Tech outside of Omnimancy

[Aspices]

I have come across two seperate examples of people claiming to be using tech(one of them, here, acually calls it Omnimancy), and the other here, and wanted to know if their tech had anything in relation to this group, or not.

[LordArt]

Yes, they both got their information from here, either directly or indirectly, but neither were actually students. They both kept the credit of where they got their ideas from, and the latter was a frequent of this forum a few years back (Look for the username Miri). He asked some good questions and got decent answers to run with. There have been several attempts that I know of to form tech based groups outside of Omnimancy itself, but with most new groups, they have a tendency to be short lived and never got that far. Omnimancy has been around for almost 20 years, although perhaps only by that name for about 15 years. It didn't really have a name before then.

Does their tech have any relation, not from skimming the articles. Yes, the casting style is similar, and one can tell they are using what has been discussed in the forums here openly, but it's not "Omni Style" tech if that is what you are asking. Omni Tech is based on scores of people's work and experimentation for over 15 years to come up with new things and streamline what works, what doesn't, and what works REALLY well. The articles seem primitive in comparison compared to what is officially taught within Omnimancy, hence why I say it's not Omni tech. This is not meant as an insult to them at all, but just observations of how things were 15+ years ago versus how they are now. They are individuals without the man power to take it to the next level, and I wish them luck. Of the two, Miri seems to have a far better grasp.

[miri]

I started one such failed research group some years ago (Wombat Soup), five to seven people at a given time working on related projects with completely open exchange. Eventually it got stale when the "discoveries" slowed to a trickle from a torrent. The group broke up about a year-and-a-half after starting, with some casual unofficial meetings and collaboration to this day. I can certainly see why Omnimancy has needed to become so large to keep from falling apart, given that experience. Tech isn't right for everyone, people up and quit for just that reason, people reach creative plateaus, people sometimes don't get along... Omnimancy has a big advantage in part because it started as an in-person meetup, and again because of huge enrollment with enough dedicated practitioners to keep it working.

As to advancement, yes, the work wombat soup did was fairly primitive in some ways, but it also set myself and the others in it on a rather different path from Omnimancers. I expect even we unlearned tech users have a few tricks and quite a few pieces which Omnimancers do not have (though Omnimancy is probably about 85% tricks and pieces I don't have, to be fair). It's entirely possible to study/use tech without becoming an Omnimancer, though the origins of tech for human use belongs unquestionably to Omnimancy.

[LordArt]

Eventually it got stale when the "discoveries" slowed to a trickle from a torrent.

Yeah, that sounds about right. It is an inherent problem with tech and Omnimancy in general as a group. The lower level stuff is EASILY available, and/or at least easy to figure out. The higher ended you go, the more exponentially complex it gets, and therefore breakthroughs are few and far in-between. One has to find alternate ways to source tech, or do a lot more reverse engineering (the latter admittedly not as successful as the former). To keep the brick walls of nothing more interesting, one teaches new students. Not everyone likes to teach, and while doing it for one "wave" makes you understand the tech better, doing it for multiple waves is something else again, so one has to keep things interesting and fun. Hence some of the wacky names we give things. As far as how to get out of the brick wall phase, it's mostly about focusing one's efforts on the research. What is the new "bottleneck" that prevents one from reaching that next plateau and what can be done to solve that issue. These days we have so much information, it takes 2 years of weekly teaching to go through it all, and that's just the "stock" stuff. The more interesting stuff is what isn't stock. However, there is eventually a way past that brick wall, and now I keep things interesting by "retroing" down tech to newbie students to validate the newer theories. Meaning, taking really high end stuff, and simplifying it down so that newer students can actually cast it. It isn't as effective as the original, but they see the benefit, and I see the validation of the theories it's based on. So in essence they are doing research without really seeing it as such. Pushing the envelope is a hard thing to do and certain risks have to be done within reason (where that reason line really should be is a debatable thing).

Sorry your group broke up Miri. I wish I could say it wasn't typical of what I've seen. It's all fun when the tech is really flowing, but then it slows and people hit the "now what?" stage. Most don't have the patience to do real research, which is a LOT of failures or dead ends which means a lot of time of nothing. Consider 20 years of research in 2 years of teaching, that should tell you something (although I don't teach all I know anymore and haven't for quite a while). I still don't have a solve for the "now what" stage really for most people and simply training people to my level because they are bored is inherently a bad idea. Glad you are still kicking the tires though. The camaraderie is what keeps the groups going. You make good friends over training with people for years...

[FireEssence]

Good Lord (pun intended), it's at 2 years now? I remember not so long ago (or perhaps, I've been lurking far too long!) when it was a year to a year and a half, and seem to think I was around when it was just nine months. I'd venture that perhaps more has been discovered (or at least added to the Cyber curriculum) than we would consider in the context of the "Golden Era" of discoveries fizzling out not too long ago-- but then, I'm an outside observer.

At the least, makes me even more desirous of getting in before I get through my break pre-grad school!

More on topic, I would concur that working with tech in an experimental and research-oriented context certainly has its caveats. I have always been very much of the intuitive-method, when it comes to assembling spells or performing any sort of energyworking-- which has held well for practicality and application, but lent very little growth after a point. While I have used tech and tech-based spells for a good period of time, truly "analyzing" the how's and why's solo has been long and hard-- especially since I ditched much communication with noncorporeals and my inner, in lieu of a more "solo" approach. Granted, I have taken many a "break" from true research, but even in the periods of intense focus, things have been just as slow as they have been interesting.

[miri]

I find I can still make progress researching alone, but the lack of fresh perspectives is a trying thing leading to reduced quality (which is where similarly skilled friends come in). Obtaining "fresh" tech from incorporeals helps, of course, but the inner can get pretty repetitive. I find often the only solution presented is "make it.. bigger." Which is disappointingly effective in a many cases. Working with others is preferable because there is more horizontal as opposed to vertical development, which allows for better, broader progress later. Industrial scale inner-to-inner tech swaps help a lot with developing that broad component base, but working in tandem with someone who thinks differently in the actual development does seem to yield the best results. My work with amps may have never developed past augmenting the space between the core and its natural housing were it not for fresh outside perspectives informing leaps in seemingly unrelated fields.

[Fire_on_High]

Good Lord (pun intended), it's at 2 years now? I remember not so long ago (or perhaps, I've been lurking far too long!) when it was a year to a year and a half, and seem to think I was around when it was just nine months. I'd venture that perhaps more has been discovered (or at least added to the Cyber curriculum) than we would consider in the context of the "Golden Era" of discoveries fizzling out not too long ago-- but then, I'm an outside observer.

A number of topics were added from the time I was a student (April 05) to when I ended up teaching; I learned them right alongside the student waves. Some had been taught on and off but weren't previously on the list officially, others were brand new and we were the first mass deployment of things.

There's also story nights, research, exercises get thrown in or situations dealt with. Learning truly is more than JUST the classes!