Future Tech Advice and Assistance Thread [O.O.C.]

by **The Fedral Union** » Tue Aug 16, 2016 7:41 pm

I don't doubt that the guidelines aren't meant to force anything on anyone. Yet at the same time informally when folks, are being to say the least encouraged to accede to certain social norms it can make it feel as if they have little or no any choice because those encouraging voices are so loud.

Its like if you went in to a church, you're expected informally to act polite, have something relatively mundane on as clothing, not because of any official rule but because of a social norm, the same can hold true in a case like this.

You mention methods of reaching people, RMB's, chats, and TG's. Those are great ways to get in touch with others, yet if I'm new how will you convince me to hop on your chat? I have all these guidelines and terms that I don't understand when I just want to write two space ships going pew pew.

Now the danger of endorsing a single chat or region is that newbies are missing out in ideas not inherently shared by that chat or region equally valid ideas different styles, no one region, chat, group, or band of players speaks for all of FT. The point is, I'm not attempting to denigrate the guide infarct some aspects of it are well tailored,but we have to be mindful of how the interpretation of the guide can widely vary.

by **Kyrusia** » Tue Aug 16, 2016 7:55 pm

Well, that is sort of how guidelines form, really. Not in that it's forcing people to adhere to them (or that they're necessarily "louder' than anyone else; we have all manner of roleplayers here), but they are a way in which members of the community (not all, mind you, of course, with each and every one) choose to roleplay with one another. Of course there is a natural process of self-selection that is at play with any community/parts of a community, but I think that's more of a natural consequence of how players like to roleplay and choose who they roleplay with more than anything else. Players who believe all space ships should be purple and have neon green polka dots will, in all likelihood, attract other players who believe all space ships should be purple and have neon green polka dots. (This is a purposefully hyperbolic example.

)

To be honest, I think, ultimately, the most fundamental guidelines for FT (or any RP community), tend to deal with how roleplayers interact with and treat one another. There will always be disagreements over, "Well, I think x-number of star systems is a fine starting size!" and, "I think x-number of star systems is too large; y-number is better!" Minutiae, details, etc. are like that. I think most roleplayers understand that, really.

by **Neornith** » Tue Aug 16, 2016 8:41 pm

Delete

by **Vocenae** » Tue Aug 16, 2016 8:42 pm

Indeed. To go along with a discussion recently had on IRC (about a vastly different subject but I felt it applicable here), we do want to encourage new players to read and educate themselves by linking them to the OP and the Guides, but at the end of the day they will only get you so far, and will not automatically make your first attempts to RP beautiful or even all that pretty because there's still a learning curve that you, yourself, will have to experience. And that's fine, expected, and perfectly okay.

I mean for an example, a woodsman who has only ever used hand tools his whole life can read up on his new band-saw all he likes but he still runs the risk of taking his fingers off simplybecause he's never used a band-saw before. But the reading and research he did will certainly help him keep his fingers and allow him to go into this new experience than just plugging the thing in and not bothering to figure out how it works first.

by **Senkaku** » Tue Aug 16, 2016 8:54 pm

-meep-

by **Kyrusia** » Tue Aug 16, 2016 9:00 pm

I have a question for folks...

What is, if you had to pick one, the aspect of worldbuilding for your star-state/civilization that you enjoy most? Be it religion, philosophy, cuisine, the politics, military, etc.

I, personally, tend to - when I want to sit down, clear my head, etc. - focus on, well, odd-ball aspects that I sometimes feel don't necessarily get the time they really deserve. Music is an interesting such topic; cuisine is also one I firmly believe can help get a player focusing on aspects of their star-state/civilization they might not otherwise think about.

by **Senkaku** » Tue Aug 16, 2016 9:02 pm

Politics. The more violent and confusing, the better. I feel like I skip over a lot of the oddball aspects that give things a more authentic feel sometimes, actually, because it's just so enjoyable to write about intrigue and plotting and scheming and backstabbing and murder and war.

by **Bakra** » Tue Aug 16, 2016 9:12 pm

Oh culture in general. Definitely. The Culture section of my factbook is where all the fun happens for me, I love to see how my society reacts to technology (because I never talk about that

