|
Post by theexecuter on Apr 30, 2017 0:12:50 GMT -6
1) This is an interactive AAR. It requires a lot more work than a normal AAR. but substantially more work for the participants - designing the ship itself is like 5 minutes. than comes testing the designs. revisions. proofing another concept. figuring out how the game works. checking others' designs. interacting with others on the foras. i'd say each design round i spend 4-6 hours. hmmm. reasons for these... allegations? or is it just mindless babbling. i am questioningdisbelieving the host's motive, in judging others' work. nothing more nothing less. now if i were a casual outside reader certainly the best is to stay outta this. but i have been this far quite involved. but i somehow see this has become pointless bickering. to re-iterate, the info i got i displayed to you - i thought you should know: "I'm still kinda surprised this got as much crowd as it did. I kinda guess they're humoring me, but I'm planning on being a **** and milking them for all they're worth anyway ... " how YOU take it, certainly at the end of day is your business. evidently i don't take it that well. but it is up to you. Four to six hours? Why? My allegations are your tantrum in this thread because you felt demeaned when the author took this game less seriously than you did. To put this in another way. "We sitting in here -- We're supposed to be having fun, and we in here talking about a game. I mean, listen: We talking about a game. Not real life. Not real life. Not real life. We talking about a game. Not real life. Not the real life that I go out there and die for and work every day like it's my last. Not real life. We talking about a game, man."
|
|
|
Post by theexecuter on Apr 30, 2017 0:08:17 GMT -6
theexecuter : I really don't even know if I should close it right now. With such an overwhelming positive response as I've gotten ... Actually, let's do it this way: I'm putting up the continuance of this forum game to the vote! All currently registered Designers (except skwabie, of course - I'm counting his vote as automatic Nay) have until 06:00 (GMT) on May 2nd to submit their vote (Yay or Nay) on the issue: Will this forum game continue on (with me as Admiralty) or not. (obviously, I'll create a new thread to continue - this one's too toxic - unless you disagree.) The result will be passed by the majority vote. Thank you. Yay. Continue with only you as Admiralty, please.
|
|
|
Post by theexecuter on Apr 29, 2017 22:48:35 GMT -6
You do realize that's how these threads work, don't you? It's mostly about the author and the story he wants to tell. To put it into RPG terms, he is the game master. You, the player, don't get to determine the rules of the game. So stop trying. I'll even broaden the field of this discussion. Anytime an author puts out a work on this forum, he is expending a large amount of effort and time gratis, for someone else's enjoyment. The least we can do is let him know, through our engagement and interaction, that we enjoy his work. That ego feeding is a GOOD THING. It keeps forums like these alive and keeps new and interesting stories being told. If you don't like this story, be silent. Silence is the worst response to a story in this format. if this is a straight up AAR then certainly yes, but this involves significant effort from everybody involved. it is far from a simple thank you good job nice read. and, maybe you're getting enjoyment outta the AAR part, but i'd say there are far more better AARs in this forum. in this case the AAR is written by everyone involved in the game, for non-participants of the game to read. - however given the low activity on this forum, in a way this has become a simple framework for one forum member to gather other members' work (edit: which is why the designers can be "milked", now), and judge them. the game host puts in the most work, ofc, but that doesn't give anybody the right to judge others' without a good enough reason. everyone is putting time in for the good of the game, without material returns as you mentioned. - now, if the game host is aware of this and tries to avoid the problem that's all great. again, what's happening here is the opposite case. 1) This is an interactive AAR. It requires a lot more work than a normal AAR. 2) Our effort is a lot less than his. I only put about 30 minutes of thought into each round. He put more work than that into writing up and posting the results. The thought process required to come up with an attractive game and to execute on time is even more daunting. 3) You have the audacity to insult someones work to their face? No one forces you to participate in every story. If you don't like it. Go read someone else's. Don't ruin it for people who DO like it. 4) In case you haven't noticed. Our work is worthless. This isn't a multiplayer game. No one is gaining advantage by seeing our designs. No one is injured by being shown that others have cooler, better design ideas. THIS IS A GAME that we play for FUN. 5) The author stated that he would be the sole judge of our designs. We agreed implicitly by joining the game to submit to this structure. He can and should be judging our work. 6) This story is not about you. It isn't for your glory. You have behaved quite poorly in forcing it's closure.
|
|
|
Post by theexecuter on Apr 29, 2017 21:48:32 GMT -6
Yup. We still want to continue. Because it is fun. Because losing isn't a big deal. Because the points are made up...and the scores don't matter. No one is going to die if our designs suck. No one is going to go hungry because the Naval Board didn't pick their design. If the host doesn't want to continue because he isn't having fun, that's fine. If I want to continue because I'm having fun, that's on me. nobody really cares about the points or whatever. note i was the 1st to reply in this thread and personally i really think it is good initiative. however, the side effect of this game is the host is put on a pedestal and pandered to his personal preferences by all others. if the game host is humble and modest (with good logical thinking) that's great, he tries to delete this side effect, in the spirit of a good nice game. - but in this case it is not but the opposite. you can certainly continue if you enjoy feeding someone else's ego on an internet forum no less. or if you see it another way or don't care that is ofc your right. for me i am shocked and disgusted. good luck. You do realize that's how these threads work, don't you? It's mostly about the author and the story he wants to tell. To put it into RPG terms, he is the game master. You, the player, don't get to determine the rules of the game. So stop trying. I'll even broaden the field of this discussion. Anytime an author puts out a work on this forum, he is expending a large amount of effort and time gratis, for someone else's enjoyment. The least we can do is let him know, through our engagement and interaction, that we enjoy his work. That ego feeding is a GOOD THING. It keeps forums like these alive and keeps new and interesting stories being told. If you don't like this story, be silent. Silence is the worst response to a story in this format.
