• 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
  • 📅 July 2024 is YE 46.5 in the RP.

Tech Wars 101: The Issue and Discussion

Navian said:
Legix, when you're angry you tend to view things in a distorted light. From the very beginning, the things you were saying destroyed CadetNewb's credibility... didn't.

You were saying things like 'You admitted to a display of bias against Zack, that means you're unqualified!' which doesn't follow, and 'This statement is inconsistent with this statement, this is proof that you're unreliable!' when not only didn't it follow, it also wasn't true--you only couldn't or wouldn't reach a more reasonable conclusion.

I just let that go because I could tell you were worked up and assumed you'd relent eventually and realize what you were doing, but if you still believe that the conclusions you jumped to back then were accurate ones, apparently that needs to be addressed. CadetNewb doesn't deserve to be demonized the way you've been doing.

Raz, ... nevermind. Points for irony, I guess. Lots of them.
Click to expand...
Nor does he deserve to be excused of fault.

The display of bias, as I clarified, was the fact that he holds different standards to individual members. That fact is more what my point was, more so than him showing bias to Zack. It should disqualify them when someone's bias is allowing some people to pass more easily than others. Inspecting it twice isn't an issue. Inspecting it and nitpicking more details, as it seems he's admitted to doing, is. We should hold everyone to the same standard.

I genuinely don't think that acting like his supposed innocence, that Arieg is fine (then pulling the same response when we raised Zack up), and the manner of which he seems to keep molding back and trying to manipulate what I've said is a fair conclusion on inconsistencies and issues surrounding him as an NTSE member.

No one deserved to be demonized, but Cadet came and did nothing short of attack myself and others from the start. Yet, as the thread has gone on and he's been proven wrong such as the existence of this behavior on more than just Zack's scale, he hasn't apologized. He has doubled down. Demonizing him isn't the intent, lest I'd go and pull in the fact he has been called into potential submission bias twice. He's stepped down from two submissions specifically because of that fairly solid OOC potential gain. If he wasn't credibly on shaky ground, then no one could call him into question as being incapable of working on a submission or potentially approving it for the wrong reason.

I can admit I see things through a distorted light, but really?
Navian said:
I'm not going to rebut the rest of your arguments, I'm just going to point out they're presumptuous of you. I think you're more motivated by a desire to attack CadetNewb, in anger, than you are by one to improve the NTSE at the moment. This doesn't mean you're wrong, but it does mean you're in the wrong at the moment.
Click to expand...
If it doesn't mean I'm necessarily wrong, but you state not but a post later that I was wrong... I don't know which side you think this is going. First I'm not necessarily wrong (just wrong in the moment?), but the next it's the fact that I'm just completely wrong?

This guy has admitted to his bias affecting his ability as a member of the NTSE in multiple ways, like peeling an onion. There's no discussion on whether or not his credibility is shook. Just because you don't agree (or, for some odder reason, you find the bias in review standards to be good) doesn't deny this fact. First, it's Zack who gets a more in-depth review, then supposedly Arieg, and then this shows that other people aren't reviewed as closely so they pass more easily.

I'm not trying to demonize him. I'm trying to get him to admit where he's wrong, just as I have done when presented with facts. But, instead of do that, he's tried to suggest I manipulate Wes as a tool and then sit here acting as if he's beyond reproach despite admitting in various other cases that he had potential bias and in this thread with admission of it to two people he has approved and rejected submissions for. As much as I might not like the guy, this would give ground for Zack to not be in the wrong for if he called Wes or argued with Cadet over some submission in the past. This is something that isn't what the NTSE needs. The NTSE doesn't need people who are questionable. I think that's why Wes has been called more than in the past, precisely because the NTSE isn't functioning one minute and the next it had issues rejecting or approving them. And it has steadily grown to prominent points in the last year or so, as seen by clashes within management and the playerbase being partially tied to the NTSE and submissions.
 
If Cadetnewb had held everyone to the same standard, he would have done a worse job than he did--he would have approved more bad articles that were written in bad faith, and fewer not so bad articles that were written in good faith. The expectations you're putting on him are unrealistic, which is what I meant when I said you were being unfair to him so much earlier.

I'm not saying he does his job perfectly, but I am saying that we shouldn't criticize him, much less should he lose his position, right now. When I said 'it doesn't mean you're wrong', I'm intentionally avoiding the question of whether CadetNewb is fit for the job or not, because it's irrelevant. No one would be or could be fit for the job right now, and we need to fix that before putting those who are stuck with it on the spot about their qualifications.

