Return to “Suggestions”


Re: A Reinterpretation of Research

Cornflakes_91 wrote:There is no "sensor filter" program that actually implements any DSP, its a gameplay object that increases sensor sensitivity by 5% or something else.

Nothing to worry about interfaces or similar problems :)
Ah, then I did misunderstand. Thanks for clarifying that.

I'm still thinking of "programs" in Thymine-like terms. :lol:

Re: A Reinterpretation of Research

so.. i've been mulling a while over the whole concept but i cant come up with an unified framework that answers all questions that pop up in my mind...

so i'll just write down what i have along with my unanswered questions and maybe someone has an idea to answer my questions :?

the base idea is (as already outlined in the IRC logs) that all ships components get controlled by software that consists out of smaller parts (subprograms, libaries, however you want to name them)

those subprograms behave the same way as subcomponents behave in my modularised construction suggestion
every one of them has a function that enables (or improves) the working of the program its "mounted" in.
connections between (sub-)programs need a certain communications bandwith available to work at max capacity and work at reduced capability when they dont have the needed bandwith.
bandwith on the same computer is infinite, but when you distribute programs between computers it starts to become a limiting factor.

programs are placed on the "memory maps" of computers which are distributed through your ship
(i'd personally leave the needs of programs at memory, mainly because i dont have a good idea on how to include processing speed into the framework, i also dont really see the need to include it...)

programs can communicate out of "their" computer by the use of ports.
ports are physical connections (USB, LAN etc) as well as "logical" connections created by communication programs (communications links off-ship)
they are used for transferring data between the ends of the port, as from hardware components to their drivers, or commands between ships
ports are also limited in the bandwith they can provide, you cant route all your ships computer data through a single USB port ;)

Spoiler:      SHOW
this example shows how a "sensor driver" program could look
it gets its input from the right (red) port where 4 distinct sensor receivers are connected to it.

the yellow data bus connects the streams to the purple noise filters which (for example) improve the sensitivity of your sensor
(maybe data busses could just be assumed to be in every space thats not a distinct program instead of being programs themself)

the noise filters then route into a correlation filter which improves the angular resolution of your sensor data

the correlation filter then routes its output to the actual analyser which takes the (refined) sensor data and extracts data on objects in range from it.

this data then gets stored in the object database where its available for other programs to use it (or the player to view the data)

the efficiency of the resulting program should also depend on the order in which subprograms are arranged.
(so for example having the correlation filter in front of the noise filters would increase angular resolution even more, but would reduce sensitivity.)
(and vice versa)

so question 1: how to calculate and represent this behaviour effectively?

another aspect of this is hacking.

viruses can be created in the form of programs that can move themself through memory and "attack" programs

this attacks can have 2 forms:
  • destructive
    what the label says, the virus tries to delete the program its attacking
    this should be a process thats pretty easy to detect, but comparatively easy to archieve if theres nothing preventing it
  • manipulative
    this is an intrusion to the attacked program which doesnt target at disabling/removing the program but to use it to the attackers advantage
    its harder to detect, but also harder to pull off even without some antivir attacking the virus
attacks could work through a roll based system
the attacking program has to score a higher roll than the defending program
manipulative attacks have a roll malus on the attackers side, as he has to do this without being noticed.
when the attacker has a successful roll he does a fixed amount of damage depending on the attack package used.

a "sneaky" program would likely use a high roll package, to avoid being noticed, but this would go at the expense of damage
a destructive program would likely have less roll but much higher damage to maximise its destructive potential.

every package would have defensive roll and health values, to prevent a "surprise death" scenario where a completely unprepared player all his programs instantly.
preparation should be good, but foregoing it should not be a guaranteed death sentence.

question 2: im a bit torn on the roll+damage system, alternative suggestions?

viruses and anti-viruses are basically the same gameplay wise, the only "difference" is the owner of the respective program

they both move through memory and attack their designated targets
antivirs likely would be optimised for brutal destruction while viruses would likely focus on sneaky manipulation
but nothing's keeping you (mechanics wise) to send your "antivir" into an enemies computer to wreak some havoc by deleting all his active programs.

the "moving through memory" mechanic also makes firewalls an easy thing to represent:
they are actual walls in the memory that have to be circumvented when the programs inside the firewall are to be accessed

firewalls are just programs without any purpose besides being especially resilitent to destruction and manipulation.

