Triogenix Posted October 27, 2024 Posted October 27, 2024 (edited) Talk Trio Hello all. As some of you may know, for the past 4-5 months I have been working on a fundamental rework to the phoron scarcity. This is a massive project, and it's been pretty much the only thing I've been working on. We're getting very close to finishing the hardest part - the general effects of the scarcity, that will be spurwide. For this rework, I've chosen to approach this very methodically. This is firstly, for the good of the lore, and second for my own sanity. I'm starting with the general effects, then applying those to every entity within the spur, then writing that entities response to the spurwide effects, only 1 or 2 of them, which I'll then take and apply to individual planets, which will then have responses that highlight the effects on characters specifically. I'm hoping to have this done within a year, 6-8 months is my goal, but with the general effects done, now all that's left is factions and planets, which are far easier; there are literary techniques called parallels and overlaps. As a simple explanation on how they're sometimes used(to great effect), next time you sit down to watch a show pick 1 scene at the start of the season, and count how many times a scene that can be described in the exact same way happens in that season with different characters, or two characters who are similar in one way but different in the next. Depending on the show, you might get only a handful, or you might get more than 20, then think about which show you thought had more depth, it's something you can talk for hours about. So why is this important in writing? Essentially, it's two very simple way for a writer to make their work much easier to understand from the audiences perspective, while also keep an illusion of depth, difference, foils, in a way that the audience fully buys into. This is especially important for aurora lore, because we already have a lot of it, and this rework needs to add a fair amount more. This is why I'm only having one or two spurwide points, and then basing everything else off of those two points. In essence I'm writing at most two "scenes" and changing the "characters"(nations, planets, groups, species, etc) inb4 someone calls me a hack which means, the audience doesn't have to remember 8 different scenes, or the different scenes for every planet, you just have to remember one or two, and since everything is kind of a variation of that, it doesn't seem difficult to understand, even if you're reading a ton of words. It doesn't always work, as all literary techniques do, but why did I choose it for this rework? Below is a list of requirements for the scarcity to function in it's intended purpose, with subheaders for things that the above header requires to function as well. Essentially, it's laying out the OOC restrictions that I need to write within for this rework. The scarcity must be present The scarcity must be constantly affecting the spur. The scarcity needs to be the driving force, directly or indirectly, behind all events occurring within the Aurora setting This can be done by showing how NPCs and entities make decisions in this new galaxy, compared to the old. Introduces long lasting affects on planets This really can't ever go away. EVERY PLANET ALSO NEEDS TO BE AFFECTED There can be degrees, but as an example; Moghes and Adhomai would be less affected by the scarcity, BUT STILL AFFECTED, than Biesel and Earth, because Moghes and Adhomai were already broke However, they should and would still be affected by the actions of other nation states, which is not the scarcity directly. Using the Hegemony as an example, maybe they're on the edge again in terms of feeding their people, cause dominia increased pirates in the sparring sea to try and offset some government expense. Or the alliance starts being assholes and making it difficult for Hephaestus ships carrying raw materials from Moghes to NHP, but not if they're ships coming from the SSRM. Geopolitically is around This is actually more similar to the first point, but specifically in terms of factions. it shouldn't be that they're every action is driven by the scarcity itself, but it should tie to back to it. An example would be having a situation that was a result of the scarcity, drive a faction to do something Another example would be having a situation, that was a result of a situation, that was a result of a situation, that was a result of the scarcity. The effects at all scales must be consistent Using a current example, interstellar travel should be fundamentally different if you compare Biesel and Sol An important point here, especially with how I'm writing it, is that them having fundamentally different experiences is not always beneficial to the narrative. Still need to figure out specifics here. There needs to be a written out, long term plan, atleast in broad strokes, so that there is a level of consistency across loremasters. This can be done on the forums Lastly, the scarcity itself should be fairly equal with it's effects. The only scale would be developed to undeveloped, with the latter getting off "easier." This doesn't mean every nation should have the same effects - governments and other entities should not be simply ignoring the issues - the differences should arise in the different and unique ways factions choose to try and mitigate the primary focus. The scarcity needs to be important Be debilitating enough that a healthy amount of instability is introduced into the entire setting, allowing