Author Topic: Organic Technology vs. Computerized Automation (split)  (Read 12540 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline chrislocke2000

  • Captain
  • **********
  • c
  • Posts: 544
  • Thanked: 39 times
Organic Technology vs. Computerized Automation (split)
« Reply #15 on: April 20, 2012, 10:16:23 AM »
Ummm guys?  Does it make sense to take this (biology vs. computer discussion) to a separate thread?  If one of the main posters says "yes" I'll go ahead and tease the previous posts out....

John

Indeed, I feel another "fighters v missiles" thread coming on!

It sorat just comes down to do you want real-fi, sci-fi or sci-fantasy. Off course you can just use settings on the game set up to switch off any bits you don't like...
 

Offline bean (OP)

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • b
  • Posts: 921
  • Thanked: 58 times
Organic Technology vs. Computerized Automation (split)
« Reply #16 on: April 20, 2012, 11:01:24 AM »
Indeed, I feel another "fighters v missiles" thread coming on!

It sorat just comes down to do you want real-fi, sci-fi or sci-fantasy. Off course you can just use settings on the game set up to switch off any bits you don't like...
That does seem to be the crux of the issue.  I have no problem with sci-fantasy, but my bias is towards hard sci-fi, and when people try to pass things off as hard it bothers me quite a bit.
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman
 

Offline xeryon

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 581
Organic Technology vs. Computerized Automation (split)
« Reply #17 on: April 20, 2012, 11:09:54 AM »
...comes down to do you want real-fi, sci-fi or sci-fantasy.

This is it.  

I read through most of the article byron linked to regarding nanotech and what not and that article was great and all but it entirely missed the point: Aurora isn't real.  It is realistic, but not real life.  So what if there were technical inconsistencies in Star Trek and Babylon 5?  They were fictional stories created for entertaining the general public.   I say split the thread and the people who want to discuss the technical aspects of biotech can discuss and this thread can remain a discussion relating to Crew and staffing of spacecraft.
 

Offline Havear

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • H
  • Posts: 176
  • Thanked: 8 times
Organic Technology vs. Computerized Automation (split)
« Reply #18 on: April 20, 2012, 11:52:09 AM »
I'm in favor for a thread split.

About the Swarm, there's no definitive line on how "organic" they are. Since they're obviously constructed of TN materials, my interpretation was that the outer hull utilized TN armors, while the inner hull either used TN components suspended in a cytoplasm that carries materials, power, and smaller symbiotic organisms to adjust and repair them, or was internally wholly organic infused with TN elements to achieve needed strength.

Also, about the brain: My idea about that was differences in construction. Computers are better at crunching numbers, while human brains use what I call "pattern matching". That's why you have to practice to walk, to drive, etc. You build up a database of experiences, then compare expected actions to past events and make corrections. An example would be someone trying to lead a target in an FPS: with plenty of practice, they gain the ability to subconsciously and extremely rapidly compare the current target's speed with past targets, find a memory of a proper leading distance, match what's happening to the memory, and fire.
 

Offline bean (OP)

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • b
  • Posts: 921
  • Thanked: 58 times
Organic Technology vs. Computerized Automation (split)
« Reply #19 on: April 20, 2012, 11:54:56 AM »
This is it.  

I read through most of the article byron linked to regarding nanotech and what not and that article was great and all but it entirely missed the point: Aurora isn't real.  It is realistic, but not real life.  So what if there were technical inconsistencies in Star Trek and Babylon 5?  They were fictional stories created for entertaining the general public.   I say split the thread and the people who want to discuss the technical aspects of biotech can discuss and this thread can remain a discussion relating to Crew and staffing of spacecraft.

Claiming that Aurora isn't real so we can do whatever we want is missing the point.  I'm arguing that, from a realistic perspective, self-repairing starships don't work.  You are free to say "damn the science, full speed ahead" and I'm not going to stop you.  At the same time, if you claim that they are realistic, I will argue the point.
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman
 

Offline xeryon

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 581
Organic Technology vs. Computerized Automation (split)
« Reply #20 on: April 20, 2012, 12:26:26 PM »
I never did say it was realistic, but for the purpose of enjoyable game play concessions always need to be made.  If there were no concessions then it would be like playing an application of real life.  At that point I just turn off the computer and go outside.

In the meantime it would be nice to discuss the possibilities of biotechnology in Aurora and how it could be lobbied for in a way that could happen.  If we stuck strictly to what we know to be possible we would be without Newtonian materials, hyperdrives, no jump gates, and a host of other things wouldn't be here for us either.

