Psientist.6437

> @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > @"Psientist.6437" said: > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > @"Psientist.6437" said: > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > > Intending to lower the price and intending to increase the odds are not the same thing. Anet could have increased the drop rates to make them more obtainable from their events, to lower prices, or both. Here’s the thing though: **PLAYERS DO NOT KNOW THEIR REASONS**. > > > > > > > > How do you lower the price without raising the drop rate? How do you make something more obtainable without also lowering the price? Your distinction isn't real, it's nonsensical pedantry. > > > > > > > > I can't stand the attitude that the studio's motivations are beyond our ability to understand. I know you don't represent everyone who makes this claim but I must ask, why? From my perspective, I only see it used to cost signal fandom or as a weak attempt at undermining a rational argument. > > > > > > > > > > It's the **intentions** and not the effects. You're treating lowering the price and making it more obtainable as a drop as one of the same when they're not. People make choices that have effects that were not the reasons for making their choice. Assuming that those effects are now part of their reason by association is irrational. I can give $10 do a homeless person with the intention they spend it on food. If they instead spend it on something else, that something else doesn't suddenly become one of the reasons that I gave them the money. > > > > In a market economy they are the same. The work to obtain a drop is equivalent to its market value. Your analogy is useless. The homeless person has infinitely more degrees of freedom in spending the $10 than the market has in responding to an increase in supply. > > In a market economy they have the same outcome but the argument is not about outcome; it's about intention. One poster made the claim that the change was to reduce price and treated it as if it were a fact. Changes can be made to drop rates to encourage a more rewarding experience through gameplay. Anet has done this numerous times in the past. The desire to adjust drop rates and to adjust the price of items are not strictly mutually inclusive. > > The analogy was to highlight this but it looks like it failed because you're focusing so much on how it's different. You're not going to have an analogy that is 100% the same as what it's being compared to. This is one of the reasons that I almost always regret using analogies because this always kitten happens. Apparently it's difficult to take an analogy in the context of what it because discussed. So in a market economy they have the same outcome but it shouldn't be considered the intention? Analogies are difficult and perhaps you are right about your ability to build them. This is a high fidelity analogy for your premise. Someone (without safety equipment to prevent falling) jumps off a building without expecting to fall.

I am going to adjust a position I took earlier, that the changes to armor binding is _just_ framing for the changes to infusion drop rates. The changes to armor binding aren't _just_ framing. Arenanet integrated grey market trade services, moving outside the EULA, into their business plan. The item with the highest probability of generating gem to gold conversions couldn't be traded on the BLTP. Arenenet was not a AAA service provider. Their liability may have even been compromised. Regardless of any real world considerations, they were defiling the design pillars of RMT and a market economy. I hope this change signifies a genuine change in Arenanet's personality. There is reason to hope. Prefixes that could not be traded don't map to the design pillars of RMT and a market economy either. They aren't as bad as infusions but they are the next "biggest" mechanic that doesn't sit squarely on the pillars.

> @"Sobx.1758" said: > > @"Psientist.6437" said: > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > @"Psientist.6437" said: > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > > Intending to lower the price and intending to increase the odds are not the same thing. Anet could have increased the drop rates to make them more obtainable from their events, to lower prices, or both. Here’s the thing though: **PLAYERS DO NOT KNOW THEIR REASONS**. > > > > > > > > How do you lower the price without raising the drop rate? How do you make something more obtainable without also lowering the price? Your distinction isn't real, it's nonsensical pedantry. > > > > > > > > I can't stand the attitude that the studio's motivations are beyond our ability to understand. I know you don't represent everyone who makes this claim but I must ask, why? From my perspective, I only see it used to cost signal fandom or as a weak attempt at undermining a rational argument. > > > > > > > > > > It's the **intentions** and not the effects. You're treating lowering the price and making it more obtainable as a drop as one of the same when they're not. People make choices that have effects that were not the reasons for making their choice. Assuming that those effects are now part of their reason by association is irrational. I can give $10 do a homeless person with the intention they spend it on food. If they instead spend it on something else, that something else doesn't suddenly become one of the reasons that I gave them the money. > > > > In a market economy they are the same. The work to obtain a drop is equivalent to its market value. Your analogy is useless. The homeless person has infinitely more degrees of freedom in spending the $10 than the market has in responding to an increase in supply. > > Yeah, it's totally "the same in market economy" if you completely forget what the previous posts were talking about. We're talking about intention of reaching a specific goal in the realm of the game. And in this case it is not the same. We don't have an in game market economy? These changes aren't completely focused on that market economy? The outcome of increasing drop rates is an increase in supply and a decrease in market price. That is the studio's goal. What other goal can be accomplished? Please do not respond with the "making them more obtainable." It is "six" to my "half dozen."

