aspman wrote:
I think Hyperion would agree, he does want more than the boundaries of the KS and LT1, and it was more for his gameplay that I meant about the modding ongoing (mega factory manager mod v1 etc.) although the better Josh can make this initially, then all the better, but not at expense of lacking features elsewhere.

Er, I partially agree. Flat was right in that my comments were fairly detailed, and the particulars I mentioned are desirable, but aren't actually what I was getting at, and if any of them in particular was absent, it would be no great loss. What I was in fact getting at is that every core feature (Combat, Trade, Exploration, Production, Research, Piracy, Mining, Management) should have detailed and involved gameplay at multiple scales. As it stands however, Combat and Trade are the only core features I feel are very well developed. Mining seems partially developed and could really use some work on larger scale mining operations (think giant open pit mines as compared to the current panning for gold). Exploration is also partially developed, but desperately needs cataloging and large organized expeditions ala Lewis and Clark or Vasco da Gama. Piracy again seems partially developed, but there doesn't seem to by any organization whatsoever, I simply cannot see pirates as they currently are forming distinct pirate bases from which large coordinated raids take place, I do not see them forming great pirate hordes coming to burn and pillage, and I certainly do not see Mafias forming. Management, it's hard to tell just how developed it is; there is certainly delegation, but even if it is much more developed, we haven't seen much in the way of larger scale organization.

Research and Production though, areas I would consider to be core features do certainly exist, and the mechanics are interesting, but from the looks of it, these areas have been quite neglected in regards to gameplay. You say that a rough "The mechanics work, the game will be able to understand this and use it" is enough, and that these areas shouldn't be given too much attention to where it distracts from other areas, but I could not more strongly disagree. Imagine if combat was reduced to something as simple as "Firepower vs. Armor+ Shields, highest number survives", everyone looking for fun and immerse combat would be horrified, they want dogfights and fleet engagements that are as much about their skill as they are about the sheer firepower of their guns and the horsepower of their thrusters. Do you think that people who want to play as explorers or miners or business tycoons are any different?

I said that I partially agree, in that what I personally want is even more detailed than I am expecting out of Vanilla, and I understand Josh's time is limited and that he made the game modable precisely to allow individuals, not just himself, to rapidly create whole new areas of the game with great speed and that the content explosion we see from him will pale in comparison to when thousands of developers get their hands on it. However, I remain quite firm in my stance that unless LT is flexible enough to provide equivalent content to all the core areas, that it allow players of any mindset and playstyle to have an equivalent number of interesting things to do, the game will be incomplete.



Also on the subject of today's lecture...

Two men were watching a flag waving in the wind, arguing about it. One said, "It is the flag that is moving."
"No," The other man said, "It is the wind that is moving. The moving flag is just an illusion."
A wise man walked up to them and said, "Neither the wind nor the flag move, it is your mind which gives them both movement."
As the men looked at him puzzled, he smiled "Ah, perhaps I should have kept silent, for truly the flag, the wind, and the mind are all moving, just look at them and you can understand that truth. Certainly, the flag and wind are far wiser than I, for I have erred by going beyond the truth to chain it with words."

Obviously DNA is a tachyonic sensor and transmitter, designed to warn if the Others ever invade from outside our galaxy. Its secondary capability of robust self-replication was designed to ensure the stability and longevity of the sensor network.

No, DNA is the self-repair system of the universe, after it got damaged by the "big bang" (whoever did this). It is developing itself to do its work more efficient

Hyperion wrote:

aspman wrote:
I think Hyperion would agree, he does want more than the boundaries of the KS and LT1, and it was more for his gameplay that I meant about the modding ongoing (mega factory manager mod v1 etc.) although the better Josh can make this initially, then all the better, but not at expense of lacking features elsewhere.

