For a Moment, There Was Hope [Space Vehicle Design Quest]
- Location
- New York
- Pronouns
- He/Him
[X] Four Arms. (+2 Payload, +4 Utility, +2 Weight. 4 Budget.)
[X] Dry EAP Arms. (+1 Payload, +1 Utility, -1 Weight. 2 Budget. 2 Hazard.)
Four arms as the moderate option that avoids an extra crew member. I'm willing to roll the dice on hazard for really good arms.
Edit: Are votes like this supposed to be plans? I figured two options it probably didn't need to be.
[X] Dry EAP Arms. (+1 Payload, +1 Utility, -1 Weight. 2 Budget. 2 Hazard.)
Four arms as the moderate option that avoids an extra crew member. I'm willing to roll the dice on hazard for really good arms.
Edit: Are votes like this supposed to be plans? I figured two options it probably didn't need to be.
[X] Four Arms. (+2 Payload, +4 Utility, +2 Weight. 4 Budget.)
[X] Rugged Arms. (+1 Utility, +1 Weight. 0 Budget.)
[X] Rugged Arms. (+1 Utility, +1 Weight. 0 Budget.)
For ease of reference:
So, I'll pitch this option:
[X] Two Arms. (+1 Payload, +2 Utility, +1 Weight. 1 Budget)
[X] Dry EAP Arms. (+1 Payload, +1 Utility, -1 Weight. 2 Budget. 2 Hazard.)
That'll put the design at
Payload: 3
Utility: 3
Weight: 1
Cost: 3
Remaining Budget: 8
Keeping the Weight minimal, boosting Payload by 2 and Utility by 3, all for approximately a quarter of our current Budget, giving us more room for both more weighty options later in the design, and the Budget to purchase them.
Two arms is already secure and tested, and unlike other options, does not require any additional training. That makes it more appealing to buyers - while it's only a few days of training, that's still training they would be required to fund and organise.
So, I'll pitch this option:
[X] Two Arms. (+1 Payload, +2 Utility, +1 Weight. 1 Budget)
[X] Dry EAP Arms. (+1 Payload, +1 Utility, -1 Weight. 2 Budget. 2 Hazard.)
That'll put the design at
Payload: 3
Utility: 3
Weight: 1
Cost: 3
Remaining Budget: 8
Keeping the Weight minimal, boosting Payload by 2 and Utility by 3, all for approximately a quarter of our current Budget, giving us more room for both more weighty options later in the design, and the Budget to purchase them.
Two arms is already secure and tested, and unlike other options, does not require any additional training. That makes it more appealing to buyers - while it's only a few days of training, that's still training they would be required to fund and organise.
Last edited:
Wanting to ask but the current update is the second design phase.. correct?
EDIT: Votes!
[X] Two Arms. (+1 Payload, +2 Utility, +1 Weight. 1 Budget)
[X] Rugged Arms. (+1 Utility, +1 Weight. 0 Budget.)
I'd rather we go basic with two arms, less requirement on training. The remaining two is probably movement/type of motion and body type phase, and I'd like us to save for these two in particular.
EDIT: Votes!
[X] Two Arms. (+1 Payload, +2 Utility, +1 Weight. 1 Budget)
[X] Rugged Arms. (+1 Utility, +1 Weight. 0 Budget.)
I'd rather we go basic with two arms, less requirement on training. The remaining two is probably movement/type of motion and body type phase, and I'd like us to save for these two in particular.
Last edited:
[X] Two Arms. (+1 Payload, +2 Utility, +1 Weight. 1 Budget)
[X] Rugged Arms. (+1 Utility, +1 Weight. 0 Budget.)
Easier to adjust and handle with familiarity, and one of the better arms with less hazard, plus it saves on budget.
[X] Rugged Arms. (+1 Utility, +1 Weight. 0 Budget.)
Easier to adjust and handle with familiarity, and one of the better arms with less hazard, plus it saves on budget.
- Location
- Philippines
[X] Four Arms. (+2 Payload, +4 Utility, +2 Weight. 4 Budget.)