> @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > @"Psientist.6437" said: > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > Intending to lower the price and intending to increase the odds are not the same thing. Anet could have increased the drop rates to make them more obtainable from their events, to lower prices, or both. Here’s the thing though: **PLAYERS DO NOT KNOW THEIR REASONS**. > > > > How do you lower the price without raising the drop rate? How do you make something more obtainable without also lowering the price? Your distinction isn't real, it's nonsensical pedantry. > > > > I can't stand the attitude that the studio's motivations are beyond our ability to understand. I know you don't represent everyone who makes this claim but I must ask, why? From my perspective, I only see it used to cost signal fandom or as a weak attempt at undermining a rational argument. > > > > It's the **intentions** and not the effects. You're treating lowering the price and making it more obtainable as a drop as one of the same when they're not. People make choices that have effects that were not the reasons for making their choice. Assuming that those effects are now part of their reason by association is irrational. I can give $10 do a homeless person with the intention they spend it on food. If they instead spend it on something else, that something else doesn't suddenly become one of the reasons that I gave them the money. In a market economy they are the same. The work to obtain a drop is equivalent to its market value. Your analogy is useless. The homeless person has infinitely more degrees of freedom in spending the $10 than the market has in responding to an increase in supply.

> @"Touchme.1097" said: > > @"Psientist.6437" said: > > The discussion of resurrection lore is cover for criticizing female characters. Do you have any evidence for the studio's problem with masculinity besides the existence of female characters? The imbalance between female and male characters doesn't exist. Aurene's gender and role as the protagonist only qualifies as evidence if you are predisposed towards not wanting female protagonists. Can you offer a positive description of masculinity that isn't being displayed by the female characters? > > > > > > If you rearranged your reply in a more polite manner I could have answered back, I have never written in my discussions that I don't like female characters, I have pointed out what I don't like about both female and male characters in other posts actually...Aurene is the only female voiced dragon and it has already been gendered, I am all for equality here to spare some words for Vlast. Your false accusations make no sense. I think we all missed the chance to dive deep into Vlast's story and now that he is dead I feel upset because he didn't have a chance. Who are you kidding? Many of us would liked to see more of Vlast, but you are the only framing it as a choice between male and female characters. If you don't have a problem with female characters, why are you framing your argument as the studio's failure with masculinity? Where is this failure? Vlast's death is not evidence of a failure. The only thing you offer as evidence is Aurene's gender.

> @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > Intending to lower the price and intending to increase the odds are not the same thing. Anet could have increased the drop rates to make them more obtainable from their events, to lower prices, or both. Here’s the thing though: **PLAYERS DO NOT KNOW THEIR REASONS**. How do you lower the price without raising the drop rate? How do you make something more obtainable without also lowering the price? Your distinction isn't real, it's nonsensical pedantry. I can't stand the attitude that the studio's motivations are beyond our ability to understand. I know you don't represent everyone who makes this claim but I must ask, why? From my perspective, I only see it used to cost signal fandom or as a weak attempt at undermining a rational argument.

The discussion of resurrection lore is cover for criticizing female characters. Do you have any evidence for the studio's problem with masculinity besides the existence of female characters? The imbalance between female and male characters doesn't exist. Aurene's gender and role as the protagonist only qualifies as evidence if you are predisposed towards not wanting female protagonists. Can you offer a positive description of masculinity that isn't being displayed by the female characters?

Thank you Arenanet for no longer treating your big spenders like shit. If this were paired with the announcement of a new studio head I would be excited. I will settle for imagining a contingent of developers large enough to compel a long overdue change took the thread to heart. We shouldn't have to point out when the studio is blatantly failing to deliver on their design principles. The speed with which this happened introduces the possibility that real world forces came into play. Can the EULA be binding when the studio forces some players to operate outside of it to realize market agency? Everything around the 3 infusions is mostly there to frame the changes to the infusions as being part of a larger plan.

Thyrian mithril may not have the same properties as Middle Earth's. If we held to Middle Earth's properties, mithril would not be ideal for heavy weapons. On Thyria, metals smelted and forged after iron don't seem to be stronger _and_ lighter. They are used in fairly equal amounts across metal tiers. Though crafting mechanics, like combat mechanics, can't be used as evidence, we can make some assumptions that open possibilities. Darksteel, mithril, and orichulum could all give a strength advantage but without any or little weight advantage. They would be used for their magic enrichment potential.

The Canthan Assassin had two first principles for its design; sequential applications of stabbing and efficient damage mitigation. A thief shield specialty would build on what made the GW1 assassin unique. Perhaps sequential shield skills that build effects? Could any class dual wield shields without looking like a Captain America caricature? Shields could make stealth impossible. That may make it easier to build for powerful and unique shield skills.

> @"The Greyhawk.9107" said: > > @"Psientist.6437" said: > > ~snip~ > > Sorry for going off topic, but I'm curious about why you use 'Thyria' instead of 'Tyria'. Isn't the planet called Thyria? I have been trying to get into the habit of using the name for the planet instead of the continent whenever the topic concerns planet wide features. There is a reason why I can spot pedantry.