Er, I partially agree. Flat was right in that my comments were fairly detailed, and the particulars I mentioned are desirable, but aren't actually what I was getting at, and if any of them in particular was absent, it would be no great loss. What I was in fact getting at is that every core feature (Combat, Trade, Exploration, Production, Research, Piracy, Mining, Management) should have detailed and involved gameplay at multiple scales. As it stands however, Combat and Trade are the only core features I feel are very well developed. Mining seems partially developed and could really use some work on larger scale mining operations (think giant open pit mines as compared to the current panning for gold). Exploration is also partially developed, but desperately needs cataloging and large organized expeditions ala Lewis and Clark or Vasco da Gama. Piracy again seems partially developed, but there doesn't seem to by any organization whatsoever, I simply cannot see pirates as they currently are forming distinct pirate bases from which large coordinated raids take place, I do not see them forming great pirate hordes coming to burn and pillage, and I certainly do not see Mafias forming. Management, it's hard to tell just how developed it is; there is certainly delegation, but even if it is much more developed, we haven't seen much in the way of larger scale organization.

Research and Production though, areas I would consider to be core features do certainly exist, and the mechanics are interesting, but from the looks of it, these areas have been quite neglected in regards to gameplay. You say that a rough "The mechanics work, the game will be able to understand this and use it" is enough, and that these areas shouldn't be given too much attention to where it distracts from other areas, but I could not more strongly disagree. Imagine if combat was reduced to something as simple as "Firepower vs. Armor+ Shields, highest number survives", everyone looking for fun and immerse combat would be horrified, they want dogfights and fleet engagements that are as much about their skill as they are about the sheer firepower of their guns and the horsepower of their thrusters. Do you think that people who want to play as explorers or miners or business tycoons are any different?

I said that I partially agree, in that what I personally want is even more detailed than I am expecting out of Vanilla, and I understand Josh's time is limited and that he made the game modable precisely to allow individuals, not just himself, to rapidly create whole new areas of the game with great speed and that the content explosion we see from him will pale in comparison to when thousands of developers get their hands on it. However, I remain quite firm in my stance that unless LT is flexible enough to provide equivalent content to all the core areas, that it allow players of any mindset and playstyle to have an equivalent number of interesting things to do, the game will be incomplete.



Also on the subject of today's lecture...

Two men were watching a flag waving in the wind, arguing about it. One said, "It is the flag that is moving."
"No," The other man said, "It is the wind that is moving. The moving flag is just an illusion."
A wise man walked up to them and said, "Neither the wind nor the flag move, it is your mind which gives them both movement."
As the men looked at him puzzled, he smiled "Ah, perhaps I should have kept silent, for truly the flag, the wind, and the mind are all moving, just look at them and you can understand that truth. Certainly, the flag and wind are far wiser than I, for I have erred by going beyond the truth to chain it with words."

+1 For everything in this comment.

I agree with you that once the game goes live and we learn how the code works there will be some amazing mods that will get released. I also hope for a highly detailed environment where choices matter, options are infinite, and I get to play exactly the way I would like. That's the true magic behind Limit Theory. We are only limited by our imagination and the tools we are given.

Hype, good post. I am not arguing any points here. I personally enjoy the management and empire building aspects more than battling so I should be championing you! What I was kinda trying to say was I believe we will get good game play in vanilla, based on what Josh has said and my experiences with forum driven projects that had long framework dev followed by rapid content push. Anyway enough of that!

---

As for today's dev log - I watched the video in the background and I like the idea that you don't die when you get sucked through a black hole. That is smashing news.

I wasn't taking enough notice to have any meaningful conversation on this topic (watched it in the background) but at one point, it reminded me of the stoned teacher from "National Lampoons Animal House" suggesting a single cell in your fingernail could be a whole little universe - and therefore our universe could be a single cell in the fingernail of some giant being. I always liked that one.

I don't mean any disrespect to the speaker, who looks to be a thoroughly decent chap.

And just to pile on a little bit....

