You propose to, at a point, cease all technological development in a group, no matter what. Theres never been a cap on planets, yet a group like TNO can have millions of meters worth of ships, crazy power over the galaxy.
Fine Kas, The R&D forum is now official shut down until the new rules are in place, for the reason you just said. We cant bias against large groups alone, whos to say if the small groups wont be over their limits either...
At this point, there is one very simple reason why the cap has been revived. New R&D rules are under development. These include a very different way of counting how many techs a group may have -- it makes absolutely no sense to let groups which already have a large number of techs continue to develop new ones when there is a distinct chance that with the new system they may be over the limit already. After the new system is in place, and we know whether or not certain groups are over the limit or not, then they can continue to.
[QUOTE=Demosthenes X]Nothing else has a cap like this. Why would R&Ds?[/QUOTE]
Right now, there is a limit to how many ships you can have per planet. We are drafting a similar, logical system capping R&Ds. A soft cap, not a "Stop at this arbitrary number!" cap. But for now, the more R&Ds that are pushed forward the harder it is going to be on the staff because the nature of the system requires a resubmission of every R&D in the galaxy. The more R&Ds, the more time and effort that will take.
Hmmm I think some people that I dont wan't to name is just scared of what factions will create and release it on underexpecting foes and capping on how many R&D factions do is ridiculous if we did that it would possibly to get rid of old ones to make room and what if you need that old R&D again? Make room again which will happen all over again if you see my point if not sorry
There is no possible way people will simply stop inventing. It's a ridiculous notion to say "No, you can only have ten inventions EVER!". If you're worried about groups becoming uberstrong because their technology is different, then impose some REAL sanctions on them. Some groups may just want to R&D an entirely new navy and army - why would you limit that?
You're saying "No, you're not allowed to be creative. No, here's some ships that everyone else has. Have fun."
Here I thought 30 was the limit, and therefore tried to keep my techs down under that, despite the fact that I have numerous ideas, and ideas that aren't all superpowered battlecruisers.
[QUOTE]You R&D a tech, and a few weeks later you make that tech more powerful with another R&D.[/QUOTE]
First wrong, if theres a better R&D out there, we do that one, and scrap the old one. Very rarely have we R&D'd something and then later improved on it. If we discover flaws in our R&D's, we keep them and accept them as realistic mistakes.
[QUOTE]None of these techs are ever battle tested, because there's a bit of a cold war going on.[/QUOTE]
Second Wrong, in the last big war, all our technologies got a good run down in fights against ORS. We found entire ship classes to be extrenous and lacking in their intended field. These classes were scrapped and new ships R&D'd in their place (IE: Ghost for Tion).
[QUOTE]This begins a technology war, which we do not want.[/QUOTE]
You don't want. Some people don't like fighting force users, we don't limit them. Some people hate interacting with fleeters, sometimes its unavoidable. Technology is the same way, and the only way to control it is to regulate it, technology to technology. Putting a cap on the amount changes nothing, a group could get passed with 30 uber techs and still have themselves under ruled. The point is to not limit the amount, but the power of.
[QUOTE]Say all of a sudden, whammo, we have a big messy war, and everyone starts calling godmoding because:[/QUOTE]
Again, Ill point to the ORS fights, which had a minimum of OOC bickering. As well, our forces got their ass's handed to them before eventual victory. No calls of Godmoding, no ubder forces destroying the galaxy. Ill remind you, we had then, the same technology we use now. No new weapons have since been developed or put up on the drawing board.
[QUOTE- your group has twenty-four ships that can rip apart thousands
- ships that control the minds of the enemies NPC
- ships that are not stopped by interdictors
- or mass shadow
- weapons that bypass standard shielding
- weapons that disintegrate 10 meters of hull per shot
- soldiers that regenerate themselves
- ships that can't be hijacked, because all the people are stored in used soda cans
- an unlimited amount of NPC troops, because you use nanotechnology to rebuild everything, and your people are stored in a computer
- and who knows what other crap that can't be dealt with on a conventional level.[/QUOTE]
-TNO has hundreds of Ship that do the same, So does Cree'Ar and GC. Thats the point of military vessels.