> @"draxynnic.3719" said: > our conversation First, you get the the physics components concerned and I apologize for making anything personal. Don't take this continuation as me trying to prove you wrong but as an attempt at building and understanding how the components come together. I will steel man my hard case and soft case of your general premise from your first claim that I called a mess. Hard case: Trading mass for velocity and momentum for kinetic energy makes a projectile less effective against armor. I was arguing against this case. Soft case: There are limits to the effectiveness gains of trading mass for velocity and momentum for kinetic energy. The soft case is easy to accept if we understand that in the context of projectile effectiveness, some of the useful properties of momentum are provided by velocity alone. Momentum increases a projectiles ability to resist wind and air resistance. Velocity decreases time spent in flight. Momentum increases the ability to conduct force through a smaller volume of armor over a time span. Velocity does the same by shortening the time span. Some of momentum's effect can be reproduced with shape. The evolution of projectiles in the real world has progressed as materials became stronger. Projectiles got faster and lighter as materials became stronger. The trade is always pushed to the limit. Mithril is a technology leap for projectiles as well. An all mithril bullet may not have enough momentum. All mithril hammers exist, so it is fairly heavy. A mithril bullet may only need a small inclusion. This wouldn't be a difficult bullet to build. Regardless, Charr technology wouldn't have to duplicate the evolutionary pace of real world gun and explosive technology. Magic power sources would drive manufacturing technology to a fairly mature level. Humans, magic enriched gluttons with their novelties, have already pushed the manufacturing technology for all metals to where complex bullets could be manufactured cheaply. Asurans would understand the physics. The evolution of guns in Thyria would most frequently progress as the manufacturing trope of rapid, small batch prototyping. Which is what we see! The evolution of guns on Thyria would be fast. Which is also what we see. So far, all of the leaps and bounds being made have been directed at the Elder Dragons. There is a lot of story to made from that technology after the the threat passes. I now have a new appreciation of the Charr as representing the magic poor.

Portals would make projectile weapons even more effective. Open a portal and start shooting. In this case, anti-projectile shields could harm those attacked, not the attackers. Shields that reflect projectiles would be largely useless in group scale warfare. They only look effective because friendly fire is impossible. An attacker would need to shield every signal attacker. An attacker may even need one big shield rather than many shields. With many shields the bullets would create a storm that would increase the number of hits any shield took. Likewise, if a soldier can be teleported into the midst of their enemy, they are better off armed with a gun. The attacker would thank the person dumb enough to pop a reflect shield. Wouldn't need portals or teleporting either. Remove the completely artificial ban on friendly fire and guns accomplish the same effect with distance. On evidence for armor piercing rounds. As a people, magic poor Charr can stand their ground against the magic enriched. That is all the evidence we need that magic poor projectile weapon systems can counter a magic enriched foe. Extent projectiles must have armor piercing capabilities or the Charr couldn't even defend themselves against other magic poor.