The difference between 'wrong' and 'in the wrong' might be explained like this. Someone's not wrong if they tell someone their dog is dead, their dog may well be dead. They're still in the wrong if they choose to say it at the wrong time, or for the wrong reasons. That's the idea here, regardless of whether you're right or wrong, this is not the time, and if we have a reason to do anything, it should be to fix problems, not to vent outrage.

Cadet's objection was to you complaining about him asking Wes for help as if he was some sort of tool. The reason for the complaint is because it's disrespectful to Wes to talk about him like he's some sort of summon spirit to be called upon to do someone's bidding instead of a person with his own views and opinions. There's no sense in complaining about someone calling on Wes because of what Wes decides to do when called on--they're not responsible for his actions, he is.

If that's not what you said, that only means CadetNewb was mistaken, it does not mean that he is maliciously attempting to cast you in a bad light by 'creating a narrative' or whatever other gibberish. Miscommunications happen, and seldom is there any sort of diabolic agenda behind them.
 
Navian said:
The difference between 'wrong' and 'in the wrong' might be explained like this. Someone's not wrong if they tell someone their dog is dead, their dog may well be dead. They're still in the wrong if they choose to say it at the wrong time, or for the wrong reasons. That's the idea here, regardless of whether you're right or wrong, this is not the time, and if we have a reason to do anything, it should be to fix problems, not to vent outrage.
Click to expand...
This is fallacious.

It is always the right time to excise a cancer from festering and spoiling the body more than it already has.
 
Navian said:
No, no it isn't. For example, you shouldn't get cancer surgery while skydiving. There's a million other examples. In any case, this is melodramatic.
Click to expand...
Nor should you leave tenants who might be selling drugs in your building if you want to clean it up.

After I went back and read, I believe it's possible Cadet misread. Instances of him discussing Wes earlier in the thread were in similar context and usage as my statement, so I'm not sure how the confusion occurred, but we can move away from it. Based upon his shots at me through the thread, it's hard to assume this to be the case but I'll do so for the sake of moving beyond it.

I will stand by the idea of Cadet being unfit, but the discussion of this can occur in the future. This thread has presented resolution potential for the NTSE issues and that's worth the focus. Before I head to sleep (at 440), I'll say a final note that the NTSE isn't impossible to have managed and prevented these issues in its state. That's why the tech war didn't become an issue until the last few months. Just because we find it hard/challenged to combat the issues doesn't mean we can overlook that the NTSE slipped up and became this way while Cadet and others served.

However: you are right @Navian. I'm out of line for having that discussion here in response to insults and my agitation at them. This is for discussing the solutions. There will be another time to continue figuring out whether it's reasonable to find someone at fault within it's broken/abuseable state. But let it be known that I am of partial mind to Raz on dealing with issues on the spot. No time tends to be better than the present in most incidents. I don't know many people who would skydive while they knowingly have cancer, but I feel if they found that they could do it and not simply die? People will and should take a challenge to resolve problems.

The main reason I'm willing to pull away despite this is that this is an important topic that can't be lost underneath the people pulling others into personal fights or arguments. Hopefully the previously listed solutions can be further discussed now. There's also the likelihood we will need a poll for people to pick the solutions they'd prefer from the listing so far.
 
I go to sleep and you guys have a spat that perfectly proves why we need better guidelines, not more staff. You all have clashing values, sometimes quite massively. Well which one is right? No one knows, because in a lot of areas involving the submission of tech we don't actually know what's acceptable.(Don't get me started on other stuff) WE don't need some perfectly written out rules to show up out of nowhere, but you can't speak about how qualified NTSE is or isn't if you don't have a defined and accepted yardstick. So all the concern about someone letting metagamey things through, and being biased, no matter what incident you pick, there are arguments that can be made on both sides, and it happens because other than some guidelines that only touch the surface, and the DRv3 there is nothing else to go on. And don't misunderstand, the DRv3 does it's job very well, but there are things that just plain aren't part of 'Damage Rating' that can be a problem as well.

The problem isn't a problem of trust, it's the problem of no human is free from bias. Everyone will make biased decisions, plain and simple. We don't need more mods because players can comment too and they can bring stuff to light, and they do. The problem comes in when it's a matter of deciding who's argument is right and who is wrong. It turns into a clubbing match and if it gets real bad Wes shows up and makes a verdict that's not allowed to be rejected.

So how about again, we stop picking fights and get back to presenting solutions. At this point Wes himself has already said we're looking for solutions now. So this isn't trying to say you don't have a voice, but people who are coming here to simply say "It's not a problem" you're a bit too late for that in this topic, your smart move would be to try and get another topic started to try and get your point out as to why you believe it's not a problem, because shooting a bunch of solutions down, with no replacements or actual criticism just makes it look like you're trying to get in the way.