-Indeed, Unshielded NPC's. Most military units are behind shields... On ship, under Gencors, ect....
-We arn't the only ones
-same as above
-One probationary weapon that was never used, the other weapon nullifys shields and ships systems, Ill remind you this was made after our other weapons were deemed unable to harm ships shields. IE: We have one weapon that negates shields, and another that hardly hurts shields.
-On Unshielded targets, useless against shields.
-No they dont
-No they arn't
-True, we can, but that would still take time, We never claimed to rebuild a population in a day, thats you
-You tell me, your the one that seems hung up on BDE
[QUOTE]Having a completely unique group may be all well and good, but this isn't the NJO series, where everything has a rough outline, and everyone knows that in the end the Jedi will win. This isn't SW Galaxies, where a computer checks things over and says yes or no. This is a casual online forum game in which some tired fellow gets home from work, glances over your project, and stamps approved because nothing jumps out at him as being big and nasty.[/QUOTE]
Your right, its not, its a system of people, checking over other people, to make sure no matter what, the game always works right. Ive always suggested ideas after ideas on how to run things smoother, From battle Mods to new R&D rules. Thus far the system has worked, and unless the people in their places become slack and lazy, and try to make all encompasing rules so as to not be forced to monitor their duties as often, it will continue to work just fine.
[QUOTE]And it's only natural that people think their ships are going to own everything in the battlefield. Nothing has been tested, so people begin to get inflated ideas of what can do what. When it comes to a battle, and someone disagrees with them on what their ship can do, well, then we have a problem.[/QUOTE]
Again, my ships have been pwned before in actual combat, this isnt a cold war of technologies. Things have been tested, questioned, failed and passed. Many inquires have been made, amny things asked, limits have been placed, the knowledge is out there if you read it. My stuff has not only been limited in the R&D threads they were passed in, but as well as the battles they participated in and the OOC threads they were questioned from.
[QUOTE]That's why you were capped at 30. And until the new R&D system is figured out, and the soft cap completely eliminated, we stay at 35. If you want to R&D more ships, well, go get Ahnk and Omnae and work on the R&D rules, test it a bit, run some numbers, and then push it out the door.[/QUOTE]
I am trying, but its like pulling teeth to get anyone to put more than a little effort into a new rules draft.
The only point I'll grant you is number one, but I'm not pushing for 30 R&Ds. I was fine to stop ast 10, way back when. Now, to keep up, I'll probably stop at 20.
Talk to Om, he knows my character/group storyline that im writting and developing. My group isnt a problem, stasis wise or technology wise.
1. Your group would be just as guilty of breaking stasis as ours, as we both share a common non-SW bend.
2. We arn't a one world group, we have 30+ worlds, all in a single area of space. Its not as if we are the NGC, spread across known space, or even what ORS was, and spread all across the rim. All our worlds (with the exception of 3-4) are in the immidiate are of each other, leading to increased interaction between worlds, such as travel government trade and research.
3. Limiting meters per world doesnt exactly work when you own 70+ worlds. So unless your going to limit the amount of worlds your going to take, I dont believe this 30 R&D limit is neither fair nor called for. BTW, how many naval vessels have existed on earth in the last hundred years, how many different variations on the use of fire in the last thousand? One world can do alot, technology wise, its all determinable on the size and scope of the R&D. Kamon could do a hundred R&D's for what its worth, as long as none of them were galactic scope, or mass weapons or huge battleships, it wouldnt much matter, becuase they could be localized, explained, and more likely built with the use of a single planets resources. all one has to do is take into consideration what a single planet can accomplish when reviewing an R&D not aking a generalized rule to cover everyone.
I capped you at 30 because 30 sounded better than 32, or 33.