). I wasn't too big into it until I read up on Ularn and played Beyond Earth, and then my obsession went from Religion to Culture.

by **Neornith** » Tue Aug 16, 2016 9:17 pm

Military, I enjoy making differing tactics for various nations with different doctrines and strategies along with different military hardware

I like messing around with the politics inside a nation to create as much conflict as possible within the nation to give it more flavor

by **Vocenae** » Tue Aug 16, 2016 9:48 pm

NO YOU CAN'T MAKE ME CHOOSE

But yeah, I myself am a very 'visual' worldbuilder. I get an idea, or associate the idea with something I may have seen or read about at some point in the past, and I create a mental image around it. I've often sort of thought of it in terms of a painting. You create the first go around with broad strokes that cover many topics, then you refine into a 'Bob Ross' painting, and then from there you just continually add detail work. As I've and others have said, you're never really going to ever be finished with what you create.

And, as I've said many times before, I always build from the viewpoint of whatever I'm making is a Setting, not as a fully functioning nation.

Aesthetic. Since most know I'm a fan of the Clunky aesthetic I tend to focus on filling the world with things that fit to the utilitarian vibe first, and then expand outward from that. Typically the next thing I'll focus on is the type of world I want my people to live on (because entirely space based habitation is an extinction event waiting to happen). So I have my clunky aesthetic, and I prefer cold, rugged worlds. So now I have a utilitarian looking society nestled at the base of some towering snowcapped mountain looking out over a snowy highland/tundra.

So, utilitarian and a harsh world means that these people don't exactly focus on the luxuries of life. They live in a demanding environment that requires strength, skill and resourcefulness to survive. That means these people are tough, practical and most likely have a hard edge. That defines their personality, and by extension, it lays out the groundwork for how to build their culture, which, for the sake of brevity, let's say they're Vikings but instead of boats, they had arctic horses.

So by working from the aesthetic of my spaceships and planets, I've already got a basic starting point concept that I can develop further by exploring the various options the setting gives me. I can explore any potential differences that VIKINGS IN SPACE give me. I can expand upon the wildlife, the geography of the planet, I can explore how they might adapt their rank structure and become similar to, say, Rohan. By pulling in Rohan, I suddenly want to change the 'utilitarian city at the foot of a mountain' into 'utilitarian city built ON the mountain'. Do I want to include some sort of reverence to ancient traditions and locations? Suddenly my utilitarian buildings can resemble castles, or I can simply have it be part of their culture to make sure ancient places are preserved and still possibly used. What happens when these Vikings get to another habitable planet and start colonizing? Is it a more easily survivable world? Maybe tropical? IF so, what do the people of that planet look like, along with their aesthetic? How would the Vikings respond? Do they have an honor code or do they just kill everything and loot and pillage? Maybe they want to just conquer and subjugate but not outright eliminate. So now you bring in another social-political aspect and how they affect the Vikings. Maybe they don't have the resources to establish a full fledged colony, so they just take over and inhabit these Tropican buildings, which are more curved. What if the Vikings had to make do with what they brought into the invasion? What if they didn't bring any builders or lost the builders? Suddenly the Vikings have to use the Tropicans to build more things, which will inevitably have a Tropican slant to it.

Suddenly more blocky but still somewhat sleek buildings are taking over the skyline. Suddenly Vignar of House Riverbear finds himself falling for the exotic beauty of Trishka Sandshell. Suddenly you've got a little baby that has Viking and Tropican traits. That raises all sorts of it's own questions that lead to more worldbuilding, how this new person looks, how he sees the world, how does the world see him, does Vignar want him dead? Does Vignar's people want him dead for being alien? Do they just ignore him? What of his mother's people? Do they see him as filthy because he has the blood on the enslavers in him? Or do they just love him because he's part Tropican?

At this point we've drifted away from pure aesthetic and into full blown social, cultural and political land, as well as going heavy into the character aspect. What makes all these things tick, who leads who, who loves who, how does [x] feel about [y], is this a short term thing of interbreeding because Vikings have needs or does it become a full blown intermingling and creation of a whole new ethnicity? How do the old bloodlines adapt to the rise of the new, 'melting pot' generation? Does this new generation favor the culture of one side or the other, or has it mixed to create something entirely new?

