Post
Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:07 pm
#91
Re: Zones
The current devlog seems to pretty much reinforce my recursive sub-zones idea
Well, a system like this should be applied to zones in general, otherwise it would be inelegant.Cornflakes_91 wrote:Applied not to neighbouring zones but sub and super-zones i'd like your system
Cornflakes_91 wrote:I tend to agree with you thymine, but wouldn't that "you have to completely encompass others zones" lead to exponentially increasing demands to control area?
because i'd find that very illogical that i have to be 8 times as large as my direct neighbour to overpower him.
Applied not to neighbouring zones but sub and super-zones i'd like your system
if they are within the same super-zone this applies, a>b>c is in the larger context always true, but in the Local context its more dynamic.ThymineC wrote:Well, a system like this should be applied to zones in general, otherwise it would be inelegant.Cornflakes_91 wrote:Applied not to neighbouring zones but sub and super-zones i'd like your system
You could perhaps replace the "subsumption" mechanic with a "domination" one in which you only need to control >50% of another territory for the same mechanics to apply.
However, even if it's unrealistic, I prefer the subsumption mechanic, because it ensures that the relation is transitive; if A subsumes B, and B subsumes C, then A subsumes C in every case. That means B has to follow C's laws, and A has to follow B's and C's laws. This would probably make it considerably easier to reason about what laws must be obeyed within a given territory and feels more elegant to me.
I think it's inelegant to have a system in which different rules apply at different scales. Elegance tends to arise out of having a simple set of rules or laws that hold over all scales. This is the case with the Mandelbrot set, for instance, and with evolution - it would be very strange if everything less complex than (say) an aardvark followed one set of laws and everything more complex followed another.Cornflakes_91 wrote:if they are within the same super-zone this applies, a>b>c is in the larger context always true, but in the Local context its more dynamic.
like guerrilia warfare, you may cannot overpower them as whole, but local you can overpower them.
the same applies to sub and super zones.
you may be stronger than the forces they have in the immediate vicinity, but when they call in reinforcements from that base on the other side of the asteroid field they are stronger than you.
So zones are things that must be connected by warp nodes?Josh Parnell wrote:What with the recent introduction of zones and such (and continuing the implementation today), I find it interesting that the LT universe is starting to look quite similar at every level of scale. Systems are connected in approximate-spanning-tree-fashion, and can be thought of as spheres. Zones are using the same concept - spheres of influence connected by warp nodes. Even regions are modeled in the same fashion. So if you think about it all together, the LT universe is basically a sphere tree - just a bunch of recursively-clustered and connected spheres. Just something to think about. Rather elegant
but it follows simple rules, even simpler rules than yours.ThymineC wrote:I think it's inelegant to have a system in which different rules apply at different scales. Elegance tends to arise out of having a simple set of rules or laws that hold over all scales. This is the case with the Mandelbrot set, for instance, and with evolution - it would be very strange if everything less complex than (say) an aardvark followed one set of laws and everything more complex followed another.Cornflakes_91 wrote:if they are within the same super-zone this applies, a>b>c is in the larger context always true, but in the Local context its more dynamic.
like guerrilia warfare, you may cannot overpower them as whole, but local you can overpower them.
the same applies to sub and super zones.
you may be stronger than the forces they have in the immediate vicinity, but when they call in reinforcements from that base on the other side of the asteroid field they are stronger than you.
I think we're talking about different things, but it's good you bring this up because it's an area I hadn't considered.Cornflakes_91 wrote:but it follows simple rules, even simpler rules than yours.
if you have more power inside a zone its yours.
force from all sub-zones gets counted. (force from superzones not).
sub-zones inherit the rules of their super-zones
end of ruleset.
my system also works without super-zones, as when you build a station somewhere you create a zone, and when an rival builds another station the zones get merged and points get counted.ThymineC wrote:I think we're talking about different things, but it's good you bring this up because it's an area I hadn't considered.Cornflakes_91 wrote:but it follows simple rules, even simpler rules than yours.
if you have more power inside a zone its yours.
force from all sub-zones gets counted. (force from superzones not).
sub-zones inherit the rules of their super-zones
end of ruleset.
In the ideas I just proposed, I was kind of dealing with downwards or lateral determination of control - where one entity's territory subsumes another entity's territory. This would be the case when the larger territory already has as owner.
With your ideas, I guess you're dealing with upwards determination of control, in which a zone that has no fixed owner (like an asteroid field zone) ends up controlled by the territory within it that covers the most space or otherwise has the most "ownership points".
Correct. It seems zones are an abstraction to help with AI pathfinding and system generation. They do not appear to relate to ownership.Flatfingers wrote:Since we've been speaking of Josh's latest devlog, allow me to quote the relevant bit for people plowing through this thread:
So zones are things that must be connected by warp nodes?Josh Parnell wrote:What with the recent introduction of zones and such (and continuing the implementation today), I find it interesting that the LT universe is starting to look quite similar at every level of scale. Systems are connected in approximate-spanning-tree-fashion, and can be thought of as spheres. Zones are using the same concept - spheres of influence connected by warp nodes. Even regions are modeled in the same fashion. So if you think about it all together, the LT universe is basically a sphere tree - just a bunch of recursively-clustered and connected spheres. Just something to think about. Rather elegant
Or things that can be connected by warp nodes?
Also, what's a warp node? Is it related to warp lanes?
Err...nope. they also relate to ownership.Sasha wrote: Correct. It seems zones are an abstraction to help with AI pathfinding and system generation. They do not appear to relate to ownership.
Their purpose appears to be defining where warp lanes connect to.
JoshParnell wrote:Zoning is more than just a naming convention, though. It's a conceptually-clear way to think about space. Zones can have names, zones can have intrinsic value, zones can have security ratings, and zones can have...owners! Yes. Now we're getting interesting. How do you own space? Well, by force. Zones are considered to be 'owned' by whoever has the strongest presence there. How is that presence measured? To be determined. Could be military force, but I'm thinking more along the lines of the total value of permanent structures. Set up the biggest space station in an asteroid field and it's considered to be controlled by you.
Hence my latest confusion.Cornflakes_91 wrote:Err...nope. they also relate to ownership.Sasha wrote: Correct. It seems zones are an abstraction to help with AI pathfinding and system generation. They do not appear to relate to ownership.
Their purpose appears to be defining where warp lanes connect to.
Im too confused about "warp nodes"Flatfingers wrote:Hence my latest confusion.Cornflakes_91 wrote:Err...nope. they also relate to ownership.Sasha wrote: Correct. It seems zones are an abstraction to help with AI pathfinding and system generation. They do not appear to relate to ownership.
Their purpose appears to be defining where warp lanes connect to.
Are warp nodes what warp lanes connect to, as we've previously seen between planets?
If so, can an asteroid field have warp lanes connecting it to other things in a system? What about stations? How do warp nodes form when a zone comes into existence around a constructed object like a space station?
"Zones" I get (though I prefer to think of them per my earlier suggestion in which zones denote particular different kinds of influence). And warp lanes between planets I get (though I'd rather planets moved).
But zones as sources for whatever warp nodes are... that, I'm not getting.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests