific intent without worrying about the other meanings words might have; to say that '>' is always identical with the English words "greater than" is no less of a category error than calling a Spaniard "pájaro" and expecting him to understand it the same as the English "bird".

The definition of '>', if you're curious, is simply "∀x: x+1 > x; ∀a,b,c: a > b ∧ b > c → a > c". '>' is math and can only be defined in math.

[Parsely]

I took discrete math earlier this year, so I'm glad that you bring up the set definition! If you can't define (or "translate") ">" with the words "greater than", then the fact that it's called the greater-than-sign has no meaning. You seem to be arguing that because people can interpret words with a meaning that isn't the one that's widely agreed upon that words have less meaning than abstract mathematical symbols, but we have to define mathematical symbols using words (symbols) so math symbols have the same weakness, if you keep breaking down definitions of symbols eventually you can't prove their truth you just have to accept it (axiomatic truth). Set theory has been criticized for containing circular definitions and there are alternatives to it, it is not gospel.

All of those symbols have a language-agnostic, agreed upon definition, otherwise they would not be useful for doing math, which needs to be borderless.

∀  for all
∧  and
+  addition
>  greater than
→ function

If I can't define these words using English then the set definition of > (∀x: x+1 > x; ∀a,b,c: a > b ∧ b > c → a > c) has no meaning. We had problems on quizzes in discrete math class where we had to interpret set definitions as English and vice versa.

[Maximum Spin]

if you keep breaking down definitions of symbols eventually you can't prove their truth you just have to accept it (axiomatic truth).

That's... how we define things in higher math, yes. The definition of a symbol is just a set of axioms describing how that symbol interacts logically with other symbols. While '>' can be translated as 'greater than' and is a specific formalisation of certain elements of the concept that the English language names 'greater than', its definition is fully determined by the axioms describing what it does. You have to be able to distinguish between the concept and the implementation or you will definitely go mad even by the time you get to rings.