> @"Psientist.6437" said: > > @"draxynnic.3719" said: > > > @"Psientist.6437" said: > > > > > > The bit about "bullets" vs "shells" is pendantics. The statement to get a bigger bullet is wrong because bigger bullets are called shells?!?!? Aircraft carriers contributed to the doom for battleships because they could use range. Airplanes are a type of projectile weapon platform. > > > > Because, as it turns out, some things are bulletproof. > > > > Some things have also been shellproof, although there's a point at which putting more armour on something becomes impractical. On the other hand, there's a point to which "build a bigger gun" also becomes impractical, _especially_ when talking about small arms fire. Which is, essentially, where I think the line between a machinegun and an automatic cannon is drawn: a machinegun can be realistically carried around and used by a single person, even if it starts to get pretty awkward with heavy machine guns. Cannons can't. So the line between bullets and shells is more or less the line between small arms and heavier weapons. Your statement to get a bigger bullet is essentially pushing something from being an infantry weapon to being a weapon for vehicles and fixed emplacements. > > > > As for the aircraft carrier vs missile boat distinction - yeah, the advantage of aircraft carriers is range, but the point there was that if it wasn't for aircraft carriers, the powerful navies of the worlds would still have capital ships. They'd just be big floating missile batteries that could carry bigger and longer-range missiles, and more of them, than their smaller counterparts. As it happens, though, once a ship gets big enough to be an aircraft carrier, it's more valuable as an aircraft carrier than as a battleship, missile-armed or not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > An extreme example, but it shows the folly of absolute statements. "Bullet proofed" historical armour wouldn't necessarily hold up to every bullet. And even if it did, non-penetrating hits could certainly be enough to knock you around. But no armour was expected to be perfect - just good enough that you're better off with it than without it. And having materials that are as far above steel as steel is above bronze is going to _substantially_ delay the point at which guns outmatch armour to the point where armour stops being worth wearing. Perhaps indefinitely - the "firepower always outmatches armour in the end" mantra is a popular one, and it's true if you're thinking about armour rendering you invulnerable instead of simply _less_ vulnerable than you'd be without it, but historically the period during which personal body armour beyond helmets was abandoned was pretty short, it's just exaggerated in people's minds because it was most of last century. It wasn't until WW1 that the cuirass was completely abandoned, and body armour has been undergoing a renaissance in recent decades - in part because you don't need as much armour to protect against shrapnel, but in part because, guess what? Advanced materials! And when you get down to it, kevlar isn't actually THAT big of a step up from steel in terms of the ratio of its protective qualities versus weight - it's just that steel had been the best we had until then. I don't think Tyrians will be abandoning their mithril, orichalcum, or deldrimor steel armour any time soon. Maybe people who can only afford steel armour would also ditch it like in real life, but mithril in Tyria seems to be pretty common for an exotic fantastical metal. > > > > > > > > > > > So, historically, as projectiles, guns and explosives evolved, armor offered less or niche protection. The change takes time. > > > > > > > > Because armour hit a hard block to its evolution around the 15th century. They'd pretty much hit the limit of what could be achieved with the materials they had at the time, within the weight that a soldier could bear and still be an effective fighter, while guns continued to evolve. With the advent of modern materials, personal body armour is starting to work its way back into a modern soldier's equipment, so the period where personal body armour was virtually nonexistent seems to be over, at least when it comes to armies of advanced nations. If medieval armoursmiths had a material that was as far in advance of steel as steel is from bronze, I'm pretty sure that armour would never have been dropped altogether. > > > > > > > > > > > Melee weapons, meanwhile, benefit from advanced materials just as armour does. Lighter materials aren't as much as an advantage for weapons since with weapons it's important to have a certain degree of weight to the blow, but that can be compensated for by simply making the weapon _bigger._ Firearms, on the other hand, are more complicated - stronger breeches would certainly _help,_ but it's not such a direct conversion of better materials = better weapons. > > > > > > > > > > > Better materials directly translate to better gun weapon platforms just as easily as armor and melee weapons. We wouldn't have the historical evidence of firepower gradually and persistently out classing armor and melee if what you say is true. > > > > > > > > Not really, because the period where that transition happened was a period where materials technology was pretty much stalled. There _were_ metallurgical improvements during the period, particularly once the Industrial Revolution started (one of the key parts of the Industrial Revolution was finding a way to mass-produce high-quality steel). Broadly speaking, the same metals were being used in the Napoleonic Wars as were being used in the Hundred Years War. For armour and melee weapons, quality is very dependent on materials: there's not much you could realistically do to improve on high-grade 15th-century full plate without making it out of a better material. For guns, there's a lot more that goes into it - quality of the propellant, design of the breech chamber, ammunition type, presence or absence of rifling on the barrel, and so on. Sure, making the breech out of a stronger material means they can get a more powerful shot out of the simple expedient of using more propellant... but even that only helps so far if you haven't figured out how to get the propellant to ignite in a manner that ensures you actually get full usage of the energy released. Now, let's look at gun technology in Tyria. It's a bit anachronistically all over the place, but we see a mix of flintlocks, revolver mechanisms, a couple of simple gatlings, and a few more exotic pieces. That puts the level available to most people at around the early to mid 1800s. There's still a long way to go to get to modern firearms, and a mithril breech just isn't going to fully close that gap. > > > > > > > > Now, to be clear on this, because there seems to be some misunderstanding here: _This could certainly change._ For the purpose of this discussion I'm considering the situation as it stands at the 'present day' of Tyria, circa Thirteen Thirty-Mumble AE. Could it change in another century ago? Certainly. Probably will, in fact. Which way, however, is hard to predict, since advances in gun design might also be matched by improvement in magic, further improvement in armour and melee weapon materials, and so on. We could see a future Tyria go anywhere from something similar to real-world battlefields to a Dune-like situation where melee weapons are back to being what's important because everyone has personal shield bubbles. > > > > > > If we to drill down into this, the rapid emergence of many gun types partially defeats your argument. Thyrian technology obviously evolves very quickly. Thyrians have had access to Mithril and