And for everyone else, arguing with each other over specific incidents, or personal things is looking at things way too small and you're never get an answer like that, and yes I know I did it some, I'm gonna try to stop doing it further here. We need to be looking at the past, present and future of the site as a whole.

So why don't we quit the arguing and get back to putting solutions on the table?
 
What would you guys like to see in a revised set of instructions /rules for submission reviewers?
 
Wes said:
What would you guys like to see in a revised set of instructions /rules for submission reviewers?
Click to expand...
The main thing I would like to see is some way for the NTSE and players to know what's 'over powered' or "too advanced for company x to suddenly produce" in matters that don't apply to DRv3. That is the main point of contention that we've been having lately.(at least from my experience) I made a suggestion about 100 post back. It's not the only way to do it but I that way will be something manageable and sustainable. Willing to accept it happening a lot of ways though, just want there to actually be some guidelines in it.

A more minor point (in comparison), but I would also like to see guidelines for what is and isn't constructive input into a NTSE submission thread, and guidelines for what the NTSE mod should do when people are being nonconstructive(including repercussions for if the NTSE is abusing the power, all privilege should come with responsibility after all)
 
I think the NTSE staff have been doing a great job, but they don't want to have to make rulings that establish rules.

Right now Arieg's submissions are being held up because we don't have a ruling on what is acceptable for missiles. It doesn't really matter what the ruling is so long as it addresses:

How many missiles it is acceptable to have?

What size missile is acceptable for each tier of damage?

How fast are missiles allowed to travel?



Other things like number of ships a ship can carry would be nice, or standard FTL recharge time, but really missiles is the thing I'd like to see addressed next.
 
The last time we conjectured about the warm-up time of FTL drive, Khasidel was the one whom came to what felt like a good solution for wind-up times and cooldown times of FTL drives. It think it included a base time based on the ship's size and with extra for the distance intending to be traveled during that spacefold. On defold, there's a cooldown time.

There was an energy concern - ships charging their FTL drives to make the jump was also a factor - but the charging time was much faster than the wind-up time. So, it's therefore possible to fold much earlier than the charge time itself (hence terms such as 'emergency fold'). But when a fold drive is engaged, the energy expenditure causes a huge amount of heat - the warm up period is to avoid having a sharp heat spike which could result in breakage of equipment (like a runner will do warm-up before his run so he can avoid cramps and such). The cooldown period after the jump would be a safety limit since making another jump immediately after would likely cause an harmful heat oversaturation in the hardware (not that it's undoable; more like a bad idea).

* * *

My feeling is that DRv3's notation regarding the weapons a ship can pack has fared relatively well with most weapon systems that are actually intended as single weapons meant for prolonged uses. Single-shot systems - from missiles hanging from the wings of a plane to multi-rack missile pods - seems to have been its most glaring weakness. Gun turrets have treated multiple barrels under rate-of-fire considerations... but the number of missiles that can be fired at one time has appeared to be perceived as abusive by comparison (despite submachines being able to fire 900 rounds a minute, but meh).

I'm wondering if I might implement something further, like an equal-tier weapon being worth 4 single-shot uses at that same tier. Not comparatively economical compared to single system rthat can be used more, but there'd be no limit on how much you can fire at any one time.

So, say I have a medium fighter. I could use half of its allowance to load it up with 12 medium-antimecha missiles. Visually, 4 groups of 3 missiles, 2 apiece hanging from each wing. That seems like a reasonable baseline (generous, even) based on the number of missiles our planes have today.
 
Last edited:
To add to what Fred said, I'm fine with whatever regarding FTL charge times and we can go as in depth as we want there. I think it may be best to just imply (or not give) reasoning behind charge times and just have a general 'it takes at least x seconds/minutes/hours to charge'


DvR 3 makes machine guns more powerful than constant beams but you can still only blow away one target or so at a time. With missiles we have two problems: one ship taking max-damage missiles in mass and being able to wipe out dozens of other ships at once, and not knowing what is allowed regarding missiles.

One problem is a balance thing and really it is what it is. There are ways IC to mitigate that and I'm not as worried about it.

The big problem is missile speed and size. I'd love to include some cutting edge missiles but neither myself nor the NTSE really know what is acceptable. I don't really care of missiles move at .9c or .4c, I just want an answer so I can make the things.
 
Zack said:
[...]

DvR 3 makes machine guns more powerful than constant beams but you can still only blow away one target or so at a time.

[...]
Click to expand...

Apologies for going off-topic, but the above statement is false.

A constant beam can be swept across one or more targets, damaging multiple regions on said target(s) with a single "shot"; furthermore, they can "melt" through objects (armor/shields/barriers/etc.) if concentrated on a single area of the aforementioned object for an extended period of time.