|
|
|
Post by theexecuter on Apr 29, 2017 21:02:36 GMT -6
skwabie you rules lawyering **** people were having fun and enjoying his casual approach. And now you have killed it. Incidentally the point of a pm is that it is private. the game host thinks he is **** (whatever dirty word being censored but guess, same to urs btw) about this and is "milking" you. he even admits this being a mind game to begin with. and you STILL wanna continue? casual approach. you're being taken advantage of and still able to remain casual. wow. Yup. We still want to continue. Because it is fun. Because losing isn't a big deal. Because the points are made up...and the scores don't matter. No one is going to die if our designs suck. No one is going to go hungry because the Naval Board didn't pick their design. If the host doesn't want to continue because he isn't having fun, that's fine. If I want to continue because I'm having fun, that's on me.
|
|
|
Post by theexecuter on Apr 29, 2017 15:58:54 GMT -6
We could start our own version of this...
It's a good idea.
|
|
|
Post by theexecuter on Apr 29, 2017 14:07:17 GMT -6
I'm confused...
For me this was like 'Whose Line is it Anyway'. The points are made up and the score doesn't matter.
I'm having fun.
If people don't want to have fun with it...then I guess it's over.
|
|
|
Post by theexecuter on Apr 28, 2017 18:55:35 GMT -6
I need to subscribe to this!
|
|
|
Post by theexecuter on Apr 28, 2017 10:46:34 GMT -6
srndacfuli guess that CL 1v1 made you change your mind about budget ships opting instead for tactical prowess. after our big ships are always passed over we were under the impression that our ships were too expensive. early CL fights are like this you can empty entire ammo loads without sinking the other guy. now if we could re-open the production lines of our 1900 8k ton CL in the 1st round designed just to counter this. looking at other CLs 3 were wasted on lower specs and only 2 to choose from. if only the navy has given out a clearer design goal. bah. this is another protest! Ah, the vagaries of the naval board and contracting. I'm glad I entered a budget ship. My entry for an expensive cruiser likely wouldn't have beaten the winning design.
|
|
|
Post by theexecuter on Apr 27, 2017 17:17:37 GMT -6
I was actually thinking of blowing the PC up to the full 8k limit, not sure on it tho Somebody has to offer the expensive design... I didn't know you could put 7 in guns on an CL...
|
|
|
Post by theexecuter on Apr 26, 2017 21:55:10 GMT -6
Hopefully we can avoid having designers go under...
Though I'll be without access to the game for a few days next week because of work travel.
|
|
|
Post by theexecuter on Apr 25, 2017 20:11:42 GMT -6
1903 CL Design: 5700 tons Medium Range Speed: 24 knots Armament: 8x6 inch guns - two forward and aft, four gun broadside Cost: $1,138,000 per month Build Time: 20 months 1903 DD Design: 600 tons Medium range Speed: 29 knots Guns: 3x4 in Torpedoes: 2 centerline swivel mounts Cost: $233,000 per month Build Time: 9 months
|
|
|
Post by theexecuter on Apr 23, 2017 21:53:04 GMT -6
Don't take my comment wrong. I like the imperfect information angle. It's very realistic. I was just pointing out that you had a specification on cost (which you used to disqualify designs) which you did not publicize. If cost was important (and your choice suggests it was), then why didn't you share that to the designers? That requirement would have been reflected in the designs and given you a better set of options. Alternatively, if cost was a secondary consideration to narrow down your choices...Then I've misread your comment in the award post and will just move on. & skwabie , as well: At the end of the eliminations round I still had 4 Designs left (including both of yours) - each one with a good and a bad side. I had to pick one somehow - and having an actual reason for it (even though inscrutable) seemed better than just rolling a dice ... boomboomf22 (and all the other Designers) Of course, any winner can post their Design's Picture and I'll put them in. Ah, I misread the comment then. As before, I'm looking forward to seeing these designs in action... ...and of course the next design challenge.
|
|
|
Post by theexecuter on Apr 23, 2017 13:05:00 GMT -6
Congratulations to the winners! Too bad the board didn't share their cruiser cost specification with the designers... I once read somewhere that the best deal is the one that leaves both sides unhappy. So: some sacrifices must be made. (Man, does that sound corny or what?) I can see how this must be frustrating for you: you're, basically, Designing blind with a handful of hints scattered about to show you the way. But, at the same time, in this short while, I've seen tons of Designs in here that made me go: "man, if they only changed that one little part ...". Again, if anyone wishes to take over this game as Admiralty, I'll gladly send the files over & take up some Designing. (i.e.I'd like this to continue one way or another, if at all possible) Don't take my comment wrong. I like the imperfect information angle. It's very realistic. I was just pointing out that you had a specification on cost (which you used to disqualify designs) which you did not publicize. If cost was important (and your choice suggests it was), then why didn't you share that to the designers? That requirement would have been reflected in the designs and given you a better set of options. Alternatively, if cost was a secondary consideration to narrow down your choices...Then I've misread your comment in the award post and will just move on.
|
|
|
Post by theexecuter on Apr 23, 2017 7:38:28 GMT -6
Congratulations to the winners!
Too bad the board didn't share their cruiser cost specification with the designers...
|
|