for more freedom and creativity in creating characters and writing. Instability is one of the oldest tricks to shake up the setting. Here, the instability is a result of a potential resource shortage. Phoron needs to be a requirement to do what the primary focus is at an effective/efficient rate, and a lack of phoron means that an entity must do the primary focus at a ineffective/inefficient rate. Furthermore, all entities must be somewhat reliant on phoron for their level of life, or at least on things that phoron effects massively. As a result of the second half, the primary focus should not be something that, if made incredibly difficult for the faction, causes their narrative to be a worse story(like, just a bad story, not a story about something bad) Additionally, it should not be so important and an issue that it is difficult to write around. This will just see it ignored, as it's too much of a pain to consider. The scarcity needs to be relevant The scarcity must have impacts that are tangible, believable, and generally enjoyable(good or bad) in-game for characters. If it's just an out of game interaction with the lore, it never sticks as well. These impacts cannot just be in backstories from planets, there needs to be a clear presence onboard as well. Money needs to matter. The same as Point 3 Section 2 in addition with that there isn't any reasonable potential for a solution which mitigates the debilitations of the primary focus. Different reasoning, this time it's about making sure that the scarcity isn't something that can be ignored, it's relevant to characters no matter who they are. If there are - write them down on the planning document The scarcity needs to be the driving force, directly or indirectly, behind all events occurring within the Aurora setting This necessitates that the scarcity fluctuates every now and then, which changes the setting. This could be both good and bad fluctuations, but generally should trend towards bad unless there is a desire to end the scarcity and replace it with something else. DO NOT BURN OUT or if you do finish the rework before quitting The Scarcity, A Villain, And Progressing A Narrative The overall purpose of the scarcity is an OOC function that creates possibilities, allows for more freedom and creativity in narrative direction, and every once in a while shakes up the status quo which always establishes itself, keeping the setting fresh, without massive retcons. This is it's purpose, because that's what it needs to be, it just so happens this is also the purpose of an antagonist literarily. The phoron scarcity is the classic man vs nature conflict, where instead of man surviving against nature, it is man killing nature for short term gain while ignoring potential long term damage, and once there's no more nature left, turning on their fellow man. It is likely the best representation of one of our setting's pillars, corporations; entities who will do anything for more short term profit, even if it damns them and everyone they know in the process. However, that makes the corporations sound like they should be the antagonist, and the ones doing things and then progressing the narrative. And I agree, they should be more proactive than they currently are, because right now they are almost entirely reactive to situations as they occur. However, the corporations must always remain the protagonists, because player characters are part of corporations, and they are indisputably the protagonist. So there needs to be something else pushing forward the narrative, and that antagonist being a creation of the corporations is the best way of making the corporations at fault, but not the antagonist. I think it would be a lot less interesting if overall antagonist that's supposed to progress the narrative was a state, or related to a state, and 100% "an outsider" not something we helped create. Current Very Generalized Changes(Basically my to do list, some things got changed in ways not mentioned here because I haven't updated this) Firstly, to start off this section I must say this; there isn't anything in here that is unnecessary. All of this stuff fulfills one of the goals above, in a way that I think minimizes drawbacks and maximizes positive qualities. I know some people would disagree, but trust me, if I could do less work for this, I would. If something's not necessary to change, I'm not gonna touch it. Shifting the importance of Phoron away from interstellar travel, as this is incredibly difficult to keep going, when it's difficult to write around. Additionally, making interstellar travel a little easier in some regards, and a little harder in others. The focus on interstellar travel alone would increase the chance of this being overwritten by whoever's LM in 2027. Reason; we are an interstellar setting. All our factions are interstellar. If interstellar travel is difficult(which, if it was the primary focus, it would need to be) doing anything in the setting is difficult. And that's not very fun. Placing far more of writing about the scarcity on planet pages, rather than general pages. Planet pages are origins, and that's where the focus of the effects should be, at the character level, rather than the geopolitical or spur level. Additionally, the general scarcity page and faction additions/reworks should be kept as short as possible, only info that writers need/like to have to do something with this narrative. Implement a system in the lore staff section of the forums which contains broad stroke arcs and plotlines for every species, so