hiver
To put simply, internal consistency, logic, and integration and scientific accuracy are two very different things.
HAHAHAHA!
Look... this is what is called cognitive dissonance. Youre suffering from a particular nasty case.
You are incapable to understand what science actually means.
The theory of cognitive dissonance in social psychology proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by altering existing cognitions, adding new ones to create a consistent belief system, or alternatively by reducing the importance of any one of the dissonant elements.[1]
An example of this would be the conflict between wanting to smoke and knowing that smoking is unhealthy; a person may try to change their feelings about the odds that they will actually suffer the consequences, or they might add the consonant element that the short term benefits of smoking outweigh the long term harm.
The need to avoid cognitive dissonance may bias one towards a certain decision even though other factors favour an alternative.
Cognitive dissonance theory warns that people have a bias to seek consonance among their cognitions. According to Festinger, we engage in a process he termed "dissonance reduction", which he said could be achieved in one of three ways: lowering the importance of one of the discordant factors, adding consonant elements, or changing one of the dissonant factors. This bias gives the theory its predictive power, shedding light on otherwise puzzling, irrational, and even destructive behavior.
Not only are those two not different things at all, but they are actually ONE same thing.
Science IS the mother of all consistency, logic and rational or reasonable thinking or behavior.
Because, science is not numbers, or math, or biology - in the sense you see it. And you see it as a boring school subject somebody is bothering you with.
Science is primarily discovery of reality.
The various scientific disciplines are consequences of that process.
Science discovers what is true.
And because things it discovers are true - they always work, regardless if that particular branch of science discovered every single detail of that whole area.
Newton mechanics work just the same today as they worked hundreds of years ago.
The real reason i posted those threads from IronTowers and links to them, was not to make a simplistic equation in the sense that you of course saw it.
It was to point out that you yourself used scientific approach, thinking, common sense and logic when thinking about improvement to a whole genre built primarily on pulpy, crazy, fantasy ideas.
Yes Vince, what you did there is science, because thats what it fucking IS.
Let's go back to magic. If magic exists in the game and is available to many, it should be properly integrated into the setting. A mage shouldn't use his abilities exclusively to kill monsters.
Integration into the setting is DONE BY LOGICAL THINKING; CORRECT ESTIMATIONS ON AFFECTS OF SPECIFIC MAGIC OR TECHNOLOGY OR EVEN A GADGET - and to be CORRECT they need to be thought about in realistic, logical manner i.e. REALITY AS WE KNOW IT - I:E: SCIENCE!!!!!
Whether or not it's scientifically possible to conjure fireballs out of thin air or discharge them from your fingers is irrelevant.
You see... no actual scientist would even try to come up with scientific explanation for such gimmicks. The only one who thinks in these terms here ARE YOU.
THE SALES MANAGER WITH NO SCIENTIFIC BACKGROUND OR EDUCATION.
The one who would rather have campy, nonsense ridden, noncoherent settings based on stupid gimmicks invented by uneducated idiots basing their knowledge and logic on wikipedia and google.
The one who would rather waste his brains trying to find realistic "explanations" for magic or spells or specific sci-fi pulp conventions - which cannot be done except by lying and inventing stupid shit that doesnt really work or make sense -
- RATHER THEN USE LOGIC, REASON; KNOWLEDGE AND FACTS to MAKE A FANTASTIC SETTING MORE COHERENT, INTERNALLY CONSISTENT and FULLER.
A SALES MANAGER. ECONOMSIT. AND A GAME DESIGNER.
GEE I THINK WE ALL SHOULD LISTEN TO YOU WHEN IT COMES TO SCIENCE!!!!
You don't need a scientist to integrate magic into the setting (any DnD geek worth his salt can do it), but you need one if you want to explain spellcasting scientifically, which isn't needed.
Another completely foolish and nonsensical statement that actually only reflects your view of what science should be doing or will be doing.
- Wasteland has an established and already unrealistic setting elements.
Which will be kept as core elements and built upon - not converted into what you imagine are more realistic and boring versions.
- Fargo already changed a more or less realistic tank-looking Scorpitron into an unrealistic (but very cool) scorpion-looking Scorpitron, trading realistic but boring for unrealistic but cool.
Says who? You?
i can see from further replies you know your shit when it comes to tanks technology and military use and stuff.
- The scientists said that creatures is one of their tasks. The problem with science! approved creatures is that there is no real data that shows wild mutations. Chernobyl didn't produce anything "interesting" and neither did other hotspots. No ghouls, no ran angels, no tentacle monsters, no giant rats and insects. Reality is boring, unfortunately. So, either the scientists will make shit up, which will be no different than what concept artists do (who know better what games need and what works), or they will stick with reality, which like I said, wouldn't bring anything interesting to the table.
Another example of what an uneducated SALESMAN thinks about science and reality.
With added "it wont bring anything interesting to the table - because i say so".
How do you know it "won't bring anything interesting to the table"? You don't know anything about the game!
cognitive dissonance precognition.
No, it's not just different. It's unrealistic. You want realism - look at Mar's rover. If you read military articles, you'll see that future tanks are moving toward large wheels or a mix of wheels and tracks. Legs are easy to cripple, same goes for the scorpion's tail, btw.
HAHAHAH!
Mars rover was built for Mars.
It is not a tank or military machine.
Future tanks are moving where? You mean those designs based on old tech? You mean - for now?
Large, tank-like spider bots that dwarf humans are wacky nonsense.
Says the salesman...
!!!
Why would legs be easy to cripple btw? What makes them easy to cripple?
The fact they would be designed by a salesman who has no idea what engineering design is or who never heard of armor?
Dito for the tail.
I mean,... you obviously have no fucking idea about what youre talking about but let me just point out this, the old russian t-72 and its further improved versions like M-84 tank was capable of automatic targeting of a source of a anti-tenk missile attack and fire at it without any input from the crew - in less than a second.
You have any fucking idea what its like to attack something that can react like that?
Something made out of 30 tonnes of steal and armor, that shoots back with an artillery shell?
And that tank is an old can now.
You do it by sending at least three men against it - which all need to be volunteers basically since its more than likely at least one will be killed. They attack it from three sides at once, which needs to be very precisely coordinated and hope the cover they dive behind after firing at the tank will keep a tank artillery shell from blowing them to pieces. - it is not certain that you will manage to hit it in a way that will disable it btw - because you need to hit exact weak spots.
Other way you can do it is to blow up its tracks so its left behind the rest of its supporting forces - and then talk the crew into surrendering. (usually by threatening the sunovabitches with burning them alive)
Which of course is much easier to say than do.
About which - you know shit about.
Now imagine boston dynamic tech in advanced form. A Mech weighing as a tank, armored as a tank, with insane capabilities of moving, spinning, turning, able to go over any terrain at all at enormous speed or climb over any obstacle - armed with those weapons and surely capable of using any attack on itself as target tracking.
(because if old russian tanks could do it 30 years ago....)
Even if you manage to take out one leg... wont make much of a difference except making you a target - and then dead. Because it has five more - unlike a tank who is stopped in its - tracks, when you blow up one of them.
Even if you manage to damage its tail.... it can still target you, shoot your brains out, or charge at you and simply erase you mechanically.
Or, thats what it should be able to do if the design and concept of it is keeping to what we actually know about "how things work", reality, common sense and setting internal consistency.
In Wasteland setting - scorpitron as it is presented now makes more sense then the original version who was based on old tech, and constrained, limited view of technology, its direction, possible capabilities or how would those work in the setting where they are, supposedly, real.
Tracks are much harder to hit and damage than leg joints (especially with small gun fire).
Err.... excuse me?
Are you completely out of your mothrfucking mind?
Small gun fire?
AHAHAHAHAHA!
There is a reason why there are many conflicting theories on the possible alien life forms. The reason is simple - we don't know. We don't even know how exactly we evolved or what monkeys we've evolved from (see the missing link in human evolution) and why.
No dumbass, its not because WE DONT KNOW but BECAUSE WE KNOW!
WE KNOW that life can take many different forms based on several different types of chemistry and that it evolves constrained by its surroundings and their properties. We know that possibilities are huge - and thats why you cannot fucking come up with single alien form!!!
WE DIDNT EVOLVE FROM THE MONKEYS! EVOLUTION DOES NOT CLAIM THAT!
We and the monkey came from a common ancestor. We diverged into two separate species.
And we all evolved from even further creatures all the motherfucking line down to first oxygen breathing bacteria.
And didnt you hear about that stuff called DNA?
Mitochondrial Eve?
Its all on wikipedia and Google!
the problem is that
you lack the ability to connect it all in logically coherent and internally consistent manner!
For example - it is science itself that claims that the so called "missing link" is not yet found - because they havent found it yet!
That does not mean that what they did find and things the science and experiments confirm are not rue!
To Anyone but people with serious cognitive dissonance - which take that missing link as some sort of idiotic proof that science doesnt work!!!!!
And that we know nothing about evolution or reality - which is boring!
Despite being given several TED representations showing diversity and richness of current science advances.
Despite usually checking TED shows personally, despite wikipedia and google.
Well designed creatures bring variety, not biologically plausible ones.
Google "animals", google, bacteria, google viruses, google deep sea creatures, google insects, google birds, dinosaurs, pets, parasites, symbiots, fish, molluscs, corals, snails, snakes and reptiles...
Do you need scientific knowledge to build up a realistic world? After all, we aren't talking about a simulation here, but a world that makes sense.
Making sense - versus - science !
According to a salesman and marketing manager!
