Jump to content

The GM's Hall


Rudolph

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This is annoying. I joined CNRP 2 to run from the hegemonic "OMG MAH TECH IS BETTER THAN YOURS CAUSE I SIT IN CLASS ALL DAY READING" type jargon. That's what ruins RP, in my opinion. So, I really do think we should stick to RL designs or equivalents.

I do hope you're not being sarcastic because I actually agree with this post.

 

I even stopped using my custom equipment at this point because after long discussions with Eva the answer to many questions ended up being "I don't know." At this point, I'd rather use something that's been actually built IRL and has hard numbers than indulge myself with something custom that causes arguments.

Edited by Uberstein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do hope you're not being sarcastic because I actually agree with this post.

 

I even stopped using my custom equipment at this point because after long discussions with Eva the answer to many questions ended up being "I don't know." At this point, I'd rather use something that's been actually built IRL and has hard numbers than indulge myself with something custom that causes arguments.

I might point out that these were constructive discussions and I did not pick apart equipment here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm unclear on the difference between a modernized XB-70 thats not fielded by any modern military and a existing drone air frame with a few upgrades not combat fielded by any nation.  Seems like the same hing.

 

Because swapping out equipment on the XB-70 and its modernization has already actually happened.  The upgrades on your drones have not yet. It's also known to be relatively easy to upgrade and swap equipment suites on aircraft as stable platforms.. but you put the wrong equipment suite on a drone that's to heavy.. or not properly distributed.. and it very well could tip over in flight.

 

Personally, however the community wants to do it. I'm on board. Just as long as the same rules apply everywhere. So far the community is on a strict interpretation of how we do 'improvements'.

Edited by Maelstrom Vortex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last time I checked the rule for inactivity was 3 weeks. Lord Hershey's last post was on June 21. I posted on July 16, well over 3 weeks. Now I am glad he is back and am willing to RP from there, but I believe there must be further explanation.


This seems fair, albeit sort of unnecessary. So his vacation lasted a couple days longer than expected. Oh well it's not a big deal. I would feel differently if it was a sort of pattern... if he disappears for another three weeks starting tomorrow, then I'd say cut him right at the deadline.
Link to comment
Share on other sites



 

Because swapping out equipment on the XB-70 and its modernization has already actually happened.  The upgrades on your drones have not yet. It's also known to be relatively easy to upgrade and swap equipment suites on aircraft as stable platforms.. but you put the wrong equipment suite on a drone that's to heavy.. or not properly distributed.. and it very well could tip over in flight.

 

Personally, however the community wants to do it. I'm on board. Just as long as the same rules apply everywhere. So far the community is on a strict interpretation of how we do 'improvements'.

 

Uhh.... No?  Seriously that's bunk.  A drone is an aircraft.  It makes no difference whether it has a pilot or not.  We've had drones  with a lot of stability, we've had air planes with a lot of instability.  A global hawk with large wings is much more stable than a manned F-117.  Beyond that how do you even know what I'm putting on drones when I've nt finished putting up stats.

 

Oh btw an X-47 type aircraft carries things internally thus stability is not even an issue.

Edited by Triyun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stability of the current design is not an issue., but stability after modification is. You can screw up a perfectly good aircraft by distributing its weight poorly. I don't know what you intend to add to it. You haven't posted it up. But I'm also not an avionics engineer to be able to tell you if you are going to screw something up.. nor are most of us. Work with the toys we have, leave the experimental stuff in the experimental area. I might field a few existing drones or existing drones with different names and appearances, but the same exact function as the real drones.. but I'm not going to force our community to attempt to judge whether or not my work on experimental aircraft would be or should be practical without actual testing. We're not flight engineers. I try to play at being one, but it's just a simulator. Possible.. yes.. can I prove it? Nah. I just tried.. failed miserably.

 

For example: I might mention my airforce is working on a Zepher equivalent perpetual solar drone, but I won't actually field it in the rp until the drone actually exists with a camera on board.;

Edited by Maelstrom Vortex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stability of the current design is not an issue., but stability after modification is. You can screw up a perfectly good aircraft by distributing its weight poorly. I don't know what you intend to add to it. You haven't posted it up. But I'm also not an avionics engineer to be able to tell you if you are going to screw something up.. nor are most of us. Work with the toys we have, leave the experimental stuff in the experimental area. I might field a few existing drones or existing drones with different names and appearances, but the same exact function as the real drones.. but I'm not going to force our community to attempt to judge whether or not my work on experimental aircraft would be or should be practical without actual testing. We're not flight engineers. I try to play at being one, but it's just a simulator. Possible.. yes.. can I prove it? Nah. I just tried.. failed miserably.

 

For example: I might mention my airforce is working on a Zepher equivalent perpetual solar drone, but I won't actually field it in the rp until the drone actually exists with a camera on board.;

 

That's not the point.  The point is is that it makes no sense to claim you're given the benefit of the doubt on a manned but not un-manned aircraft, which is entirely your argument if you're saying its ok for you to put stuff on an XB-70 but not on a drone, absent an environment where specifics have been given for either, which they have not.  Besides do you really think [i]I[/i] of all people don't know what load outs flip over planes and what don't?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter what you know. It matters how you present it to the GM team in such a fashion that they are able to understand it. 

 

I highly suggest not resorting to technolegalese as the gms need not entertain your argument if you can't present it in a manner that actually makes sense. 

 

Further, the gms need to get off the pot with this one. Both parties should present an argument and the one that makes the most sense should be given the most  weight. 

 

Explain it to them like they are 5. 

 

Seriously GMs, a new rule isn't needed here, neither is a discussion, just a decision. So make one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter what you know. It matters how you present it to the GM team in such a fashion that they are able to understand it. 