that even as writers change, things can keep going. I've been trying to do this for a while, but haven't found an effective system. I think using the same system I'm using to write this, I can carry it over, once I've proved it works. Create Economics Lore page Macro-Economics page Keep it simple, keep it sweet, writer info prioritized. Use infographics where-ever possible Reach out to members of the community who understand this better than you do. Codify Trade-Routes with a map. Also create a bubble map with things like general GDP, biggest exports and exports, etc. Goal is to show that the spur's economy is interlinked, and there's no real option except to participate. Microeconomics Use it to talk about economics on specific planets however, where there is far more detail. Every planet/faction/entity needs to be, if only a medium amount, reliant on phoron. Mechanical pay system that can be edited to reflect changing situations. Need to speak with devs Player info prioritized, talk about the average person and what they do, make it personal, don't zoom too far out. At the same time, don't focus too far in either - the point of this lore should be to illustrate the impacts on player characters specifically. This does not mean getting rid of phoron gas, or phoron meds(no it does for the meds), but hopefully, phoron in it's solid form in a RSC, and phoron in it's gas form is generally unchanged. I do not care if that's not possible - I will make it possible. Shift focus from Interstellar Travel to phoron being the only element which is a Room Temperature Superconductor. Codify the interstellar travel system Should still mostly efficient and effective - but not at zero cost. It should be something mitigated, and the migitation not have awful drawbacks, but it should have drawbacks Idea for Biesel, making fat stacks off of exporting their remaining phoron, however is therefore dealing with more pirates attacking those shipments, still hasn't diversified their economy, and isn't considering the long term. Rewrite but keep the solved/mitigated Interstellar Travel we currently have. Create a map that contains all the connections between named systems - and CLEARLY how it functions. Should also try and do some new stuff here. Phoron should be used to produce; Most electronics in developed and/or used space/planets/regions of a planet. Most computational tools, components, and similar(aka computers) Through the two above - basically any piece of technology/electronics from a developed nation/planet/region is gonna have phoron in it. AI NOT IPCS Quantum Computers Electrical Infrastructure includes continent crossing powerlines and the wires inside your walls. Bluespace Drives Phoron should still be used to some extent as fuel still, but with an unbalanced ratio; such as 1mol phoron : 5mol other gas. Potentially develop new bluespace drive IC'ly? This solves the largest issue with the phoron scarcity, why people besides biesel and Elyra are using phoron. It's cause there's nothing else that does this. This especially is not final yet, I'm waiting for some feedback - however I think it is an elegant solution(thank you for the idea sammy) Make the discovery date of phoron ONLY earlier, sometime in the 2350s This is sadly kind of necessary for the spur to be reliant on phoron already - the bluespace stufff... maybe also a bit earlier, but could stay, talk with human lore. Idea for History; Sol was in the middle of the warp gate project Decided it would be a good idea to also try to build bluespace gates once the research was done Deficit spending.exe Stop before going all the way because you need to start spending even more Funnel new excess money into navy Caeserism grows.jpg Uhhhhhh yea idk where else I was gonna with this There should be attempts to replicate phoron, AS A SOLID SOLARIANS, with a focus not on replacing ships and similar, but on finding a replacement for the phoron in manufacturing, infrastructure, computational shit, etc. Break up the current alliances so that all alliances are on relatively equal footing as each other, which also goes to increase instability. A massive one here that I suspect won't go over well is the Nralakk Federation being allies with Sol needs to go. Having the two primary superpowers in the setting allied to each other is horrid narratively - especially with tension increase - I know this is like Sol's 1 alien alliance, but this is just; Problematic for every other team OOC'ly, as it makes both powers seem almost invincible from outside forces, to the extent they'll never be seriously defeated; their only downfalls are internal. This is fine to an extent, but they both need a peer level threat - and since they're the only two superpowers really, they kinda gotta be threats to each other. Or IDK we need to supercharge biesel so it can threaten Sol but that'd be silly. Limiting in terms of alliances. As both superpowers are in an alliance with each other, they don't really have any real threats - so they don't need to interact with the smaller nations to build a coalition, when it's just "Sol-Nrrallak Death Ball." This can be done in either an IC or OOC manner, though IC is preferred. Maps! I know for a fact these are outdated af - so they're going to change a fair amount when I finally finish everything The above map is out of date. Edited 14 hours ago by Triogenix 5 2 Quote
dessysalta Posted October 28, 2024 Posted October 28, 2024 Out of curiosity, what made you choose to make phoron be less relevant (or potentially irrelevant in some cases) for IPCs specifically? Does this apply to cyborgs or other robotics, too? Quote
Triogenix Posted October 28, 2024 Author Posted October 28, 2024 36 minutes ago, dessysalta said: Out of curiosity, what made you choose to make phoron be less relevant (or potentially irrelevant in some cases) for IPCs specifically? Does this apply to cyborgs or other robotics, too? For IPCs specifically - in general since they have a fixed price tag attached to them, I would rather not see them become more ""expensive"" than other species, or more difficult to manufacture at a baseline; so in this case positronics. When move onto species/factions specifically, depending on the feedback I get from the IPC team, the case might end up being positronics specifically don't use phoron, but other components in certain IPC frames, or just contemporarily produced IPCs in general do. As for cyborgs; no idea what I want to do yet. Any significantly powerful AI is going to use phoron though(so the horizon's AI would) 1 Quote
Triogenix Posted 14 hours ago Author Posted 14 hours ago (edited) Hi. So I wanted to give a little update on this - I bring up the scarcity pretty frequently in discord, but I wanted to throw this up on the forums for those who aren't around on discord when I am. Basically - a lot has changed. Don't look at the original post and then expect the end result scarcity to match it. Here's a teaser I posted on discord that is somewhat out of date; https://docs.google.com/document/d/15rjI111OpFeofF5X6s1QRRGEGVgxAv7x8cmCmddZQjY/edit?usp=sharing NOTE; THIS IS NOT AN INVITATION FOR FEEDBACK. This is a rework that will take place across the entire wiki. Any feedback I receive from people outside of the lore team who don't have the full context of everything else that is being changed will therefore most likely not be helpful; as they are attempting to give feedback with - at best - partial understanding of the situation. Feedback can wait until the rework is completed. P.S - if anyone has or is currently getting an economics (specifically like macro-economics) degree and would be comfortable helping me out, please reach out. I'm not asking for ghostwriters, or other outside contributors of any form; I already have an very solid "end-point" idea of what I want to do. What I would like is someone who is more knowledgeable than I to help me get to that predetermined "end-point" in a way that makes sense and doesn't make me look like an idiot, nothing more, nothing less. Basically, an expert consultation more than anything. Edited 14 hours ago by Triogenix Quote
KingOfThePing Posted 12 hours ago Posted 12 hours ago Can someone explain to me why we try to resuscitate this forsaken Phoron scarcity topic for literal years now, in which it just has not worked as a plot device, instead of just moving on and doing something actual meaningful with our time? For once I am not even trying to play the devil's advocate here but just take a step back and look at the entire Phoron scarcity topic from a distance and to evaluate and maybe admit that it just does not work for as a lot of time that passed has shown. Maybe just tick it off and move on with something....else. Quote
Triogenix Posted 11 hours ago Author Posted 11 hours ago (edited) 1 hour ago, KingOfThePing said: Can someone explain to me why we try to resuscitate this forsaken Phoron scarcity topic for literal years now, in which it just has not worked as a plot device, instead of just moving on and doing something actual meaningful with our time? For once I am not even trying to play the devil's advocate here but just take a step back and look at the entire Phoron scarcity topic from a distance and to evaluate and maybe admit that it just does not work for as a lot of time that passed has shown. Maybe just tick it off and move on with something....else. This is a question I have asked myself many times over the past ten months - and I will explain why every time I chose to continue. 1. First and foremost, if I had scrapped the scarcity that wouldn't have solved shit - I'd need to come up with something new to replace it. Our setting is one where for the vast majority of the time, justifying conflict is extremely difficult, and justifying the setting not trending towards stagnation is equally difficult. Think about how many times you've heard the question "why?" or "but why would x?" in regards to anything lore-related that shook things up. Therefore, we will always need something that OOC'ly creates narrative potential by making conflict easier to justify in some way, for narratives are fundamentally structured by conflicts. Which leads to my second point...... 2. Coming up with something else would have been just as difficult, if not slightly more so, than reworking the scarcity. Firstly, I'd have to retcon a ton of stuff regarding the past five years of IC articles, developments, and similar, or if assuming I ended it IC'ly as well, again, still set up and start whatever would be replacing it (and also, plan it out and put that in the staff forums as documentation so future LMs won't have to do what I did, and crawl through old discord logs trying to figure out what somebody was cooking). Therefore, I'd have still spent the past ten months on that project, but instead of reworking the scarcity, I'd be replacing it; functionally there's no difference between the two. The reason I'd still have spent ten months on that is......... 3. There is already a ton of stuff done, however, I will not push anything onto the wiki until everything is done; as big reason