Maintenance of what, exactly? I agree: several of the morphs appear to be 'just cuz', and Slitheroid tops the list. Nothing wrong with that, of course. Humanity sometimes does things for that reason. :) I'll give them this, and it's a solid one: they're the most comfortingly humanoid non-humanoid, yes? Arachnoids are probably a much more practical shape for anything a slitheroid could do… except any kind of social interaction. Cuz they're horrifying robospiders. Same for flexbots, novacrabs, anything uplifted, reaper (although they have an excuse), etc.

:) If you're going to argue in the other thread that kids need owies kissed, then I get to argue that humans innately are afraid of giant robospiders. Anyway, I think you'd send a flexbot to anything that an arachnoid couldn't reach. I don't want to understate the importance of the human-like-ness of the slitheroid, though. That really is a big deal, and they're basically unique in that status (among the non-humanoids).

Tyrfing wrote:

In the case of a skinmasked synth that doesn't use artificial muscles, that would actually be one way to spot a skinjob - what's under the skin doesn't move right. Do something like clench your fist and you can see your whole forearm shift. You simply won't see that on a synth that just has a slab of flesh wrapped over its shell. It's probably a contributing factor to the uncanny valley once you spot it.

It's funny you should mention that, because I was just rewatching some scenes from Ghost in the Shell earlier. The flashback to the "rebirth" of Major Kusanagi into her latest form deals with that nicely. [img]http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/5384/00596008269.jpg[/img] Beneath the skin, it'd not be too difficult to replicate the appearance of a human being. I can see, though, on Luna, the extremely poor and desperate paying for the cheapest skinjob they can get, and coming out looking like glassy-eyed, dead-faced dolls that no-one wants to associate with.

It's entirely possible. Would be even easier just to give them an AR overlay, really. Again, though, uncanny valley tends to come into play at close-but-not-quite-human faces.

I also suspect that 'muscles' are the best solution for actuating a synth morph they've got lot's of advantages. That said; they're probably lot's more expensive than [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynch_motor]flat motors[/url] and that would be why Case morphs look like a skinny [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asimo]ASIMO[/url] and have speed and aptitude caps. Of course there are the 'Shells' that don't need to have muscle analogues to perform their more limited functions and there will be other purpose built synths that work in environments (like Venus' surface) in which synthetic muscles probably can't operate. Why muscles are better: I don't think synth morphs are manufactured with any 'Face' at all unless their intended purpose involves Face2Face interaction with a customer--and why would you put a synth in that position? Any social interaction is more effectively facilitated by a mesh avatar than some type of clunky mechanical face that has no productive purpose. If you're a corporation and you need someone with a face it's going to be better to put a socially skilled indenture in a Pod morph. Apparently some freaks like being bots, (Why?), so they will actually own a synth in which they can put any type of human analogue physiognomy they like on their bot and it's probably cheep to do so. (effectively cosmetic surgery) But the only reason they'd do that is to interface physically with Biomorphs because synthetic socialization it probably done through the mesh. As was stated above any synth that want's to avoid offending someone by a lack of ability to smile and wink can do so by broadcasting an AR skin. Gross Morphological departure from human norm is whimsical and fun, (or just silly and impossible to accurately role play), in a game setting. In any real analysis I can't see any argument for spiders or snakes or crabs. (And there is no case for octipods or giant parrots or other breed of furry no matter how hard you want to fap over the yiffiness, no, I havn't read the uplift books because it's a dumb idea promoted by PETA people and vegans who should be spending their intelligence and passion trying to change something that actually matters! damn, that felt good :D but I digress...) My point is that in a human environment gross morphological departure from the human norm is just wheelchair basketball. It might be fun or have some specialized utility but it's not a situation anyone would choose to take on full time in a world designed around bipedal humans. Having a snake or spider morph just means that you can't do 90% of the things other people do as well as 99% of other people. And what specialized utility does a snake or spider morph grant? In microgravity 8 legs is at least 6 more legs than you can ever use. In gravity having more than two legs is useless unless you want someone to ride you. I also have to disagree, strongly, with the proposal that having a snake body somehow helps you hold onto things or maneuver. I have two points here; A, Prehensile Feet [cost: LOW] it gives you more HANDS which is always better than more feet. B, how stable is one point of contact verses two or more? A bouncer can hold a grab bar with both feet/hands and work, or even with both feet/hands and one hand/hand or hold on with one feet/hand and then work with... I'm sure there are more permutations. But even two normal feet and legs are going to be more effective in micrograv than one snake body. Anyhow, in any environment, outside of the aquatic, humans are pretty much perfect or easily modified/accessorized for most tasks. I'd appreciate any argument that could hilight how an alternate morph is anything other than a handycap.