We've been talking elsewhere in the forum recently about the likelihood that, when LT ships, it may get some notice from one or more of the celebrity YouTubers. In addition to buying Limit Theory, that may bring a lot of new people to this forum. It's likely that those new members will have opinions regarding the nature of the game they purchased.

Here's the point: the game that those YouTubers see when Josh unleashes LT 1.0 is going to determine who shows up here to buy it and talk about it and state expectations for it.

If that game is, as so many are, clearly mostly about combat, then spacefights are what the YouTubers will show and talk about, and what their many fans will see. The majority of the people who show up here to talk about LT and express their expectations for it will then -- not surprisingly -- be people who mostly enjoy space combat games.

I don't think I'm being rude or incorrect when I add that these folks, if history is any guide, are not likely to be tolerant of any suggestions that any other aspect of LT deserves any further attention. Josh of course is free to respond or not to those feature suggestions in any way he feels is correct. But good customer service for a commercial product usually means listening to the wishes of the majority of your customers... and if they say they want more of what originally shipped, then it shouldn't surprise anyone if Josh delivers on that.

This is why I (and apparently some other folks, but I won't try to speak for them) feel it's important to talk about this now. The Limit Theory that ships is very likely to define the form of official LT for years to come. That's just how game development and post-launch development support works.

If the early fans who favor LT 1.0 being a more balanced game don't respectfully speak up now, then we have no cause for regret and no excuse for complaint when Josh prioritizes combat in LT 1.0, it launches that way, the loudest sites play up the space combat aspect, and that attracts primarily the gamers who like that sort of thing exclusively and aren't interested in hearing other people suggest anything else.

I wouldn't be surprised if Josh reads this and thinks (or says) that he's already planning to give (or already has given) roughly equivalent amounts of content+mechanics attention to each of the areas Hyperion mentioned, and that the views expressed about that by forum members, while maybe interesting, will have no effect on that plan. In that case, all I can say is... "OK."

aspman wrote:at one point, it reminded me of the stoned teacher from "National Lampoons Animal House" suggesting a single cell in your fingernail could be a whole little universe - and therefore our universe could be a single cell in the fingernail of some giant being. I always liked that one.

Exactly what I was referring to as well. College just seems to spark conversations like that, even without medicinal augmentation....

Speaking up! I want a good balanced game-play that isn't all focused on battles. I always thought this was what LT was all about anyway.

I do, however, have faith in the creator of our universe. If not, let me be struck down and sucked into a black hole (but with my bits re-arranged so I am a little taller ).

Poet1960 wrote:The act of observation, creates some interesting peculiarities. What is it about the act of observation, that can change how an object operates. Or at least appears to change. You have to assume there is no real change in the object itself, so what is actually changing? It seems to me that one is an observance of the effect an object has on it's surroundings, and the other is a direct observation of the thing itself. Generally this seems to happen on the very small scale level, like quantum mechanics and particles. I wonder if the variance is caused by different time frame references between what is observed and who is doing the observing.

Actually, our second quantum mechanics course had an interesting suggestion to deal with the magical role of the observer thing, because it's ugly in a physical way.
Say you have a system in a superposition of states A and B. The original interpretation was that if you observe the system, you force it to become either wholly A or wholly B, so your act of observing breaks the superposition and lets the wavefunction of the system collapse to A or B.
This is problematic on many levels (when does this collapse happen, does it need a sentient observer, and you can't describe it mathematically. You have to do the equivalent of "Poof!").
It al becomes more elegant when you think of this: the observer is part of the system. When observing the system, the observer himself gets in a superposition of "observing A" and "observing B". However, since these states are "orthogonal" (mutually exclusive) it seems to the observer he only is observing A or B. So the system he is observing doesn't change, and the math is rather elegant.
(This is something akin to the many-world theory but with less "observation is magic")
[/physics explanation]

[more physics]
Also Josh, you speak about quantum incertainty being reduced information density - funnily enough, a quantum superosition holds more information than a classical system! A normal bit can be 0 or 1, whereas a quantum bit can be any real number between 0 or 1. That's why quantum computers are exponentially faster - a normal computer register holds a number from 0 to 2^(N-1) (N=number of bits), a quantum register holds all those numbers at the same time, so when you do calculation you do them on all the numbers at the same time too.
(Sadly, it can be proven that you can only extract N bits of classical information out of N quantumbits)
[/more physics]

/Physics nerd out

The idea of coarse simulations at certain distances from the observer reminded me of weather models as one example of simulations that use this technique. They use variable time and space resolution to balance computation time against accuracy.

