AETAS Discussion Thread - Instant Kingdom

GAMES ABOUT US DRIFTMOON NOTRIUM FORUM

Forum » AETAS Discussion Thread

AETAS Discussion Thread

The Gemini 18 years ago

I liked Cejer's maps, but this one is even better. Mainly due to the scandinavian influence.

I would have prefered a bigger map. A few add-ons would be great.

Cejer 18 years ago

Hahaha, and you say I broke rules of geography. I'm not trying to be a jerk. I realize that it looks like I broke rules of geography, but I didn't want to create a topographical map or a rain-fall map or any of that crap, yet. I did keep all of that in mind while I created my maps, and I'm much too lazy to produce it for you all. Additionally, it isn't life and death if our world breaks a couple rules here and there as long as nothing is flagrantly broken and the world has significant thought behind it.

Anyway, issues of realistic geography aside, I'm glad that someone else has added another choice to what's available. It might mean a lot less work for me, and it guarentees we'll have a final choice that better reflects our consensus.

I don't have time to do much but kid Crazy (first paragraph) and commend him (second paragraph). So thanks again for helping us all out.

Grim Reaper 18 years ago

[OT]

"The Gemini" said:
Mainly due to the scandinavian influence.

"Wikipedia" said:
Estonia sometimes considers itself to be a Scandinavian country by virtue of its cultural heritage and close linguistic links to Finland, although normally Estonia is regarded as one of the Baltic countries.

From what Wikipedia says, I wouldn't concider Estonia to be a part of Scandinavia (same for Finland). [/OT]

Crazy 18 years ago

"NORTHERN europe, goddamnit!" xD

Yeah, the scaninavian influence is counted not as geographically, but culturally, Grim.

And the thing that bothered me with your map, Cejer, was that there was a sea north of the artic. But yeah, whatever.

And my map is by no means small. If you'll notice, then it goes from arctic to tropical, north to south. That makes a map more-or less equal to the distance from the north pole to northern Africa (included).

[EDIT] I figured that since it would only take a few minutes, i'd make a tectonic map.

I think i need to rethink the map a bit to fit the tectonics. Or the other way around. Whatever.

The Gemini 18 years ago

Why do we need geographical correct maps at all? This is in another universe, so the laws of physics would be different.
Also, there are very few maps that can be geographical incorrect. As there are so many parametres that affects how the geography is, a world may actually take nearly any form.

Take for example water above the arctic areas. There are ice free waters along most of the coast of greenland, and in the future north of it too.

I'm just saying this 'cause I think it's for no use to discuss wether a map is geographical correct or not. Let your imagination decide the looks.

Anyway, it's good that we continue creating more maps. I remember the useless discussion about the old AETAS map...

I've also created a map!
http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/8626/steampunkdad1.png

I created it since I thought the previous maps missed a huge crater in the centre.
This version became smaller than the original somehow. It happened when I uploaded it...

Wastelands are areas simillar to deserts. Desolate, polluted lands, either destroyed by the climate or industry.

MageKing17 18 years ago

"The Gemini" said:
Why do we need geographical correct maps at all? This is in another universe, so the laws of physics would be different.

If you want to spend the time before RP posts figuring out exactly how a character would need to get from point A to point B because we rewrote the laws of physics, have fun.

Barebones 18 years ago

I thought we were totally doing a coin-shaped world.

Grim Reaper 18 years ago

Get on with the decisioning!

What is the current thing to be decided on? The map?

Cejer 18 years ago

Yeah, the map is what we need to decide upon.

My vote is for Gemini's map. I think it's more identifiable than Crazy's map. I had been planning to do a third map with a roughly circular blast area and wastelands as well, so seeing similar things in Gemini's map is another bonus for me. The large number of mountains is also nice.

Once we start, we should probably ease into the gadgets slowly. I know they're close to the heart of Steampunk, but we don't want to rush things and cause major disputes over what's allowed. But, this is just my suggestion, feel free to ignore it.

Crazy 18 years ago

Yash. The gadgets should come into game continually.

An i vot for my own map just because it has great big FLAT arctic areas.

Thaif 18 years ago

I am some what unnerved by the "fear" of gadgets as they can be as intecral to this AETAS as WE like, still too much Steam and Punk will ruin the fun. So I too say: We should probably ease into the gadgets slowly.

The Gemini map has my support, though I don't like it too much, it seem to be the best so far.

The Gemini 18 years ago

For me, it's the same what map we decide, so I vote nothing.