a mobile program would also need space at the taget position to be able to move there (duh)
so a good defence against intrusions would be to maximally fill the memory banks up with programs.
this would also have drawbacks, when an intrusion succeeds antivirs cant move in position to defend.

question 3: how does an intruder get inital access?

out of combat its pretty "straight forward" to get access to a ship or station, dock at a ship or station which has a communications channel open to the target and hack through their firewalls protecting the connection (with an arbitary amount of nodes between, which would also have to be hacked if they separate those channels)

but how to access a ship which doesnt have any communications channels open to somewhere else?
start communicating with them (hello sir, how are you?) and slip your virus by the channel could work
but a non-cooperative target would not respond to such an attempt

can a (small) channel be forced between 2 ships?
basically requesting communication over and over again?
"i'd like to communicate" (slips by 5kb of the virus)
"i'd like to communicate" (slips by another 5kb)
and so forth that you slowly transfer a basic virus

or a "hacking cannon" that basically shoots infected USB sticks at the target in hope of hitting a plug?

or are incommunicado ships untouchable by hacking?


suggestions expected! :D

biiig edit:

forgot some points

dumping memory

when you are completely overtaken and all your software is either destroyed or compromised you can "turn it off and on again" your computers to wipe their memory maps
this takes a while though and disables all systems connected to the respective computer for the duration of the reboot.

permanent storage

permanent storage is where you have everything that is not a runnin program, maps, event logs, backups of programs to restart them when you had to dump your memory
i'd say that this storage is not compromisable through hacking (encryption thats really strong but unsuited to running software or whatnot), for gameplay purposes
the player should not be stranded because all his ships' software is gone due to a virus attack and he cannot get it back running again.

"emergency circuits"

some systems should have emergency controls of some sort, that even when everything else fails the player isnt sitting around bound to do nothing.
i'd personally say only the engines and sensors should have such emergency controls.
they wont work good, but they work at all.
Last edited by Cornflakes_91 on Thu Apr 16, 2015 12:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Re: A Reinterpretation of Research

Cha0zz wrote:Seems like an interesting idea although it looks a bit eh ... micromanage-y
I'm also not sure if it would be really necessary to add another layer of complexity.
i imagine it mostly to be a system you set up and let run when you dont want to be concerned with it.

equipment should come with working drivers, ships should come with working base systems etc.

but yeah, thats my fear too.

but it would include hacking in a natural way.

i also forgot to add something big, will make an edit soon.

edit: edit

Re: A Reinterpretation of Research

two extra thoughts:

It might be beneficial if inputs/outputs of programs had visible "connectors" which denote the type of data that this port uses.
programs thus cant connect if they dont have compatible connectors.
This could be shown by geometric forms convex arch connects to concave arch, concave triangle connects to convex triangle etc.
This would make "programming" easier readable and would directly show whats expected/missing to get a working program.

Another thing is:
The separation of hardware and software would make drones a distinct type of ship.
a normal ship would contain all its computing and software on board, whereas a drone could drop everything besides a communications program and have all its computing outsourced to its mothership.

It would not need to have a "cockpit" (central controlling intelligence etc) on board, would have smaller computers which would need less space and power and it could use better, efficiency improving software which would be too computing intensive for a self contained ship of its size and has even more improved performance.

This advantages come at the drawback of needing a communications link to a specially equipped mothership.
This link can be disturbed or highjacked whereas the drone ceases functioning or even gets used against its former allies.

The distinction between a ship and a drone gets fuzzy due to that, you can have everything running on the mothership, you can have everything running on the "drone" (thus it becomes an independent ship) and everything between.
Only have the guiding intelligence on the mothershio, you need less badwith but the drone gets more complex and thus less expendable, or have the drone have everything remote controlled but drives... endless possibilities.

A drone bay would then just be a variation of hangar/docking clamp with communications equipment snd computers.

Re: A Reinterpretation of Research

Cornflakes_91 wrote: The separation of hardware and software would make drones a distinct type of ship.
a normal ship would contain all its computing and software on board, whereas a drone could drop everything besides a communications program and have all its computing outsourced to its mothership.

It would not need to have a "cockpit" (central controlling intelligence etc) on board, would have smaller computers which would need less space and power and it could use better, efficiency improving software which would be too computing intensive for a self contained ship of its size and has even more improved performance.

This advantages come at the drawback of needing a communications link to a specially equipped mothership.
This link can be disturbed or highjacked whereas the drone ceases functioning or even gets used against its former allies.

