Tech Wars 101: The Issue and Discussion

[Primitive Polygon]

Please leave me out of this. IRL things going on right now.

I'll explain stuff later. Only even here cause I'm desperately trying to ignore it.

 

[Legix]

Please leave me out of this. IRL things going on right now.

I'll explain stuff later. Only even here cause I'm desperately trying to ignore it.

Sorry. Wasn't my intent to drag ya in but show your involvement. We hope to hear from you when the situation allows =3=/

 

[Gallant]

Do you have any suggestions for how to fix this?

Tech moderation needs vision. A unified vision that achieves balance in-game. Not for any one faction or between factions, but as a whole setting.

This would require, as Doshii says, a vision, but I disagree on one of his points. I don't believe that there needs to be a unified vision towards balance; I think there needs to be a uniform vision through story. I think that needs to go beyond checklists. I think there needs to be a solid, hard question leading every submission which is, "Where will this be used? How will this be used to tell a story?" And it should be attached to either a plot, or a burgeoning faction, that is going to be providing some fun RP to people.

Setting building just for the sake of setting building, or worse, setting building to try to exceed some other faction's gear in a competitive way, is something that I think damages the site overall. We shouldn't be asking whose technology is better, who has more of it, or what - we should be writing plots and having fun.

Visions sometimes means submissions are rejected for things not so tied to rules, or by using an interpretation of a rule. As long as the vision is respected, it's worth doing.

This would require something like a neutral NTSE. You would need to have NTSE moderators empowered to silence the peanut gallery and a much more limited focus on the content and purpose of the setting and technology submissions.

You would also need a solid amount of trust in the NTSE moderators for that.

It is also notable that the only person who can have a unified vision for the entire website is Wesley Davis, and that this would mean that the NTSE moderators wouldn't actually have the 'mandate' so to speak to provide the unified vision that Doshii suggests. Wes would pretty much have to do it all himself, and I don't think that's anything we need to ask of anyone.

 

[Legix]

This would require, as Doshii says, a vision, but I disagree on one of his points. I don't believe that there needs to be a unified vision towards balance; I think there needs to be a uniform vision through story. I think that needs to go beyond checklists. I think there needs to be a solid, hard question leading every submission which is, "Where will this be used? How will this be used to tell a story?" And it should be attached to either a plot, or a burgeoning faction, that is going to be providing some fun RP to people.

Setting building just for the sake of setting building, or worse, setting building to try to exceed some other faction's gear in a competitive way, is something that I think damages the site overall. We shouldn't be asking whose technology is better, who has more of it, or what - we should be writing plots and having fun.

This is probably the most I've agreed with you in what feels like ages, but I feel it might also be undermining the reason to have concern. I don't want it to be that people assume those who've held this worry aren't able to RP, write plots, and have fun because of it. We're worried because this arguing in the past has caused both setting issues (which we can agree damages the sight) and has led to instances of major disagreements that drove people from the site.

The first point you made is also something I discussed with Doshii in relation to this. The fact that we should look far more into something than just "because it can happen" or just "because it fits the rules". It's why Doshii has mentioned a vision and why I think this was something finally worth discussing. Again: barring instances where certain members have implied this is an attack on the NTSE and I've clarified it's more than this has slipped by? This isn't something that happened because the NTSE weren't qualified. Cadet (despite my recent claims of his bias) and Ame are both quite capable of handling and are often trusted with their submission judgment.

However, a big issue is that we don't consider that some groups aren't creating things for the sake of the site as much as for their plot. A grand scope is genuinely as necessary as ensuring something is fit for even one plot using it.

It should also note that if it's only used for one plot, then the fact of its usage being restricted would fit the rule that has been broken so far. It's a partial issue with the rule's reading, however, and what many can agree as sensible. The best way might be for us to start suggesting that people who make plots with a "my plot-only" tech are held to the form of Open RP until they can be assessed for canon accuracy. It'd allow RP to go relatively unhindered and, at worse, makes people a bit salty if they spend a lot of time RPing and the NTSE judge it as not fitting or setting breaking.

But this would also require a change in the NTSE approval method, such as requiring either "netural" powers or multiple check-offs (something I shared with Doshii as a possible solution to this as well). Encouraging RP is fine... but we shouldn't be encouraging the act of over-flooding the setting. I do think balance is important, especially for if we ever want to encourage conflict RP, but it isn't as important as simply stifling the sheer amount of unnecessary additions that force either greater technology to be brought in or forces wiki work to refit something with modernized setting equipment.