Races may also be a problem. As we have a limited area to perform our RP, the possibilities becomes limited too. I mean that one planet can't have 20 or so sentient spieces, that is too much.

Grim Reaper 18 years ago

I'd say we'd do well with just humans as playable race, so we'd be concentrating more on what makes this particular human cool (or whatever you want yer char to be) instead of thinking up the über race that does the best steampunk things which others are no match for.

Thaif 18 years ago

Agreed. There is no reason to make this fantasy or any other than Steampunk, and that is what we are doing.

Shingo 18 years ago

I'm not going to disagree, since I agree we should all use humans, But I do think that not all of our characters should be "Exactly" the same. i.e. The humans of the frozen wastelands are likely to be a bit more hardy than those humans that, say.. live by an oasis. However, any modifications to the humans should be done with balance in mind. i.e. Perhaps the denizens of the frozen wasteland are a bit more hardy, but in exchange, they're a little less dextrous due to their higher amount of body fat, and general bulkiness.

Cejer 18 years ago

Except, humans living in the frozen northlands are not hardier by virtue of a better genetic strain. Quite simply, their environment kills off those who are horribly weak and those who survive quickly learn to wear more clothing. Right there is the primary reason humans can survive in cold environments. Humanity doesn't adapt physically; we adapt behaviorally. Humans do not fit cookie cutter molds at any (reasonable) level of comparison. Even within a single family, where you would expect genetic sequences to be the most similar, children vary widely in characteristics. One cannot show that a certain ethnic group is more suited for one task than another except by cultural bias, not genetic bias. Claiming that one ethnic group has genetic superiorities/inferiorities inherent (racism) has no scientific basis.

Any differences from the "average" of humanity (and differences will always exist) vary from individual to individual. This is true in real life, and it should be true within the game world. It is entirely possible (and probable) to, for example, find a dozen short and lanky people within a northern village of 30 or so. It's probable because northern tribes have a difficult time obtaining food and are usually malnourished.

An interesting thing to note is that an elite soldier from a tropical paradise is going to be better than an elite soldier from an arctic wasteland, because of better nutrition.

To summarize: There should be no sub races of humanity with differing averages. There should be no group that has +2 Strength -2 Dexterity, and there should be no group that is stronger than most but suffers from clumsy reflexes. Such ideas are just wrong.

Shingo 18 years ago

I offer you up the example of eskimos, as compared to egyptians. The nasal passages of eskimos will (on average) be larger, as well as other variations, as compared to those of Egyptians, which will tend to lean towards being small. Why is this? Because eskimos have "adapted" as you said, to a cold climate. Their nose helps heat incoming air. Egyptians have small noses in order to preserve moisture, due to their hot equatorial climate. Furthermore, the phigments of the average egyptians skin are darker than those of the eskimos. Why? Because through adaptation, darker skin color is less apt to become sunburnt, etc.

The Gemini 18 years ago

Actually, there are differences in the human genetic strain. Yes, it is true that humanity survives in all corners of the Earth thanks to inventions, but still there are differences in the different ethnic groups.

Take for example the bush-men in Africa. They are tall and skinny, their entire body adapted to a life in the desert.
Also, several researchers have noted that humans from different regions of Earth seems to react differently on medications.

Even though humanity haven't split up into subcathegories yet, we have begun the process to genetically adapt the different environments on Earth.
This however very debated, and no one of us should draw any conclusions.

Cejer 18 years ago

The last two posts within this thread are excellent examples of the misapplication of facts and reasoning masquerading as properly reasoned arguments. Such arguments are not very far from scientific racism, an idea long since abandoned by the scientific community.

First, to destroy Shingo's credibility. While it may be true that the Inuit people and Egyptians have different noses, you have failed to provide a reason for this difference. Instead you have supposed that these differences aid them within their environments, and you completely ignore the important question, "Why do the Egyptians and Inuit have different nose sizes?"

Natural selection offers no explanation. The Egyptians do not have small noses to conserve moisture, because moisture has never been the primary handicap of Egypt. Ancient Egypt (where any changes may have taken place) was the bread-basket for the Roman Empire. No other area was as rich in farmable land. This is because Egypt was a RIVER CIVILIZATION. They lived along the banks of the Nile RIVER, that FLOODED every year. The amount of moisture that theoretically could be saved by small noses is insignificant to their environment. Since there is no reproductive benefit to a smaller nose, its existence is an anomaly.

Also, compare the Inuit to other northern ethnic groups. Say, the Finnish? I'm no expert on the population of Finland, but I'm pretty sure that one could describe the natives as "white." The Inuit are not "white." I should know; I saw some of them quite recently. Since we have two traits that are different, and traits that have measured effects on health in northern climates (production of vitamin D depends on skin coloration), it is unreasonable to think these traits were caused by the environment. They are coincidental, nothing more.

