Kankou Posted March 29, 2012 Report Share Posted March 29, 2012 [quote name='Kaiser Martens' timestamp='1333017146' post='2944938'] What matters about my proposed tech scale is not when it begins, but where it [b]ends[/b]. The point of forcing people to end at the [i]current year[/i] is that they can only use stuff that actually exists, as opposed to things that they feel like making up. Things that exist [u]have[/u] veritable sources describing how they work, which dispels ooc !@#$%^&* and the need for technobabble. That is the key factor. Our armies become accounted for. [/quote] There are plenty of things that exist and have veritable sources, but have not been developed because of monetary constraints. The main problem we have with all the future military tech is that we have unknowledgeable people thinking materials development is linear (future material will definitely be advanced is just one problem), ignoring debunking of "future" technology (various stealth schemes have been revealed to not work as they were initially advertised), and just plain wishful thinking. It's not that year that's the problem, it's the people who ignore how weapons are developed and the speed of technological development. Most of the high tier weapons in CNRP depends on materials development that would most likely bear fruit in the 2040's~2050's short of a great industrial revolution resulting from a discovery, but most people either don't realize this or ignoring to keep the weapons. [quote name='Markus Wilding' timestamp='1333057150' post='2945190'] Alright, to rephrase, how do these numbers fit in with any proposed tech scale? [/quote] The main reason for compiling the numbers is to see the current status of tech levels among CNRP players. Triyun argued that there are sufficiently enough high-tier nations to justify putting a cap at 10,000 tech (and resulting in that plan of his). However looking at the numbers show that there is a great gap between the top and bottom tier (with a small middle tier). By lowering the cap to around 7,500, we can narrow the gap between the top and bottom while keeping the overall distribution of tech levels stable. My suggestion: We just cap the current tech scale at 7,500 tech and MAYBE knock off five years of development. It's the simplest way without all this !@#$%*ing going on (except from the select few who doesn't want to be downgraded even one year). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaiserMelech Mikhail Posted March 29, 2012 Report Share Posted March 29, 2012 [quote name='Executive Minister' timestamp='1333057417' post='2945192'] No, $%&@ that !@#$. If I wanted to go RP in a setting where im limited to RL and am banned from 'making things up' then I would have joined a different RP forum. What the hell happened that made everyone suddenly become such giant !@#$%*^ and want to !@#$@#$ rewrite one of the core concepts of the CNRP I joined two years ago? [/quote] We couldn't play nice, so the toys got taken away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted March 29, 2012 Report Share Posted March 29, 2012 (edited) At the end of the day the problem here seems to be a good chunk of people want to knock down adversaries tech while not taking a cut of their own tech or that of their political allies. I for one think either keep the same, or a strong cut with somewhere in the 8000 range being the cut off for modern and then go lower. I however believe that the floor should be Vietnam. Edited March 29, 2012 by Triyun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted March 29, 2012 Report Share Posted March 29, 2012 The only reason a cap would be necessary is because of the rather..... "out of this world" technology employed. Frankly, if those technologies aren't used, we wouldn't be having this much complaining in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaiser Martens Posted March 30, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 [quote]No, $%&@ that !@#$. If I wanted to go RP in a setting where im limited to RL and am banned from 'making things up' then I would have joined a different RP forum. What the hell happened that made everyone suddenly become such giant !@#$%*^ and want to !@#$@#$ rewrite one of the core concepts of the CNRP I joined two years ago? [/quote] You must have missed the part(s) where I stated that only the *stats* are tied to RL, while the name, appearance, and anything else can be pretty much absolutely anything, even fantasy stuff if needed be. ---------- I think that Early Cold War-Current Year are good options for a new technology system. Note that this isn't simply a new scale, it's a differen technological system altogether. The thing about the map is already underway, that won't be a problem. But we've got to agree upon the technological issue. Then we've got to implement some kind of system or regulation to prevent people from abusing non-cn-stat-related elements (Unlimited forts, unlimited everything that isn't explicitally mentioned...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Minister Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 (edited) *Takes a deep breath* Alright, i'm going to basically repeat what I raged on IRC with here, but with far less expletives included. I will be as curt and as frank as possible to address as many people as possible. Hey you, yes you the one that can't be arsed to figure out the ranges of the missiles you're using, or that sending in waves of hundreds of thousands of men, or squadrons upon squadrons of aircraft to attack an enemy is a good idea. You, no matter how low you agree to set the bar for everyone else, will always be raped by a "technobabbler". You could bring it down to WWII, heck even bow and arrow tech and you will still be raped. Don't think for a second that lowering the tech cap will help bring you closer to the top - it won't. It will only push you down further. Think you didn't have a shot against the "TBs" when you had 'just' F-22s and B-2s in your inventories? Just wait until you are downgraded to F-4s and B-52s. I will laugh when people start complaining that a "technobabbler" is making the F-22 or even F-15 seem unstoppable compared to your late sixties/early 70's fighter aircraft. No matter how low you go, there will always be technobabble. Technobabble is merely intimidation, just as important a tool as OOC, allies, sixth gen fighters or huge NS. We go to bows and arrows? Someone will whip out the reasons why his composite bows are much stronger than your longbows, or pack a greater punch per weight. [b] The only way anyone has a chance to improve their lot in life is by learning. [/b]Am I saying I am in anyway shape or form an expert? Heck no. Does that mean i'll