The distinction between a ship and a drone gets fuzzy due to that, you can have everything running on the mothership, you can have everything running on the "drone" (thus it becomes an independent ship) and everything between.
Only have the guiding intelligence on the mothershio, you need less badwith but the drone gets more complex and thus less expendable, or have the drone have everything remote controlled but drives... endless possibilities.

A drone bay would then just be a variation of hangar/docking clamp with communications equipment snd computers.

I think a drone would at least have some degree of autonomy.
eg; on connection loss, it automatically returns to base/ self-destructs/...
A drone without any autonomy on its own wouldn't be a drone it would be a RC-toy.

I think that connection loss or possible hostile takeover is something that should be anticipated in the design, certainly on military oriented drones.
Military drones would probably have a relative wide range of autonomy, going from self-destruct to more advanced operations.
Commercial drones could probably have lesser degrees of autonomy than military ones, but I think that it would only be logical to have a 'return to home' function in them.
LT Wiki | IRC | REKT Wiki
Idiots. Idiots everywhere. ~Dr. Cha0zz

Re: A Reinterpretation of Research

the question is: where is home?

if the much larger mothership cant open a communications channel of any kind, how should the drone find it?

comms will likely have a greater range than sensors, and the mothership cant reach you with it.
so the tiny drone sensors would never be able to reach the mothership.
if the drone has sensors at all.

the best option would likely be to remain as stationary as possible, that the mothership can find the drone when it searches for them
and not the drone to fly in a possibly wrong direction and be somewhere unexpected.

its the same strategy thats used by modern lifeboats, they dont try to get to an island or to some safe area
they try to remain as stationary as possible to be found as easy as possible.

also: a 100% dependent drone in the sense i envisoned wouldnt be able to move on its own, it would even be less than a RC toy.
a RC toy can be commanded by saying "move right" or "turn this direction", but a completely dependent drone would route all its hardware controls through its comms to its mothership.

(using a quadrocopter as an example) so the mothership wouldnt order "bank left" or "rotate clockwise", it would change the rotation speed of the rotors to archieve the maneuvers.

its a bit removed from reality, as such things couldnt work due to latencies.
but gameplay wise i think it would be an element that'd be fun.

the forced "base functionality" would also remove a bit of freedom in design.
sure, you can build your drones with enough autonomy that they do things on their own being only guided by the mothership.

but if you want the most bang for buck in the drone itself its just a bunch of remote controlled actors that get controlled by the mothership.

edit: just like some modern industrial robots, the "big orange arms" often dont have any intelligence built into themself but are real time controlled by a central computer in the facility
the minimal implementation would be just that, a bunch of motors on a remote control string.

Re: A Reinterpretation of Research

Base functionality shouldn't be forced, I wasn't implying that.

And 'home' would be a pre-defined set of coördinates.

Also, I really don't see much reason in trying to make drones as dumb as possible, even nowadays the amount of space required for electronics that can do such basic stuff is minimal, I don't really think that it would give you much -if any- advantage to dumb the drone that much down.

Note that I mainly mean more advanced functioning for military type drones like spy-drones, remote sensing drones,...
In such drones a certain level of autonomy would be desired.

More simple, commercial drones such as transport drones wouldn't really need that much of autonomy.
But I think a 'go home' function could still be useful depending on how expensive the drone is, a merchant wouldn't want his expensive drone to be lost just because it has a communications malfunction.
LT Wiki | IRC | REKT Wiki
Idiots. Idiots everywhere. ~Dr. Cha0zz

Re: A Reinterpretation of Research

the main advantage in outsourcing the processing to the mothership would be the performance gain.

the mothership has computers much larger than what the drone could mount, so it can run much more complex and effective programs.

so the drones performance would increase when you dumb the drone itself down.

at the cost of it being a piece of junk when comms get down.