So yeah. TLDR I start with a set of base visuals that I constantly expand upon via introducing new visuals into the concept. Broad strokes of the paintbrush, create the rough picture. Then add in your happy little trees and further details. Create a fuller picture. Then, keep adding in more detail. That is how I worldbuild.

by **The United Dominion** » Tue Aug 16, 2016 10:10 pm

God, this is a hard question. I bounce between everything. I start with biology (always think about the biology and its implications), but beyond that, I think I normally cover oddball subjects almost exclusively, and get the more general information that people actually need to know as an extension of those.

With the ixee, everything came from "an alien with tentacles inside its mouth." That turned into biological requirements (how do they eat? Hunt? Procreate?). Eating, hunting, and procreation turned into their cuisine, how they move in both water and on land, and how they raise their young. That turned into how their society/government is structured, how they fight, and how their familial structures operate.

The grander view ended up being communal living, massive amounts of manpower, and having creches where children are raised with no knowledge of who their specific parents are. All of those needed to be specified, clarified, broken down into specific life experiences and real-world applications. Then there were the exceptions to all the stereotypes that had been created by the grand view. The exceptions are the most interesting (they're where all the ixee spies and assassins come from), and their life experiences are what really give flavor to every corner of ixeedom. You have the "general idea" of ixee, but that's like saying "humans are like X, Y, and a little Z." Come on, we know that doesn't actually fit anyone in particular - it's just a general idea.

So, uh, after that bit of a tangent, I guess I'd have to say biology.

I guess that's why I don't play FT humans.

by **The Fedral Union** » Wed Aug 17, 2016 12:07 am

Indeed, I am somewhat similar to Santh in that respect. I work on things a little at a time however there are some aspects such as technological development, and culture that can sometimes be intertwined. After all I can design and work out how a bit of tech works but what will such an invention do to my cultural and social order?

I don't think I can give a straight answer, my nation is a complex collection of many cultures, species, belief systems, an ideals under a republican system of government. And with nearly instant FTL communications at our fingertips cultural landscapes, politics and even social landscapes seem to every change and shift.

There are of course some recognizable things that would always remain that I often reference or show in my posts, but otherwise I tend to make my nation a continuing story with everything subject to change under the right conditions and new bits and bobs added on in each thread I post in.

So in a sense I flesh things out whilst I rp if that makes sense.

by **Nyte** » Wed Aug 17, 2016 1:05 am

It seems I missed all the action (thanks Duquesne Light for 6+ hours of not having power), its been a while since I've seen so many posts in one day here...

Anyway, as some people may or may not know, I originally joined NS roleplaying to vent some of my frustration in a productive manner. So in answer to the above question, I'd say that if I had to choose, I'd choose my military (which is probably why I keep changing and updating it over and over again). I enjoy figuring out tactics, strategy, and even the logistics to a degree when I can (time really is not on my side thanks to real life issues).

Speaking of, one thing I've never quite understood is peoples reliance of modern methodologies and ideas when it comes to things in FT. I can understand that people want to use what they know and are familiar with, but any one who is at least passingly familiar with history should know how fast things change; especially militarily (simply look at the differences in WW1 to WW2 for example). I'd love to see more variety in that regard; even if it may mean more suspension of belief in the end, I think it would be worth it overall for FT in general even if it might mean people having to put in a bit more work to get there. any one else have an opinion on this cause now I'm kinda' curious to know other opinions?

by **Genomita** » Wed Aug 17, 2016 5:55 am

Thank you very much for asking this question, I was hoping it would come up some time. If I had to choose one it would have to be culture closely followed by biology, particularily the myriad ways a species' biology and learned behaviour can influence their culture and technology. Technology often influences culture as well (though the two rarely seem to develop at the same pace. One of my favorite parts of FT is designing unusual yet hopefully still believable alien species, then figure out why they can do what they do and how it influenced their society. And as my nation is a multispecies society I have a lot of room to work with, both in regards to details of the different member species and how it all comes together.

Embassy · by **Lubyak** » Wed Aug 17, 2016 8:03 am

I think my answer would be 'institutions'. Less politics, as that's the game that ends up played between the institutions of government, but rather the institutional backdrop itself. I really enjoy writing about the interwoven web of relationships and power that make up the government of a state, and figure out where the pressure points are. Which bodies are institutionally pre-disposed to conflicting with one another? What does each institution end up wanting and how does it use its power to press its interests? From there, I feel I can really develop things within the political and miltiary sphere by giving characters who personify these institutional conflicts and their clashes with one another, and how that manifests into both domestic and foreign policy.

by **SquareDisc City** » Wed Aug 17, 2016 10:33 am

For me, possibly the geography. I've put a fair bit of work into my various maps, and done them for other RPing groups and settings too. I like sitting down with QGIS or whatever and just working on something.

Perhaps ironically, I've learned especially from some somewhat unsuccessful RPs just how unimportant maps are really. But still I'm going to want one and want to try and do a half-decent job.

by **Kyrusia** » Wed Aug 17, 2016 4:11 pm

Actually, this is pretty great. I know (and I say this because I'm guilty of it a bit, as well) sometimes folks tend to sort of forget that, "Hey. Planets are big. Planets have a lot of variety and diversity in geography, biomes, habitats, etc." I think this is a pretty common trope - the "Single Biome/Monolithic Planet" - in science-fiction, though, not just unique to FT. It's something I think folks should really think about... and nice to see that I'm not the only map nerd.

by **Cerillium** » Wed Aug 17, 2016 5:03 pm

You have time to sit down and clear your head?

I'm drawn towards language and body communication, and this ties in with evolutionary progression of a species within their environment, and thus the cultures found on a world.

by **The Fedral Union** » Wed Aug 17, 2016 5:37 pm

Well, if the planet did bare life originally or if your species evolved on it this is certainly true. However, what if a world was terraformed from a barren rock? If there was no native fauna of course then who ever is settling the world will bring their own. If there is what ever could be used would be incorporated in to the process.

That said even Terraformed worlds will start deviating from their original stock after some time.

by **Northwest Slobovia** » Wed Aug 17, 2016 6:33 pm

Biomes are not optional.

The tops of mountains, especially inland and at high latitudes, will have more variability in temperature, precipitation, and day-length than the coasts of tropical seas. Different things will survive in each of those places.

Now, I'm skeptical of terraforming in "real time" because of the scales of time and mass required, but let's leave that aside for now. (I mention it out of intellectual honesty: I think even with the usual handwavium thrown around NS FT RP, terraforming a planet would take thousands of years at the very least.) But say some FT society has terraformed a planet so it's marginally habitable for people and animals. So, we have some sort of breathable atmosphere, plants in water and on land, and a stable biochemical cycle that keeps nutrients in play.

None of that requires establishing plants everywhere on the planet. One could, for example, just plant grass. That'll leave lots of places where grass can't grow, and more places where it grows in patches. Look! We've just made biomes! Even before the people and their animals move in, the microbial communities are different in all three places, and the grass will be evolving to adapt to local conditions.

Add animals; cattle for instance. They need water (lots of it) and they alter the biochemical cycles something fierce. Be careful not to step in the new biochemistry.

Cows can't live everywhere; in fact, depending on which breed(s) are introduced, it may be only small areas of the planets. More biomes: (grass, some grass, no grass) X (cows, some cows, no cows). Pasture lots of cattle in a small area, you get eutrophication of the nearby water. More biomes.

Some of these effects may not be obvious for decades, but unless the planet is a very new colony, they'll be there. If it's an "established" colony, biomes will be plain even just with the handful of species and breeds I've mentioned. Start with more species of plants and animals, and the different biomes will be apparent (and much more dramatic) in shorter periods of time.

by **Genomita** » Wed Aug 17, 2016 11:29 pm

Indeed. My people are generally opposed to terraforming as it runs the risk of wiping out indigenous life, something my people would rather avoid. Instead they prefer to adapt their bodies to the conditions of the world through a combination of bio-augmentation and genetic engineering so they can breathe the air, eat the native plants and animals etc. They also prefer to settle on worlds that are actually a challenge to survive on, as they believe doing so makes them stronger as a whole.

Couple that with wbat Voc said earlier and you get some interesting variations of the species that make up my nation, both biologically and culturally.