take that and decide that it is a valid excuse to be ignorant? Definitely no. Wanna know why your fledgling empire crumpled when a "technobabbler" pushed it? You let it get crumpled. Your manhood got tested and you failed miserably - in the Prison world, this means its rape time for you. Next time someone comes around and asks for your suit and tie, you knock his head off, or learn to knock his head off the next time around. CNRP is a prison, you either learn to fight or you join a gang, or the second you walk through those doors you pick someone that looks the smallest and beat him so savagely that everyone will know not to mess with you. Nothing will change sir or madame. Just you wait. Edited March 30, 2012 by Executive Minister Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaiser Martens Posted March 30, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 Dude, if you're gonna be OOC like that you might as well do it right and call out people with their names. That aside. In any case, my idea still deserves a shot, it's at least *better* than what we have now. We all need to have our technology reduced, and I believe I've explained why at least twice this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Minister Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 [quote name='Kaiser Martens' timestamp='1333074934' post='2945321'] Dude, if you're gonna be OOC like that you might as well do it right and call out people with their names. That aside. In any case, my idea still deserves a shot, it's at least *better* than what we have now. We all need to have our technology reduced, and I believe I've explained why at least twice this thread. [/quote] We're in an OOC forum. I think you meant 'offensive'. In any case, I told you I was trying to address as many people as possible that fit the bill and are ultimately pushing for either this or the other movement. If you lower the bar, you lower it for everyone. This is not 'better' than what we have now. If someone makes a DEW equipped fighter or a hypersonic drone, what are you going to do, try to ban them? Why won't you (a hypothetical 'you' that could be anyone really) try to make your own thing? Why won't people at least TRY to fight back against this perceived technobabble movement instead of trying to move goal posts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaiser Martens Posted March 30, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 Because it is [u]boring[/u]. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Enema Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 I am still surprised people can't seem to remember how this same thing didn't work well under the old system. It's attitudes people... not the tech being used. No matter what there will always be someone crying about something. RP more, that's a cure, working out wars in advance, that's a cure, being helpful to new rpers, that's a cure, not caring if you win or lose and spending more time enjoying the story.. that's a cure. Playing around with the technology isn't a solution and it takes away from a person's fun of the game. Some people enjoy tinkering with ideas of future technology. Providing they explain their thinking, I don't really care that they have it. I don't particularly give a hoot about technology. Most of my rp is based around generic terms rather than specific equipment types for my own sanity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Minister Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 [quote name='Kaiser Martens' timestamp='1333076234' post='2945333'] Because it is [u]boring[/u]. [/quote] And that's why the steam rollers will always rape the same people. Over. And Over. And Over. That's why we have this 'fear' of technobabblers. That's why CNRP warring sucks at times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarfef Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 (edited) A couple of ideas. 1) Maintain 1 region minimum. Attacks can occur on a nation, but it's core area can never be taken. This eliminates the possibility of wars of elimination and forces players to make wars about other topics - which cuts out much of the fear that likely drives the competition. Let's be honest, watching the people you created and ran as a country get slaughtered is one's worst nightmare and if techno-babble will stop it, then by darned - techno-babbling will occur. If you eliminate that fear however, perhaps the techno-babble drive would go away as well. 2) If this whole thing is about the techno-babble, why are we even focusing ANY consideration to the lower level tech. Why drop the floor out of technology when you're actually looking to lower the ceiling? It seems like many of these tech scales focus on the wrong end of the spectrum. Change the cap of the tech, don't manipulate the lower range. 3) Perhaps battles should be run with a dice roll effect with a bonus for good Role-Play or Brilliant strategy as seen by the GM? Edited March 30, 2012 by Zarfef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 The technology levels are already very progressive zarfef. It takes 1000 tech at the upper level to go up one year. The fact is is that this is CN, stats do count SOME. The reason to lower the top tier would be to make their be less speculation. Therefore you lower all levels, not just the top not just the bottom to make it a fair decrease. Secondly if you give safety, that just favors the defender. That is something we really do not need. We need more stories more dynamic, we don't need stagnation. Giving a sanctuary that can't be taken is basically the tactical equivalent of allowing someone to retreat and freely regroup then counter attack when their opponent is spread thin. It makes no sense. No dice roll. GMs will disagree on what is brilliant strategy also. Its been that way as long as I remember. I remember Mercy flat out saying in his mind nothing could stop the Rebel Army Air Force. Thats been proven not true time and time again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 (edited) The reason for the top tier to be capped is because the most top tier are not responsible with their position. It's that simple. We're "punishing" irresponsibility, not punishing the top tier for being the top tier. When we have some people RPing technology beyond what is envisioned for 2035 and more appropriate for the technological development (especially in materials) which is at least 40 years into the future, we have a problem. The problem is further compounded by people running away with their fantasies and thinking because CNRP is a militarized world, those developments are inevitable. They are not. The lack of an economy in CNRP as an excuse to