Marked for Death: A Rational Naruto Quest

Adept_Woodwright · Aug 18, 2018

FSB'd MEW base (preventing tunnelers) and panels reinforcing key passageways, walls, and ceilings

The panels bit is my concern. Looks like the flor bit is in the plan - the rest is offloading decision on fort defense to eaglejarl, a thing which we explicitly want to avoid for past salt reasons.

We either need to specifically say where, or omit this wording.

Kiba · Aug 18, 2018

Cariyaga said:
200 word threshold means we still get +1 FP XP, IIRC.

Oh right. I don't really care about the FP points.

eaglejarl · Aug 18, 2018

Cariyaga said:
@eaglejarl @Velorien @OliWhail D'you guys have Defend The Log written up already? Would you like me to do a write-up for it? (I can PM it if you'd rather it be non-public)

I don't think we do, no. A writeup would be great, thanks. And it's fine if it's public, although we reserve the right to change or replace it.

Noumero said:
Suggestion: add a bullet-point clarifying general idea behind our provocative speech. @eaglejarl, is that fine with you?

MMKII said:
@eaglejarl

Do you care overly much if I include a simple picture or two to clarify general design ideas?

This will likely give you a better idea of what we want without turning 100-200 words of the plan into overly descriptive word-spaghetti.

Go right ahead. Please don't abuse it, though. I don't want to wade through a ton of schematics.

Cariyaga · Aug 18, 2018

Considering that so few people have participated in this voting cycle, frankly, if people want to complain about the results of this, they only have themselves to blame.

Kiba · Aug 18, 2018

Cariyaga said:
Considering that so few people have participated in this voting cycle, frankly, if people want to complain about the results of this, they only have themselves to blame.

So few people? What are you talking about? We got 23 votes for the top option. That's pretty sizable to me.

Cariyaga · Aug 18, 2018

Kiba said:
So few people? What are you talking about? We got 23 votes for the top option. That's pretty sizable to me.

There are five people that have voted on defenses.

Emstar · Aug 18, 2018

Adept_Woodwright said:
@MMKII

FSB'd MEW base (preventing tunnelers) and panels reinforcing key passageways, walls, and ceilings

The panels bit is my concern. Looks like the flor bit is in the plan - the rest is offloading decision on fort defense to eaglejarl, a thing which we explicitly want to avoid for past salt reasons.

We either need to specifically say where, or omit this wording.

I'm reading this as "IC Hazou et al decide some good places to 5SB for cover " . Thats fine IMO.

I dont care about the facility defenses overly much since we are explicitly avoiding fighting there except as a last resort (this point needs to be clarified).

If people want to omit this, they can ask me to do so and I'll do it if we have another one or two people asking for it.

Kiba said:
So few people? What are you talking about? We got 23 votes for the top option. That's pretty sizable to me.

Yet the only people who have voted for the ACTUAL meat of the planning process are me,Radvic (by default) Cari, faflec, Dissonance. Thats less than 1/5 of everyone putting input on the actual portion of import.

Oneiros · Aug 18, 2018

MMKII said:
Yes, this is known.

Ill switch/axe the force walls bit in the defensive covering, they may be stupid and jump on it.

Re: Pitfall traps:

Theres a negligible probability this poses a danger.

Suggestion: Provide an alternative instead if you dont like that

Personally I think Kiba is being overly pessimistic about force walls and would like you to add them back in

Emstar · Aug 18, 2018

Oneiros said:
Personally I think Kiba is being overly pessimistic about force walls and would like you to add them back in

VOTE ON THE FORCE WALLS:

If you want force walls as part of the static defenses please like. If you want them only in the form of pitfall traps, hug.
If you want them in BOTH, informative. If you want them in NEITHER, insightful.

Oneiros · Aug 18, 2018

There you go

[X] (defenses) Layers of Rocket Tag

Noumero · Aug 18, 2018

@MMKII, I asked it before, but are we not testing pitfalls and goo-clusterbombs in the Summon Realm?

MMKII said:
I viewed this as "Do not try to game the word count by piling on a bunch of diagrams or pictures loaded with complex information."

I read it as an advice to not do what I'm about to do.

[х] (defenses) Plan I'm As Perverted As These Incentives

(4 words this included)

If pinned down (at facility or otherwise): Kagome out. Hit and run.