[X] Rugged Arms. (+1 Utility, +1 Weight. 0 Budget.)
[X] Rugged Arms. (+1 Utility, +1 Weight. 0 Budget.)
[X] Eight Arms. (+4 Payload, +10 Utility, +6 Weight, 5 Budget. Mandates 2+ Crew)
[X] Lightweight Arms. (-1 Payload, -1 Weight. 0 Budget.)
8x EAP would be nice, but I'm very hesitant to pick up 2 hazard like that. (And it would kill our budget)
4x Rugged adds 2 Payload, 5 Utility, 3 Weight, 4 Budget
8x Light will add 3 Payload, 10 Utility, 5 Weight, 5 Budget (2 Crew)
That seems like a worthwhile trade to me: +1 Budget and +2 Weight for +1 Payload and +5 Utility. I doubt we'll get future trades with better rates (without picking up some Hazard at least).
[X] Lightweight Arms. (-1 Payload, -1 Weight. 0 Budget.)
8x EAP would be nice, but I'm very hesitant to pick up 2 hazard like that. (And it would kill our budget)
4x Rugged adds 2 Payload, 5 Utility, 3 Weight, 4 Budget
8x Light will add 3 Payload, 10 Utility, 5 Weight, 5 Budget (2 Crew)
That seems like a worthwhile trade to me: +1 Budget and +2 Weight for +1 Payload and +5 Utility. I doubt we'll get future trades with better rates (without picking up some Hazard at least).
Last edited:
- Location
- USA
[X] Four Arms. (+2 Payload, +4 Utility, +2 Weight. 4 Budget.)
[X] Rugged Arms. (+1 Utility, +1 Weight. 0 Budget.)
[X] Rugged Arms. (+1 Utility, +1 Weight. 0 Budget.)
- Location
- in between
[X] Four Arms. (+2 Payload, +4 Utility, +2 Weight. 4 Budget.)
[X] Rugged Arms. (+1 Utility, +1 Weight. 0 Budget.)
[X] Rugged Arms. (+1 Utility, +1 Weight. 0 Budget.)
- Location
- Australia
[X] Two Arms. (+1 Payload, +2 Utility, +1 Weight. 1 Budget)
[X] Dry EAP Arms. (+1 Payload, +1 Utility, -1 Weight. 2 Budget. 2 Hazard.)
[X] Dry EAP Arms. (+1 Payload, +1 Utility, -1 Weight. 2 Budget. 2 Hazard.)
Sirrocco
Pedantic
So... we went kind of nuts with the last pick, and we don't have the kind of budget necessary to just go nuts in general. We want to go fairly conservative from here on out.
- I'm going to declare now that six arms and eight arms are simply too expensive. They break the bank. They're not worth considering.
- Two arms is baseline. Everything else works off of that.
- Four arms gives us +1 payload and +2 utility at the cost of +1 weight and +3 budget. That feels... a bit expensive. Possibly worthwhile, though.
- Three arms is the same as four arms, except that we take 1 hazard instead of 2 budget. If we roll well, that's fantastic. If we roll poorly...? Who knows?
- We'll take lightweight arms as baseline as well
- Going rugged gets us +1 payload and +1 utility at the cost of 2 weight. Okay. At this level, given the choices we've made thus far, that's feeling like it might be worthwhile.
- Going Dry EAP gives us +2 payload and +1 utility at the cost of 2 budget and 2 hazard. This honestly scares me.
in a very rough way, the first pick says that 2 points in base stats is worth three budget, and two budget is worth 1 hazard. Rugged offers us a break-even on base stats, and Dry EAP is offering... +3 points in base stats for an equivalent of 6 points of budget if we treat hazard as two-for-one. So the DRY arms are actually more expensive, too, in a sort of vague overmathed way that's the best we can manage for the moment.
By contrast, going from batteries to classic fuel cells in the previous question was actually one-for-one on budget to stat points. So spending it at three-to-two might not be best, and the two-to-one that Dry EAP has to offer feels even less appealing.
This is a design stage. We have two more design stages, plus two non-design decision points. We have 11 budget remaining. We can know with some certainty that the design stages are going to be asking for our money, and there's a good chance that the non-design decision points are as well. Ideally, then, we want to keep it down to no more than three budget. Hazard also seems like the sort of thing where maybe a little is okay, but you don't want to accumulate too much. Again, I have no idea what a reasonable "hazard budget" is. Still... I'm leery of it. Musabayev feels like it has less leeway for hazard than the other picks.
/***********/
Our current stats with the above baselines attached:
Payload: 1
Utility: 2
Weight: 1
Maintenance: 2
Unit Cost: Medium
Hazard: 0
Budget remaining: 10
/************/
So... taking that all into account....
- Four arms actually sends us mildly over budget for the round. That feels a bit dangerous.
- Three arms is tempting but risky... and as tempting as it is, I think we have to be risk-averse at this point, especially when the hazard in question is "last minute expensive redesigns". That's the sort of thing that could suddenly send us badly over-budget.
- Rugged is a bit of a toss-up, but feels intuitively right, and the numbers certainly aren't saying that it's wrong.
/***********/
Now we look at the fiction. What does the fiction say?
Well, our tech is the one that's putting the three-arm and four-arm options on the table at all. Given that that's one of our major competitive advantages, that feels meaningful. I'm going to think about this for a bit while I read the other responses.
/**********/
Edit:
[X] Four Arms. (+2 Payload, +4 Utility, +2 Weight. 4 Budget.)
[X] Rugged Arms. (+1 Utility, +1 Weight. 0 Budget.)
It is a bit pricey, but it's generally sane, it leverages our fundamental tech advance, and it doesn't accumulate any hazard.
- I'm going to declare now that six arms and eight arms are simply too expensive. They break the bank. They're not worth considering.
- Two arms is baseline. Everything else works off of that.
- Four arms gives us +1 payload and +2 utility at the cost of +1 weight and +3 budget. That feels... a bit expensive. Possibly worthwhile, though.
- Three arms is the same as four arms, except that we take 1 hazard instead of 2 budget. If we roll well, that's fantastic. If we roll poorly...? Who knows?
- We'll take lightweight arms as baseline as well
- Going rugged gets us +1 payload and +1 utility at the cost of 2 weight. Okay. At this level, given the choices we've made thus far, that's feeling like it might be worthwhile.
- Going Dry EAP gives us +2 payload and +1 utility at the cost of 2 budget and 2 hazard. This honestly scares me.
in a very rough way, the first pick says that 2 points in base stats is worth three budget, and two budget is worth 1 hazard. Rugged offers us a break-even on base stats, and Dry EAP is offering... +3 points in base stats for an equivalent of 6 points of budget if we treat hazard as two-for-one. So the DRY arms are actually more expensive, too, in a sort of vague overmathed way that's the best we can manage for the moment.
By contrast, going from batteries to classic fuel cells in the previous question was actually one-for-one on budget to stat points. So spending it at three-to-two might not be best, and the two-to-one that Dry EAP has to offer feels even less appealing.
This is a design stage. We have two more design stages, plus two non-design decision points. We have 11 budget remaining. We can know with some certainty that the design stages are going to be asking for our money, and there's a good chance that the non-design decision points are as well. Ideally, then, we want to keep it down to no more than three budget. Hazard also seems like the sort of thing where maybe a little is okay, but you don't want to accumulate too much. Again, I have no idea what a reasonable "hazard budget" is. Still... I'm leery of it. Musabayev feels like it has less leeway for hazard than the other picks.
/***********/
Our current stats with the above baselines attached:
Payload: 1
Utility: 2
Weight: 1
Maintenance: 2
Unit Cost: Medium
Hazard: 0
Budget remaining: 10
/************/
So... taking that all into account....
- Four arms actually sends us mildly over budget for the round. That feels a bit dangerous.
- Three arms is tempting but risky... and as tempting as it is, I think we have to be risk-averse at this point, especially when the hazard in question is "last minute expensive redesigns". That's the sort of thing that could suddenly send us badly over-budget.