such materials for a while. There are also many natural projectile users. Thyrian armor tech should already be near maturity. > > > > Maybe it is nearing maturity. Maybe there'll be some other breakthrough that we can't predict. Maybe it's _already strong enough_ - how does mithril, let alone even more advanced Tyrian metals, compare to kevlar? > > > > > > > > > > > To address a couple of specific points: > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Psientist.6437" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With projectiles, speed and mass are more important than hardness. Get a marshmallow going fast enough and it could destroy the Moon. Tyrian explosive technology may be in its infancy but we shouldn't expect that to last. Your assumptions about what bullets are made of are just assumptions and your focus on material is inaccurate. Why wouldn't there be mithril bullets? > > > > > > > > > > > > I've answered why there wouldn't be mithril bullets. In fact, you clearly haven't thought it through, but _you've_ answered it. Speed and mass are what's important with projectiles (well... not directly, but I'll get to that in a moment), and while we don't have details on the properties of Tyria's fantastical metals, mithril in pretty much every other setting where it appears, going back to Tolkein, is described as being stronger _and lighter_ than steel (let alone heavier metals that are often preferred for projectiles). It's basically fancy super-titanium. > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, you might say that this means it goes faster with the same propellant, and that's true, but now it's that moment I referred to. Whatever charge you have firing the bullet is going to impart a certain amount of kinetic energy. Kinetic energy is proportional to mass times velocity squared. Momentum, on the other hand, is what broadly determines how hard a projectile is to stop, and that's just straight mass times velocity. **If you fire a lighter bullet with the same kinetic energy, more of that kinetic energy equation is being taken up by velocity, which means that the momentum of the projectile is less.** Density is also important both for resisting air resistance and for punching through armour, since if the bullet has a wider cross-section, it needs to displace that much more armour to punch through (and getting extra mass by making the bullet longer only goes so far before it starts creating other problems). So for armour, you want a material that's light but strong. For bullets, you want a material with a high density, since you want the frontal cross-section of the bullet to be as small as reasonably practical but to squeeze as much mass (and therefore momentum) into that cross-section as possible. > > > > > > > > > > Your argument here gets away from itself. If a massive projectile and a light projectile have the same momentum, the light one will have a lot more kinetic energy. If a light projectile and a heavy one have the same velocity, the heavy one has more kinetic energy. The bolded is a mess. You don't come anywhere close to making an argument against mithril bullets. > > > > > > > > Just asking out of curiosity, how many physics degrees do you have? > > > > > > In general, flashing the potential of a physics degree for a discussion of something as simple as momentum and kinetic energy is a good indicator that the degree doesn't exist. > > > > Hahahah. > > > > See, the physics of guns isn't my specialty (wasn't a course that was offered, that's something you're really only likely to go into if you specialise in gun manufacture - there might have been some in fluid flows but what I recall of that course focused more on the dynamics of jet engines), so I was worried that you might actually know something on the subject rather than bullcatting. Then you claimed that firing a lighter bullet with the same momentum was a simply matter of, well, firing it out with the same momentum. So, even if I'm lying, basic physics seems to be more than you know. > > > > Yeah, the maths is pretty basic physics. But it's apparently basic physics that you don't know. The maths for calculating the effect of a collision are a little more advanced, but to summarise - broadly speaking, in a direct collision, the more momentum, the more of that energy is likely to transfer into the target. In simple particle-particle collisions, lighter particles with high kinetic energy usually just ricochet with relatively little influence on the heavy particle (unless it's a photon striking with just the right energy to be absorbed). On the macroscopic scale, it's more complicated, but high kinetic energy and low momentum usually results in the kinetic energy going into heat, sound, possibly ricocheting or the projectile fragmenting, rather than into punching into the target. > > > > > > > Mine's a little rusty, but I remember enough of projectile dynamics that if you fire projectiles of different masses out of the same gun with the same propellant, than assuming no changes in efficiency, they'll all be shot out with the same kinetic energy, as the chemical energy of the propellant is transferred into the kinetic energy of the projectile. Now, the "no changes in efficiency" is a pretty rough assumption, but broadly speaking, you can't just say "fire the lighter bullet with the same momentum". > > > > > > > > So let's do some maths. Let's start with the assumption of a 10g projectile being fired with 1kJ of energy. Solve for energy: > > > > > > > > 1000J=(0.01kg*v^2)/2 > > > > 2000J/0.01kg = v^2 = 200000 > > > > v = sqrt(200000) = 447m/s > > > > P = 0.01*447 = 4.47kgm/s > > > > > > > > Now, if we half the mass of the bullet (and skip a few steps): > > > > > > > > 2000J/0.005kg = 400000 > > > > v = 632m/2 > > > > P = 0.005*632 = 3.16kgm/s > > > > > > > > Notable drop in momentum there. (Note that momentum is still conserved either way - the first case would have a higher recoil.) In order for the lighter bullet to be fired out with greater momentum, it would need to be fired out with _greater_ kinetic energy. While, from the research I've done, the opposite tends to be true: for a given gun, heavier projectiles leave the muzzle with higher kinetic energy, probably due to limits on just how hard the projectile can be pushed before it leaves the barrel. > > > > > > > > Of course, APDS and APCR does work on the principle of getting a higher velocity with a lighter projectile - but this is because APDS also has a narrower, high-density penetrator, so the momentum _per unit area_ is higher. Higher velocity projectiles also have the issue that they lose velocity more rapidly due to air resistance, so they lose penetrative power more rapidly over long range. > > > > > > > > Which is why, broadly speaking, the penetrating portion of a bullet or shell has generally been made of denser materials as technology advanced, working up to depleted uranium (and generally tungsten alloys for nations that prefer not to work with hazardous material). Mithril, if its properties are similar to other fantasy universes, would not be suitable for the penetrating portion of a projectile. Advanced projectile designs _might_ use mithril for some components, but there's no evidence that Tyrians have developed AP ammunition more advanced than "a slug of the heaviest hard metal you can find". Maybe in a century or two. But not now. > > > > > > Why would it take a century or two? The evidence that Thyrians are limited to simple slugs doesn't exist. We see truly amazing projectile effects from all classes that couldn't be produced by simple slugs. Your evidence for lore is evidence of game mechanics designed to create balance. > > > > Simple