Bullets, on the other hand, by their very nature (barring explosive payloads and/or overpenetration) are inherently only capable of damaging one target per shot and cannot "melt" through anything - either the bullet penetrates or it doesn't.
 
*headscratch* I thought I had just answered that... but if I get you correctly, you want actual measurements on missiles?

I don't see how that's in any way crucial or gamebreaking. Going further in detail seems to be a can of worms we shouldn't open.

Not that I want to be obstinate about this. Right now, I have a few things to go from as baseline:

The mini-missiles: referred as soda-can sized ordonance, essentially guided grenades.
And torpedoes. The AS-5, the AS-7 and the Z-1.

I'm not sure actual torpedo damage has ever sorely been tied to its size, though the AS-7 was certainly huge compared to the warheads we use today. My main cause of puzzlement here is the distinction there is between missiles and torpedoes in SARP. As far as nomenclature goes, it was always my (perhaps mistaken) impression that the term 'missile' was used when it wasn't an anti-ship piece of ordonance (hence why bombers carry torpedoes, but fightercraft usually pack missiles).

In which case, missiles and torpedoes are pretty much coming from the same mold/would be an extension of one-another - and the size of the torpedoes we have would be relevant to missiles.
 
*or so*

Machine guns 'tick' multiple times per round against a shield while a continuous beam does not. You can spray multiple targets with both but not nearly to the level you can with missiles.

There are also aether shock cannon style weapons which only tick once but hit a very wide area.

If you really want to drill into it a laser would pulse several thousand times a second when drilling through a target.

Then we can get into travel speed of projectiles, shotgun rounds, ect.

___

Yes, my post is entirely 100% correct. I also shouldn't have to write a thesis when I want to talk about general points.
 
The number of ticks for a continuous beam weapon is upto teh GM. Most our beam weapons are pulse not constant. But A continuous beam is treated in a similar way as machine guns by GMs that understand it's a beam and not a pulse I would think.

Now let's get back on topic.
 
@Fred

Missiles and torpedoes are the same thing as far as rules are concerned.

I want numbers for missile speed because that has a huge impact on how things play out. Fast missiles end up acting like lasers, while slower missiles means maneuvering comes into play. We already have been told that high fractions of C are a no go but we still don't know what is the right speed for our missile submissions.


Missile size is a similar problem. All missiles are just going to be small power armor sized battleship-busters unless we make rules about what is and isn't acceptable. It isn't really game breaking but it is certainly something I think would be nice to have.
 
Zack said:
@Fred

Missiles and torpedoes are the same thing as far as rules are concerned.

I want numbers for missile speed because that has a huge impact on how things play out. Fast missiles end up acting like lasers, while slower missiles means maneuvering comes into play. We already have been told that high fractions of C are a no go but we still don't know what is the right speed for our missile submissions.


Missile size is a similar problem. All missiles are just going to be small power armor sized battleship-busters unless we make rules about what is and isn't acceptable. It isn't really game breaking but it is certainly something I think would be nice to have.
Click to expand...


@Zack, hasn't this topic already been discussed to death, un-death, and death again in the threads you and I both created?
 
Frost, I'm the one pretty much reinitiating the discussion from scratch. Zack isn't the only one to blame. Besides, I can't see WIP articles from work.

So... what we have is:

- Less than a foot long: the light anti-armor mini-missile.
- 2.25 meters long and 0.50 meters wide: the heavy anti-starship Z-1 warhead (mentioned to be highly-miniaturized, if that matters)
- 25ish feet long, 24 inches diameters: the anti-capital AS-7 torpedo

Left up to me, I guess I'd make in-betweens. Technological level might be relevant, as our fighterplane missiles can be 4 meters long.
I'm loath to tackle speeds, as range-determining was something I wanted to do later within my own plot to see if I could iron some stuff up. If I hatch values now, I'm concerned I'd have to adhere to them later despite coming up with different ideal values.
 
To see WIP articles, log in to the wiki.
 
Effectively I figure torpedoes are very long range anti-ship, anti-surface, and anti-installation weapons, the sort of thing you volley off at across system or interstellar ranges (in the case of FTL capable ones). More or less they're more akin to 'vehicles' in that they'd pack a hell of a lot more features then a missile system and operate over much longer distances. Missiles, especially in the multi-meter range should effectively be one or two shot hit kill weapons against fighters and strikecraft but due to their size and explosive potential would also be effective light anti-ship weapons. The major thing I worry about atm is being capped at some stupidly low number due to mechanics instead of simple space to mount.
 
RPG-D RPGfix
Back
Top