- Rugged is a bit of a toss-up, but feels intuitively right, and the numbers certainly aren't saying that it's wrong.
/***********/
Now we look at the fiction. What does the fiction say?
Well, our tech is the one that's putting the three-arm and four-arm options on the table at all. Given that that's one of our major competitive advantages, that feels meaningful. I'm going to think about this for a bit while I read the other responses.
/**********/
Edit:
[X] Four Arms. (+2 Payload, +4 Utility, +2 Weight. 4 Budget.)
[X] Rugged Arms. (+1 Utility, +1 Weight. 0 Budget.)
It is a bit pricey, but it's generally sane, it leverages our fundamental tech advance, and it doesn't accumulate any hazard.
Payload: 3
Utility: 5
Weight: 4
Maintenance: 2
Unit Cost: Medium
Hazard: 0
Budget remaining: 7
So... heading into our last two engineering and two non-engineering picks, budget is looking pretty tight... but the stats seem decent. I'm not ashamed of this one. Again, this is the point where we're trying to turn out something that works and is solidly viable, and I think this offers that.
Utility: 5
Weight: 4
Maintenance: 2
Unit Cost: Medium
Hazard: 0
Budget remaining: 7
So... heading into our last two engineering and two non-engineering picks, budget is looking pretty tight... but the stats seem decent. I'm not ashamed of this one. Again, this is the point where we're trying to turn out something that works and is solidly viable, and I think this offers that.
Last edited:
TheOmnimercurial
Dragon Bard
- Location
- UK
[X] Four Arms. (+2 Payload, +4 Utility, +2 Weight. 4 Budget.)
[X] Rugged Arms. (+1 Utility, +1 Weight. 0 Budget.)
[X] Rugged Arms. (+1 Utility, +1 Weight. 0 Budget.)
Cornuthaum
Be kind to each other.
- Location
- Austria
- Pronouns
- He/Him
[X] Two Arms. (+1 Payload, +2 Utility, +1 Weight. 1 Budget)
[X] Dry EAP Arms. (+1 Payload, +1 Utility, -1 Weight. 2 Budget. 2 Hazard.)
Dry EAP is ridiculously useful for this qnd all future projects.
Sure it requires some corporate espionage but a Kazakh anarchist industrial commune has a god given right to steal from heartless capitalists that hate innovation.
[X] Dry EAP Arms. (+1 Payload, +1 Utility, -1 Weight. 2 Budget. 2 Hazard.)
Dry EAP is ridiculously useful for this qnd all future projects.
Sure it requires some corporate espionage but a Kazakh anarchist industrial commune has a god given right to steal from heartless capitalists that hate innovation.
- Location
- United States
[X] Two Arms. (+1 Payload, +2 Utility, +1 Weight. 1 Budget)
[X] Rugged Arms. (+1 Utility, +1 Weight. 0 Budget.)
[X] Rugged Arms. (+1 Utility, +1 Weight. 0 Budget.)
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Nope!
The intended comparison is the modern fuel cell, where you're paying extra for a strategic purchase (previously, budget for the production line. Here, budget and hazard for access to Dry EAP going forwards). Otherwise, this is really good analysis!
Sirrocco
Pedantic
So you're saying that if we pick Dry EAP and manage to not trigger the hazard, then we get away with it clean and can keep using them alter?
I admit that is more tempting... but I also feel like this isn't the sort of quest that rewards obsessively taking the long-term pick every time. Past that... it feels like a trap. Like, if we're at all successful with this thing, it's not like people are going to not notice that we've suddenly gained access to this cutting-edge new tech that that company over there has been developing for freaking ever... and the reputational damage is going to limit the contracts we can take even more than our generally anarchist nature already has.
I dunno. That's more gut reaction than anything else. Also, right now we're two for two on engineering phases having some way to invest long-term. From what I'm seeing, these opportunities are not going to be rare. The appropriate response is to take them judiciously. This... doesn't feel judicious.