the scarcity turned out the way it did, IMO, is that it was done piecemeal, as when you have a writing team of 21 writers and two loremasters, you'll get a lot of different conclusions from the same sentence. This is a fact of human communication; it happens, but by not doing a rework piecemeal, there's a significantly lower chance of these errors in communication occurring. No matter if I retconned the scarcity, I'd still have done it this way. Furthermore, I've had to add, rework, replace, or outright delete a ton of stuff to make the scarcity (or any other thing that creates narrative potential) - even before factoring in the changes to phoron - in order to make it work. For example - I'd still probably need to make a page about the economics of the spur, trade, and tourism, and fill that with lore no matter what I chose to replace the scarcity. A ton of this comes down to Issues vs Problems, something I explain in more detail here; Put simply, any spurwide event such as this is much more likely to introduce problems that remain problems forever (especially if it's done piecemeal), which don't introduce any narrative dynamics because the lore they would need to do so either didn't exist, or because the problems were all but hand-waved by lore team members at the time; as an example, you can't have interstellar travel be difficult when we're an interstellar setting - everything would start to break, so therefore much of the effects of bluespace becoming less viable were left vague at best, if mentioned at all (or in a few rare cases, mentioned on a single page for a faction, but then ignored on all the other pages for that faction). Stuff like this only contributes more to the increasing stagnation of the setting, as things become less likely to happen. There are ways to sidestep this, but they aren't easy, (one such way is reworking every wikipage before releasing the update) which is why they weren't done before. 4. Lastly, and potentially most importantly, this is taking so long because I'm determined not to make the same mistakes that were made in the past. You mention that people have been trying to "resuscitate this forsaken Phoron Scarcity topic for literal years now" - which I just fundamentally disagree with. I've been on the team since the spring of 2022, so going on three years at this point; if you asked me what people have been trying to do regarding the scarcity for my entire time on the team, I'd come away with the exact opposite conclusion. Whenever possible writers have tried to write around, mitigate, or otherwise hand wave the scarcity because it fundamentally doesn't work; the reasons why are legion, I could point out the interstellar travel issue again, or how it was done piecemeal, or how the exact effects were very badly put into writing, or how much of the lore that would be where the biggest impacts of the scarcity would be written simply didn't exist, and many, many more. I don't want to repeat those mistakes - so I'm going to take my time with it, make sure I organize everything properly, talk with my team about it, think it through thoroughly, so on so forth. As far as I'm concerned, this is what is necessary to do anything like this in a way that will be successful, and trying to do it any other way is a waste of time. Conclusion: I will be brief since I have already essay posted. At the end of the day, I do not want to do this rework; it's a slog mentally, plus a ton of work, in addition to my regular duties as LM. However, I'm okay with doing it, like legitimately, and I don't resent those who came before me for not doing what I am doing. When I started this project, we were about four years on from KOTW with little done to address the issue of the scarcity, and ignoring a problem - whether outright ignoring or ignoring by writing around - doesn't make it go away. Someone was going to have to deal with this eventually, so I had a choice to make: continue ignoring it (I put a band-aid solution in this category) and let the problem fester, or do something about it. I chose the latter, and that's a choice you're free to disagree with; however, it's a choice I'm going to see through properly. If that means it takes a year and a half (my original estimate) that means it takes a year and a half, that's fine by me; it's better to put in a lot of effort and make sure something is done properly than to not put in that effort and make a half-ass'd attempt that'll probably end up doing more harm in the long term, while leaving the mess for the next guy. Tldr; I'm reworking the scarcity because it plays a critical role in allowing us to have narratives within our setting, and it's the best bad option I had, having the most gain for work ratio. It's taking so long because I'm a) dropping the entire rework all at once and b) needed to add, rework, replace, or delete a ton of stuff that wasn't previously introduced to make anything like this do what it's supposed to do and introduce a narrative dynamic into what is otherwise a setting that continues to exponentially stagnate. Edited 10 hours ago by Triogenix Quote