slugs _for armour piercing purposes._ Yeah, explosive, poison-bearing, incendiary, and similar types of rounds existed. These are all relatively primitive - they were around during World War 1 at the latest. There's also weird stuff like lightning shot, but that can be attributed to having access to materials with magical properties > > > > Advanced AP rounds like APCR, ABDS, and HEAT didn't really start showing up until World War 2. There's no evidence Tyrians have developed anything like that. Yet. > > > > > > Your math is right but what does it have to with stronger Mithril breeches and the potential to use more propellant? Why wouldn't metallurgists who can already work mithril into armor and weapons not be able to shape mithril into guns immediately at the invention of guns? Same applies to projectiles. You can do simple math but your overall logic doesn't work. > > > > The math was to show a simple demonstration that using a lighter projectile with the same propellant means losing momentum. > > > > I've always acknowledged that stronger breeches could improve performance, but I think you're exaggerating by how much. Increasing the ability of the breech to resist pressure does not directly translate into a proportional increase in the momentum applied to the target - there are various inefficiencies that increase as the amount of propellant is scaled up that prevent this. The most visible - literally - is that a lot of the energy is lost when the bullet leaves the barrel - this is largely why longer-barrel guns have better performance. If the bullet is leaving the gun faster (and this applies to lighter bullets as well as to using more propellant, incidentally, so while my mats above assumed that the lighter bullet goes out with the same kinetic energy of the heavier bullet, the truth is that the lighter bullet likely actually leaves the barrel with _less_ energy), the gas from the propellant escapes faster and less of the total energy from the propellant has gone into driving the bullet. > > > > There are also some physical limits as well - the bullet is never going to be accelerated faster than the gas pushing it along (and as it approaches that velocity, the amount of additional work done on the bullet by the expanding gas is going to start dropping off) and there's substantial resistance to accelerating anything beyond the speed of sound and once you do, a lot of kinetic energy starts being bled off in the form of shockwaves and the projectile will quickly decelerate back to below the sound barrier if it doesn't have some means of replacing that lost kinetic energy. I'm not sure how much these limits apply to firearms (although I do note that the calculations above suggest muzzle velocities above Mach 1), but they do provide additional sources of inefficiencies. > > > > The end result is that if you make the breech and barrel out of a more advanced material that resists pressure better, say 50% better, and take advantage of that by using 50% more propellant, you're not going to get 50% better performance. I don't know how much of a drop-off there'll be, but there'll be _some._ > > > > Conversely, however, if you make armour out of a material that resists pressure 50% better, than it IS going to perform 50% better, because the effectiveness of armour is pretty much _defined_ by its ability to resist pressure. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, we don't know the properties of Tyrian metals, but for darksteel and mithril, we can make educated guesses. Mithril is pretty consistently presented in fantasy where it appears as being lighter than steel, so it probably makes for an inferior projectile to steel (let alone copper, lead, and the like). Darksteel appears to be an alloy of platinum or some other metal found in platinum ores such as iridium, which would give a density similar to tungsten and lead. Orichalcum and Deldrimor steel we don't really have much to go on in terms of density - being even better for armour means it's probably at least not significantly _heavier_ than mithril, though, and even if it was, both seem to be materials that are rare and expensive enough that you wouldn't want to be making every bullet out of it. Maybe you'd see the odd specialist armour-piercing round made out of it, similar to how APCR/HVAP was used in WW2 (namely, generally being issued in small amounts with orders to only use them when regular AP wouldn't cut it). > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding the marshmallow example: Technically true, but we're clearly not looking at cee-fractional projectiles in Tyria. Broadly speaking, they seem to be similar velocities to real-world projectiles of about a century ago, maybe even a little bit slower. > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you mean c-fractional? I don't see why we couldn't see projectiles accelerated to relativistic speeds with magic. True we don't see it, but the reasons are arbitrary. If magic force fields can redirect or absorb kinetic energy then they should be able to add it as well. > > > > > > > > I've seen it spelled both ways. c-fractional is more technically correct, but I thought cee-fractional might be more recognisable to some sci-fi readers. > > > > > > > > Projectiles accelerated to relativistic speeds by magic might be possible, but like you say, _we don't see it._ I'm discussing from the perspective of what's in Tyria _now_, not what might hypothetically show up in the future. > > > > > > > > > > > > We've been focusing on combat between institutions and heroes. Perhaps guns would have a bigger impact on the lives of the magic poor. > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps, but where's the magic poor? Human armies have generally been presented as having magic-users as a significant minority _at the very least._ The White Mantle I'd consider an outlier (they essentially have a two-tier system, with spellcasters being channeled into the White Mantle proper leaving bandit forces relatively magic-poor), but you can look at Ascalonian ghost armies or several human factions in GW1 to get a broad idea of how common spellcasters are among human armies. **Technology is generally presented as being an equalising factor when a relatively magic-poor group (such as the legions after the overthrow of the Flame Legion) are having to go up against someone stronger in magic... and they still use melee troops because their _enemies_ aren't magic-poor.** > > > > > > > > > > > We see the bodies of the magic poor pile up everyday. Guns would eventually replace bows and melee weapons among the magic poor. To the bolded; your logic has magic poor melee attacking magic enriched melee and ranged?!?!? Because officer logic I guess. > > > > > > > > > > > There is a degree to which engineers and guns in general appear to be more common among magic-poor factions, such as the non-Flame charr and outlaw groups such as bandits and Separatists (and the latter are probably motivated by stealing charr munitions). But if we're talking large-scale warfare... thus far, most known cases of large-scale warfare have had at least one magic-rich side, whether it's humans versus charr or the Pact versus dragon minions. Talking about magic-poor battles is like talking about real-world modern warfare without air power: sure, it _can_ happen between really poor countries or between factions in a civil war, but if you're talking about major power conflict, _it's going to be there._ > > > > > > > > > > Most of the magic poor aren't soldiers but still need weapons to defend themselves. Guns would change their lives. I imagine there would be two levels of combat for any battlefield, the