First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Mechs are Now Real
8130 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 3/24/17 , edited 3/24/17

outontheop wrote:


NillaWaferz wrote:

I don't really disagree with any of your analysis of the unsuitability of bipedal or even quadrupedal mechs for warfare. The only caveat is that your reasoning presumes the current paradigm for warfare is more or less permanent and the only valid template for war.

Suppose for a moment that the growing availability and presence of WMDs and a growing human population renders conventional methods of war too costly in terms of civilian lives that would be impractical to conduct anything resembling a battle without committing war crimes. Under such a circumstance, single combat to handle disputes might be a valid solution. Rules of engagement could make mecha the standard equipment for these practical and more humane engagements (although there is no reason a tank, plane, ship or even infantry could not also suffice).

We might even consider removing ourselves even further from conventional warfare by considering that even when reducing war to a sport could still result in collateral damage and injuries to the participants: VR combat provides the ultimate solution for bloodless war. Mecha are cooler than any other vehicle (just my opinion), and in a computing environment where data and data processing are increasingly cheap there is no reason not to conduct warfare in virtual mechs as opposed to FPS or tank or sub/ship sims.

Just food for thought.


Sure, but in that scenario, literally *any* competitive activity (and the associated tools and equipment) could be used. It would be equally valid to say that knights in armor, on horses, would be viable military technology, if the joust of war were to become the primary internationally accepted means of conflict resolution again. Or we could play checkers. Or literally any other game.

You may want to watch this totally legit documentary, by the way: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102800/ https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/robot_jox


Yeah I don't really agree that any competitive activity would suffice in the scenario I gave. For example, I wouldn't expect that countries (or any other political entity for that matter) would leave things to a game of chance. Only skilled activities would do except where the outcome is arbitrary (in which case why have a dispute)
1457 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M
Offline
Posted 3/24/17 , edited 3/24/17
The short description for this thread is a bit misleading. Jeff Bezos is manning a mech created by a South Korean company named Hankook Mirae Techonology.
https://www.engadget.com/2016/12/27/a-south-korean-robotics-company-just-built-a-real-gundam/

The designer of the mech, Vitaly Bulgarov, is known for the CG mech designs you see in movies like Transformers.
https://vitalybulgarov.com/hankook-mirae-technology/

Neat stuff nonetheless.
30264 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/24/17 , edited 3/26/17

NillaWaferz wrote:

Yeah I don't really agree that any competitive activity would suffice in the scenario I gave. For example, I wouldn't expect that countries (or any other political entity for that matter) would leave things to a game of chance. Only skilled activities would do except where the outcome is arbitrary (in which case why have a dispute)


Who defines games of chance as "competitive" activities? Maybe I'm the strange one, but I *define* a "competitive" activity as one where skill, training, and/or cleverness is the deciding factor. Games of chance are none of those things.
8130 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 3/25/17 , edited 3/26/17

outontheop wrote:


NillaWaferz wrote:

Yeah I don't really agree that any competitive activity would suffice in the scenario I gave. For example, I wouldn't expect that countries (or any other political entity for that matter) would leave things to a game of chance. Only skilled activities would do except where the outcome is arbitrary (in which case why have a dispute)


Who defines games of chance as "competitive" activities? Maybe I'm the strange one, but I *define* a "competitive" activity as one where skill, training, and/or cleverness is the deciding factor. Games of chance are none of those things.


Clearly you never gamble then. Or play trading card games, which are also ultimately games of chance but have strong competitive communities. Sure, you can build the "best" deck imaginable, but then you have to draw the cards, sometimes in the proper order to make a cohesive strategy. Training and cunning are factors, but sometimes you just can't overcome a shitty hand. Same goes for poker, where cleverness (knowing when to fold and in stud which cards to return, raise, how to read your opponent and bluff them out of their chips) has been raised to a fine art. If these were merely games of chance where the players' ability meant nothing I seriously doubt they would be as exciting to play or watch, particularly in a tournament format that gives skilled players an opportunity to gather and compete. Board games like Monopoly and Risk require great degrees of skill to win, especially at full tables, but extreme luck can still bring about surprising and unexpected outcomes. Even sports have random factors that can influence the outcome of a game. Variables like wind can cripple players in tennis, golf or badminton, rendering even the most skillful player helpless seemingly by chance.
30264 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/26/17 , edited 3/26/17

NillaWaferz wrote:


outontheop wrote:


NillaWaferz wrote:

Yeah I don't really agree that any competitive activity would suffice in the scenario I gave. For example, I wouldn't expect that countries (or any other political entity for that matter) would leave things to a game of chance. Only skilled activities would do except where the outcome is arbitrary (in which case why have a dispute)


Who defines games of chance as "competitive" activities? Maybe I'm the strange one, but I *define* a "competitive" activity as one where skill, training, and/or cleverness is the deciding factor. Games of chance are none of those things.


Clearly you never gamble then. Or play trading card games, which are also ultimately games of chance but have strong competitive communities. Sure, you can build the "best" deck imaginable, but then you have to draw the cards, sometimes in the proper order to make a cohesive strategy. Training and cunning are factors, but sometimes you just can't overcome a shitty hand. Same goes for poker, where cleverness (knowing when to fold and in stud which cards to return, raise, how to read your opponent and bluff them out of their chips) has been raised to a fine art. If these were merely games of chance where the players' ability meant nothing I seriously doubt they would be as exciting to play or watch, particularly in a tournament format that gives skilled players an opportunity to gather and compete. Board games like Monopoly and Risk require great degrees of skill to win, especially at full tables, but extreme luck can still bring about surprising and unexpected outcomes. Even sports have random factors that can influence the outcome of a game. Variables like wind can cripple players in tennis, golf or badminton, rendering even the most skillful player helpless seemingly by chance.


....and now you're just being a contrarian. Games that are *mostly* luck are not competitive. Doesn't mean you cannot "compete" at them, but they are not competitive. Moreover, card games are not purely games of luck... if you organize them into series. The larger the number of draws, the more statistically average the draws are, the less important the luck factor, and the more important the player's strategy. In other words, a single hand of backgammon is almost pure chance, but a two-day poker tournament is a measure not of luck, but of statistical knowledge. IE, training and cleverness.

Also, where did I ever state that any given card game was NOT a game of skill? I said that any competitive activity would fit your logic for why mecha would be logical for conflict resolution, I responded that the same was true of any competitive activity, you said that games of CHANCE wouldn't work, I said games of chance are by definition not competitive, then you made a HUGE assumption that I meant all card games and attempted to "gotcha" me on something I never actually said, because I never opined on whether any given card game is or is not "competitive" or "a game of chance"

You're just arguing for the sake of arguing, probably because your logic for why mecha might in some circumstances be desirable was flawed logic in that it was so broad that it supported not only your assertion (mechs would be good for conflict resolution in the context of ritualized individual competition), but equally supported also almost any other assertion (so would jousting, or darts, or whiffleball, by the exact same logic). In fact, if one extended the logic- that a competition in lieu of war would be preferable because it would cost less damage to population and resources- then it stands to reason that the best method would be one that cost the *least* resources, which would not be mecha... it would be an individual sport requiring little to no specialized equipment. So... boxing, or wrestling or foot races.
23239 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
53 / M / In
Online
Posted 3/27/17 , edited 3/27/17
7746 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Online
Posted 3/27/17 , edited 3/27/17


You mean North Korea. They don't care about ISIS
23239 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
53 / M / In
Online
Posted 3/27/17 , edited 3/27/17

either works for me I'm not picky
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.