Now for the actual reason for my reply, I'd like to hear your input on an aspect of spaceship design. A few pages back I've established that my combat vessels are designed for hit and run from my gate network. They would be equipped with powerful sublight engines to zip past enemy fire and with precision-guided missile banks aligned more to the sides or the back of the ship. Now, I've been wondering if it wouldn't be more fitting and weight-efficient to have my smaller vessels such as scout ships attatched to the hull instead of stored within a hangar bay. I don't have space fighters, but my smaller ships could still add their sensors and firepower to that of the ship carrying them while benefiting (and adding to) the ship's point defense (and in the case of newer ships, shield systems).

Of course, I know they would still need ways to refuel, rearm and repair the ship, which poses it's own challenges.

by **The Fedral Union** » Thu Aug 18, 2016 7:12 am

To be honest I doubt many players are going to make threads dedicated to terraform a world, while yes it can take a while that sort of stuff can be written historically or in a fact book. Or if you wish in the background. Unless the world being terraformed is contested/a major plot point in some stories.

We have to remember in future tech time is fluid in most cases, or indeed variable, so I can reasonably see some folks having worlds they terraformed ages ago as well established since there is no hard date set generally in FT (several of my planets are indeed like this) . So long as one keeps the time it took vague people can fill in the blank. Because how long it took is not really important unless a certain set of criteria are met.

by **SquareDisc City** » Thu Aug 18, 2016 7:59 am

On "biomes", I think there are situations in which a "single-biome planet" is justifiable. Firstly if the whole world is utterly inhospitable to your species. For example Pluto has lows of 33 Kelvin and highs of 55, as well as considerably varied topography - but it's still a "single-biome" supercryogenic iceball as far as humans are concerned. Secondly, even a hospitable planet full of life might be "single-biome" in some cases. Very subdued topography and a lack of climatic variation could contribute to that. There also might be cases that are a bit of both. A forest moon could well have a wide variety of different plants in different places, but at first glance in the eyes of a species used to more open spaces it's still a forest moon.

On a spacecraft carrying 'fighters' and similar externally, it's something I've employed in the past. I'd say some scenarios favour it, others discourage it. For example if the mothership has strong shields protecting it, does not routinely carry small ships along (it's more of an ad-hoc thing), will not usually be trying to repair those ships in the middle of a fight, and the small ships have weapons capable enough to be useful. On the other hand if the mothership is protected mostly by its armour, is nearly always carrying a complement of smaller ships, often needs to fix them while still engaged in battle, and has weapons that vastly outclass anything a "fighter" or "scout" might have, then all that favours putting the small ships in an internal hangar.

Yet another option is that the scouts and other accompanying ships travel under their own power but can do underway refuelling by some means to extend their range.

by **Maljaratas** » Thu Aug 18, 2016 8:43 am

My favorite thing to to in general is simply big-picture stuff for how it all works together. Therefore, All-of-the-above big picture stuff.

If I had to choose one, my favorite thing to world-build is uniqueness. This is especially important since I don't like carbon-copying stuff. Then I have to make it role-playable (in the sense of it can be beat, etc. See my puppet Thinking Machines for somewhere were this didn't happen).

Tldr or whatever, I like big-picture creation and making stuff unique

by **The Fedral Union** » Thu Aug 18, 2016 9:53 am

Depends on how large the mother ships are. I'm pretty sure you can fit a fair number of craft on your ships if you have enough volume to spare. , I assume your going to recess them in the hull?

In-fact I did a calculation a while back of how much volume one of my Corvettes would take up. Then I calculated the total available volume on various ships.

For example one of my strike cruisers has the dimensions of 690 meters x 320 meters x 100 meters giving it a total volume of 22,080,000 M^3

My corvettes dimensions are 150 meters x 30 meters x 15 meters giving one a total volume of 67,500 M^3

Now if my strike cruiser carried 20, the total volume taken up by those corvettes would equal 1,350,000 M^3.

(Note this is Internal volume*)

In conclusion if it fits your doctrine to have decently sized craft with the capability of small escorts (I wont use the term frigate or such here because that definition changes with nations) in reasonable numbers, plus you get a whole lot more out of them in terms of role.

Future Tech Advice and Assistance Thread [O.O.C.]

Who is online