If overrun at facility: try to escape underground. Failing that: Kagome.

Perhaps clarify that we re-assault the facility if we successfully escape? As it is, it could be interpreted as running away into the woods to get -1000 simulation penalty.

Kagome out

Inb4 QMs' plan-interpreter interprets "Kagome out" as "squish everyone". Inb4 we make Zabuza proud by slaughtering everyone.

I'm out for a bit but I can change the Safe Path bit to be "Relatively straight, but snakes around a bit to maximize travel time." Is this acceptable?

Yes, I think so.

Emstar · Aug 18, 2018

Oneiros said:
There you go

[X] (defenses) Layers of Rocket Tag

Disclaimer: I will do as the popular vote dictates unless a significant amount of people give very compelling reasons not to.

Noumero said:
@MMKII, I asked it before, but are we not testing pitfalls and goo-clusterbombs in the Summon Realm?

I read it as an advice to not do what I'm about to do.

[x] (defenses) Plan I'm As Perverted As These Incentives
(4 words this included)

Perhaps clarify that we re-assault the facility if we successfully escape? As it is, it could be interpreted as running away into the woods to get -1000 simulation penalty.

Inb4 QMs' plan-interpreter interprets "Kagome out" as "squish everyone". Inb4 we make Zabuza proud by slaughtering everyone.

Yes, I think so.

Thanks. I don't want to specify testing of stuff in 7th path since we need pretty much all the word count here for the Defenses + Defensive Strategy.

I'll add it in "Suggest:Test on 7th path during rest day" if we have room to spare.

Will edit everything in and change the pictures in an hour or two after some of my social obligations for the day are done.

Edit: Note you should weigh in on the Force Wall debate.

Kiba · Aug 18, 2018

I am pretty much not voting for any force wall related stuff.

Oneiros · Aug 18, 2018

MMKII said:
Disclaimer: I will do as the popular vote dictates unless a significant amount of people give very compelling reasons not to.

Understandable. Personally feel that a ninja running into a force wall at full speed when in a mine field of traps is negligible. Also don't think it would be any where close to lethal

Kiba · Aug 18, 2018

Oneiros said:
Understandable. Personally feel that a ninja running into a force wall at full speed when in a mine field of traps is negligible. Also don't think it would be any where close to lethal

The main problem of force walls is that it's a) very sharp, b) invisible.

Adept_Woodwright · Aug 18, 2018

Really bad at remembering to vote...
[X] (defenses) Layers of Rocket Tag

eaglejarl · Aug 18, 2018

faflec said:
Does MEW allow us to make a wall that's not very high but has a large surface area? Would that allow us to make a puddle since granite won't soak up the water so much?

Yes, you can shape the wall to a certain degree. Low and flat is certainly an option, as is "with trough in the middle". (EDIT: Provided that the wall is a couple feet wide. The resolution on MEW isn't very good.)

Kiba said:
@MKII word count is at least over 200 over @eaglejarl 's requirement.

MMKII said:
I viewed this as "Do not try to game the word count by piling on a bunch of diagrams or pictures loaded with complex information."

This, exactly.

MMKII said:
He has stated "This can go negative" so I'm viewing this as pertaining to the bonus XP rules we've established unless he clarifies otherwise.

The incentive is 200 word thresholds with a 3 point base, so:

1-199 words in the plan: +3 XP
200-399: 2 XP
400-599: 1 XP
600-799: 0 XP
800-999: -1 XP
etc

Noumero · Aug 18, 2018

[X] (defenses) Layers of Rocket Tag

MMKII said:
Edit: Note you should weigh in on the Force Wall debate.

Did so, am inclined to utilize them only in pitfalls. Random invisible blades scattered across the field during a large-scale ninja combat? Seems like a recipe for a fatality.

Pitfalls are almost definitely safe, though. Too high for tunnelers, and if somebody disturbs the ground around them thereby uncovering them, they'll likely be de-activated by it.

Oneiros said:
Personally feel that a ninja running into a force wall at full speed when in a mine field of traps is negligible

Not running into a force-wall, into its corner, which is infinitely sharp. Remember that story of Kagome's about spitting down dead enemy's throat?