There is no need for so many technologies. The more technologies you have, the higher the 'flamewar' factor increases. You R&D a tech, and a few weeks later you make that tech more powerful with another R&D. None of these techs are ever battle tested, because there's a bit of a cold war going on. This begins a technology war, which we do not want.
Say all of a sudden, [b]whammo[/b], we have a big messy war, and everyone starts calling godmoding because:
- your group has twenty-four ships that can rip apart thousands
- ships that control the minds of the enemies NPC
- ships that are not stopped by interdictors
- or mass shadow
- weapons that bypass standard shielding
- weapons that disintegrate 10 meters of hull per shot
- soldiers that regenerate themselves
- ships that can't be hijacked, because all the people are stored in used soda cans
- an unlimited amount of NPC troops, because you use nanotechnology to rebuild everything, and your people are stored in a computer
- and who knows what other crap that can't be dealt with on a conventional level.
Having a completely unique group may be all well and good, but this isn't the NJO series, where everything has a rough outline, and everyone knows that in the end the Jedi will win. This isn't SW Galaxies, where a computer checks things over and says yes or no. This is a casual online forum game in which some tired fellow gets home from work, glances over your project, and stamps approved because nothing jumps out at him as being big and nasty.
The thing is, with canon craft we [I]know[/I] what damage can be done, what can be taken. There's a multitude of official and unofficial sources. Books, comic books, audio books, films, etc. With R&D craft, this factor becomes a little more uncertain. This factor is multiplied when you figure in that 70% of all R&D's approved in this forum have [I]never[/I] seen any sort of combat testing. People just design them, build them, and save them.
And it's only natural that people think their ships are going to own everything in the battlefield. Nothing has been tested, so people begin to get inflated ideas of what can do what. When it comes to a battle, and someone disagrees with them on what their ship can do, well, then we have a problem.
That's why you were capped at 30. And until the new R&D system is figured out, and the soft cap completely eliminated, we stay at 35. If you want to R&D more ships, well, go get Ahnk and Omnae and work on the R&D rules, test it a bit, run some numbers, and then push it out the door.
1) We limited the meterage provided by each planet to specifically avoid situations of rediculous fleets like EROs 20 ESD taskforces.
2) The point is that under this system there is nothing preventing Kamon's new group with all of one planet from being technologically equal with BDE, THAT is a problem, also, there is an issue of what we refer to as technological stasis where SW canon tech hasn't advanced, and yet (as I said) you have practical application of time travel, nanotechnology, and genetic engineering.
Becuase, theres no need for a cap. Its just flat and out fucking stupid.
Whats the rationale behind it? Becuase you dont want groups having too much tech or getting too powerful... Then limit the tech, or cap technological ability, you dont cap the number of technologies a group can have, not only is it unrealisitic, it doesnt even help the rules or the system. What are my people supposed to do anyways?
"Uh Jimbo, think of any new ideas today?"
"Naw, you?"
"Shucks no..."
You propose to, at a point, cease all technological development in a group, no matter what. Theres never been a cap on planets, yet a group like TNO can have millions of meters worth of ships, crazy power over the galaxy. So obviously this ruling isnt made so that a group cant have too much power in the way of technology, becuase then we'd be limiting all the ways a group can aquire power.
This is an arbitrary ruling, made becuase Kas.... Fuck it, I have no clue why Kas made it, but its not based in any rationale yet explained.
Comments
#24 4:46am 05/09/04
[QUOTE]
You propose to, at a point, cease all technological development in a group, no matter what. Theres never been a cap on planets, yet a group like TNO can have millions of meters worth of ships, crazy power over the galaxy.
[/QUOTE]
Thanks for pointing that out Gue.
TRF will have a planetary cap then.
#23 4:16am 05/09/04
then we are in agreement
#22 4:04am 05/09/04
That would be why I have not submitted any of the several techs I have written up, I'm most definitely going to be dropping a bunch of techs later.
