Page 43 of 50

Re: SDN Worlds 4 Commentary Thread III

Posted: 2010-11-09 01:51pm
by Simon_Jester
Heck, I'm not feeling fighty about this.
Steve wrote:My foot's coming down this time. Before I've bargained and relented but I'm done with that. Shep said nothing about secret delay-fused nukes when he launched the bombardment initially, he didn't come to me asking me if he could run with this before just posting it...
So... this post or parts of it have essentially the same status as my Pulp Fiction parody?
...and it beggars belief that over six months occupation forces would not invest the time and resources necessary to ensure there were no undetonated nuclear weapons in the area and to safely remove them, especially since this is not 1990-1991 and we're not dealing with conventional explosives; this is a space operatic sci-fi setting with a tech base to match and we're dealing with atomic weapons.
This is, broadly speaking, what I for one have been saying.
Ergo, there are no unexploded nuclear devices to initiate and Shep's post is null and void as a real event. Would make a fun event for a dark holocomedy series, though...
The latter half could easily be canon without the underlying causes being those cited in the first half. Robert Satan McNamara does not need a nuclear attack to have a vendetta against some random fighter pilot.

Hell. Maybe Krace dropped some dud SDBOOMSHROOM conventional bombs or whatever and they blew up the restaurant(s) specifically, without causing massive collateral damage to the surrounding area like nukes would. That would arguably make more sense; it's easier for McNamara to hold her responsible for the bombs she dropped than for the nuclear bunker busters she didn't.

Heck, if I were policing up UXO in a Sheppo bombardment zone and I knew I'd found the last nuke, I might be sorely tempted to call it a day. Compared to the risk of Sheppo nukes going off, Sheppo conventional munitions are a nonevent!

Re: SDN Worlds 4 Commentary Thread III

Posted: 2010-11-09 01:54pm
by Steve
Actually, i was only de-canonizing the first half with the nuclear explosions. The rest of the stuff with McNamara and bizarre fast food hatreds is fine.

Re: SDN Worlds 4 Commentary Thread III

Posted: 2010-11-09 03:01pm
by Kartr_Kana
I know I post infrequently enough anyways, but I am going to have to take a break from this due to time constraints and the fact that while I have a couple of stories plotted out I can't seem to find my muse to actually write them. I'll try and keep up with game events and post whenever I do wind up getting something written. All I ask is that if you do anything with the planet Hanson try and keep it minor as my stories both revolve around that planet.

Re: SDN Worlds 4 Commentary Thread III

Posted: 2010-11-09 03:37pm
by Simon_Jester
Darnit.

Hope you make it back soon, man.

Re: SDN Worlds 4 Commentary Thread III

Posted: 2010-11-09 06:38pm
by Fingolfin_Noldor
Meh... if the Sheppos wanted to be really vindictive, they could have rigged the bombs to go off during attempted bomb disposal ...

Re: SDN Worlds 4 Commentary Thread III

Posted: 2010-11-09 06:45pm
by Simon_Jester
Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:Meh... if the Sheppos wanted to be really vindictive, they could have rigged the bombs to go off during attempted bomb disposal ...
That is a really bad plan if you intend to conquer the planet.

Remember, the Sheppoes wanted this area as an occupation zone at some point, or at least pretended to. Somehow I doubt they were thinking about ticking thermonuclear time bombs underneath the area at the time.

Re: SDN Worlds 4 Commentary Thread III

Posted: 2010-11-09 06:48pm
by Fingolfin_Noldor
Simon_Jester wrote:
Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:Meh... if the Sheppos wanted to be really vindictive, they could have rigged the bombs to go off during attempted bomb disposal ...
That is a really bad plan if you intend to conquer the planet.

Remember, the Sheppoes wanted this area as an occupation zone at some point, or at least pretended to. Somehow I doubt they were thinking about ticking thermonuclear time bombs underneath the area at the time.
They could have rigged the bombs to go off if the bomb disposal was done by non-Sheppos who don't have the necessary deactivation signals.

Re: SDN Worlds 4 Commentary Thread III

Posted: 2010-11-09 06:54pm
by Simon_Jester
Still seems excessively Murphy non-compliant, what with the risk of accidentally blowing up your allies' ordnance disposal teams and thus committing an act of war against them.

Re: SDN Worlds 4 Commentary Thread III

Posted: 2010-11-09 06:55pm
by Fingolfin_Noldor
Simon_Jester wrote:Still seems excessively Murphy non-compliant, what with the risk of accidentally blowing up your allies' ordnance disposal teams and thus committing an act of war against them.
You are talking about Shep....

Re: SDN Worlds 4 Commentary Thread III

Posted: 2010-11-09 07:35pm
by Force Lord
It's just not possible to separate Shep from his love for nukes.

Re: SDN Worlds 4 Commentary Thread III

Posted: 2010-11-09 07:45pm
by Fingolfin_Noldor
Meh seriously, the game has gotten tad boring. If there's to be diplomatic tension, let there be some, really.

