Kimny wrote:I don't know how many other different ways I can say I believe in him, I trust he is telling the truth, I trust his character, I like him, it's not a personal critique. Really, it's almost like it's necessary to spend paragraphs apologizing before making a criticism. And even I repeating all that in all posts, still one replies that I think Josh is lying, another replies saying I shouldn't distrust his character, another says I should shift to my personal life, you now reply as if I were trying to offend Josh.
I explained extensively in the other posts that on the contrary, I don't want to mix personal and professional. I really like Josh, trust him, etc, etc (second time in a post). I just think he has been in error in what regard not giving one piece of information during 1 whole year. Of course that is worth criticizing. And it's normal to criticize it. He is a professional, LT is a funded game. Sometimes it seems that taking 1 screenshot in an year, or even less, talking a couple of lines about the concrete game in an year, is to put super pressure or to ask Josh something very unusual. Indie developers certainly do not update on their games all the time as Josh did. Also as I said many times now, that's fine and I think he was very right in his change towards focusing in the game (I also have to repeat that all posts...). But it is not true that is normal and acceptable that indie developers go a full year without anything remotely concrete and behave as if it that was a plain fine decision instead of something to apologize for. Much less is usual that people are ok and even repeat in the developer's place that "progress is being made", that we should only thank Josh for everything nice he has (indeed) done so far or for not unplugging our critiques from a forum at the official page of the game!
It's very simple: he's been doing choices and following paths that deserve critics just as we would do with any developer. THAT is just what I meant by it's time to criticize Josh's approach to it. JUST that. But anyway, from now one I will reply with a signature that repeats automatically:I trust Josh's word, character and passion, I like him and admire him personally. Yet critique some of his decisions as I would do to other professionals (and that's a sign of respect). Btw, that's the third time self-justifing all that in the same post....
Zanteogo wrote:It's just from this side of the computer screen I remember the years of LT development where every month massive improvements and changes were occurring and it seemed like you were on the highway to completion. It seemed like everything was coming together. I know that in almost all software, it's the way of things, the first 80% is the fastest, the last 20% takes 80% of the time. However, it seemed you had mostly side stepped this trend with your one man team approach, (for what ever reason). I recall the day when your showed us LT, and the AI was doing it's own thing and reacting in it's own way to changes, and I recall in awe thinking, "it's happening".
I know I am arm chair quarterbacking here, I am merely seeking to understand and to remove my ignorance to the whole thing.
However, to me, it was just before the start of LTSL that everything seemed to.. stop. Everything seemed to be put on hold. For the things that didn't, it's when the circular development seemed to really happen. Again, this is all from the prospective from this side of the computer screen of course.
From what you have opened up to us on your dark days, you admitted to getting stuck on circular cycle of not really moving forward. You also informed us that something you had done to LT had to be undone.
During the half of year of LTSL development it was sold as the thing that would cause a massive content explosion. I know your keeping your cards close, however, so I don't know what you have done since, but I am guessing there has been no explosion. If I am mistaken I and truly sorry.
Hyperion wrote:It's been itching at me for some time now, as it probably has for plenty of others. I'll put it simply.
I want proof that development is taking place, that the game is closer to being finished than it was last year.
Not "Things are exciting" or "I can work so much faster now" or "I know what I'm doing" Not words and rumors about release date leaks, but cold hard proof. An image or video of something new, something we haven't seen before. It doesn't have to be much, but unless I missed something, it has been over 14 months since there was a single shred of proof that the game has developed beyond where it was in January of 2015.
Josh, I'm not calling you a liar, and I understand that you're holding your cards tight which is fine, but absolutely nothing since you declared the beginning of Golden Days almost 8 months ago? I'm sorry, but I'm not big on faith, and this total silence is testing those limits. Words and promises won't keep that alive, only evidence would carry me months and miles longer, and I have a feeling I'm not alone.