It's a fickle apple, but it's why the current issue is happening. This fickle apple was ignored in the past, so it now needs a solution either with an NTSE change of some variety... or it requires a solution by coming to a community understanding that no longer overlooks important stylistic rules and notes within our own submission rules.

 

[Reynolds]

I agree that there is currently a growing issue with people attempting to game the system, with two common approaches, very similar to what was mentioned in the first post:

• "Sure, the rules say no attack can do more than 100 damage, and the 100 damage magic sword costs more gold pieces than my character could ever gain, but they don't say anything about gluing 100 regular 10 damage swords together and attacking with that!"
• "How did I get this magic sword? Oh, Bob GMed me through this stand-alone module after last session. We RPed the whole thing out, it was a blast! Everything's documented on my character sheet here, we even took some notes. Where did Bob get his magic axe? Well, I GMed him through this stand-alone module after last session..."

So, basically your old fashioned rules lawyering for part one. Easy enough to spot. Some games just do not stand up to this. At all. And when we're all just making this up as we go along and trying to agree on the rules as a group, a few people abusing this can be really, really bad. I agree that this is steadily happening, and becoming more and more obvious over time, as the jumps become larger.

The second is people seeing how far they can stretch 'but we already RPed this so it's canon now'. It's presented as creating RP and evolving naturally, but - as the joking example displays - it's usually very specifically crafted to benefit the very small number of people involved in the RP. It's not happening in giant plots of dozens of people, where they painstakingly plan for and create their desired whatsit, with lots of changes, setbacks and new ideas appearing along the way.

It's Person A saying, 'I really wish I had a magic sword' followed by Person B saying, 'Well this dungeon I just created has a magic sword in it, what a coincidence!' and Person C is like 'Hey, while you're here, can you throw in like a hundred minions for us to capture? I have this cave I really need mined and I can't just create people out of nowhere, but if you're already GMing...' And the next time these three players bump into the greater meta-plot going on with the other dozens of people playing the same game and system as them, they're flying around on winged sharks with laser rifles.

 

[Legix]

I agree that there is currently a growing issue with people attempting to game the system, with two common approaches, very similar to what was mentioned in the first post:

• "Sure, the rules say no attack can do more than 100 damage, and the 100 damage magic sword costs more gold pieces than my character could ever gain, but they don't say anything about gluing 100 regular 10 damage swords together and attacking with that!"
• "How did I get this magic sword? Oh, Bob GMed me through this stand-alone module after last session. We RPed the whole thing out, it was a blast! Everything's documented on my character sheet here, we even took some notes. Where did Bob get his magic axe? Well, I GMed him through this stand-alone module after last session..."

So, basically your old fashioned rules lawyering for part one. Easy enough to spot. Some games just do not stand up to this. At all. And when we're all just making this up as we go along and trying to agree on the rules as a group, a few people abusing this can be really, really bad. I agree that this is steadily happening, and becoming more and more obvious over time, as the jumps become larger.

The second is people seeing how far they can stretch 'but we already RPed this so it's canon now'. It's presented as creating RP and evolving naturally, but - as the joking example displays - it's usually very specifically crafted to benefit the very small number of people involved in the RP. It's not happening in giant plots of dozens of people, where they painstakingly plan for and create their desired whatsit, with lots of changes, setbacks and new ideas appearing along the way.

It's Person A saying, 'I really wish I had a magic sword' followed by Person B saying, 'Well this dungeon I just created has a magic sword in it, what a coincidence!' and Person C is like 'Hey, while you're here, can you throw in like a hundred minions for us to capture? I have this cave I really need mined and I can't just create people out of nowhere, but if you're already GMing...' And the next time these three players bump into the greater meta-plot going on with the other dozens of people playing the same game and system as them, they're flying around on winged sharks with laser rifles.

This is definitely a bit delving into specifics of people doing this, but the indication that you see the same issue of technology/situational boosting is the main takeaway. I'd like to avoid addressing people specifically only because they have been mostly identified outside of this thread and partially in this thread when they forced a reply.

I appreciate the input, as it also did delve into another issue that I had lapsed in including (continued group-coordination to advance tech rapidly), but it does lean a bit toward the attacking nature so I'd like that to be the end of the posturing/potential baiting the latter part carries. I respect you bro @Reynolds, just want to try and quickly say that there's no reason to potentially derail the thread to all those out there who feel the need to argue over this. It's, again, another member and GM's recount of such situations and befitting of being included with proper care to ignore some of the bias-charged posturing.

 

[Doshii Jun]

To create a chance to address these concerns and get a handle on how to steer the NTSE in a broad, game-wide fashion, there's a sure-fire solution:

Instant moratorium on all submissions, to last six months.