Re: SDN Worlds 4 Commentary Thread III

Posted: 2010-11-09 07:55pm
by Agent Sorchus
Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:Meh seriously, the game has gotten tad boring. If there's to be diplomatic tension, let there be some, really.
Huzzah, three cheers for this thought. The problem is that we collectively are already in a rut conflict wise, with pirates being a constant that is kinda boring. I blame the way Pendleton was handled, with to many people sticking to beating up on the little NPC. Of all the conflict that has happened most of it has been PC vs NPC unless you are in the K-zone. In the K-zone there still hasn't been any movement because the sides are too balanced. Where is the attempts by the Bragulans to turn the Refuge to their cause rather than towards the Solarian's?

Force Lord: If you ever thought I was picking on you at some point it was mostly just to get some conflict going. Boring stories and boring games share one thing, a lack of conflict.

ps, I am about to have a post to continue the power rangers epic.

edit: bah humbug grammar mumble mumble... and again.

Re: SDN Worlds 4 Commentary Thread III

Posted: 2010-11-09 07:57pm
by Simon_Jester
A fair point, both of you, I will grant that.

I think I'm projecting too much Umerian onto the Shepistanis.

Re: SDN Worlds 4 Commentary Thread III

Posted: 2010-11-09 08:04pm
by Force Lord
No problems, Sorchus. Though the way I set up my nation meant that the potential for conflict was not that high to begin with.

Re: SDN Worlds 4 Commentary Thread III

Posted: 2010-11-09 08:06pm
by Agent Sorchus
Force Lord wrote:No problems, Sorchus. Though the way I set up my nation meant that the potential for conflict was not that high to begin with.
Perhaps in the future we can work towards something interesting in terms of conflict that you could get behind. But yeah isolationists are going to be hard to get into a conflict with but still it is all for the good of the game.

Re: SDN Worlds 4 Commentary Thread III

Posted: 2010-11-09 08:10pm
by Force Lord
Agent Sorchus wrote:
Force Lord wrote:No problems, Sorchus. Though the way I set up my nation meant that the potential for conflict was not that high to begin with.
Perhaps in the future we can work towards something interesting in terms of conflict that you could get behind. But yeah isolationists are going to be hard to get into a conflict with but still it is all for the good of the game.
Well, I'll see what I can do.

Re: SDN Worlds 4 Commentary Thread III

Posted: 2010-11-09 08:21pm
by Tanasinn
I'd be willing to get into conflict with you, Force Lord. Or a ideo-heretical expansionist alliance. :P

Re: SDN Worlds 4 Commentary Thread III

Posted: 2010-11-09 08:23pm
by Shroom Man 777
Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:Meh seriously, the game has gotten tad boring. If there's to be diplomatic tension, let there be some, really.
This. Who wants to tango with the Bragulans? The Tango de la Muerte!

Re: SDN Worlds 4 Commentary Thread III

Posted: 2010-11-09 08:25pm
by Agent Sorchus
Force Lord wrote:Well, I'll see what I can do.
No hurry. Just an eventuality. I even might have some Ideas already, but I need to finish of the pirates and continue the Power Rangers Saga.

Tanasinn heads up, I am going to get a PM ready to finish planning for the pirate thing. Soonish.

Re: SDN Worlds 4 Commentary Thread III

Posted: 2010-11-09 08:26pm
by Simon_Jester
Sorry about the pirate storyline; it kind of got out of control. I'm hoping to make it fun to read at least, but you're right that it doesn't do much good for player interaction.

Re: SDN Worlds 4 Commentary Thread III

Posted: 2010-11-09 08:30pm
by Force Lord
Tanasinn wrote:I'd be willing to get into conflict with you, Force Lord. Or a ideo-heretical expansionist alliance. :P
Well, I think that can work. :) But I still have the pirate storyline to finish.

Re: SDN Worlds 4 Commentary Thread III

Posted: 2010-11-09 08:30pm
by Agent Sorchus
Simon_Jester wrote:Sorry about the pirate storyline; it kind of got out of control. I'm hoping to make it fun to read at least, but you're right that it doesn't do much good for player interaction.
The story itself isn't bad, the fact that it or things similar to it are dominating the Story thread right now is the problem. I like it even if the writer in me wants to see how much shorter he could have made it. There should be some p2p action and p2np interaction at all time. Capiche?

Also: holy discussion Batman!

Re: SDN Worlds 4 Commentary Thread III

Posted: 2010-11-09 08:32pm
by Shroom Man 777
Agent Sorchus wrote:Where is the attempts by the Bragulans to turn the Refuge to their cause rather than towards the Solarian's
Still thinking on that. At the moment I think it is too early for them to do much, since this is the first-ever contact between their diplomaticos.

But yeah, we need to stir shits up.

Re: SDN Worlds 4 Commentary Thread III

Posted: 2010-11-09 08:45pm
by Shroom Man 777
It would help if we have other forms of communicationings. AIM, MSN, YM, anythings.

Re: SDN Worlds 4 Commentary Thread III

Posted: 2010-11-09 11:26pm
by Steve
Oh, BTW? Siege picked the song that starts our co-op post. :P