Hyperion wrote:Module instancing is actually proving to be a slightly difficult problem to hash out. Getting a good way to track 10,000 eventual variations on a single blueprint for every single blueprint without making the system cry is probably doable, but is beyond my realm of expertise. Just as a brief outline of my (probably dumb) thoughts, because this isnt really the place for it:
Blueprints are folders, but also instructions coded with the particular Tech stats. Inside the folder is a registry of every unique instance yet made and its stats, each tagged with the owner and where it's used. The owner and usage tags change freely via trade & plunder.
The currently simulated blueprints are known scripts, executed as necessary, changing the stats of the given instance.
Players & NPCs can also execute their own scripts (aftermarket modifications, improved/shoddy construction techniques & materials, overclocking, etc)on a particular instance which also changes the instance stats, but are wholly different from blueprint scripts. Such modifications don't affect the registry serial, but can affect the Human-readable name.
Destroyed instances (or intact but attached to destroyed ships/stations) continue to exist in the registry for potential salvage and reactivation until cleanup.
Temporary instances can also be attached with semi-random stats to permanent debris fields, but disappear as soon as a player is out of range.
Is this efficient? No idea
reegs87 wrote:I do hope that all is well with Josh. I would imagine that the guy has a tremendous amount of pressure on him. That being said it would be lovely to see an update sometime in the near future; this forum was one of my regular haunts....
kostuek wrote:I'm afraid, he may have hit the same wall as he did with LTSL - his Python business may still be too slow. If this is the case, he is probably back in his corner, thinking about what the hell to do now.
Q. Thanks for joining us Josh.
A. Thanks for having me, imaginary forum member. What can I answer for you?
Q. Well, I read your post. I honestly did. But all I really heard was 'code code code C++ Python code Lua code JIT beep boop mainframe.' So...what's going on with Limit Theory, you know, that GAME that I'd like to be playing right now?
A. Yeah...it frustrates me too. I don't enjoy working on the technical side of it all nearly as much as I used to; frankly I would much rather be tying off loose ends on the AI, zone control mechanics, simulation LODing, unstable wormholes mechanics, etc. But, as I explained, this problem must be solved before I can finish LT, and I would rather throw myself entirely into solving it than split my time between solving it and trying to write gameplay code when the platform for said code isn't yet a solved problem.
Q. So it sounds like you've made no gameplay progress then.
A. Not true, but it is true that I haven't made nearly as much gameplay progress as you would want from two years of work (see above: >95% effort dedicated to the big problem).
Q. Oh? So then, what part of the game has changed the most since we last saw it?
A. AI has progressed quite dramatically. The top-level AI action ('Action_PlayGame', heh) is much more fleshed-out than before, meaning AI players are capable of literally 'playing' Limit Theory to a greater capacity than before. There are still missing elements, mostly because of missing logic for actions that deal with higher-level concepts like war, research, and construction. There's still a good bit to do here, but, having written some AI now in both Python and Lua, I've gotta say that, if we can get a fast scripting solution to work, AI development is going to go much faster when resumed full-time!
Q. Cool. You mentioned some stuff in the post that kind of scared me and made me think you're basically re-writing LT. Is that the case?
A. Definitely not. I'm changing the foundation on which LT rests, but by no means have I torn down the building. As stated above, the 'core' pieces of LT, i.e., much of the actual 'engine,' is still present in the C library. GPU code is all present and doesn't require porting. As for gameplay code / stuff that used to be in LTSL, I've ported it enough times now to know that it's a quick task. I've said it before and I'll say it again: it's the ideas beneath the code that the majority of the time to come up with. Typing code is easy. Coming up with an idea that will make the code do something wonderful isn't. Very little is 'lost' in this process.
Q. Hrmmm....so then, you've got it rendering and such?
A. Yep, I've got it rendering under both the current attack vector (LuaJIT) and the older one (Python). It's not really a big task with the library in place.