Sorry I do tend to ramble when i stop by to espouse mostly unfounded opinions and inuendo. My point is that in microgravity ARMS are better than LEGS. I just don't see any utility to a bunch of legs in micro gravity. If the nova crab had 8 arms and two claws I'd say cool but essentially he's got 2 claws two arms with tiny hands and 6 more of something that is only as useful as human legs and feet. What does he gain by toting all the mass of 4 redundant legs? Volume to volume a bouncer has more utility in micrograv than a novacrab or an arachnid synth because they have an equal number of thumbs and a bouncer's got hands at either end instead of just the one. (and on top of that, a bouncer doesn't have any problem working in a human lab or a kitchen or a workshop in a gravity environment.) But you also make my point about tertiary points of contact in reference to the slitheroid. In gravity low, normal or high (up to ≤ 2G I'd say) bipedal is the way to go. There's a reason that humans are the greatest distance runners in the animal kingdom. Extra legs help you carry more weight in the form of guts because you're a herbivore (cow, elephant) but we don't really need that since we invented wheels. Or extra legs and a long springy spine (cat, horse) can help you accelerate quickly to get meat or avoid being meat. We don't really need that because we invented chemistry and electronics. Extra legs don't really accomplish much besides lowering a bodys strength/Mass ratio. A significant fraction of the energy of each leg is tied up hauling around that leg. Diminishing returns. Now I'm not real sure about this but, it seems to me that spiders have lots of legs because spiders need to climb. (I have no idea why crabs have so many legs except that it makes them 8 Times as Tasty! can you imagine?! One of those nova crab claws must weigh 50lbs. I say boil the suckers then give me an ax, a crowbar, and a 5 gallon bucket of hot butter!) OK back to spiders. Spiders climb so they need lot's of legs to keep 3 points of contact at all times. But spiders also fall. And I've noticed that when the do they generally live through it. That's because they're small... damnit I kinda lost my train of thought and I'm hungry now I was going to say something about how strength scales linearly and mass gets cubed or something so the legs on a really big spider have to be much larger than scale and falling hurts more so the advantages of a giant spider at high G are very much muted but now I'm hungry. I'm sure you can figure it out for yourself.

The smaller you are, the less you need to worry about gravity. If you halve your size, you about quarter your strength and area, but your mass is 1/8th. That is why spiders have no trouble falling - they reach a very low terminal velocity almost instantly. Also, when you are small there are plenty of handholds on most surfaces. Plus you can make use of stickiness. For human-scale morphs in microgravity the important thing is being able to maintain enough handholds to control movement. A bouncer might need three handholds for a solid stance, leaving it with just one free hand to do something else with. Having a tail or more limbs is a good idea. Having four or more handholds probably is excessive for most situations - but when rushing it makes sense. The big problem in microgravity spaces is that you could drift into a volume with no handholds. Very embarrassing - hence a tendency for microgravity habitats to be rather warren-like. Being able to fly or cause air flows is not a bad idea. Even if you are not ambidextrous having numerous manipulators can be practical. The novacrab, equipped with extra hands and grip pads, can work in extremely inconvenient spaces with numerous tools ready. In full zero gravity you can just put tools in the air (briefly before they drift), but if there is a grav field this might not be possible. So I think the crab makes sense.