Re: A Reinterpretation of Research

so... much... IRC
its by far not all connected to this thread here, but it started from the drone discussion in here

Code: Select all

+Cha0zz:	so cornflakes, spy drones would require a constant comms link
+Cornflakes:	definitely
+Cornflakes:	lol
+Slymodi:	lol
+Cha0zz:	seems like a major problem
+Cornflakes:	beep beep im a sensor
well, depends on how detailed comms would be...
+outlander:	You can't detect passive sensors
you can detect active scanners
+Cha0zz:	removing all autonomy from a military drone would make it liable to enemy interception
+Cornflakes:	if the mothership is on the same side as the drone and only the drone sends a directional beam it would be quite stealthy
+Slymodi:	the senors detect you
+Cornflakes:	im not saying that it would be advisable
+Cha0zz:	thus a kill switch at least would be preffered
+Cornflakes:	but it should be possible
+Cha0zz:	rathrer destroy the damn thing than having it captured
+Slymodi:	Cornflakes you are not doing EE right
+Cornflakes:	then have a condition of "when connection lost, ignite self destruct charge"
+Slymodi:	Electrical Engineering
+Cornflakes:	ah
+Cha0zz:	well, that's already autonomy isn't it :P
+Cornflakes:	that doesnt require thruster control or sensor analysis :P
things that could be moved to the mothership
+Cha0zz:	well, if you read my post, you see that I also suggest that :P
+Cornflakes:	i know
sly: why am i doing EE not right?
or was that a question of what i study
+Cha0zz:	but really, I think that military drones would require some degree of autonomy because they would otherwise make more problems than solving them
+Slymodi:	oh I need to make a sensor that doesn't exist to my knowledge at the precision I need and I don't remember if you do EE or not
+Cornflakes:	what do you want to do sly? 0.o
+Slymodi:	:twisted:
a 3d position sensor
+outlander:	A God detector I guess
+Cornflakes:	cha0zz, all im saying is that it should be possible, what is more wise at the end is a different thing
+Slymodi:	something at great accuracy
+Cornflakes:	get a MEMS accelerometer
if it shall be self contained
+Slymodi:	hmm ok I'll look into it
+Cornflakes:	if it can use external hardware too get a magnetometer and put some electromagnets around the area of movement
+Slymodi:	well it has to be able to go outside and inside
+Cornflakes:	accelerometer
+Slymodi:	and to to be able to transition without having to be inside a field
+Cornflakes:	theres nothing else that could really do what you want
+Cha0zz:	sure, it should be possible, but if drones already have sensors and stuff (which they need, how else does the mothership knows the location/position/orientation of the drone) you could as well drop a cpu in it to give it minimal autonomy while more advanced actions would require a direct comm connection to the home base
+Slymodi:	alright'
yeah I'll start looking then
+Cornflakes:	Cha0zz " (which they need, how else does the mothership knows the location/position/orientation of the drone)"

