Covenant of MicroScale

From BrikWars
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
 
Line 2: Line 2:
  
 
==On the Origin of MicroScales==
 
==On the Origin of MicroScales==
 +
Source: http://www.brikwars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=3835&start=495#p262825
 +
 
'''Dilanski:''' Scythe something I noticed in your video you said the whole crew of the vessel live in the 1 stud wide 'Arm'. I just wondered what scale you have in your head for this? Speaking with Colette, he believes 1 in micro space is about 3-4 meters, but I've always though of it being more along the line of 15 meters, what's your take on this?
 
'''Dilanski:''' Scythe something I noticed in your video you said the whole crew of the vessel live in the 1 stud wide 'Arm'. I just wondered what scale you have in your head for this? Speaking with Colette, he believes 1 in micro space is about 3-4 meters, but I've always though of it being more along the line of 15 meters, what's your take on this?
  

Latest revision as of 19:48, 16 June 2014

The Brikwars Forum shall make no law respecting an establishment of an official MicroScale, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

[edit] On the Origin of MicroScales

Source: http://www.brikwars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=3835&start=495#p262825

Dilanski: Scythe something I noticed in your video you said the whole crew of the vessel live in the 1 stud wide 'Arm'. I just wondered what scale you have in your head for this? Speaking with Colette, he believes 1 in micro space is about 3-4 meters, but I've always though of it being more along the line of 15 meters, what's your take on this?

Warhead: My guess: That Colette's a dick.

3-4 meters means even most small ships would end up being fairly large. However using this assumed Colette method would mean that Fighters would be as they already are (1x1 flat brik or similar). In reality we all know that fighters realistically would be less than the smallest of Lego parts and collectively accept that they are merely represented by Lego bricks in order to play the fucking game. This representation method also allows for smaller representations of larger ships and even the ability to include more ships in a smaller battlefield. Colette and other assorted assholes can not make this awesome jump of the imagination or leap of logic and are committed to trying to tell everyone that all Micro Ships should be referenced from the smallest unit as the rule. Utter gob-shite.

I do prefer Dilanski's 15 meter scale reference but do not subscribe to any such across the board measurement system since it's just a who has the biggest dick exercise. And don't tell me that shit of wanting to replicate another members work to scale for your own battles. Surely so long as the Micro ships used in any given battle are appropriately sized to each other then the job is done. Putting down constricting rules like these is an anathema to the Brikwars mandate.

Build awesome stuff, play imaginatively, focus on chaotic and hilarious outcomes, punish anyone that argues over rules or that gets overly rules orientated, pants, profit!

Dilanski: TBH I just want rough numbers so I can slap "Bigger than a super star destroyer" on the packaging, if 15 odd meters is roughly right then It's doable before most LCAD programs become unresponsive. Also as a side note, the F35-B's that'll be flying from the Elizabeth are 15.6 meters long, and most space fighters are slightly bigger than modern jets, so they still fit in scale at larger sizes.

Colette: I personally think the bigger scale is not that bad for LDD microspace, since you are theoretically unbounded in the amount of pieces you can use and so more detail is better at a negligible cost (although computational power tends to limit it in practice, but this only becomes important for the largest of dreadnoughts or fleet groups).

For microspace engagements using real-life models I can see the logic of a smaller scale, as then there is a piece constraint and the reverse of the above happens: piece efficiency is favored over detail.

Another reason larger scales are more favorable to LDD microspace is that smaller microspace often tends to compensate for the detail by using clever NPUs and techniques which are not available in LDD due to the annoying unavailability of illegal connections and many useful pieces such as baseless-levers and minifig hands. I'm sure this could be overcome but the building repertoire would still be much smaller.

Warhead: I read like almost six words of Colette's reply before replying.

"D", LDDLDLDLD or whatever it's called isn't really Lego and is a sort of detraction from Lego so I therefore mostly ignore it. Shadow gets a pass cause, well, he's awesome and his stuff is awesome so...