#21 3:31am 05/09/04
Fine Kas, The R&D forum is now official shut down until the new rules are in place, for the reason you just said. We cant bias against large groups alone, whos to say if the small groups wont be over their limits either...
#20 3:22am 05/09/04
At this point, there is one very simple reason why the cap has been revived. New R&D rules are under development. These include a very different way of counting how many techs a group may have -- it makes absolutely no sense to let groups which already have a large number of techs continue to develop new ones when there is a distinct chance that with the new system they may be over the limit already. After the new system is in place, and we know whether or not certain groups are over the limit or not, then they can continue to.
[edit: basically what Ahnk said.]
#19 3:11am 05/09/04
[QUOTE=Demosthenes X]Nothing else has a cap like this. Why would R&Ds?[/QUOTE]
Right now, there is a limit to how many ships you can have per planet. We are drafting a similar, logical system capping R&Ds. A soft cap, not a "Stop at this arbitrary number!" cap. But for now, the more R&Ds that are pushed forward the harder it is going to be on the staff because the nature of the system requires a resubmission of every R&D in the galaxy. The more R&Ds, the more time and effort that will take.
#18 2:59am 05/09/04
Hmmm I think some people that I dont wan't to name is just scared of what factions will create and release it on underexpecting foes and capping on how many R&D factions do is ridiculous if we did that it would possibly to get rid of old ones to make room and what if you need that old R&D again? Make room again which will happen all over again if you see my point if not sorry
#17 2:50am 05/09/04
A cap on R&Ds makes no sense. There.
There is no possible way people will simply stop inventing. It's a ridiculous notion to say "No, you can only have ten inventions EVER!". If you're worried about groups becoming uberstrong because their technology is different, then impose some REAL sanctions on them. Some groups may just want to R&D an entirely new navy and army - why would you limit that?
You're saying "No, you're not allowed to be creative. No, here's some ships that everyone else has. Have fun."
Nothing else has a cap like this. Why would R&Ds?
#16 8:45pm 30/08/04
Here I thought 30 was the limit, and therefore tried to keep my techs down under that, despite the fact that I have numerous ideas, and ideas that aren't all superpowered battlecruisers.
#15 6:36pm 30/08/04
[QUOTE]You R&D a tech, and a few weeks later you make that tech more powerful with another R&D.[/QUOTE]
First wrong, if theres a better R&D out there, we do that one, and scrap the old one. Very rarely have we R&D'd something and then later improved on it. If we discover flaws in our R&D's, we keep them and accept them as realistic mistakes.
[QUOTE]None of these techs are ever battle tested, because there's a bit of a cold war going on.[/QUOTE]
Second Wrong, in the last big war, all our technologies got a good run down in fights against ORS. We found entire ship classes to be extrenous and lacking in their intended field. These classes were scrapped and new ships R&D'd in their place (IE: Ghost for Tion).
[QUOTE]This begins a technology war, which we do not want.[/QUOTE]
You don't want. Some people don't like fighting force users, we don't limit them. Some people hate interacting with fleeters, sometimes its unavoidable. Technology is the same way, and the only way to control it is to regulate it, technology to technology. Putting a cap on the amount changes nothing, a group could get passed with 30 uber techs and still have themselves under ruled. The point is to not limit the amount, but the power of.
[QUOTE]Say all of a sudden, whammo, we have a big messy war, and everyone starts calling godmoding because:[/QUOTE]
Again, Ill point to the ORS fights, which had a minimum of OOC bickering. As well, our forces got their ass's handed to them before eventual victory. No calls of Godmoding, no ubder forces destroying the galaxy. Ill remind you, we had then, the same technology we use now. No new weapons have since been developed or put up on the drawing board.