Dinosawer wrote:[more physics]
Also Josh, you speak about quantum incertainty being reduced information density - funnily enough, a quantum superosition holds more information than a classical system! A normal bit can be 0 or 1, whereas a quantum bit can be any real number between 0 or 1. That's why quantum computers are exponentially faster - a normal computer register holds a number from 0 to 2^(N-1) (N=number of bits), a quantum register holds all those numbers at the same time, so when you do calculation you do them on all the numbers at the same time too.
(Sadly, it can be proven that you can only extract N bits of classical information out of N quantumbits)
[/more physics]

Actually this is a bit of a common misunderstanding about why quantum computers solve problems more rapidly. It plays a role certainly, but if this were the main reason, then NP-complete problems would be able to be trivially solved by doing things like "put this computer into a superposition of all possible 3 colorings of a given graph and then have it tell you if any of them are proper 3 colorings" which is not the way it works.

A more correct place to attribute the speed-up observed in quantum computing is to the fact that quantum states can destructively interfere, where as classical deterministic or probabilistic computers can not. Attempting to compute the probability that a quantum process is found in a particular state after significant destructive interference is a very sensitive problem that seems to not admit an efficient classical solution.

Josh:
Since you seem to be rocking this physics/computation interaction vibe, I think you'd really enjoy this book (a free version of the lecture notes that turned into that book is also available on the webpage). It discusses the interplay between physics and computing focusing on quantum mechanics. So if you ever wanted to know what physics has to say about computers, or computers have to say about physics, I'd say this is the best place to do it. He is a professor at MIT who really knows his stuff, and has a great writing style. He assumes some mathematical background, but nothing beyond what I've seen you exhibit discussing various systems in LT.

pratty wrote:The idea of coarse simulations at certain distances from the observer reminded me of weather models as one example of simulations that use this technique. They use variable time and space resolution to balance computation time against accuracy.

Welcome to the forums pratty. Hope you enjoy your time here.

Adaptive refinement is a well-known technique in computational methods in many disciplines; if there is a region of small gradient in the variables of interest, then there's no need to refine the mesh to a high resolution.

Dinosawer wrote:Carriers were a stretch goal so Josh can't not put them in. Also, the game features a large array of ship sizes so I don't think they would jump out as weird.

Pretty sure they are already in. Or at least they were before LTSL, my guess is they are still in. Just not polished.

blacktea wrote:All those cool micromanagement systems doesen't have to be perfect in beta/release. They just have to be present on some playable level. I think modders can handle the rest

Please for the love of all things holy ditch this idea. While I love the prospect of modding for those who like it. Never ever EVER should the logic be for the developer to rely on modders to add/fix/refine features in their game. That is a terrible way of thinking about any project of any nature. I hope I wasn't too hostile on this, but this is something I disagree with immeasurably. Modders (if modding exists) should have the ability to add/extend, on top of a solid core/base game but they should never be relied upon to basically do the developers job for them. Nothing against any developers that do think like that, it's just a bad position for development of anything really. Mods can be great, but generally speaking no one has a better vision for a game than the creator of the game. Very very rarely will you ever see a mod with as much polish as the original developer(s) of the game except in the cases where the developer(s) follow this mentality. I could name a few companies that do it but I'm not big on naming and shaming.

You guys should watch the BBC documentary "The Secret Life of Chaos" and try to get the UK version, as the US version is cut for attention deficit shit.