Star Destroyer means nothing. There is no Scale system that Lucas conforms to. He just makes shit up. I suggest you let yourself go and do like wise. Anality holds you back when you should be awesome too.

"C", You've shown in the past, on many occasions, that you are incapable of using anything you say in this harmless way. You will at some point try to use your version of Micro Space as canon and force feed your Micro Space scale system down the throats of the gullible, easily malleable and new and uninitiated in the 5.6 second window of opportunity you have before they realize what a prick you are. I see this as nothing less than another attempt to become "Dah Big Shit" of the Forum. Now, I think I have suitably and eloquently butt-fucked your theory to volatile spunk death and you should never speak of it again.

The Shadowscythe: My personal take? Well you are about to hit a wall of TL;DR, but I will try my best to cross reference my arguments towards a personal scale with examples and images to keep stuff rolling.

First of all, lets have an old-as-balls image to show the scale of development.

[Savager Frigate Picture got broken]

Lets have a look at this, it was the very first frigate I ever built following Olonthors microspace ruleset, the "Bulldog" class frigate (no longer used due to being obselete in universe and due to other things to be discussed later on) - it is about 7/8 studs long, build on a plate base/flat level and uses very few parts to attempt to represent weapons and hull detail.

http://i.imgur.com/VB1dXZc.png?1?9409

And now the Regent, my most current build - with a noticeable size increase, SNOT building techniques and multiple stud directions and layouts to mark hull detail.

The Bulldog I would consider to be everyone's "base" attempts at micro space, be it LDD or otherwise - most builders would start at this level, using antennae pieces as turret weapons and building on a single axis, completely ignoring the concept of combat in three dimensions and over all lacking in detail and functionality. Most builders starting at this level would be better off playing a classic naval game with the designs they have created - no concept of a "Z" axis, broadside weaponry and a very beginners viewpoint in how a space engagement would work.

BUT - it is a start, and all good things start from small seeds. Look at the modern design, the turrets actually look like turrets - with a defined motion of axis, it LOOKS like something a gunnery crew would be inside, crampt in tiny chairs and crawl spaces, breathing each others sweat and fear as they get hurried orders and targets from the sensors and bridge crew - the turret turns, the barrel levels and the weapons open fire, inside the turrets of the Regent it is easy to imaging three guys getting sweat ridden through fear as the laser weapons vent for the next volley and that is needed to fully immerse the mindset of a builder - if you are playing microspace you NEED to imagine how the crew would be inside - so the old antennae/ball guns are fantastic for a beginners point of view - but as time goes on, the better the building skills become and the better the mindset of how what you are building would work becomes, scale increases to suit.

So lets move onto Warheads first chunk.

Warhead wrote: 3-4 meters means even most small ships would end up being fairly large. However using this assumed Colette method would mean that Fighters would be as they already are (1x1 flat brik or similar). In reality we all know that fighters realistically would be less than the smallest of Lego parts and collectively accept that they are merely represented by Lego bricks in order to play the fucking game. This representation method also allows for smaller representations of larger ships and even the ability to include more ships in a smaller battlefield. Colette and other assorted assholes can not make this awesome jump of the imagination or leap of logic and are committed to trying to tell everyone that all Micro Ships should be referenced from the smallest unit as the rule. Utter gob-shite.


3-4 meters per stud would work fantastically for skirmish scale games, where something akin to most "frigates" would be 30-40 stud long table hogging monsters and most engagements would be between fighters and bombers that would fit on a scale fairly similar to befitting our frigate class vessels now, representing something larger than a destroyer would be nigh-impossible and most games would be better run using actual SHIP scale SHIP's and using minifigs to boot - but that defies the point of Microspace, we are making our stuff smaller to fit more awesome on the table, which is a point Warhead most elegantly covered in the post above.