Note also that the Inuit share the same skin pigmentation as the equatorial population descended from the Maya. There should be a difference if humans have adapted physically to their environments. But there isn't.

The bush-men in Africa are not "adapted" to a life in the desert. They are malnourished. They lack the caloric intake to maintain a healthy, plump body. Feed them as much as a middle class European/American, and then you can watch them lose their slim figure quite quickly.

Any further argumentation should be in another thread or in PMs. If someone sends me a correct, factually supported contradiction of my claims, I will retract them. The last two posts within this thread are excellent examples of the misapplication of facts and reasoning masquerading as properly reasoned arguments. Such arguments are not very far from scientific racism, an idea long since abandoned by the scientific community. First, to destroy Shingo's credibility. While it may be true that the Inuit people and Egyptians have different noses, you have failed to provide a reason for this difference. Instead you have supposed that these differences aid them within their environments, and you completely ignore the important question, "Why do the Egyptians and Inuit have different nose sizes?" Natural selection offers no explanation. The Egyptians do not have small noses to conserve moisture, because moisture has never been the primary handicap of Egypt. Ancient Egypt (where any changes may have taken place) was the bread-basket for the Roman Empire. No other area was as rich in farmable land. This is because Egypt was a RIVER CIVILIZATION. They lived along the banks of the Nile RIVER, that FLOODED every year. The amount of moisture that theoretically could be saved by small noses is insignificant to their environment. Since there is no reproductive benefit to a smaller nose, its existence is an anomaly. Also, compare the Inuit to other northern ethnic groups. Say, the Finnish? I'm no expert on the population of Finland, but I'm pretty sure that one could describe the natives as "white." The Inuit are [i]not[/i] "white." I should know; I saw some of them quite recently. Since we have two traits that are different, and traits that have measured effects on health in northern climates (production of vitamin D depends on skin coloration), it is unreasonable to think these traits were caused by the environment. They are coincidental, nothing more. Note also that the Inuit share the same skin pigmentation as the equatorial population descended from the Maya. There [i]should[/i] be a difference if humans have adapted physically to their environments. But there isn't. The bush-men in Africa are not "adapted" to a life in the desert. They are [b]malnourished[/b]. They lack the caloric intake to maintain a healthy, plump body. Feed them as much as a middle class European/American, and then you can watch them lose their slim figure quite quickly. Any further argumentation should be in another thread or in PMs. If someone sends me a correct, factually supported contradiction of my claims, I will retract them.

Idiota 18 years ago

At these times it is not the question of wether the suggestion is true in our world or not. No, it is the question of how it'll be done in the world we create. I, for one, find mimicing the real world quite boring. You shouldn't stick to the truths of our world.

Thaif 18 years ago

That was a total waste of time as I see it, and yes it doesn't belong on this topic. At All.

We should stick on the "humans only" set, because there is too much "Fantasy Stempunk" as it is. Let's try to keep this A Steampunk, please?

Furthermore: The differences of characters are

From my whiewn) Persona, Experiences, Skills, Physical appearance, Visual style...the list goes on.

Barebones 18 years ago

Since Steampunk is set further into the past, genetic differences are not as apparent. The reason your "snow people" are hardy is because they train themselves physically to be and learn ways to control their body temperature more efficiently than say a mediterranian. Therefore you are not born that way. Now, we may make it that different sections of the world's human population have an easier time getting certain skills, but they aren't born with it.

Grim Reaper 18 years ago

"Barebones" said:
Since Steampunk is set further into the past, genetic differences are not as apparent.

It could very well be set in the FUTURE.

"Thaif said while I" said:
Steampunk does not automatically date itself as opposed to Cyberpunk, it can be set in past, present or future.

Crazy 18 years ago

How would exactly baing set in the past make racial features unapparent.

Also, i'm one for the race differences. Say, the people living in mountainous areas are tough, short, rugged and have a great big beard, a la dwarves.

If the people were exactly the same everyehre, it would be rather boring, methinks.

Thaif 18 years ago

Dwarves? What did I say about the Fantasy Steampunk? I think that the notion of different "races" is a kind of an clicé, and why does every Fantasy or Science Ficton take the most obvious, and not to mention the most popular, refrences? Just asking...

Furthermore: There could/might be slight differences in the fysical appearance, but i don't see what that would help since the most contrasting differences most allways come from the cultural differences. And they offer much more material and background for a person to study and use.

The physical differences might be a limiting factor for actual people, but it get's more complicated if: You don't understand(Or approve) the other's language/dialect, behavior norms, religious beliefs, eating habits...I could go on, but I have taken enough of forum space.

Crazy 18 years ago

....what?

Limiting factor? To actual people? ...what?

And people use the most obvious and popular references because those are the ones people can relate to the easiest.

...and define "cultural differences". If you mean physical appearance, then that's more individualistic than cultural.

Thaif 18 years ago

Actually fysical appearance is the first thing that a person gets used to
as it is right in front of his/her eyes, cultural differences are somewhat different as they are based on customs, religion(believes), environmental factors and so on. These differences are observed from the whiewners cultural perspective. And so what seem perfectly normal for the other people would seem absurd, silly, useless, even cruel and unjust, by the observers.

By Limiting factor I meant: If a person is short and supports a long brushy beard, the person would need to care for this beard quite often(or not), and would have proplems reaching places that "normal" heighted people have as an norm. In a "rolegame" those thing are usually disregarded or presumed as automatic. Not so in "real" life.

MageKing17 18 years ago

"Thaif" said:
fysical

P-H-Y-S-I-C-A-L, for crying out loud.

"Thaif" said:
By Limiting factor I meant: If a person is short and supports a long brushy beard, the person would need to care for this beard quite often(or not), and would have proplems reaching places that "normal" heighted people have as an norm. In a "rolegame" those thing are usually disregarded or presumed as automatic. Not so in "real" life.

And your point is...?

Barebones 18 years ago

Let's just have certain factions in the game that jack their fetuses up with +10 in a few stats.

Doctor: Who needs buffs?
Dead Fetus: Rez plz
Aborted Fetus: Somebody hacked my account
Large Fetus: Womb Exit is hella tough, I need that RL-type item fast for the raid. HeadBalance buff plz.
Grown Man: Some n00b teleported me here and my clan kinda disappeared. Little help? I remember this area but it's like 10x harder to get out now.
Mother: I'm getting tired of this. Banz for all!
Collective: Oh shi-
-Server down for maintenance-

The Gemini 18 years ago

We are trying to create an entertaining RP, not a realistic one. I don't think we should drown AETAS in realistic rules. As Idiota said;

"Idiota" said:
I, for one, find mimicing the real world quite boring. You shouldn't stick to the truths of our world.

Grim Reaper 18 years ago

I say we should still leave fantasy out of this and stick with humans as the only race and just come up with differences between people living in place A and people living in place B.

Cejer 18 years ago

I think that enough people have voted or abstained from voting where we can decide that 1: Gemini's map will be used. And 2: humans are the only race within the world.

So, I figure that we need to divide the world between nations. Then we give each nation an ethnic and cultural flavor. And then we begin.

Now for my musings on nation division.
When I first saw Gemini's map, my brain screamed Mainland vs. Bear Island. I still think that's a good way to divvy up the world, but perhaps the large city in Eathor is politically independent from the rest of the mainland.

An alternative is that the mainland is very splintered, mostly small "barbaric" nations. I still think Bear Island would be politically unified though. The population on the crater islands suggests that to me. Probably because they're a little too close together to all be port cities.

Anyone else have other ideas? Comments? Suggestions? Opposite ideas? Name-calling? Insults? Anything?

Grim Reaper 18 years ago

I still think the map is incomplete... It needs more of the charasteristics that real maps have (i.e. when you go left, the desert won't just aprubtly end and the sea begin, stuff like that).

Murska 18 years ago

In Gemini's map, I think that there should be a way to the arctic areas from Meabeh. Many people wanted arctic, and action there's gonna be pretty low if there's that Beroth's Plateau as the only way in. Well, I don't think there'd STILL be that much if there'd be a way, but...

And what about the desert(wasteland?) island near the arctic in the corner?

The Gemini 18 years ago

If you want, I can create a v.2 of my map, if everyone agree that we will use it.
And keep in mind that the population density is not correct. I just added it as a extra flavour.

EDIT:

"Murska" said:
In Gemini's map, I think that there should be a way to the arctic areas from Meabeh. Many people wanted arctic, and action there's gonna be pretty low if there's that Beroth's Plateau as the only way in. Well, I don't think there'd STILL be that much if there'd be a way, but...

And what about the desert(wasteland?) island near the arctic in the corner?

I do also think that the map needs more arctic.

And the island in the corner is a leftover from the first minute of map making.

Forum » AETAS Discussion Thread

Post Reply