KingOfThePing Posted 6 hours ago Posted 6 hours ago Sorry but this reads like "we have to stick to it because we have to stick to it", since "the scarcity [...] plays a critical role in allowing us to have narratives". Okay, every other big plot hook, whatever it may be also fulfills that role and are maybe not in a creative dead end because the scarcity topic is kind of a big nothingburger? It has no consequences in-game, it is kind of ignored unless it's the (forced) center topic in an event and it just doesn't fit. It's irrelevant that your rework takes as long as it takes. That was not criticized, nor is it relevant because things take time and that's fine. It's about the fact that this entire angle is a dead end and has been for years. There is no shame, nor is it in any way detrimental if another big plot hook, one that might simply work better, could be considered, because no one can guarantee that this Phoron scarcity will "work" after your rework either. It has been tried, multiple times with multiple people at the helm, and we are no step further. I also don't want to start a huge discussion here. I just wanted to point out that it may be very worth considering another story hook instead of the one we have right now. Quote
Triogenix Posted 2 hours ago Author Posted 2 hours ago (edited) Okay. I'm incredibly tired. I will be brief. 3 hours ago, KingOfThePing said: Sorry but this reads like "we have to stick to it because we have to stick to it", since "the scarcity [...] plays a critical role in allowing us to have narratives". It is the best option to stick to because we need something fulfilling the scarcity's intended role in the narrative. There are tons of other ideas, suggestions, or similar that could fill that niche, but functionally, they're all solutions to the same issue. 3 hours ago, KingOfThePing said: because the scarcity topic is kind of a big nothingburger? I'm not sure what you mean by this. If you mean the scarcity as it currently is in lore - yes. It's a nothingburger, anyone with eyes can see that, what's more important is why is it a nothingburger. It is also why it is getting reworked. 3 hours ago, KingOfThePing said: It has no consequences in-game, it is kind of ignored unless it's the (forced) center topic in an event and it just doesn't fit. If you read the linked google doc of the new phoron page and still think that will remain the case, I don't know what else to tell you. We just randomly picked that the listed applications of phoron are all present aboard the ship, and that there's enough spread across departments that it could potentially require decisions to be made as to where to allocate phoron if say - there wasn't enough to supply everyone. 3 hours ago, KingOfThePing said: It's irrelevant that your rework takes as long as it takes. That was not criticized, nor is it relevant because things take time and that's fine. It's about the fact that this entire angle is a dead end and has been for years. There is no shame, nor is it in any way detrimental if another big plot hook, one that might simply work better, could be considered I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding the point of the scarcity in the wider setting; it is not and should never be a plot hook. Plot hooks can stand alone from a dynamic narrative (though they are greatly more effective with a dynamic narrative), and certainly not something that creates a dynamic narrative. Dynamic narratives are created by allowing conflict to happen more easily within the setting, and it's that latter part being the point of the scarcity; just to make conflict to happen more easily and more justifiably. 3 hours ago, KingOfThePing said: It has been tried, multiple times with multiple people at the helm, and we are no step further. I disagree. The original scarcity was basically just stating, "Hey, things are unstable and conflict is easier to justify now" without backing up why, how, or what exactly it really meant across the wiki; combined with the fact that many teams were in maintainer hell updating old stuff, that's all it stayed as for it was just a statement on a handful of pages. All attempted fixes since then have been much of the same, statements about the scarcity that mean little, never translating into the wider setting. If you want to count it as a rework, that's up to you, but I wouldn't consider it trying. Trying means putting your money where your mouth is, for lack of a better term, and backing up statements like that across the wiki. I.E, if things are unstable and conflict is easier to justify, what does that practically mean for someone on New Gibson? Black Markets? What about NHP? How do we show that? How do we write it out? ETC, then repeat that for functionally every lore wikipage; that is what trying means. I also disagree that this has been tried for another reason, and that is the scale of the rework. Every previous rework, including the original scarcity tbh, bent the scarcity and only the scarcity to try and get it to fit in better with the setting. That is not the case here - I'm not trying to once again try to bend the scarcity to fit the setting cause yea, that's been tried before and hasn't worked - instead, the setting is being bent to fit the scarcity. I was considering axing entire factions as part of this, to give an idea of exactly what I mean when I say "bend the setting." I should have gone to sleep already but I wanted to close this out before doing so. I think calling it a rework can be deceiving, as it implies some continuity with the current scarcity. The current scarcity has phoron being used as the funny fuel for BS drives and similar; with the rework, it has turned into the funny purple rock that the entire current technological and economic level of the spur requires to continue. Without it - it'd be like going from what we have in 2024 back to the 1920s. It's not the same thing at all. Edited 2 hours ago by Triogenix Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.