Warhead wrote: I do prefer Dilanski's 15 meter scale reference but do not subscribe to any such across the board measurement system since it's just a who has the biggest dick exercise. And don't tell me that shit of wanting to replicate another members work to scale for your own battles. Surely so long as the Micro ships used in any given battle are appropriately sized to each other then the job is done. Putting down constricting rules like these is an anathema to the Brikwars mandate.


dilanski wrote: the F35-B's that'll be flying from the Elizabeth are 15.6 meters long, and most space fighters are slightly bigger than modern jets, so they still fit in scale at larger sizes.


Now these two posts alone define a rough sense of scale, most modern fighter craft are big, bigger than most of us thing because the minds eye expects something that flies to be small - most birds are small creatures with a large wingspan to body weight ratio and biology defines this far better than my short as shit explanation.

Fightercraft however, are fucking big - and most of them would never be able to fly by their design without considerable computer support. The Eurofighter would never be able to get off the fucking ground without the onboard computer making constant flight adjustments to the crafts wings and thrust ratios to keep the fucker in the air, let alone things like the Harrier or Vulture.

With a space fighter? You need multi axis controls - fuel lines throughout the craft and control systems to operate them, and then the computer systems to translate pilot controls into actual fucking motion to stop the thing from gyrating out of all fuckery - then you need your main engines to provide thrust, then the fuel tanks or power generator (or most likely both), the cockpit and life support systems - then the weapons, then the Armour. Most space fighters will be larger than modern craft which stands to point that representing them on the table would be difficult and so simplifying them on the table makes for a much easier way of playing the game - if we get too bogged down in creating something as "simple" as a fighter, larger craft become impossible to play without needing a fucking spreadsheet of data for something you should be able to fit on one side of a single business card.

15 meters makes sense, but should not be the rule - I personally work on the basis of a single stud being between 10-20 meters with a little leeway for the sake of the minds-eye, I can point out on the model roughly where everything should be so why do I need an exact weight/height/tonnage? I can clearly define which craft are fighters, bombers, gunboats, corvettes, frigates, destroyers, cruisers, battleships, battlecruisers, carriers and dreadnaughts - with enough room to wiggle in such variations as "Light" "Heavy" "Assault" "Support" and enough to work in things like "Super" before that - so why bog things down with further naysaying and debate when two players at a table can agree on rough terms and throw themselves into apocalyptic combat with enough firepower to level a small moon?

Watching the engagements from the forum so far, I have seen skirmish scale games with 3-4 ships a side, and titanic battles with multiple fleets and eldritch horrors from beyond, LDD is a decent base for people on the forum who would otherwise be unable to battle to throw their sides together and get something going without the need for spending money on bricks they may not be able to afford.

I would love to host a battle of my own eventually, but time contraints are an issue for myself, as they always have been before.

Now, despite past dickeries and obvious bullshite - can we all agree that George Lucas is a twat and get back to building more spesssheeps pwease? :studgod:

[edit] Debate on Microscale between Dr. Colette Huxley and Bishop Dilanski Wilburforce

<colette>: as you said in the livefeed

<colette>: the amusingly tiny frigate next to the battleship

<colette>: is actually a SHIP in minifig scale

<colette>: imagine building these monsters in minifig scale

<Dilanski>: I did the mat for a Vendetta years ago.

<Dilanski>: Actually, I wanted to remake that in Minecraft.

<Dilanski>: Although the parts thing always let me down.

<Dilanski>: But yeah, It would of been silly big.

<colette>: the Vendetta is a little less than 4 times as long as the Midgetman

<colette>: so ~280 studs

<Dilanski>: But I do my ships bigger.

<Dilanski>: I like scythes idea of the average battleship containing mech squads and everything.

<colette>: and the Vendetta is small fry nowadays

<colette>: a disposable surplus that the Praetorian FleetCom is desperate to rid themselves of

<Dilanski>: 1700 studs.

<colette>: wat

<colette>: now that's outlandish

<Dilanski>: That kind of makes sense/

<colette>: go build a SHIP yourself

<colette>: then dispute my scale

<Dilanski>: 600 metres, which is smaller than two Nimitz carriers end to end.

