Quote:
Originally Posted by Tk3997
Meh while this sometimes true all too often people use such things as an excuse to not have to think or defend there ideas at all. I do use this myself at times when things get too complex or contradictory to explain in detail, but this shouldn't be used as an excuse to ignore logic, precedent, and common sense altogether in the interest of doing "something cool" or the like. As with most such Maxims while cute there actual value as a guide is questionable and there meaning easily distorted. I'm sure even the guy that said it would if asked most emphatically assure you that not examining things at all is even worse.
Besides there was no real hard cacling going on there was a debate over the various aspects and limits of competing styles of magical combat and frankly that’s absolutely relevant when making or talking about character concepts IMO. Also bear in mind that to me this was a technical debate I'm not nearly as hard on actual works of fiction, but when it comes to simply debating technology or tactics and how they work or don't in a universe I'm considerably less forgiving.
|
The problem is that it's difficult to find that happy medium of examination and accepting that things happen because they happen - note I gave the full context of that maxim. (and even among like minded people, you can't find that happy medium. Ark and I approach these tech debates from similar points of view. I have a lower threshold than he does.)
The reason I brought it up is because at the end of the day, we're not going to actually be able to quantification and hard calcing in any real meaningful manner, which is why ATC's calcing of the Arc's firepower or ark's calcing of ranges and speeds is inherently stupid and futile.
Then again I take ark with a pinch of salt; he's not all that shit hot as he believes, and he somehow thinks we're all out to get him, and as we all saw, believes himself to be the final word on the Nanoverse, what with his analogy likening himself to a math professor. And he was insisting that rifle+bayonet = awesome melee weapon (when no military in the world trains in that anymore, and he dismissed mentions of real world doctrines that don't use rifles as melee weapons as "infodump, not argument"), as well as ergonomics equalling greater range. If ergonomics equaled range, the M4A1 and M468 should have identical range, given they have
identicalergonomics: the M468 is basically an M4A1 with a different receiver and caliber. And yet it only shoots to 300 meters.
Tactics and tech I don't mind so much, but it distracts from the point of OC. OC is for new charecters and new concepts of magic. A debate on melee vs ranged in the nanoverse goes into tech.
So in summation, what the fuck was my point?
1) Hard calcing is useless.
2) Tech debating distracts from the purpose of OC.
3) Melee vs ranged depends on situation to situation. Note that TK's senarios assume a highly-competant Mid mage capable of flight, in which case it's even. On the ground, between a GF mage limited to ground combat, it's a different story. Each case depends on circumstances. Even F-22s have been taken down,
And after all this has been said and done it must be noted that I just read and roll my eyes at the debate. My OCs have both ranged and melee skills to be able to handle ranged and melee spectrums.