Bay 12 Games Forum

20,000 citizens? God, think about the FPS!

Call me biased, but I would rather trust my life to a human than autopilot any day.
Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins went to the moon with the computing power of a modern SMARTPHONE. The Apollo program had 1 major failure (Apollo 13) and no casualties. HUMANS CAN IMPROVISE.

They'd improvise with the manual override button, which has been brought up time and time again.
Call me pragmatic, but I would rather trust my life to a well-programmed autopilot once we get into space. Computers have problems with groundhogs' roads, what with their changeableness and how no one's really tried, but nothing beats a computer in lightning-fast ballistic calculations and keeping an eternally vigilant eye out for the one-in-a-trillion chance of a notable collision.

As for the person who put arse naked in the poll: seriously? In the bay12 forums? You might have well put a 'this poll is stupid' option.

Motion seconded, motion carried.

I propose that for our starting ventures (I.e. the lunar resort) we call ourselves Twelfth Bay Enterprises.
Before we declare independence.

Afterwards?

why do we need humans at all , if the autopilot is so good , why don't we make robots and send them instead of us .

Humans are needed for some things. For instance, making sure the robots don't hijack our take-over-the-world plans and create a robocracy.

i agree that autopilot cannot improvise , it only follows to what the programmer has programmed in it , unlike human it cannot think more than it has programmed and if it gets something really unexpected (a thing that the programmer didn't think of) like black hole in its path , it might say there is unidentified object , but it has no idea what to do .

Again, manual override. Also, I give it a better shot that the US government will give us a space-capable F-15 plane and tell us to settle Mars with it than us running into a black hole, ever.

humans are natural super computers .

Most of our natural processing power is "wasted" on such things as emotions and preventing our bodies from not working. And it's badly designed to begin with, thanks to how evolution works.

Mh, we could just place those bros in a extra security cell that can only be opened by the AI. If it is opened in another way, doors close off the corridor and it is filled with helium, so they suffocate in a high-pitched death.

Or, just put them into some kind of oubliette. If the AI doesn't extend the ladder, no one escapes the smooth and inward-curved pit of DOOM!, for instance. Then we can figure out what to do with them.
Or, just institute a standard kind of execution. Maybe five, if we want to let them choose.
Firing squad, electric chair, lethal injection, spaced, old age. Anyone picking the last option will be informed after they turn in the form that "Old Age" is the name of my newest pet project.

But yeah - a three strike rule. Your third proposal is rejected, and off to the woodchipper you go.

Great, now I need to name a pet project "Woodchipper."

You know guys, death sentences are something barbaric. Why don't we try out alternative sentences, like reeducation(I'm certain the mad science guys can help here), forced labour or if nessecery, expulsion (Note: rocket back to Earth will not be provided,)

Reeducation might be possible. Forced labor could be useful, if we kept them from sabotaging or stealing stuff. Exile? Nah, we'd be better off killing them. We don't want anyone who knows ANYTHING about our base and doesn't like us escaping to Terra, EVER. Unless "Expulsion" is the name of yet another of the pet projects you want me to make, of course.
The death penalty isn't barbaric, it's pragmatic. "We can't let this guy interact in human civilization anymore, let's see how he does in fertilizer civilization."

8 ) Turn Phobos into a giant prison, then once enough prisoners are on it shoot it into the planet of their choosing, excluding Earth and Mars.

Nah. Replace Phobos with an asteroid or a pet project called "Phobos," and you might have something.

Quote from: GreatWyrmGold on August 30, 2012, 07:25:16 pm

Alright, let me see if the most ignorant person here, insofar as material physics goes, can help: What properties would you need to settle how good adamantine would be for making bows, and would it be useful data to have for other uses of other materials?

Well, it'd need to be able to give, however slightly, without breaking. It'd also need to want to return to its original shape. So... I suppose these data points would be helpful for all materials, once armor and weapons stopped being unbreakable except by magma and atom-smasher to determine when they would be damaged or broken, right?

Technically, other things with high temperatures could destroy arms and armor...but I get your point. Do you know what those properties are called?

A few suggestions before you post more suggestions:

1. Read more on the forums, especially the suggestions subforum. You'd be amazed at how much you'd learn about good suggestions if you did.
2. Check the devlogs and planned features and stuff.
3. Search for similar suggestion threads, lest ye bring the wrath of Footkerchief down upon thine head!

Also, welcome. Come for the DF, stay for the madness.

Alright, let me see if the most ignorant person here, insofar as material physics goes, can help: What properties would you need to settle how good adamantine would be for making bows, and would it be useful data to have for other uses of other materials?

Quote

Quirky cursed items would be neat, but intentional magic should be relatively reliable, and screw-ups should have logical consequences--e.g, fireballs would set the wrong thing on fire, not turn you into a chicken.

I can come up with a logical reason for a bad fire spell turning you into a chicken. it dependson how the mechanics of the magic work. if magic is turned into fire from some stuff called mana and you can turn matter into mana and back again based on certain patterns then maybe a bad spell could shift you matter into mana and copy the pattern of a random object, in this case a chicken. The logic is nowhere near perfect, but it still makes some sense.

On the other hand if fire is just random fuel particles drawn from the atmosphere and had heat applied to it definately could not turn you into a chicken.

Wouldn't the first example be more likely to turn you mana or fire or mana that is on fire or something?

Of course I still wouldn't want to see completely random effects like that I'd still like some random. A bad fire spell might cause all the booze to explode, all the dwarves in a certain area to catch on fire for a few seasons, random dwarves spontaneously combusting, etc. they're all still based on fire, but the effects are still varied enough to make it interesting.

Agreed.

I still don't see anything wrong with being turned into a giant firebreathing chicken because you've messed up your fireball. I do like the idea that perhaps the more powerful the fireball spell, the more unusual the consequences.

Again: Why a chicken? There needs to be SOME logic. If the spell requires a chicken feather, and so does a spell that turns people into chickens, screwing up either spell might turn you into a chicken that is on fire or something. The logic needs to be there, though; a fireball should NOT  turn you into a chicken without some kind of logic being explained or plain as to why.

Planned, suggested a lot, please use the search function before you bring the wrath of Footkerchief down on us all.