<Dilanski>: Yeah, but the point of Microscale is that we'll never build these things IRL.

<Dilanski>: As always, I put scythe as being the higher authority on this.

<Dilanski>: As he started the scale jump to 'warhead scale'.

<colette>: his scale is close to mine

<colette>: certainly within an order of magnitude

<Dilanski>: 'An order of magnitude'.

<colette>: I can verify by comparing the Midgetman and the Venus

<colette>: the only two MS ships with minifig scale models

<Dilanski>: I put that down to artistic license.

<Dilanski>: at the same time, it falls apart with some other metrics.

<Dilanski>: Fighters for example.

<Dilanski>: Or Scythe's shorts.

<colette>: Scythe's Assyrian Venus is a little over 2.5 Midgetmans

<colette>: the Midgetman's IRL length is exactly half that of the Venus

<colette>: so it's pretty close

<colette>: thus, my scale and Scythe's scale must be approximately equal

<Dilanski>: I'm still not buying it.

<colette>: <colette>: I can verify by comparing the Midgetman and the Venus <colette>: the only two MS ships with minifig scale models

<colette>: what more do you want?

<Dilanski>: The man himself, in here.

<colette>: they're our only two standards/connections between the MS and real world

<colette>: well, minifig world

<Dilanski>: Artistic License.

<colette>: and they match up well

<Dilanski>: Also, I like the Goliath skit more than I like anything else.

<colette>: ???

<Dilanski>: The battle on board the Scythian Monarch in Border Patrol.

<colette>: right

<Dilanski>: It works best with a large scale.

<colette>: Scythe's battleships are big and boxy

<colette>: so under my scale, it's not stretching it

<Dilanski>: It's roughly 840 m in my scale.

<Dilanski>: Your scale is 6 times less.

<colette>: yep

<colette>: way off

<Dilanski>: 14o metres.

<Dilanski>: 140 metres is tiny.

<colette>: for reference

<colette>: under my scale

<Dilanski>: Smaller than a IRL destroyer.

<Dilanski>: That is just too small.

<colette>: the Exodus in minifig-scale

<colette>: http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--5yXjCndq--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/18mnkwtv3po0fjpg.jpg

<colette>: is about 100-200 studs longer than this

<colette>: hmmm

<colette>: I'm starting to see your point

<colette>: but still, on the face of it, a 1000-stud ship is pretty impressive

<Dilanski>: You're still not explaining how an Emperor battleship = http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/USS_Arleigh_Burke_Mediterranean.jpg

<Dilanski>: It's my only problem.

<Dilanski>: I mean your firgate is smaller than most fishing boats.

<Dilanski>: *Frigate,

<colette>: my frigate is about the size of an IRL patrol boat

<colette>: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/72/Boat_U170_Skadovsk_2012_G1.jpg/1280px-Boat_U170_Skadovsk_2012_G1.jpg

<colette>: if you want me to be honest, it feels kind of right

<colette>: and it should, because it's the basis of my standard

<Dilanski>: It doesn't work with larger ships.

<Dilanski>: Hell, only a few dreads are larger than the average battleship.

--- mgb is away (Auto away)

<colette>: the Emperor would be 407 studs in minifig scale

<colette>: 141.78 meters from a mini fig's perspective

<Dilanski>: But forget minifig scale.

<Dilanski>: A great Emperor star battleship should be larger than a WW2 Washington treaty era battleship.

<Dilanski>: 25% longer than an emperor

<colette>: of the conflict between minifig scale and real life

<Dilanski>: 60% longer

<colette>: you know what?

<colette>: fuck it

<Dilanski>: And I think scythe would agree.

<colette>: let it be like the Holy Covenant regarding empire locations

<colette>: (until I violated it with the new map a week ago)

<colette>: "There shalt be no official scale for Brikwars microspace"

<Dilanski>: Ignorance is bliss. And I agree.

<colette>: and thus the Covenant of MicroScale was enacted


Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox