AbhChallenger wrote:#1 If your carrier is carrying a production module. That is not going to leave it with any real room for actually holding the fighters. Otherwise the carrier would be very overpowered.

That's a big assumption you're making about gameplay we don't have any details on! Regardless, specialized manufacturing for replacement ammo and small craft doesn't seem unreasonable for a mobile base ship. Speculation like that is besides my point, thought.

AbhChallenger wrote:#2 If you are at that point in the game. You could just stock up on blueprints before deploying the carrier.

Rabiator wrote:Assuming the blueprints are small and light, sourcing them from NPCs and carrying a major supply would be doable.

I can't 'just stock up on blueprints' because blueprints are localized by faction. Unlike minerals, which are available anywhere. I might be very far away from the source of the blueprints when I run out. Sure, I can switch my manufacturing to the locally available small craft, but that's both irritating and fiddly.

Whether it's a problem depends on how expensive prototypes/blueprint originals/whatever are. If they're affordable at roughly the same point in the game that small mobile bases are affordable, then there's no problem. I'm not objective to the general scheme. Maybe there might be the option to purchase prototypes that can't be researched further. Kind of like an unlimited production license.

I'm thinking that if unlimited-run assembly chips were to be present in the game (and that's a pretty big if, but I see the fringe cases where they might be useful), then they'd have to have severe limitations to not outshine single-run assembly chips in every possible way. One such limitation could be irreversibly integrating them into the factory, another could be making them need maintenance - what I mean by "maintenance" here is: unless you frequently restock on single-run assembly chips, your production efficiency is going to suffer a lot (you'd still be able to produce the items in question, but at great resource cost).

JoshParnell wrote:Latest terminology update: as of today I am using "blueprints" for the top-level, and "assembly chip" for the consumable. Thoughts?

I wondered if terms from metal working might work well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_(manufacturing)

For example, manufacturing could be done in a forge. A forge could be a world, station or a section on a ship. (I like the term Forge World)

From a prototype or blueprint, you could create molds (die, template, pattern). From a mold you can create components. A mold, being a physical part of the manufacturing process is consumable, and has a limited lifespan; with higher quality molds able to do larger production runs.

I realise that the terms may sound old fashioned, but I still think they might work. I know that you don't actually forge a ship, but a sword is made of several components and can still be regarded as forged.

Hmm I'm a bit curious and confused. Why does the name of what the 'original' vs 'copy' need to be self-descriptive? Why does it have to describe what it is or why it is protected? I mean if I have a Ulysses Destroyer Mk2 original blueprint I have ownership 'license' rights to that simply by virtue of having the original. I have the ability to dish out copies of that with whatever parameters I want. If you want them to be 1 per run or 1000 per run shouldn't really matter. They can be one chip or one thousand chips it shouldn't matter.

I'm really not sure that most players are going to be overly confused by blueprint/schematic/chip original vs blueprint/schematic/chip copy. It doesn't need to describe the action if the actions are clear with regards to the intended industry. The theft/forceful acquisition of said industry secrets should probably be separate entirely. Perhaps a firewall 'attachment' you can place on them.

I think reverse engineering should be a matter of reverse engineering the physical tech. If you happen to steal/acquire a blueprint (copy or original) it should be separate. Perhaps requiring a separate skill to perform. If blueprints are assumed to be chips. (They're still blueprints whether they're on a USB in CAD format or if they're encoded in special assemblers) then the security of said chips should be a separate mechanic. OR it should simply be implied that they are protected.

If you really want to get interesting about it you could have a protection layer mechanic applied to blueprints and blueprint copies that give players another way of trying to forcefully acquire them. These protection layers (We can call them firewalls for now) can be bought/researched as well. The ability to hack into them could be a separate skill/mechanic. If you try hacking a blueprint copy every time you try you risk breaking the chip (Due to the pre-programming of having limited runs) however if you manage to steal/acquire an original you can try to hack the firewall as much as you want. That way you essentially have two forms of stealing tech. Reverse Engineering the parts themselves. Which would be more for aggressive/salvaging/military type players or you can have hacking the firewall protection layer which would be more for the science/research/non-combat players.

Olterin wrote:I'm thinking that if unlimited-run assembly chips were to be present in the game (and that's a pretty big if, but I see the fringe cases where they might be useful), then they'd have to have severe limitations to not outshine single-run assembly chips in every possible way. One such limitation could be irreversibly integrating them into the factory, another could be making them need maintenance - what I mean by "maintenance" here is: unless you frequently restock on single-run assembly chips, your production efficiency is going to suffer a lot (you'd still be able to produce the items in question, but at great resource cost).

I assume we've got a way to balance it, because we have blueprints. It might be no-research-blueprints, rather than unlimited-run-assembly-chips. But factions might be more willing to sell them, as the sale wouldn't threathen their tech advantage.

Revoke wrote:

Olterin wrote:I'm thinking that if unlimited-run assembly chips were to be present in the game (and that's a pretty big if, but I see the fringe cases where they might be useful), then they'd have to have severe limitations to not outshine single-run assembly chips in every possible way. One such limitation could be irreversibly integrating them into the factory, another could be making them need maintenance - what I mean by "maintenance" here is: unless you frequently restock on single-run assembly chips, your production efficiency is going to suffer a lot (you'd still be able to produce the items in question, but at great resource cost).

I assume we've got a way to balance it, because we have blueprints. It might be no-research-blueprints, rather than unlimited-run-assembly-chips. But factions might be more willing to sell them, as the sale wouldn't threathen their tech advantage.

Yeah, I really don't like the idea of not having permanent 'infinite' run objects (Whatever you wanna call them) but that's just me. I mean, if I develop a tech or invent something I want to know that I have the ability to produce it indefinitely unless an opposing faction somehow removes my ability. And I should be able to have methods of providing redundancy to prevent my ability to run the production. But obviously this should carry risks such as providing more points where opposing forces could steal the tech.

I must confess I'm not convinced at all with the mechanics Josh is proposing...
It seems more of a "bonus artifacts" mechanism than a tech tree mecanism. Even thought I find bonus artifact gameplay really interesting (uniqueness, protection against stealing and so on), I would really have like a "common" tech tree development.
But, hey... that's just me ! Maybe I'll find the mechanism enjoyable by playing it.

Have you considered the term "Patent" for "Prototypes"?

Diegetisor wrote:I must confess I'm not convinced at all with the mechanics Josh is proposing...
It seems more of a "bonus artifacts" mechanism than a tech tree mecanism. Even thought I find bonus artifact gameplay really interesting (uniqueness, protection against stealing and so on), I would really have like a "common" tech tree development.
But, hey... that's just me ! Maybe I'll find the mechanism enjoyable by playing it.

Have you considered the term "Patent" for "Prototypes"?

I pretty much agree with you digestior, it feels like an "bonus" mechanic.

Patents are not something that keeps pirates from ripping it off, tough ^^
I had some patent based idea in Internet of LT





On an peripheral related thought:
We could maybe integrate something like the current blueprint system into my communications pipelines system... hmmm...

Diegetisor wrote:Have you considered the term "Patent" for "Prototypes"?

Unlucky wording. "Patents" are protected by law, not by technological impossibility of copying. Hostile factions would likely ignore each others' patent claims, unless there is a superior government that enforces patents.

Diegetisor wrote:I must confess I'm not convinced at all with the mechanics Josh is proposing...
It seems more of a "bonus artifacts" mechanism than a tech tree mecanism. Even thought I find bonus artifact gameplay really interesting (uniqueness, protection against stealing and so on), I would really have like a "common" tech tree development.
But, hey... that's just me ! Maybe I'll find the mechanism enjoyable by playing it.

Have you considered the term "Patent" for "Prototypes"?

?

It's still a tree...blueprints still have children, siblings, and a parent (which makes them nodes in a tree). The only difference between this and a 'classic' tech tree is that the nodes are in physical form.

The added gameplay engendered by that very physicality is, I guarantee, worth it's weight in gold.

JoshParnell wrote:

Diegetisor wrote:I must confess I'm not convinced at all with the mechanics Josh is proposing...
It seems more of a "bonus artifacts" mechanism than a tech tree mecanism. Even thought I find bonus artifact gameplay really interesting (uniqueness, protection against stealing and so on), I would really have like a "common" tech tree development.
But, hey... that's just me ! Maybe I'll find the mechanism enjoyable by playing it.

Have you considered the term "Patent" for "Prototypes"?

?

It's still a tree...blueprints still have children, siblings, and a parent (which makes them nodes in a tree). The only difference between this and a 'classic' tech tree is that the nodes are in physical form.

The added gameplay engendered by that very physicality is, I guarantee, worth it's weight in gold.

I know this is still a tree, but not a "common tech tree", in the sense that it is physicalized. It sure brings a lot of new really awesome gameplay mechanics which are, usually, deffered to "bonus item" (as I said earlier). But, in my opinion, these are not usual tech tree gameplay mecanics.
I'm not a game designer and not even a big gamer, yet what I like in "classic" tech tree mechanism, it that it's something you will never lose. Your tech is the Knowledge you and your fellowers have built along the game, your safe haven that can save you when darkness is upon you...
I'm usually a tech guy in game: I like to master Science & Technologies, to steal it, to trade it, to buy it... But to lose it? after years of research ? Thousands of broken phD students that will see the fruit of their dedicated work used by another faction ?ok... maybe I'm to involved with this stuff...).
It is not cool :p.

Besides, it is not realistic. Ok, I read the disclaimer: gameplay > realism. I'm ok with that but...
"huh, why can't my shipyard build the C-Wing?
- We've been stolen the prototype Master (yeah, NPCs will call me Master)
- Huh? So? No one's remember how to build one?
- Hmm.. No, in fact micro assemblers were doing everything for us.
-Oh... Ok, I suggest we go back in time and steal this precious tech so that we won't lose Knowledge again: Paper.
- Time travel is not possible Master. I suggest we reverse-engineered one of our hundreds C-Wing
- It's dumb
-"


Edit: Don't be offuscated, I was trying to show some humor. I'm raising concern about these mechanics, but I might as well fall in love with them
As for the word "Patent"... bad idea, you're right !

Diegetisor wrote:I know this is still a tree, but not a "common tech tree", in the sense that it is physicalized. It sure brings a lot of new really awesome gameplay mechanics which are, usually, deffered to "bonus item" (as I said earlier). But, in my opinion, these are not usual tech tree gameplay mecanics.
I'm not a game designer and not even a big gamer, yet what I like in "classic" tech tree mechanism, it that it's something you will never lose. Your tech is the Knowledge you and your fellowers have built along the game, your safe haven that can save you when darkness is upon you...

So you're basically against the primary gameplay feature of Josh's proposal? Because the main point, if I'm understanding it correctly, of Josh's proposed mechanics allowing for non-monotonic research progress is that it is a fantastic way of implementing what Josh has been calling "anti-research forces" for at least the past month or two. As Josh has explained before (probably moreso in IRC, but certainly in the forums too), the bigger corporations are, the more resistance they should face in the form of competition. This allows for interesting "King of the Hill" gameplay as described in Market Dynamics in a Dog-Eat-Dog World. If we implemented what you wanted - monotonic research progress for all agents/factions - we're quickly going to run into verticality issues, such as "bigger T = win".

Diegetisor wrote:Besides, it is not realistic. Ok, I read the disclaimer: gameplay > realism. I'm ok with that but...
"huh, why can't my shipyard build the C-Wing?
- We've been stolen the prototype Master (yeah, NPCs will call me Master)
- Huh? So? No one's remember how to build one?
- Hmm.. No, in fact micro assemblers were doing everything for us.
-Oh... Ok, I suggest we go back in time and steal this precious tech so that we won't lose Knowledge again: Paper.
- Time travel is not possible Master. I suggest we reverse-engineered one of our hundreds C-Wing
- It's dumb

1. Plausibility is what's important, not realism.
2. You couldn't just write out everything on paper, it'd probably take a skyscraper's worth of filing cabinets to hold all that paper.
3. Assume that, as one of many extreme security measures taken, research is performed in a similar style to that in Paycheck, where engineers have their memories wiped to protect intellectual property. Perhaps in LT, we can imagine that after a blueprint is developed, the memories of any researchers are wiped and any data related to the development of that blueprint along with it for the sake of eliminating any risk that the technology can be stolen by an enemy faction save through physically taking the sole copy of the blueprint that exists. It's not the most plausible thing in the world, but it's plausible enough given the huge gameplay potential in Josh's proposal.

The backup question is a reasonable one though.

It strikes me that the most obvious solution is that there's a "create backup" option whenever you start work on a new Blueprint. The practical implication of this is a substantial increase in the time to completion, but it means that you can continue your operations if the original is lost.

A backup could have another interesting ramification: make the original and the backup a quantum entangled pair. If you lose the original this means that you can take a "if we can't have it..." approach and delete the backup, rendering the original useless...

ThymineC wrote: So you're basically against the primary gameplay feature of Josh's proposal? Because the main point, if I'm understanding it correctly, of Josh's proposed mechanics allowing for non-monotonic research progress is that it is a fantastic way of implementing what Josh has been calling "anti-research forces" for at least the past month or two. As Josh has explained before (probably moreso in IRC, but certainly in the forums too), the bigger corporations are, the more resistance they should face in the form of competition. This allows for interesting "King of the Hill" gameplay as described in Market Dynamics in a Dog-Eat-Dog World. If we implemented what you wanted - monotonic research progress for all agents/factions - we're quickly going to run into verticality issues, such as "bigger T = win".

I guess so .
In any case, I don't have to be pro or against Josh's proposal ! He is the one in command, he does what he thinks best and he is most probably right. I was just stating my point of view...sorry I didn't mean to troll :s.

ThymineC wrote: [*] You couldn't just write out everything on paper, it'd probably take a skyscraper's worth of filing cabinets to hold all that paper.

I haven't noticed I sound so dumb . I was talking about any data storage in general... but Paper sounds funnier (at the time...)

ThymineC wrote: [*] Assume that, as one of many extreme security measures taken, research is performed in a similar style to that in Paycheck, where engineers have their memories wiped to protect intellectual property. Perhaps in LT, we can imagine that after a blueprint is developed, the memories of any researchers are wiped and any data related to the development of that blueprint along with it for the sake of eliminating any risk that the technology can be stolen by an enemy faction save through physically taking the sole copy of the blueprint that exists. It's not the most plausible thing in the world, but it's plausible enough given the huge gameplay potential in Josh's proposal.[/list]

I like the idea, it would be plausible and really acceptable only if it worked:
1/ Risking a total wipe of your tech (and its subsequent) seems a hard price whereas...
2/ ... it (apparently) doesn't protect you from stealth. So what's the point of this explication?
Anyway, I don't doubt your overflowing imagination can find a way to "plausify" the mechanism .

I've had an interesting thought. Blueprints are physical objects as per the dev log and what I've written in A Reconstruction of Production Mechanics, right? What if research modules didn't just produce but actually became these "blueprints"?

In the Production Mechanics thread, I specify how blueprints can be "applied" to production modules to allow them to fabricate the corresponding assemblers. Now here's a possibility for how research could work:

• Every research module can be uninitialised, or it can contain blueprint data for formerly researched items.
• When beginning research, you purchase a "blank" research module or choose to overwrite the blueprint data of some obsolete technology kept within an old research module that you researched ages ago and is no longer relevant.
• If you want to base research on another technology X that you've researched earlier, you find the research module containing X's blueprint data and "apply" it to the new research module in a similar way to how you could apply it to a production module.
• Applying a research module A to another research module B means that A copies just enough blueprint data to B for it to perform research based on A's corresponding technology, but not so much that it can be considered a duplicate of the original blueprint and for assemblers to be created based on it.
• Executives can then assign resources to B, such as Researcher worker NPCs. Once a research module has resources assigned to it, it is capable of performing actual research.
• After a certain amount of time, the worker NPCs in B might notify the executive that they've successfully researched a new technology, along the lines given here.
• B can now be treated as a "blueprint" for the new technology, just as A can be treated as a "blueprint" for the earlier technology that the new tech is based upon.
• In a tree hierarchical structure, B would be treated as the descendent of A.

The idea here is that research modules are, in an information sense, vacuum-sealed off from the outside world. Once a research module has fully developed a new technology, the full blueprints for that technology never leave the research module for security reasons - not even to the commanding executive, because can they really be sure that any orders they receive from what appears to be their executive is not just an elaborate trick?

When the blueprints for a technology are finalised, all the data stored inside the research modules becomes securely encrypted and the researchers are not able to distribute the information even if they wanted to.

We can imagine that backups of the technology are of course still made as the technology is being developed, but those backups are kept within the research module and only accessible to the researchers within it.

The research modules - which can alternatively perhaps be called "blueprint modules" once they've developed blueprints - act as the prototype in Josh's original dev log or more accurately as the "blueprints" in the Production Mechanics thread I wrote. They allow just enough information to let assemblers be manufactured when applied to a production module, and just enough information to let other research modules perform research when applied to them. But they never give away the full blueprint data no matter what, so the original faction cannot produce backups, and enemy factions have to physically steal these research modules - or blueprint modules - in order to gain access to the technology.

This is, in my opinion, a considerably more plausible way of keeping blueprints "unique" and a way of unifying research modules with Josh's new production mechanics.