I like working with possibilities and molding them to an arrangement that is as believable as can be and still retains entertainment value.

 

Offline Bgreman

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 213
  • Thanked: 2 times
Organic Technology vs. Computerized Automation (split)
« Reply #21 on: April 20, 2012, 12:38:01 PM »
I read that article about "brian bugs" (that guy is so proud of himself for re-inventing the concept of a "trope"), and it was the most smug, pedantic, and condescending thing I've ever read.  It compared enjoying pulpy, mass-market science fiction to racism.  It seems to think that all science fiction should be based only on the most solid scientific principles, which I think kind of misses the point entirely.
 

Offline Zed 6

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Z
  • Posts: 128
  • Thanked: 4 times
Organic Technology vs. Computerized Automation (split)
« Reply #22 on: April 20, 2012, 12:46:22 PM »
What's Fantasy today may be Reality tomorrow.
 

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2801
  • Thanked: 1058 times
Organic Technology vs. Computerized Automation (split)
« Reply #23 on: April 20, 2012, 04:01:18 PM »
I read that article about "brian bugs" (that guy is so proud of himself for re-inventing the concept of a "trope"), and it was the most smug, pedantic, and condescending thing I've ever read.  It compared enjoying pulpy, mass-market science fiction to racism.  It seems to think that all science fiction should be based only on the most solid scientific principles, which I think kind of misses the point entirely.
Uh, "brain bug" or "ear worm" or other similar words have been used to describe "tropes" and "cliches" and "stereotypes" for a very, very long time. I read the article and don't remember reading the part where he claims he invented either. Additionally, are you a Star Trek fan to get so worked over about?

What's Fantasy today may be Reality tomorrow.
But probably isn't. That's the beauty of science fiction - it describes a possible future as it extrapolates from current knowledge. Science fantasy or futuristic fantasy is just like "classic" fantasy. It can definitely tell awesome stories and create wonderful worlds but to expect any piece to become reality is a little silly.

Hmm, maybe this should go to that other thread as well? Transfer all posts after the last one relevant to the Crew Accommodations.
 

Offline Bgreman

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 213
  • Thanked: 2 times
Organic Technology vs. Computerized Automation (split)
« Reply #24 on: April 20, 2012, 04:09:43 PM »
Uh, "brain bug" or "ear worm" or other similar words have been used to describe "tropes" and "cliches" and "stereotypes" for a very, very long time. I read the article and don't remember reading the part where he claims he invented either. Additionally, are you a Star Trek fan to get so worked over about?

Quote from: Stardestroyer.net
"Brain bugs" is my personal term for ideas which are implanted in the collective consciousness of sci-fi fans.

I'll admit that maybe he means "personal" to mean "preferred," in which case I withdraw the first line of my complaint.  The rest (re: arrogance, pedantism, etc) stands.

As for whether I'm a Star Trek fan, I'd say not particularly.  I like some of it, I dislike some of it. 

My point of contention with the article is the numerous claims that anything that is seen as pandering or unrealistic is decried as "stupid" and inherently inferior to any sci-fi derived from rigorous scientific reasoning.  If it's dumbed down or has mass appeal, clearly there is something wrong with it.  That seems to be the thrust of the article.

I like hard sci-fi.  A lot.  I also like not-so-hard sci-fi.  A lot.  I don't understand why one has to be superior to the other.

As an aside, an analogous argument raises its head in the debate between PC and Console gaming, and it is just as insipid in that arena.
 

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2801
  • Thanked: 1058 times
Organic Technology vs. Computerized Automation (split)
« Reply #25 on: April 20, 2012, 04:39:41 PM »
I only got the point that "multiple cooks make for a bad soup", in that specific article linked, along with "modern TV sci-fi writers don't know anything about actual science". But English isn't my native language so it's entirely possible that I'm not getting the full vibe of it.
 

Offline Bgreman

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 213
  • Thanked: 2 times
Organic Technology vs. Computerized Automation (split)
« Reply #26 on: April 20, 2012, 05:11:37 PM »
I only got the point that "multiple cooks make for a bad soup", in that specific article linked, along with "modern TV sci-fi writers don't know anything about actual science". But English isn't my native language so it's entirely possible that I'm not getting the full vibe of it.

That might be it.  You are right that the article makes those points, and there might be some validity to those claims, but the tone of the article is very snide, with a lot of subtle jabs at the education levels of the average television viewer, sci-fi fan, Americans, and others.  It's at best off-putting, and at worst intentionally insulting people who don't agree with the author's narrow view on what constitutes "good" sci-fi.
 