 

[Zack]

What do you need the NTSE closed for? How would closing the NTSE have any effect on NTSE discussion?

 

[Arieg]

To create a chance to address these concerns and get a handle on how to steer the NTSE in a broad, game-wide fashion, there's a sure-fire solution:

Instant moratorium on all submissions, to last six months.

Uh... no.

 

[Rizzo]

I think this is all irrelevant with SADR V3. We get 8 same-tier weapons with math to figure the rest out. The greatest gift the tech reviewer can bring is sense enough to not treat what was provided as a guideline(SADR v3) as a rigid set of rules.

If we're all kinda following the same guideline then there shouldn't realistically be a tech race.

Right now I'm working on introducing the FSC scalable pulse laser technology, which is basically providing 15 sizes of the same thing to fit any application. That is how I plan to introduce new technology to the setting, it will be available to almost everyone as genaric tech.
I'm working on this to provide an easy way to apply armaments within SADR v3. I'm sure the rest of us can find ways to comply with the guidelines.

 

[Legix]

I think this is all irrelevant with SADR V3. We get 8 same-tier weapons with math to figure the rest out. The greatest gift the tech reviewer can bring is sense enough to not treat what was provided as a guideline(SADR v3) as a rigid set of rules.

If we're all kinda following the same guideline then there shouldn't realistically be a tech race.

Right now I'm working on introducing the FSC scalable pulse laser technology, which is basically providing 15 sizes of the same thing to fit any application. That is how I plan to introduce new technology to the setting, it will be available to almost everyone as genaric tech.
I'm working on this to provide an easy way to apply armaments within SADR v3. I'm sure the rest of us can find ways to comply with the guidelines.

It's not so much the fact that the rules are there to balance, but rather there's deliberate attempts to maximize the system. Certain people are constantly making submissions that utilize every slot, then use smaller systems with higher rates of fire to "break" the rules. This is something that Reynolds explained a bit better, and seen in some of the submissions that have recently been brought back under review, such as USO's U-1. Basically, there are people trying to abuse loopholes, rates of fire, and giving the crafts themselves higher speeds (some having speeds that haven't matched up to the new armor/weighting rules).

DRv3 went a long way to ensuring balance, but there are still people deliberately making tech in poor taste. More specifically, they're making technology/ships that they intend to use against another group (or, in some of the instances, have suggested that would be the purpose) which would force other groups to either update their ships, forcing FMs to give out DRv3 ratings before they might be comfortable/ready to officially do so for their faction, or would simply play these groups as weaklings even if this isn't the case.

It has been a running vibe that some groups are being played/portrayed as pushovers or simply incapable by some plots who are tied into this rush to push even better/max-stat'd DRv3 tech submissions out. One such example would be what the Vekimen were attempting to do in the past, where they tried to ship out a station intended to surpass OI, who have been a setting element and established as stronger... but haven't begun to convert their articles/tech yet to provide a baseline.

It's a lot of wording within these, in chat, and the like that make it to where people are submitting just so they can beat people with things they're creating. This is the issue. People deliberately finding ways to make their craft uneasy to counter within IC logic, barring deliberately building to stop them. The site isn't a game for people to wage war with statistics and force hardcore militarist design-realism upon other players. However, this is happening and as a result will steadily make it less likely anyone but this crowd is submitting things.

As indicated many times: I don't think new tech should be off the board. I just think it needs to stop drastically changing the game by forcing new ship refits from nations or new weapons being created. A few of us aren't trying to make our vehicles optimized to maximum realistic combat effectiveness. Not because we can't, but because we like to RP and not have a defined result/999 out of a 1000 of the same instance.

Statistical-focused optimization and intentionally competitive posturing both OOC and IC (not normally an issue, unless you're doing it with factions without any RP to make it logical and capable of being on such levels) is what needs to stop.

 

[Sparkee0213]

I completely agree @Legix.

New technology takes YEARS to develop, and then once it's first prototype has been constructed, the thing has to be tested VERY rigorously, with newer and better versions of said item. So yes, without lots of Roleplay of testing, failing, success, etc, it should not just "appear" unless a new faction from a new region of space comes, and then the question of their science department, how long they've been spacebound, etc comes into play.

If your ships were using railguns one year, and then the next they had super starship killer lasers, then something is wrong. Not only does it take decades to develop, but it also takes many years to implement into older tech.

And I also agree that older tech could use upgrades. This will also take a bit of r&d RP (something I will be more than happy to partake in), but it would be shorter and more conventional than developing a completely new system, and would take shorter time to implement as well.