 

I highly suggest not resorting to technolegalese as the gms need not entertain your argument if you can't present it in a manner that actually makes sense. 

 

Further, the gms need to get off the pot with this one. Both parties should present an argument and the one that makes the most sense should be given the most  weight. 

 

Explain it to them like they are 5. 

 

Seriously GMs, a new rule isn't needed here, neither is a discussion, just a decision. So make one. 

 

There has not been any technicalese other than saying aircrafts with big wing spans don't tip over as much.  My issue is that this entire thread has been putting the presumption of the absolute worst case scenario on me solely, while others do the exact same thing and are claiming to get away with it. 

 

If an X-47 type aircraft carries its packages internally its a simply volume equation to test what can be carried and what can't.  There's been no allegation I'm say mounting a rail gun on the side wing or something to make it unstable.  That's just been inferred by players who seem inclined to just want to say 'TRIYUN BAD' that's fundamentally both wrong and ridiculous and I will receive complaints without corresponding links to show wrong doing with both sarcasm and mockery because they are stupid.  Have some god damn patience and wait till I post up the stats on what I'm deploying.  They will be up before I shoot someone with them.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This seems fair, albeit sort of unnecessary. So his vacation lasted a couple days longer than expected. Oh well it's not a big deal. I would feel differently if it was a sort of pattern... if he disappears for another three weeks starting tomorrow, then I'd say cut him right at the deadline.

 

Oh I didn't know he was on vacation... no wonder everyone thinks I'm a d***.

 

I apologize to Lord Hershey and to everyone involved for this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There has not been any technicalese other than saying aircrafts with big wing spans don't tip over as much.  My issue is that this entire thread has been putting the presumption of the absolute worst case scenario on me solely, while others do the exact same thing and are claiming to get away with it. 

 

If an X-47 type aircraft carries its packages internally its a simply volume equation to test what can be carried and what can't.  There's been no allegation I'm say mounting a rail gun on the side wing or something to make it unstable.  That's just been inferred by players who seem inclined to just want to say 'TRIYUN BAD' that's fundamentally both wrong and ridiculous and I will receive complaints without corresponding links to show wrong doing with both sarcasm and mockery because they are stupid.  Have some god damn patience and wait till I post up the stats on what I'm deploying.  They will be up before I shoot someone with them.  

 

Oh, this nonsense already?

 

Yeah, seriously, let him finish posting the details before people wet their panties. 

 

Though, as a historical perspective, not to be taken as any sort of precedent as those are verbotten in community rp. When zoot wanted to use the F-35, I allowed based upon the stipulation that any and all problems that pop up in real life needed to be resolved in rp as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consider this a combined ruling from the GM Team when it comes to Triyun's drone fleets; in addition to that, try to keep this in mind: KISS. The GM Team is going to be basing our rulings on the following principles, for simplicity sake, for both us, and the rest of the community: 

 

The following tank/airplane/ship equipment is permitted: Things currently in use by contemporary militaries.* Things that were in use at one time (ie Leopard 1 tanks or Spitfire airplanes). Everything else, such as experimental or never-used things, are disallowed.

 

Used equipment must be used in a similar way as contemporary militaries. More precisely, the equipment needs to be used in the niches it was developed for. How those niches are used, the tactics, are not restricted. This does mean, however, that an UAV-only airforce is impossible for example.

 

*: Minor customizations are allowed, but nothing that makes the end-product vastly different from the original design. 

 

EDIT: Oh, I forgot to mention. Triyun, feel free to RP your drone swarms under the optionally recognizable rule. 

Edited by Biohazard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody ever said anything about a UAV only air force and if they did they were lying.  Go click on my thread you see lots of manned aircraft.  So the idea of mentioning that seems just stupid, if not outright lazy for people who can't be bothered by a five minute search. 

 

Drone swarming on the other hand is a tactic (and one which a quick google search would show has quite extensively been conceived of with unmanned vehicles).  The idea that I cannot employ swarming which is a formation seems rather ridiculous.  So the objection t drones being used in a swarm seems to be in fact restricting a tactic, something that you said you were not doing.  That seems kind of well... dumb.

 

Nobodies proven a single thing other than I have ships taking off from an aircraft carrier in a configuration other than the conventional one.  But that itself is not anything new either.  The US has during humanitarian disasters had helicopters instead of strike fighters and in a more amusing example loaded servicemens cars up t transport them from different bases across the Pacific like Hawaii and Japan back to San Diego and mainland US.  These certainly are not 'function' a carrier was designed for they are functions that other ships were designed for, is that now banned?  This does seem in fact to restrict tactics and defy common sense for the sake of not simply waiting till the weekend or requesting more info.  

 

Beyond that, I guess people can only use tomahawk cruise missiles for delivering thermonuclear bombs, because that was what they were designed for, only later modified.  I guess B-52s can only drop dumb bombs WW II style not use their CM missiles cause thats what they were designed for only later modified.  I guess Ohio Class submarines can only be used in ballistic missile configuration not cruise, because again that's what they were designed for.  I guess F-22s can't bomb ground targets anymore only shoot other air planes.  I guess predators can only do ISR and not fire hellfire missiles anymore.  

 

I'm being facetious, but its to demonstrate how little relation what niche something is designed for and how it actually is used has, and that in fact rather than be this unique ZOMG god mode, its actually really really common in today's military to take a platform and use it for something else.

Edited by Triyun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

or, just go by the community guidelines instead of inventing technology like you always do and like this entire community was created specifically to get away from your technobabble bullshit, it is not asking alot of you to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So does this "don't use equipment that was never used by an army" ruling mean I should drop the AMX 40 that I use and just use the significantly better LeClerc? I mean I liked having the 40 for nation flavor and the easy to find information but I can use the newer still very classified tank if the older one is banned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...