Q. Sweet, so, screenies?
Q. But I... :3
A. It looks the same as what you've already seen. I haven't worked on graphics! Seriously, the graphics monkey is in the cage. Gameplay, yes. FPLT, very yes. Graphics, no. I literally haven't changed the LT graphics in two years. It's been hard for me to control myself like that, but yes, I'm ready to accept that the current graphics are absolutely good enough for release. LT 1.0 is going to look very much like the latest screenshots you've seen, except with the missing content filled in. No more 'new metal shader version 298.0'.
Q. Fair enough. I'm glad you managed to control the monkey. Speaking of monkies, when beta?
A. When I solve FPLT and steamroll the remaining gameplay content.
Q. Ugh. I hate this 'FPLT' thing. You know, now that I think about it, what if you just ... ? Wouldn't that work?
A. (Depending on nature of ...): No, sorry. / It's a good idea but I've tried it and it didn't work out. / Well, that's essentially what I'm trying to do. / Dear God, why didn't I think of that, you're a genius, FPLT IS SOLVE \o/ *hands over bank account while weeping tears of joy*
Q. Okay then...back on-topic, why did you desert the forums?
A. I honestly didn't mean for it to become a 'thing.' It snowballed out of control: I just wasn't on the forums for a while, not for any particular reason, and then one day it was like a 'Josh is gone' thing, at which point I could have chosen to say "No I'm not," which would have pretty much done the trick. But instead I chose to give in to anxiety and was all "oh no, I'm gone!? Well now I have to come back with fireworks! " I really regret making that decision and letting it stagnate for so long.
Q. You should, a lot of us pretty much lost faith in you.
A. I understand. To be honest I can't say that I deserve more. All I would ask is that you give LT the benefit of the doubt in the sense that when it comes out, judge it as Limit Theory the game, not as Limit Theory the product of a guy who let you down.
Q. We'll see. What about Kickstarter though? I mean it's been even longer in the dark for them...
A. It's been a general pattern throughout development that I post more frequently to the forums than to KS. Historically, I've only put up KS posts when I felt that I had 'very substantial' material to post. As per above with the whole 'not a glamorous era in development,' I felt that I'd be letting everyone down with a text-based post, even if it's the best way to bring everyone up to speed. Once again, a regrettable choice made by Showman Josh, but now attempting to be set right by Pragmatic Josh.
Q. I like the sound of this 'pragmatic' Josh guy. Maybe he can finally get us a game?
Q. Again, we'll see. I'm almost ready to dip my toes back into the water, but the truth is, you seem pretty good with words, yet have let us down quite a few times with those words.
A. Which is exactly why I've not sugarcoated this situation. Did you get the same 'thrill' reading all this that you did when I released an update video? Most assuredly not. But what I'm good at is raw honesty, which sometimes makes it hard for me when I honestly believe in my capability to do things at which I end up failing, or when the situation is honestly not so great. But I think you all, at this point, would much rather hear not-so-fun truths than nothing at all, which are the only two choices I've got. Notice the lack of glitter, unicorns, and grandiose promises in this whole thing!
Q. I certainly noticed the lack of glitter. Speaking of which, why on earth did you not provide a TL;DR for what may be your most obnoxious wall of text ever?
A. I considered it. I even wrote a TL;DR. But I realized very quickly that doing so was completely counter-productive to the point of this whole post. I took a lot of time to try to explain the current state of Limit Theory development; to try to get everyone to understand precisely what I'm doing from day-to-day right now and why it's necessary. If someone truly wants to understand it, they need to read this post. If not, then 'LT is not kill' should suffice. I can't explain it all and make my explanation super-compact. I could do that back when everything could be explained with images or videos. I can't do that at the moment.
Q. Indeed. Well, I'm rather exhausted from reading, and it's apparent that you're not going to give me screenies, so I'll end it here. Thanks for the answers, and good luck with LT. I look forward to that (semi)weekly log.
A. Thanks for listening, imaginary forum member.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 3 guests