 

[Zack]

This mostly sounds like sour grapes.

The vekmen stuff doesn't totally involve the NTSE and is being discussed elsewhere.

The only problematic USO stuff are items that got approved by former tech mods that didn't meet site standards which in turn caused us to have to go back and fix them up.

USO has more tech that deliberately comes in under the max requirements than anyone and has more RP to back up those developments than anyone. Pointing to the U1 and saying that we're doing it wrong seems like you're not doing it because of the quality of the submission.

 

[Rizzo]

I would also like to mention that while I am in deed 'working the numbers' right now, I am only using tech that exists... except my electromagnetic canopy, that's mine!

In doing this I am hoping nobody tries to point fingers at me for anything besides my windshield.

 

[Legix]

I would also like to mention that while I am in deed 'working the numbers' right now, I am only using tech that exists... except my electromagnetic canopy, that's mine!

In doing this I am hoping nobody tries to point fingers at me for anything besides my windshield.

I've not heard you trying to deliberately use it against other nations, nor do you have a reputation to bragging.

The stat thing is a bit bad, but your morality in its creation isn't to force OOC article competition with tons of purposefully upgraded arsenals or munitions.

@Zack: just having some doesn't disqualify what you have pushing/breaking the limit nor your attitude of being superior. For all that "under max", the amount of USO always being presented as equal-armed or superior than elements of the SAoY, DION, and the AV is an issue.

Most RP around this tech also isn't well-developed like most prior high-end technologies. Many things see multiple JPs with MANY parties involved to see it tested and improved on.

You piggyback USO using two characters you own. You're passing the ball with yourself. You keep attacking this thread and forcing it to derail to explain the same things again. It reminds me that you opposed DRv3 to the death, but now that you abuse it you call out that we're hunting you.

USO being brought up isn't to attack it. There's no denying what you have by making excuses. If the NTSE "weren't qualified", then you're at fault for not having the moral fortitude to not make it questionable/pushing the limits. You can't have them be wrong without admitting you were wrong as well, otherwise they wouldn't be up/in question.

So stop posting here. I'd wish you could do more than make it about you, but you just keep coming back and ignoring what's said or trying to make excuses that are, quite bluntly, weak.

Ira designs low and could teach you a lot in not OOCly meta-gaming your prototype/new craft above the specifications, armaments, speeds, and defenses of other INTENDED equal craft. Balance can't be had when there's always someone saying their tech can't lose.

 

[Acewing13]

To create a chance to address these concerns and get a handle on how to steer the NTSE in a broad, game-wide fashion, there's a sure-fire solution:

Instant moratorium on all submissions, to last six months.

No offense, @Doshii Jun, but that's a solution that punishes the entire site because of a few people whining and complaining about how a few other people are doing stuff on the wiki. Like, what about those of us who are making new NPC factions and need to get stuff approved? Sure, put a hold on the problematic submissions, but a blanket ban does nothing but endanger an attitude where the status quo is king above RPing, you know the whole reason we're on the site.

Personally, I'm a little distrustful of these concerns, since they're singling out factions that are relatively new or working to get off the ground and OOCly, this could be just them taking out their anger in a way that hurts the entire site. I'm not saying that there isn't some truth to them, but putting a blanket ban just gives them what they want and puts everyone that isn't Yamatai and Nepleslia in a disadvantage. If they have problems with certain wiki articles, bring that up on a case by case basis, like it is now and they're doing on current submissions. If you have to go back and change some things, fine. But to cave to the whining of a handful of people and hurt the rest of the site is not a 'sure-fire solution' in my eyes.

 

[Zack]

Of the tech articles submitted during DvR3, I think only the USO tech has JP s backing up development, full threads regarding manufacturing, and multiple major characters involved in its development.

If you want us to stop having better stuff than you, you should start making your own stuff instead of trying to turn off the NTSE.

With Ame around the NTSE is the healthiest it's been in a while. She reads and follows the rules, she spell checks articles, and really goes above and beyond what is required all with response times of less than a day or two!

It wasn't that long ago that month waits and then approval without the article having been read was the norm.

 

[Legix]

No offense, @Doshii Jun, but that's a solution that punishes the entire site because of a few people whining and complaining about how a few other people are doing stuff on the wiki. Like, what about those of us who are making new NPC factions and need to get stuff approved? Sure, put a hold on the problematic submissions, but a blanket ban does nothing but endanger an attitude where the status quo is king above RPing, you know the whole reason we're on the site.