[QUOTE- your group has twenty-four ships that can rip apart thousands
- ships that control the minds of the enemies NPC
- ships that are not stopped by interdictors
- or mass shadow
- weapons that bypass standard shielding
- weapons that disintegrate 10 meters of hull per shot
- soldiers that regenerate themselves
- ships that can't be hijacked, because all the people are stored in used soda cans
- an unlimited amount of NPC troops, because you use nanotechnology to rebuild everything, and your people are stored in a computer
- and who knows what other crap that can't be dealt with on a conventional level.[/QUOTE]
-TNO has hundreds of Ship that do the same, So does Cree'Ar and GC. Thats the point of military vessels.
-Indeed, Unshielded NPC's. Most military units are behind shields... On ship, under Gencors, ect....
-We arn't the only ones
-same as above
-One probationary weapon that was never used, the other weapon nullifys shields and ships systems, Ill remind you this was made after our other weapons were deemed unable to harm ships shields. IE: We have one weapon that negates shields, and another that hardly hurts shields.
-On Unshielded targets, useless against shields.
-No they dont
-No they arn't
-True, we can, but that would still take time, We never claimed to rebuild a population in a day, thats you
-You tell me, your the one that seems hung up on BDE
[QUOTE]Having a completely unique group may be all well and good, but this isn't the NJO series, where everything has a rough outline, and everyone knows that in the end the Jedi will win. This isn't SW Galaxies, where a computer checks things over and says yes or no. This is a casual online forum game in which some tired fellow gets home from work, glances over your project, and stamps approved because nothing jumps out at him as being big and nasty.[/QUOTE]
Your right, its not, its a system of people, checking over other people, to make sure no matter what, the game always works right. Ive always suggested ideas after ideas on how to run things smoother, From battle Mods to new R&D rules. Thus far the system has worked, and unless the people in their places become slack and lazy, and try to make all encompasing rules so as to not be forced to monitor their duties as often, it will continue to work just fine.
[QUOTE]And it's only natural that people think their ships are going to own everything in the battlefield. Nothing has been tested, so people begin to get inflated ideas of what can do what. When it comes to a battle, and someone disagrees with them on what their ship can do, well, then we have a problem.[/QUOTE]
Again, my ships have been pwned before in actual combat, this isnt a cold war of technologies. Things have been tested, questioned, failed and passed. Many inquires have been made, amny things asked, limits have been placed, the knowledge is out there if you read it. My stuff has not only been limited in the R&D threads they were passed in, but as well as the battles they participated in and the OOC threads they were questioned from.
[QUOTE]That's why you were capped at 30. And until the new R&D system is figured out, and the soft cap completely eliminated, we stay at 35. If you want to R&D more ships, well, go get Ahnk and Omnae and work on the R&D rules, test it a bit, run some numbers, and then push it out the door.[/QUOTE]
I am trying, but its like pulling teeth to get anyone to put more than a little effort into a new rules draft.
#14 6:27pm 30/08/04
The only point I'll grant you is number one, but I'm not pushing for 30 R&Ds. I was fine to stop ast 10, way back when. Now, to keep up, I'll probably stop at 20.
Also, you cannot write away a broken system.
#13 6:17pm 30/08/04
Talk to Om, he knows my character/group storyline that im writting and developing. My group isnt a problem, stasis wise or technology wise.
1. Your group would be just as guilty of breaking stasis as ours, as we both share a common non-SW bend.
2. We arn't a one world group, we have 30+ worlds, all in a single area of space. Its not as if we are the NGC, spread across known space, or even what ORS was, and spread all across the rim. All our worlds (with the exception of 3-4) are in the immidiate are of each other, leading to increased interaction between worlds, such as travel government trade and research.
3. Limiting meters per world doesnt exactly work when you own 70+ worlds. So unless your going to limit the amount of worlds your going to take, I dont believe this 30 R&D limit is neither fair nor called for. BTW, how many naval vessels have existed on earth in the last hundred years, how many different variations on the use of fire in the last thousand? One world can do alot, technology wise, its all determinable on the size and scope of the R&D. Kamon could do a hundred R&D's for what its worth, as long as none of them were galactic scope, or mass weapons or huge battleships, it wouldnt much matter, becuase they could be localized, explained, and more likely built with the use of a single planets resources. all one has to do is take into consideration what a single planet can accomplish when reviewing an R&D not aking a generalized rule to cover everyone.
#12 6:17pm 30/08/04
I capped you at 30 because 30 sounded better than 32, or 33.
There is no need for so many technologies. The more technologies you have, the higher the 'flamewar' factor increases. You R&D a tech, and a few weeks later you make that tech more powerful with another R&D. None of these techs are ever battle tested, because there's a bit of a cold war going on. This begins a technology war, which we do not want.
Say all of a sudden, [b]whammo[/b], we have a big messy war, and everyone starts calling godmoding because:
- your group has twenty-four ships that can rip apart thousands
- ships that control the minds of the enemies NPC
- ships that are not stopped by interdictors
- or mass shadow
- weapons that bypass standard shielding
- weapons that disintegrate 10 meters of hull per shot
- soldiers that regenerate themselves
- ships that can't be hijacked, because all the people are stored in used soda cans
- an unlimited amount of NPC troops, because you use nanotechnology to rebuild everything, and your people are stored in a computer
- and who knows what other crap that can't be dealt with on a conventional level.
Having a completely unique group may be all well and good, but this isn't the NJO series, where everything has a rough outline, and everyone knows that in the end the Jedi will win. This isn't SW Galaxies, where a computer checks things over and says yes or no. This is a casual online forum game in which some tired fellow gets home from work, glances over your project, and stamps approved because nothing jumps out at him as being big and nasty.
The thing is, with canon craft we [I]know[/I] what damage can be done, what can be taken. There's a multitude of official and unofficial sources. Books, comic books, audio books, films, etc. With R&D craft, this factor becomes a little more uncertain. This factor is multiplied when you figure in that 70% of all R&D's approved in this forum have [I]never[/I] seen any sort of combat testing. People just design them, build them, and save them.
And it's only natural that people think their ships are going to own everything in the battlefield. Nothing has been tested, so people begin to get inflated ideas of what can do what. When it comes to a battle, and someone disagrees with them on what their ship can do, well, then we have a problem.
That's why you were capped at 30. And until the new R&D system is figured out, and the soft cap completely eliminated, we stay at 35. If you want to R&D more ships, well, go get Ahnk and Omnae and work on the R&D rules, test it a bit, run some numbers, and then push it out the door.
#11 6:04pm 30/08/04
1) We limited the meterage provided by each planet to specifically avoid situations of rediculous fleets like EROs 20 ESD taskforces.
2) The point is that under this system there is nothing preventing Kamon's new group with all of one planet from being technologically equal with BDE, THAT is a problem, also, there is an issue of what we refer to as technological stasis where SW canon tech hasn't advanced, and yet (as I said) you have practical application of time travel, nanotechnology, and genetic engineering.
#10 5:59pm 30/08/04
Becuase, theres no need for a cap. Its just flat and out fucking stupid.
Whats the rationale behind it? Becuase you dont want groups having too much tech or getting too powerful... Then limit the tech, or cap technological ability, you dont cap the number of technologies a group can have, not only is it unrealisitic, it doesnt even help the rules or the system. What are my people supposed to do anyways?
"Uh Jimbo, think of any new ideas today?"
"Naw, you?"
"Shucks no..."
You propose to, at a point, cease all technological development in a group, no matter what. Theres never been a cap on planets, yet a group like TNO can have millions of meters worth of ships, crazy power over the galaxy. So obviously this ruling isnt made so that a group cant have too much power in the way of technology, becuase then we'd be limiting all the ways a group can aquire power.
This is an arbitrary ruling, made becuase Kas.... Fuck it, I have no clue why Kas made it, but its not based in any rationale yet explained.
12>>>