magic poor and magic enriched tiers. The magic poor would use the most powerful ranged weapons they could. Why would they want to engage magic enriched melee in close combat? In general, I think you are confusing combat mechanics designed to limit the natural advantages of ranged weapon platforms and narrative designed to create and reinforce class distinctiveness for realistic Tyrian combat lore. Which isn't a big deal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm thinking of battlefield scenarios here, where it's reasonable to consider that projectile countermeasures may be used. If you've got a soldier who doesn't use magic, then yeah, giving them a gun is a good idea. We actually see this with most 'magic poor' professions - warriors, engineers, even thieves (which have magic, but generally don't use it as attack spells) all use guns, while among spellcaster professions all we have so far is mesmers using offhand pistols. Problem is that if a few projectile-blocking or, worse, projectile-_reflecting_ fields go up, those guns could become useless at best and dangerous to their users at worst. So you give your troops the best ranged weapons you can afford... but you ALSO give them the best melee weapons you can afford so that your troops aren't completely helpless when some cat-hole of a mesmer blinks into the middle of them while invisible, pops a Feedback bubble, and portals in that squad of Guardians. > > > > > > > In the context of lore, guns make shields for melee essential. In the context of large scale combat, that is huge. Guns would displace all unsupported magic poor and support would have to include shields. All shields below a threshold would also be displaced. The broad strokes of Thyrian combat is portrayed accurately but the role of guns isn't. The portrayal of guns in combat is shaped more by the demand for class balance and distinction. We already see projectile weapon systems that would change the landscape of war more than they are shown. Which, again, is good and necessary. > > > > So you'd have soldiers that mostly use guns when their opponents are magic poor, and switch to melee weapons if their opponents have countermeasures (or, as was largely the case pre-guns, their opponents have armour that can resist their projectiles). Your point being? Most significant opponents will have countermeasures. Heck, engineers can make shield generators now (probably by using magical materials as a power source), so the enemy doesn't even have to be spellcaster-heavy. A squad of scrappers with bulwark gyros could mess up projectile-based tactics just as badly, especially if they're also packing rocket boots. > > > > Either way, as things stand _at the moment,_ how Tyrian warfare is portrayed makes sense. Armour technology and the existence of projectile countermeasures keeps melee combat relevant, for both the magic-rich and the magic-poor. > > > > > @"Psientist.6437" said: > > > Powerful, natural explosives that the magic poor could create and use, not "guns", would transform Thyrian warfare. In some ways this is an easier story to tell. Magic would suppress the demand for natural explosive technology. The magic enriched would monopolize the supply of explosive technology. As well, material technology and magic enrichment would set a very high threshold for the power of the explosive. Projectiles that don't need natural explosives have already pushed the evolution of defense. Thyrians could build exotic rounds and guns, but guns would be toys or inconsequential at scale until explosive technology evolved past a threshold that magic set very high and long ago. > > > > Hrrrmn. I'm sceptical about this too - there's probably a practical limit on the size of explosives that would be practical for infantry to use. > > > > What I suspect would _actually_ revolutionise Tyrian warfare is basically similar to what happened in the real world: mechanised warfare. At the moment, war vehicles are at a roughly WW1 level of use: they're present, but infantry still does most of the work. Even now, though, vehicles make weapons and pieces of magitech that are too big to be practical to be used by an infantry soldier actually useful in mobile warfare. With a bit of refinement and reconsideration of tactics, though, this could lead to a paradigm shift similar to that which occurred with WW2. > > > > I suspect infantry would still want to carry melee weapons, though. I don't think Tyrian warfare is ever likely to evolve into something quite like ours, because Tyrians have capabilities that we just don't have. Body armour will continue to be used, because material exists that makes it protective enough to be worthwhile while practical enough to be used. Swords will never be phased out entirely, because you have anti-projectile countermeasures and people who can teleport directly into your face from a starting point that's barely in range of most ranged small arms. > > More performance than substance. Now you are a rocket scientist. > > If weight limits the practical application of armor and projectiles can find their target, then speed and mobility dominate combat. There is no such thing as increasing armor weight and increasing the ability to chase something down! Mobility and projectile effectiveness dominate naval combat. Heavily armored battleships were never particularly effective. In WWII, these ships spent most of their time hiding or fleeing combat. The only way melee stays relevant in Thyria is by magically removing armor's weight dilemma and magically increasing mobility. Melee has to behave like range. > > The dichotomy you are implying between momentum and kinetic energy shows you either don't understand the concepts or are willing to imply bad physics to make a pedantic point about solid mithril bullets. Or is it cartridges or shells? It is impossible to increase velocity without increasing both momentum and kinetic energy. It looks like you know enough but not enough to understand that momentum isn't the most important property for a projectile. This would be especially true for energy based shields. Thankfully for your argument, you get to ignore or make up qualities for energy shields. You still don't have any evidence except class balance for the absence of AP rounds. You keep using what is actually class balance as evidence. Class balance treats the damage potential of bows and guns the same! Something about momentum maybe? > > At least we agree that what we see is accurate enough. > > edit: Momentum will matter most when the projectile is traveling. Once the projectile strikes, the potential for damage and armor piercing is dominated by material (not necessarily due to hardness), area of impact (the smaller the are the more energy is focused) and kinetic energy (how much energy can be delivered). It is easy to achieve more damage and armor penetration with kinetic energy even if there is a potentially smaller total "amor pentration" coefficient for one projectile over another. Momentum isn't as important for projectile power as you make it out to be. Obviously there are differences between kinetic energy and momentum. To understand the role of each in this discussion, consider the following. When a rifle is fired the bullet and the gun recoiling have the same momentum, but vastly different kinetic energies. The size of the rifle stock makes some difference, but it is the difference in mass that accounts for the bulk of the difference in danger. Even if there is a reduction in momentum and momentum were the crucial quality of a projectile, increasing velocity would give armor less time to redirect momentum or dissipate kinetic energy. Velocity increase armor penetration.