accelerate development by twenty years needs to stop, and if the people aren't willing to do it by themselves, then we have to resort to a cap. This is why we're having this argument at all. Within almost two year we have had weapon development going far beyond anything an year 2030 society can muster, resulting in all the whining about technobabble and such. Edited March 30, 2012 by Kankou Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaiser Martens Posted March 30, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 I repeat once again Zarfef, keep in mind that the main thing of my idea for a technology scale is to make the maximum year be our current year. THAT is what causes the trouble - things that are from near and not so near future years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Enema Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 [quote]Secondly if you give safety, that just favors the defender. That is something we really do not need. We need more stories more dynamic, we don't need stagnation. Giving a sanctuary that can't be taken is basically the tactical equivalent of allowing someone to retreat and freely regroup then counter attack when their opponent is spread thin. It makes no sense.[/quote] Dynamic stories don't come out of fiddling with technology. Dynamic stories are born out of cooperation between writers. I can see the benefits of a sanctuary for newly rolled nations, but I tend to think that anyone over a month old ought to have enough sense to know what to do and what not to do. If wars were properly negotiated in advance a sanctuary wouldn't even be needed in the end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Minister Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 People need to learn to exercise self control. Not all wars result in the complete destruction of the nation as we know it. On the other hand, showing some back bone is also a good idea from the rollee. I have yet to see a modern day RPer be rolled savagely and still remain in his or her land. The only reason we have "to the victor goes the land" is because the present trend favors starting over anew rather than rebuilding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Enema Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 Which is sort of sad as there is something to be said for having a national history and characters with a legacy within the overall rp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaiser Martens Posted March 30, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 [quote]People need to learn to exercise self control. Not all wars result in the complete destruction of the nation as we know it. On the other hand, showing some back bone is also a good idea from the rollee. I have yet to see a modern day RPer be rolled savagely and still remain in his or her land. The only reason we have "to the victor goes the land" is because the present trend favors starting over anew rather than rebuilding. [/quote] Agreed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Enema Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 Which comes down to people preplanning the war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaiser Martens Posted March 30, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 But that destroys spontaneity... Hey how about this: 00.00~999.99: Early Cold War (1955~1970) 1000~1499.99: Mid Cold War (1970~1980) 1500~2999.99: Late Cold War (1980~1995) 3000~4999.99: Modern (1995~2005) 5000~9999.99: Today (2005~Current Year) 9999.99~: Current stuff plus: Created but not yet fielded/fully working prototypes People in each category: Vietnam War: 21 Revolutionary Era: 6 Gulf War: 4 Modern: 12 Today: 4 Future: 3 [i]Keep in mind that the rest of the things apply:[/i] That you can name or make your stuff virtually anything you like, only the stats are tied down to an actual unit of the given tech brackets. So you can still create what you feel like, but the stats and capabilities will not be ambiguous. Even fantasy stuff. And Civilian Technology is NOT affected by any of this. If people aren't satisfied we may adjust some of the categories, I guess. But this is still fairly simple, so it should work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Minister Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 [quote name='Tidy Bowl Man' timestamp='1333088286' post='2945409'] Which comes down to people preplanning the war. [/quote] No. It comes down to attackers exercising self control, and defenders exercising a bit of spine growing. There's a difference between surviving a war with dignity and keeping (earning) your land, and simply existing out of spite in order to lob spy rolls or nukes at an attacker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 Actually, small point, I don't think preplanning a war necessarily constitutes destroying spontaneity. Planning a war can potentially involve no more than simply determining maximum losses possible for each side... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Enema Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 Still not in favor of diddling with the tech scale. It doesn't deal with the causal factors of the problems of CNRP, chief among them being the very RPers who stink it up on a regular basis. It's a bandaid solution and a strawman at best. Our efforts are better served elsewhere. Further, I worked a fairly long time to get to where I am techwise. Why in the world would I really want to take a step down to cold war era tech? The disadvantages to me are far more than the disadvantages are to someone taking a step down from their retardotech of the future to current day. F-35 to F-4? That's a massive dropdown in abilities. Versus Retardofuture fighter to F-35, which is a step down from speculative stats to real confirmed stats. Speculative stats for the most part based off real life equipment and then extrapolated a bit for extra punch, but really they don't seem all that much more potent when used improperly. Nah... There is nothing about this that is remotely fair to anyone. It seriously benefits higher tech nations far more than it benefits smaller nations. Right now if I'm careful I have half a chance at surviving an engagement against a larger nation if I play my cards right and put some thought into my moves. Dropping down to an F-4 and getting hit by a fleet of F-35s would incinerate me entirely leaving me without a chance at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangeline Anovilis Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 Technically, anyone able to field the F-35 can throw at you also the F-22, which is even more horrible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.