Personally, I'm a little distrustful of these concerns, since they're singling out factions that are relatively new or working to get off the ground and OOCly, this could be just them taking out their anger in a way that hurts the entire site. I'm not saying that there isn't some truth to them, but putting a blanket ban just gives them what they want and puts everyone that isn't Yamatai and Nepleslia in a disadvantage. If they have problems with certain wiki articles, bring that up on a case by case basis, like it is now and they're doing on current submissions. If you have to go back and change some things, fine. But to cave to the whining of a handful of people and hurt the rest of the site is not a 'sure-fire solution' in my eyes.

That instant like from Zack is telling that there's a group of people who fear this "few people" (I mean, not like there are more people coming out to agree than there are opposing it or anything... oh wait) might actually get them stopped in this.

I will say that Doshii's example was something he'd proposed in the past. I opposed it then and I do now... but because it punishes everyone, including those who aren't here to flood the wiki with balance-breaking additions.

Everyone complains that Yamatai is OP in chat, in private, and in threads... yet then try to match them. That's why these "new factions" and USO have caught flak. Because these groups insist they deserve this, one using its FM's characters to achieve everything while the other simply has started to make closed-door JPs of old setting elements that haven't seen any action to suddenly leap out with higher grade tech. I still remember it being said "Well, just because Zen didn't do anything for all those years OOC doesn't mean it didn't do anything IC!"

You're right. It means they did nothing groundbreaking for all those years.

However, it's being written out that this is the case and the involved tech-race parties are deserving of this bad spotlight. I love the idea of older groups getting active... but not if they suddenly get active and are producing on par to two of the oldest, most RP'd, and most fleshed-out nations of the entire setting.

You being at a disadvantage isn't bad. It promotes you spending time and RPing a nation testing and trying to find ways to work toward closing that gap. Instead, you all keep leaping ahead and trying to close that gap immediately.

More worthless input

Hey look, you proving my point. You're trying to force the site to make more articles, which would force us to split out time from RPing to flesh out these better machines.

You won't understand that some of us have lives... or maybe you do? I don't personally care, as you've derailed this thread and only proven our point.

The NTSE moves fast, but in poor taste. As Ame's friend, I can say that she's made bad decisions to simply let things pass ONLY because they're passable on paper. Because she's encouraged the mentality "as long as you can, then you should".

The thread has been fully derailed and because of that, I think it needs to be closed. The amount of feedback, however, means that there are far more who agree with me than with you. Not only that, but facts presented and chat archives could further back up the existence of all this. The amount of times I've seen @Acewing13, @Arieg, @Zack, and (before he went on hiatus) @Edto Xar'Sivaree suggest this issue doesn't exist despite the facts and the proof of them having this sort of mentality to force higher-end tech out is more than enough to simply state that this isn't about personal issues. Not when the group includes people without issues against some of the people who have done this in the past. In fact, it seems that the perpetrators of this are actually calling in their friends such as Acewing to chime in without anything beyond "THEY'RE JUST BUTTHURT".

You reap what you sow. If this was because of bias, it wouldn't change the facts and what has been said occur way before even the incidents you're referring to @Acewing13 and beyond. I think when it's constantly the same group arriving to defend with "just haters" and all that shit, it's telling how scummy you really are. You resort to insulting us instead of finding facts to dismiss our own. Unfortunately, bullying won't make this go away.

Edit: To clarify @Zack - my quote is the nice way of suggesting that you need to stop beating that dead horse of a response. You don't act respectful, then I have no reason to treat you as such. Especially when you refuse countless requests to stop posting and, furthermore, continuing to reign the topic in as just us hating on your faction. You don't provide any possibility to discuss, so you don't need to be in the discussion.

 

[Reynolds]

I don't think submissions need to be stopped, but the best solution is also likely the most difficult thing to do. Get more submission checkers, make the submission process less of a checklist with more freedom to 'smell test' things, and require multiple checkers to approve anything. Maybe require more the larger or more 'problematic' the submission. I'd also probably suggest that it take an equal number of outside vetoes to deny something, so if person X always submits to A & B who rubber stamp everything without due process, C & D can intervene and put a halt to it. If something is troublesome enough to need every approver weighing in and voting to break a deadlock, well, it probably needed everyone looking at it in the first place.

But this is definitely the hardest way to do things, since it requires more volunteers doing more work and us/Wes putting more trust in more mods.

 

[Reynolds]

If you want us to stop having better stuff than you, you should start making your own stuff instead of trying to turn off the NTSE.

I'm pretty sure this is literally the problem, and the attitude, people are worried about here.