Offline bean (OP)

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • b
  • Posts: 921
  • Thanked: 58 times
Organic Technology vs. Computerized Automation (split)
« Reply #27 on: April 20, 2012, 09:22:28 PM »
I would like to remind everyone who is criticizing the article I linked to that it was for purposes of the section on organs.  I neither endorse nor agree with the tone of the article.  That doesn't mean he's wrong on science education, mind you.

What's Fantasy today may be Reality tomorrow.
Or it may not.  Weren't we all supposed to have flying cars by now?

I never did say it was realistic, but for the purpose of enjoyable game play concessions always need to be made.  If there were no concessions then it would be like playing an application of real life.  At that point I just turn off the computer and go outside.

In the meantime it would be nice to discuss the possibilities of biotechnology in Aurora and how it could be lobbied for in a way that could happen.  If we stuck strictly to what we know to be possible we would be without Newtonian materials, hyperdrives, no jump gates, and a host of other things wouldn't be here for us either.

I like working with possibilities and molding them to an arrangement that is as believable as can be and still retains entertainment value.
There are values between "anything is possible" and "real life".  And I do understand that things need to be altered for gameplay.
Two things bothered me about the original suggestion.  First, the biotech.  Second, I personally don't like technology that you have to discover from others.  The star swarm can be explained away as berserk Von Neumann probes.  And as someone studying to be an engineer, I don't believe that there is any technology that is possible that we can't eventually discover.
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman
 

Offline Girlinhat

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • G
  • Posts: 199
Organic Technology vs. Computerized Automation (split)
« Reply #28 on: April 20, 2012, 10:27:43 PM »
Similarly, I've always hating the "take tech from the enemy to progress yourself" model.  In particular, I'm reminded of Vindictus, the action MMO released by Nexon/devCat.  It looks fine, and as a game it runs solidly, but after a while I realized that every piece of equipment you use is stolen.  There's noob items that you can get for near-free, like a wooden shield and a rusted sword, but all the items you use after level 1 are crafted.  And all of those are crafted from stolen items.  You get "1x Broken Goblin Blade" and add "2x Iron Ore" to get "Veteran's Blade" or something similar.  All of your equipment is something damaged from the enemy that's been spruced up with a bit of raw materials.  In the game, humans are supposed to be a superpower in their own right, challenging certain gods, and yet all their equipment is looted.

Similarly, for Aurora, extremely very little should be purely stolen tech.  We should be able to research everything except a few rare exceptions, like plasma warheads.  Biological tech is certainly within the realm of human research.  Profitable biotech, is another matter.  In other games, they usually give it a size scaling with tech.  Every 2 tech level reduces the size by 10%, for instance.  At early tech, mounting a supercomputer (runs the ship without crew) might cost as much space as crew accommodations.  At higher levels, a supercomputer may occupy 25% the space a crew might.  Aurora doesn't have that sort of "each x level does y to the module" but it does have comparative technology.  I could imagine a "bioengineering" module, and it would utilize a few different technology types.  For instance, you may be able to research "Engineering efficiency" which is 2*HS at low tech, 3*HS at next tech, 4*HS next, etc.  So at tech one, you might have a biocomputer that could occupy 50 HS and count as 100 crew.  At tech two, you could have a biocomputer size 33 that would count as 99 crew, and tech three gives you a size 25 that counts for 100, etc.  So, as you research more, you can trade out some crew for crazy organics.  Similarly, it would have tech for hit-to-kill rating and upkeep rating and whatnot.

Naturally, the swarm would already have a massive level in this, so capturing swarm ships and deconstructing them could provide you with significant knowledge on biological vessels.

Maybe I should wander to the suggestions thread....

Oh, but back on original topic:  I believe it could be done with human resources, especially in Aurora - after all you can design who new species at will - but it would prove a significant RP sinkhole before you started to see notable returns.  And, logically, it would prove viable to study the swarm at length in order to gleam knowledge from their wrecks, instead of researching the area yourself.
 

Offline Erik L

  • Administrator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 5658
  • Thanked: 372 times
  • Forum Admin
  • Discord Username: icehawke
  • 2020 Supporter 2020 Supporter : Donate for 2020
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
    Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
Organic Technology vs. Computerized Automation (split)
« Reply #29 on: April 20, 2012, 11:04:43 PM »
What about racial type techonologies, similar to something from MoO? Crystalline tech, etc.