Kill the techno-babble?

[Triyun]

Generalissimo its got nothing to do with having the most advanced tech. Technobabble is tactics if you do it right. You can have the best technology in the game if you don't know how to RP it it is useless. I've not seen a single post where design alone has ever been used as a decisive factor. I've seen posts where people use designs better, where people and overall combat system, but to restrict this would be to restricting [i]tactics[/i].

[Evangeline Anovilis]

[quote name='Generalissimo' timestamp='1324848310' post='2886299']
FYI, not banning a writing style.
The man with the most detailed schematics will no longer win by default.
Detailed wars focusing on technology will be possible: not mandatory, not decisive.
[/quote]
You will always have babble, be it techno-babble, tactic-babble or whatever-babble to decide wars. At least as long as it doesn't just count if I say 'Hey, I got 50,000 more soldiers and 2 years more advanced tech, I win.'. And such a warfare is not only boring, but missing any basis in reality. Technology and tactics are important to victory and that is the reason for techno-babble. I don't see any way around of it.

[Evangeline Anovilis]

[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1324848727' post='2886302']
Generalissimo its got nothing to do with having the most advanced tech. Technobabble is tactics if you do it right. You can have the best technology in the game if you don't know how to RP it it is useless. I've not seen a single post where design alone has ever been used as a decisive factor. I've seen posts where people use designs better, where people and overall combat system, but to restrict this would be to restricting [i]tactics[/i].
[/quote]
I net I could stick with bolt-action rifles and still win, if I use them right. And I will certainly try at least once.

[Sarah Tintagyl]

HORSES AND SPEARS! WE RIDE!

[Evangeline Anovilis]

[quote name='Sarah Tintagyl' timestamp='1324849034' post='2886306']
HORSES AND SPEARS! WE RIDE!
[/quote]
If the tech scale would be set in the past, before electronic warfare kicked in, I'd be all for it.

[Generalissimo]

[quote name='Sarah Tintagyl' timestamp='1324834660' post='2886207']But you've presented no solution Generalissimo, what are we supposed to do?[/quote] Changing the status quo [i][b]is[/i][/b] my solution!
Who says upturning a system and implementing substitutes has to be the same thing?
What are we supposed to do? Work everything out once the system is changed.
I’m intentionally attempting to initiate a transitional period.
We’ll work it out, rather we’ll [b]HAVE[/b] to work it out.
They say the most dangerous revolutionaries are those without an idea for what comes after the revolution.
Change for change’s sake! Comprehensive agenda be damned.
Generalissimo plays Jenga with a sledgehammer!

Edited December 25, 2011 by Generalissimo

[Voodoo Nova]

What is "techno-babble"? I want a clear, definite, definition of the word "techno-babble".

[Generalissimo]

[quote name='Voodoo Nova' timestamp='1324849817' post='2886312']What is "techno-babble"? I want a clear, definite, definition of the word "techno-babble".[/quote]Techno-Babble is something that 69.44% of this poll’s voters are against!

Pravus Ingruo, however, has a more descriptive description describing techno-babble
[quote name='Pravus Ingruo' timestamp='1324145142' post='2880597']. . .Technobabble is serving, at the moment, as "superior RP". It's making it so that those of us who don't know about all these materials or how they work are suddenly at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to the battle field, because when on attack "Technobabblers" can simply say "Oh, your defense system is not advanced enough/RP'd out enough/you did not explain it enough to stop the X, Y, and Z aspects of my weapon" and while on defense they can say "my X, Y, and Z defenses of my weapon are more than enough to take out your weapon".

. . .Use of strategy posted with technobabble is RP, but simply saying "Nation Y's weapons didn't work because of A, B, and C on my weapon" does not count, and should not count, as RP. . .[/quote]Alternatively "techno-babble" could be summarized as ‘mandatory technologically inclined CNRP warfare’

Edited December 25, 2011 by Generalissimo

[Generalissimo]

[quote name='Centurius' timestamp='1324172837' post='2880807']Can we compromise on making a compromise?[/quote]Sure, why not?

What's the compromise here?

I'm game, let's here it!

[Voodoo Nova]

[quote name='Generalissimo' timestamp='1324850389' post='2886316']
Techno-Babble is something that 69.44% of this poll’s voters are against!

Pravus Ingruo, however, has a more descriptive description describing techno-babble
Alternatively "techno-babble" could be summarized as ‘mandatory technologically inclined CNRP warfare’
[/quote]

That's not the definition of "techno-babble". That is a description of how "techno-babble" is used. What is the definition of "techno-babble"?

[Generalissimo]

[quote name='Voodoo Nova' timestamp='1324851068' post='2886320']That's not the definition of "techno-babble". That is a description of how "techno-babble" is used. What is the definition of "techno-babble"?[/quote]Mandatory technologically inclined CNRP warfare - emphasis on [b]MANDATORY[/b]

Edited December 25, 2011 by Generalissimo

[Kankou]

[quote name='Generalissimo' timestamp='1324851128' post='2886322']
Mandatory technologically inclined CNRP warfare - emphasis on [b]MANDATORY[/b]
[/quote]
There is no such thing as mandatory. Of course, it would be nice if people would stop writing the damn long posts and reserve all the technology discussion for their internal threads (what did happen in the Korean War), but how the hell is there such a thing as mandatory technologically inclined CNRP warfare?