Emstar · Aug 18, 2018

Noumero said:
[X] (defenses) Layers of Rocket Tag

Did so, am inclined to utilize them only in pitfalls. Random invisible blades scattered across the field during a large-scale ninja combat? Seems like a recipe for a fatality.

Pitfalls are almost definitely safe, though. Too high for tunnelers, and if somebody disturbs the ground around them thereby uncovering them, they'll likely be de-activated by it.

Not running into a force-wall, into its corner, which is infinitely sharp. Remember that story of Kagome's about spitting down dead enemy's throat?

@Oneiros @QTesseract @Noumero @Kiba

@Adept_Woodwright
NOTE:

By "Static defenses" I am NOT saying we use these as force blades. These are to protect locations only. As actual walls.

I consider invisible forceblade traps BAD for reasons of obvious lethality.

Erolki · Aug 18, 2018

MMKII said:
Yet the only people who have voted for the ACTUAL meat of the planning process are me,Radvic (by default) Cari, faflec, Dissonance. Thats less than 1/5 of everyone putting input on the actual portion of import.

Fair, I'll put my vote where my opinion lies

.

[X] (defenses) Layers of Rocket Tag

I'm leaning against on the subject of using Force Walls to reinforce the barriers (mostly because I don't see it as a great use of resources - the walls will be too long for them to provide a significant advantage, and if anything's set on fire that'll wreck the seals and bring them down anyway), but feel that a few pit traps that have them set an inch or two into the ground on top should probably be fine.

Kiba · Aug 18, 2018

Noumero said:
Pitfalls are almost definitely safe, though. Too high for tunnelers, and if somebody disturbs the ground around them thereby uncovering them, they'll likely be de-activated by it.

Really? If we have not tested them in any capacity, we should not use them.

We are pulling fucking invisible invisible forcewall out of the ground in god knows what direction during a chaotic battle, either potentially maiming or killing ourselves or others.

Erolki · Aug 18, 2018

Kiba said:
Really? If we have not tested them in any capacity, we should not use them.

We are pulling fucking invisible invisible forcewall out of the ground in god knows what direction during a chaotic battle, either potentially maiming or killing ourselves or others.

I notice that I am confused: the only plan I'm aware of them being used for right now is leaving them set into the ground and parallel to it, to be destroyed once the enemy comes close to them. How would this lead to them sticking up at dangerous angles?

Emstar · Aug 18, 2018

Erolki said:
I notice that I am confused: the only plan I'm aware of them being used for right now is leaving them set into the ground and parallel to it, to be destroyed once the enemy comes close to them. How would this lead to them sticking up at dangerous angles?

I am open to using them as actual walls to defend Sniper Nests.

Thats the likevote earlier: Do some combination of (Walls) or (Pitfalls)

faflec · Aug 18, 2018

Erolki said:
I notice that I am confused: the only plan I'm aware of them being used for right now is leaving them set into the ground and parallel to it, to be destroyed once the enemy comes close to them. How would this lead to them sticking up at dangerous angles?

Underground enemies that wander into the blades?

TBH I'm questioning whether we even need Force Walls to set up pitfall traps. Couldn't we just dig the pit as normal, but make the upper layer of dirt thick enough to keep it from collapsing in on itself; then use LBF-triggered explosives to trigger the trap?

Kiba · Aug 18, 2018

MMKII said:
@Oneiros @QTesseract @Noumero @Kiba

@Adept_Woodwright
NOTE:

By "Static defenses" I am NOT saying we use these as force blades. These are to protect locations only. As actual walls.

I consider invisible forceblade traps BAD for reasons of obvious lethality.

Actual wall still mean that they're dangerous.

Erolki said:
I notice that I am confused: the only plan I'm aware of them being used for right now is leaving them set into the ground and parallel to it, to be destroyed once the enemy comes close to them. How would this lead to them sticking up at dangerous angles?

That's assuming perfect execution in the middle of battle where everyone is moving very quickly with absolutely no attempt to disrupt the user.

I assume everyone and everything will be hit and punted at weird angles and directions and speed.

Marked for Death: A Rational Naruto Quest

Handsome Gentleperson

Handsome Gentleperson

The Shining One

The Shining One

Omit Needless Words

The Shining One

Omit Needless Words

The Shining One

The Shining One