Dinosawer wrote:Actually, our second quantum mechanics course had an interesting suggestion to deal with the magical role of the observer thing, because it's ugly in a physical way.
Say you have a system in a superposition of states A and B. The original interpretation was that if you observe the system, you force it to become either wholly A or wholly B, so your act of observing breaks the superposition and lets the wavefunction of the system collapse to A or B.
This is problematic on many levels (when does this collapse happen, does it need a sentient observer, and you can't describe it mathematically. You have to do the equivalent of "Poof!").
It al becomes more elegant when you think of this: the observer is part of the system. When observing the system, the observer himself gets in a superposition of "observing A" and "observing B". However, since these states are "orthogonal" (mutually exclusive) it seems to the observer he only is observing A or B. So the system he is observing doesn't change, and the math is rather elegant.
(This is something akin to the many-world theory but with less "observation is magic")
[/physics explanation]

This is the way I understand it, and it provides a handy way of explaining this:

wfja wrote:As for entropy, the funky formations of modern-day matter at all scales is the result of slight irregularities in the Big Bang's aftermath. (How that came about, no sweet clue. ) These irregularities and densities have given rise to interactions that have resulted in order, with the elements, molecules, substances, significant others, Eiffel Towers, planets, solar systems, galaxies, galaxy clusters, superclusters, and filaments that we all see today. And we have evidence!

There's no reason there should be any irregularities in the Big Bang's aftermath at all. It should be a uniform expanse of nothingness.

... but maybe it is. It's uniform in terms of the possibility space of every "particle" (note: not particles) within. But given certain possible configurations, it allows fundamental particles to become bigger particles, it allows matter to clump together to eventually form rocks and planets and suns, it allows life to develop and eventually observe the universe for all it has become.

Maybe the irregularities in the Big Bang only appear to be there BECAUSE it allows us to observe them. We all exist in one possible quantum state, an infinite number of which exist simultaneously and, were it possible to observe all at once, would cancel out into a uniform expanse of nothingness.

DigitalDuck wrote:

wfja wrote:As for entropy, the funky formations of modern-day matter at all scales is the result of slight irregularities in the Big Bang's aftermath. (How that came about, no sweet clue. ) These irregularities and densities have given rise to interactions that have resulted in order, with the elements, molecules, substances, significant others, Eiffel Towers, planets, solar systems, galaxies, galaxy clusters, superclusters, and filaments that we all see today. And we have evidence!

There's no reason there should be any irregularities in the Big Bang's aftermath at all. It should be a uniform expanse of nothingness.

... but maybe it is. It's uniform in terms of the possibility space of every "particle" (note: not particles) within. But given certain possible configurations, it allows fundamental particles to become bigger particles, it allows matter to clump together to eventually form rocks and planets and suns, it allows life to develop and eventually observe the universe for all it has become.

Maybe the irregularities in the Big Bang only appear to be there BECAUSE it allows us to observe them. We all exist in one possible quantum state, an infinite number of which exist simultaneously and, were it possible to observe all at once, would cancel out into a uniform expanse of nothingness.

Wow. I love that idea! And just goes to show how little we really know about everything outside our little pocket of the Observable Universe. Damn, DigitalDuck, this is a little piece of brain candy.

This thread now has two different topics of interest bubbling along, so I'm going to split this post into two in order to address both.

First up, the business about "different games" and the expectations of the community. I am of the opinion, unchanged by the latest few pages of posts, that the expectations we're (I include myself in this) stating need to be tempered a bit.

At the root of it, this seems to me to be a question of narrow and deep vs. broad and shallow. My preference is broad and shallow, which maps better to what Josh promised in the KS (and definitely matches the Freelancer 2 part). However posts like this:

Hyperion wrote:Er, I partially agree. Flat was right in that my comments were fairly detailed, and the particulars I mentioned are desirable, but aren't actually what I was getting at, and if any of them in particular was absent, it would be no great loss. What I was in fact getting at is that every core feature (Combat, Trade, Exploration, Production, Research, Piracy, Mining, Management) should have detailed and involved gameplay at multiple scales. As it stands however, Combat and Trade are the only core features I feel are very well developed. Mining seems partially developed and could really use some work on larger scale mining operations (think giant open pit mines as compared to the current panning for gold). Exploration is also partially developed, but desperately needs cataloging and large organized expeditions ala Lewis and Clark or Vasco da Gama. Piracy again seems partially developed, but there doesn't seem to by any organization whatsoever, I simply cannot see pirates as they currently are forming distinct pirate bases from which large coordinated raids take place, I do not see them forming great pirate hordes coming to burn and pillage, and I certainly do not see Mafias forming. Management, it's hard to tell just how developed it is; there is certainly delegation, but even if it is much more developed, we haven't seen much in the way of larger scale organization.

Research and Production though, areas I would consider to be core features do certainly exist, and the mechanics are interesting, but from the looks of it, these areas have been quite neglected in regards to gameplay. You say that a rough "The mechanics work, the game will be able to understand this and use it" is enough, and that these areas shouldn't be given too much attention to where it distracts from other areas, but I could not more strongly disagree. Imagine if combat was reduced to something as simple as "Firepower vs. Armor+ Shields, highest number survives", everyone looking for fun and immerse combat would be horrified, they want dogfights and fleet engagements that are as much about their skill as they are about the sheer firepower of their guns and the horsepower of their thrusters. Do you think that people who want to play as explorers or miners or business tycoons are any different?

Seem to me to be a strong declaration that anything but broad and deep means the game is incomplete. I really don't agree; partially because I don't think that kind of depth was ever really promised by the KS; partially because some of those game mechanics don't really appeal to me and I'm not sure they'd add much for a lot of development effort; and partially because I just think it applies undue pressure to Josh.

The latter point doesn't worry me too much, since it's clear he's making the game he wants. But the forum undoubtedly applies subconcious pressure, and the more the community states that we need almost impossibly deep gameplay before release the further we may be pushing it out. So this is me "speaking up" and protesting a bit. It's important not to forget that Freelancer was extremely enjoyable without any particularly deep gameplay mechanics, and I'd argue that many of the mechanics Josh has already demonstrated (or described) are way beyond it. That is one of the reasons we're all so excited!

(Note this isn't meant as an attack on Hyperion; I salute his energy and ideas. I hope they keep coming!)

Onto the second topic, of managing an influx of new members when LT starts getting real media attention. I think it's worth exploring the context here rather than just dismissing some of the ideas with a pithy one-line post.

The key point is: what makes a forum good? I would say a good forum has the following characteristics:

• Civil behaviour from its members;
• Positive and constructive content from an engaged and active community;
• High signal to noise ratio.

Right now, I'd say that by and large the LT community ticks most of these boxes. Thus, if it looks like a large influx of new members will provide a serious disruption, it's worth taking steps to avoid the eventuality. That doesn't mean we're being intolerant, elitist, or even unwelcoming. Let's not be overly sensitive.

Josh has mentioned the concept of a "Legacy Lounge" for existing members, which is not unreasonable. But I have sympathy with those who say that it may be divisive, splitting the community unnecessarily. In IRC at the end of last week I proposed an alternative: having a "New to LT" section to the forum that is the only part available to post for new members. Once a new member has reached a certain number of posts, and a certain time has elapsed, they then get access to the entire forum. This means that the forum remains open to all, and hopefully the hassle involved in registering, posting and waiting will inhibit those that just want to troll. Note that this approach is used by other sites, so it's not some outrageous suggestion. I recognise that not everyone likes the idea, but let's at least have the discussion.

This would only be necessary if the forum started to take a noticeable dive in quality of course. Hopefully we won't need it. But there's no harm in thinking ahead in order to retain the general positivity and good community we currently have.

Mods: the posts about future forum management could possibly be made into a new thread?