> @"EdwinLi.1284" said: > > @"Fipmip.7219" said: > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > > @"draxynnic.3719" said: > > > > What I suspect would _actually_ revolutionise Tyrian warfare is basically similar to what happened in the real world: mechanised warfare. At the moment, war vehicles are at a roughly WW1 level of use: they're present, but infantry still does most of the work. Even now, though, vehicles make weapons and pieces of magitech that are too big to be practical to be used by an infantry soldier actually useful in mobile warfare. With a bit of refinement and reconsideration of tactics, though, this could lead to a paradigm shift similar to that which occurred with WW2. > > > > > > Tank General: *"We are bringing 1000 tanks into battle to drive a wedge through the enemy lines and take the enemy city!"* > > > Elementalist: *"The city is gone, I just meteor showered it"* > > > Tank General: *"... well we still got lots of infantry to deal with!"* > > > Elementalist: *"Died from the same meteor shower."* > > > Tank General: *"... enemy tanks?* > > > Elementalist: *"Who the kitten even brings tanks to a battle where a single person can literally pull meteors from the sky?"* > > > Tank General: *":("* > > > > I think this basically the short of it. While i think that individuals in the lore have not been typically capable of calling meteor storms on cities by themselves, I don't really see why, for example, the charr couldn't just streamline some sort of ritual to basically call down the searing whenever they please. With that kind of power playing at attack and defense, armies are probably put into occupational and guerilla roles. That being said, anet has no problem handwaving away that sort of reality, as we have seen time and again throughout the story. > > The charr made it clear they wanted their culture to be more about technology over magic. Magic is still used but not at the level of Flame legion. > > It is partly due to their belief toward separating themselves from Gods since Magic has such connection to it though history. Even those with Magical talent in the Charr army uses it more towards development of technology that allows people to combat magic based enemies over developing better magic abilites for magic users. After all, what better people to create warfare technology to combat magic users or magic based creations, such as the Ascalonian ghosts, than magic users themselves by applying what they know about magic and using that knowledge to create technology that can replicate it to equal power or better powers. The Charr reliance on technology could also partly explain their social structure. Technology is a group effort while their foes only need to depend on themselves. The Charr are also our best example of a narrative pitting the magic poor against the enriched. I guess my main point in all of this is that what we see happening to the Charr would be a universal narrative and we don't see it. Which is, again, fine. This is a themepark mmo.