A
Anonymous
Uso said:
Sometimes Common sense should be thrown out when it gets in the way of Fun Or Plot
Star Army
Star ArmyⓇ is a landmark of forum roleplaying. Opened in 2002, Star Army is like an internet clubhouse for people who love roleplaying, art, and worldbuilding. Anyone 18 or older may join for free. New members are welcome! Use the "Register" button below.
Note: This is a play-by-post RPG site. If you're looking for the tabletop miniatures wargame "5150: Star Army" instead, see Two Hour Wargames.
-
If you were supposed to get an email from the forum but didn't (e.g. to verify your account for registration), email Wes at [email protected] or talk to me on Discord for help. Sometimes the server hits our limit of emails we can send per hour.
-
Get in our Discord chat! Discord.gg/stararmy
Illustrious Fighter Combat Q&A
- Thread starter Scot
- Start date
- Status
Sometimes Common sense should be thrown out when it gets in the way of Fun Or Plot
Abwehran Commander
Inactive Member
Who said I was talking about abandoning common sense? All you are doing is twisting words. Common sense, after all, is the use of sound, practical judgment according to the Webster dictionary. Practical judgment is based upon setting and environment as well as common knowledge.
I still have to disagree with you when it comes to the debris fields. But I guess we will have to agree to disagree, because extremely dense asteroid fields have already been used in the setting. This means that in SARP, they exist and are thus usable. If we hadn't used such things in setting yet, I would relent to your argument but that is not the case here.
The main core of our argument seems to come down to how affective fighter craft are going to be for player usage. Logically, we know space fighters are completely useless if we try to imagine a space battle considering delta-v and other factors. However, SARP is what you would call a 'Hollywood Science Fiction'. While we have attempted to keep fractures in physics to a minimum currently, we are trying to do so in a setting that had relatively little real physics to begin with. To convert the setting totally to a hard science fiction setting would only drive players and GMs away from the site.
As I have stated before, I'm all for putting more real science into the setting. However, I also realize that it has to be done in moderation because this site is for entertaining each other. All you are doing is making me repeat myself on this one simple fact and quite frankly, I'm getting tired of doing it. But my message is apparently too simple for you to understand it once.
I still have to disagree with you when it comes to the debris fields. But I guess we will have to agree to disagree, because extremely dense asteroid fields have already been used in the setting. This means that in SARP, they exist and are thus usable. If we hadn't used such things in setting yet, I would relent to your argument but that is not the case here.
The main core of our argument seems to come down to how affective fighter craft are going to be for player usage. Logically, we know space fighters are completely useless if we try to imagine a space battle considering delta-v and other factors. However, SARP is what you would call a 'Hollywood Science Fiction'. While we have attempted to keep fractures in physics to a minimum currently, we are trying to do so in a setting that had relatively little real physics to begin with. To convert the setting totally to a hard science fiction setting would only drive players and GMs away from the site.
As I have stated before, I'm all for putting more real science into the setting. However, I also realize that it has to be done in moderation because this site is for entertaining each other. All you are doing is making me repeat myself on this one simple fact and quite frankly, I'm getting tired of doing it. But my message is apparently too simple for you to understand it once.
Scot
Inactive Member
Don't you love when the heated arguments NEVER seem to reach the "Roleplay and Discussion" forum but always land in questions?
Uso, there is a very good reason I don't submit tech, and that is because it requires A LOT OF FREAKIN DETAIL! I'd be like HOLY CRAP if I made something .1 faster simply because I forgot to put the zero in making it .01, I'm sure you have seen my first few attempt at any tech, ninja suit.
On a different perspective, no one would dare do an air battle around terrain, especially if it's with a capital ship like the illustrious unless it was the quicker route that the big ship cannot get to in time (much like a scenario in Clone Wars, which a space cloud blocked warp drive for a fast route, instead had to send fighters though the cloud) however with FTL, it is basically a tool so that the ship can be at the action rather than create dramatic situations.
One more thing is that all players are PC"s typically, they break the laws of physics, NPC's on the other hand, are the ones that go by Uso's Law of Reality. Players do the impossible, as they are the main characters.
Remember that Uso when you go back to argue that the setting has no need for Disrupters simply because it exactly the same thing as a Laser, only the bloody mess looks slightly different.
Back on topic, the actual article for the ship we are using isn't detailed much, in fact, I've seen capital ships more detailed than this fighter. Is it there just so it can be roleplayed to the point where we know where everything is? I mean, if it had sticks and displays, why not put it in the article for PC's to see?
(now can we go back to Q&A about roleplay not mechanics?)
Uso, there is a very good reason I don't submit tech, and that is because it requires A LOT OF FREAKIN DETAIL! I'd be like HOLY CRAP if I made something .1 faster simply because I forgot to put the zero in making it .01, I'm sure you have seen my first few attempt at any tech, ninja suit.
On a different perspective, no one would dare do an air battle around terrain, especially if it's with a capital ship like the illustrious unless it was the quicker route that the big ship cannot get to in time (much like a scenario in Clone Wars, which a space cloud blocked warp drive for a fast route, instead had to send fighters though the cloud) however with FTL, it is basically a tool so that the ship can be at the action rather than create dramatic situations.
One more thing is that all players are PC"s typically, they break the laws of physics, NPC's on the other hand, are the ones that go by Uso's Law of Reality. Players do the impossible, as they are the main characters.
Remember that Uso when you go back to argue that the setting has no need for Disrupters simply because it exactly the same thing as a Laser, only the bloody mess looks slightly different.
Back on topic, the actual article for the ship we are using isn't detailed much, in fact, I've seen capital ships more detailed than this fighter. Is it there just so it can be roleplayed to the point where we know where everything is? I mean, if it had sticks and displays, why not put it in the article for PC's to see?
(now can we go back to Q&A about roleplay not mechanics?)
I'm convinced he's trolling at this point. He has no idea what the playerbase actually want to do.
His idea of SARP combat is sighting eachother from lightyears away and hitting each-other with FTL weapons and killing each-other instantly.
Totally unbelievably amazingly ungodly exciting that is for those of us not into two dimensional chess and submarine stealth combat...
But yeah. We need to focus our attention on making ways to create drama and bad situations we need to save ourselves from. Problem solving is what makes good roleplay.
His idea of SARP combat is sighting eachother from lightyears away and hitting each-other with FTL weapons and killing each-other instantly.
Totally unbelievably amazingly ungodly exciting that is for those of us not into two dimensional chess and submarine stealth combat...
But yeah. We need to focus our attention on making ways to create drama and bad situations we need to save ourselves from. Problem solving is what makes good roleplay.
Zack
Inactive Member
So the premise of your entire argument is that you should be allowed to do whatever you want just because you can't think of any other way to make things exciting?
Really what it comes down to is the answers provided in this thread don't answer the question posed well in the least, and just provide a bunch of 'just do thinks like you see in anime' type responses. Even worse that is what is seen as a good answer.
Everyone would do themselves a favor in ignoring those posts. After all a fighter pilot in this setting only needs to concern themselves with using the tech in the fighter writeup. FTL is your best friend and a good fighter pilot is one that won't be focusing on trying to fly and shoot but rather supplementing the AI functions of their craft.
Really what it comes down to is the answers provided in this thread don't answer the question posed well in the least, and just provide a bunch of 'just do thinks like you see in anime' type responses. Even worse that is what is seen as a good answer.
Everyone would do themselves a favor in ignoring those posts. After all a fighter pilot in this setting only needs to concern themselves with using the tech in the fighter writeup. FTL is your best friend and a good fighter pilot is one that won't be focusing on trying to fly and shoot but rather supplementing the AI functions of their craft.
You folks aren't getting anywhere anymore, and once the Uso-hating starts, there's no hope for revival. Topic locked.
- Status