[Triyun]

What do you mean mandatory? Is the question should people have the right to just completely opt out because they are bad at one aspect of that aspect? I say no. I don't like the idea that if someone goes around and claims for example they have one air force squadron of super elite pilots, that they should be able to simply opt out of me using my own top squadron in fully decked out F-5s, with the F-5s using all their abilities as part of the fight. I would have an issue if I say, "My F-5 detects your plane and shoots it down because its better." I don't think that has ever been the case though. Where I do have an issue is taking something like manuvering canards. Which for those who don't know are basically the mini wings on the front of an air plane like the eurofighter. If somebody claims a high degree of agility on a canard air plane that is perfectly fair imo. But then you can't complain when somebody claims that the canard has reduced stealth (as it has an extra reflective surface) or it has more drag at super sonic. But I don't think anyone simply out right claims victory without RPing out how they achieve something. If they do please direct Shammy, Cent, or I to the post.

Edited December 25, 2011 by Triyun

[iKrolm]

[quote name='Voodoo Nova' timestamp='1324851068' post='2886320']
That's not the definition of "techno-babble". That is a description of how "techno-babble" is used. What is the definition of "techno-babble"?
[/quote]

To quote wikipedia:

"Technobabble is a form of prose using jargon, buzzwords, esoteric language, specialized technical terms, or technical slang that is incomprehensible to the listener. So while a lay person listening to a discussion of a current research topic in mathematics may describe it as technobabble, to the mathematician, it is completely comprehensible and thus not technobabble. The key differentiator is the point of view of the listener. Technobabble can be used dishonestly to give an impression of plausibility through mystification, misdirection, and obfuscation"

[Triyun]

[quote name='iKrolm' timestamp='1324854830' post='2886333']
To quote wikipedia:

"Technobabble is a form of prose using jargon, buzzwords, esoteric language, specialized technical terms, or technical slang that is incomprehensible to the listener. So while a lay person listening to a discussion of a current research topic in mathematics may describe it as technobabble, to the mathematician, it is completely comprehensible and thus not technobabble. The key differentiator is the point of view of the listener. Technobabble can be used dishonestly to give an impression of plausibility through mystification, misdirection, and obfuscation"
[/quote]

Would you not though agree that this problem can be solved by those involved in the thread simply asking questions to the person doing the attack?

[Kankou]

[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1324856095' post='2886341']
Would you not though agree that this problem can be solved by those involved in the thread simply asking questions to the person doing the attack?
[/quote]
Not really. What I see is that writing all the tech stuff during the war as opposed be before the war is a very bad writing strategy on part of the writer. It really isn't good writing to burden the actual action with all the tech discussions. Look at how techno-thrillers are written: Tech details are avoided as much as possible within the battle themselves so as to let the reader understand the actual battles themselves.

The main problems are that first, knowledgeable people need to write more simply, and second, stop dumping all the tech stuff in the battle posts and try to have written such things in the internal threads initially (using links to back them up in actual war). It is partly the fault of the techno-writers for their badly placed materials.

Edited December 25, 2011 by Kankou

[iamthey]

[quote name='Executive Minister' timestamp='1324795031' post='2886078']
Classy.
[/quote]

Yeah, I thought that was a nice touch too, thanks. Seriously though, Lynneth has every reason to be proud of his IG technological stockpile, and also every reason to seek a rule structure that gives him a decisive edge. I'm not saying all he is capable of is loltech, but it certainly makes his job easier when that is all that is required for him to achieve a decisive victory.

[Triyun]

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1324856862' post='2886347']
Not really. What I see is that writing all the tech stuff during the war as opposed be before the war is a very bad writing strategy on part of the writer. It really isn't good writing to burden the actual action with all the tech discussions. Look at how techno-thrillers are written: Tech details are avoided as much as possible within the battle themselves so as to let the reader understand the actual battles themselves.

The main problems are that first, knowledgeable people need to write more simply, and second, stop dumping all the tech stuff in the battle posts and try to have written such things in the internal threads initially (using links to back them up in actual war). It is partly the fault of the techno-writers for their badly placed materials.
[/quote]

Perhaps you could come show. I hear Guam needs liberated.

[Kankou]

[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1324860102' post='2886371']
Perhaps you could come show. I hear Guam needs liberated.
[/quote]
I think you would soon be needing to do some liberating

That being said, our little war in Korea was the perfect example of how a war post should be written. Perhaps you should go back and read it

[Captain Enema]

You mean all the posts where you refused to rp out casualties? Gotcha.

[Kankou]

[quote name='Tidy Bowl Man' timestamp='1324862185' post='2886387']
You mean all the posts where you refused to rp out casualties? Gotcha.


[/quote]
Leaving aside the ignorance of people when it comes to using nuclear weapons (yes, I am calling people out on the amateurish way people think nukes = perfect destruction weapon), look at the actual writing of the thread: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=102852

There is a very low ratio of "technobabble" to movement when we compare the thread to the recent Cochin War. For one reason or another people have been stepping up the use of massive blocks of technology information in the actual war posts, dragging down the entire structure of the battle, to the point the entire thread reads like some exercise scenario report on the use of weapons rather than a report on the battle itself. This is probably why we've been having many people complain.

If we go back to the writing style used six months ago, perhaps this thread would not have existed, nor would there have been as many complaints to the mods as it happened.

[Triyun]

No actually TBMs right, its that you did not RP casualties. You need to stop trying to use every OOC thread to complain about your perceived victimhood. Either come reclaim Korea, or get over it

[Kankou]

Quite mature of you to avoid the main issue (too much tech talks in battle) and focus on a completely unrelated thing. Oh well, since you're the one that believes in conspiracies, I have to give you that. Can I hug you from the back, cutie Triyun?

[Triyun]

I don't avoid the main issues, your complaints aren't main issues though. I hardly think though that you speak for any sort of broad base, and your complaints are subjective. More often than not they seem to be motivated solely for your own political agenda, and people from all sides of how they feel about current rules see it.

[Kankou]

*Shrug*

Whatever you say, Triyun. It doesn't change that your writing style has transformed a lot.