by using its own sensors
sensorless drones would be ultra-short-range tools
like, line of sight stuff
the mothership knows where everyone of them is
and orders them accordingly
+Cha0zz:	well, yeah in that case, off course more advanced functions wouldn't be necessairy in them
+Cornflakes:	if you have more long range drones that work outside the range of their base, sure, those would need more autonomy
+outlander:	We are ingoring time delays in LT for gameplay reasons, right?
+Slymodi:	wow I know almost nothing about accelerometers and their specs
+Cornflakes:	yeah we are outlander
+Cha0zz:	but I imagine drones a bit further away than that
+Slymodi:	^
+Cornflakes:	im thinking of drones like in EVE
you can see them, they work
if not, then not
at least the minimal implementation drones
but as theres a sliding scale you can build them for any range you want
+Cha0zz:	yeah, and I'm thinking drones like in UAV's
+Cornflakes:	that would be a form of drone
one with more independence, yes
+outlander:	Well, I suppose the idea for them originally came from Starcraft where Protoss ships had them. It never made any sense to me, at all
+Cornflakes:	those would need some autonomy themself
it would make sense if the drones could keep fire from the carrier
like, the carrier on the horizon and the drones right on you
+Slymodi:	watch josh be pan_kumrd
+outlander:	Yes, basically, drone is a weapon platfor you send to fight
+Slymodi:	and he is just listening to the convo
+pan_kumrd:	wat
+Cornflakes:	josh doesnt use quassel :P
hello pan!
+pan_kumrd:	Hi there. :)
+Slymodi:	hey
+Cha0zz:	unless josh changed to ip6 nope
hi pan_kumrd
+outlander:	hey
+Slymodi:	who knows
me may have just found him out
+Cornflakes:	comcast wont change from ipv4 to v6
+pan_kumrd:	Well, last time I checked, no, I am not Josh.
+Cornflakes:	for years to come
+Slymodi:	haha
+Cornflakes:	so, back to drones
+Slymodi:	until they get slammed by google fiber
+Cha0zz:	I heard it was the best telco in america though
+Slymodi:	Comcast?
+Cha0zz:	yeah
+Cornflakes:	ultra short range drones could also be used for effective defence too
use them to shoot down missles for example
+Slymodi:	Google Fiber is better
+Cha0zz:	yeah, cannon fodder
+Cornflakes:	you can focus your firepower in one direction as needed
enders game
+Cha0zz:	yep
+Cornflakes:	that would be a nice analogy
+outlander:	Flakes: I see
+Slymodi:	^
that is what I am so interested in formation stuff
stuff like what they did in the enders game movie
+Cha0zz:	but yeah, Cornflakes, I agree with you for extremely short ranged drones
+Cornflakes:	have them as a meatshield
or as repair drones
or whatever what doesnt have to stray far away
+outlander:	Yeah, I see that
it's not an entirely horrible idea
+Slymodi:	you have to make shells
inner shell of repair drones
+Cornflakes:	lol
+Slymodi:	outer shell of armor drones
just have a ton of them
+Cornflakes:	you know that your computer would instantly die a heat death when trying to process that? :P
+Cha0zz:	nah
+outlander:	you don't need drones as such to serve as a meatshield
+Cornflakes:	*a horrible horrible heat death
+Slymodi:	it'd be amazing tho
+Cha0zz:	yeah
+Slymodi:	10/10 would build a super computer just to experience that
+Cornflakes:	if we can abstract drones as field functions it could even work
+Slymodi:	oh yeah
+Cornflakes:	like i outlined minefields
+outlander:	just throw away some metal, put it around your ship using magnetic fields, done
+Slymodi:	we could
+Cha0zz:	hmm
seems harder than the minefields
+Cornflakes:	but then we'd have to demote individual drones to statistics
+Cha0zz:	since they can move and recieve instructions
+outlander:	how about swarming drones?
+Cornflakes:	maybe as blobs of field function that can do stuff
+Cha0zz:	hmm
+Cornflakes:	drones that wouldnt act on their own
+outlander:	the ones that connect to form a hivemind of sorts?
+Cornflakes:	sorta, maybe
+Slymodi:	depends
+Cornflakes:	you only launch them in packs of 10 or 100
+Slymodi:	depends on yor definition of drones
+Cornflakes:	that you can abstract them reliably to statistics
+Slymodi:	yeah that is true
+outlander:	let's agree on definition of drones first
so that we speak the same language
+Cornflakes:	"small ship like thing that does stuff"
+Slymodi:	ok so are they autonomous or outside controlled
+Cha0zz:	can be both
+Cornflakes:	depends on the implementation
+Cha0zz:	with varying degrees of autonomy
from not at all to almost completely
+Slymodi:	hmm ok
+outlander:	Well, I suggest that 'drone' is a small, autonomous, semi-autonomous or hardly autonomous machine deployed by the mothership to perform a certain set of functions.
+Slymodi:	I see drones as being mostly autonomous
+Cha0zz:	maybe small-medium
+Slymodi:	you give them a task
and they find their way to do it
+Cornflakes:	every ship does that sly, the question is where is their brain
do they have it on board
+Slymodi:	true
+Cornflakes:	or do they have to be puppeteered by the mothership
+Slymodi:	I think it should be on a controlling ship
+Cha0zz:	that would depend on the implementation of the drone
+Cornflakes:	yeah
+outlander:	I think there should be some division of labour
+Cornflakes:	a "mostly autonomous" drone would only have the pilot on the mothership and everything else is self contained
+outlander:	some tasks - strategical etc - should be left to the mothership
+Cornflakes:	a "completely dependent" drone would have its hardware slaved to the mothership and only run comms software on its computer
+outlander:	while immediate tasks 0f selecting trajectory, using weapons to the best effect etc is decided on the spot
+Cornflakes:	which can both as well be orchestered by the mothership
to form an effective swarm
its all relative
and depends on what you want to do
+Cha0zz:	yeah it would depend on the function and operating distance of the drone
+outlander:	yeah...
maybe we aren't looking at it from the right angle
+Cornflakes:	a remote strike drone would just get directions from the mothership "fly there, attack that, return"
a slave drone would have "turn this motor this far, fire this thruster" etc
+outlander:	function to perform defines what type of drone to use
+Slymodi:	well
+Cha0zz:	^
+Slymodi:	or you could have a generalized drone
and it equips itself for a task
+Cha0zz:	eh
+outlander:	or that
+Cha0zz:	sounds inefficient
+Slymodi:	that is how I would do it in real life
+Cornflakes:	well, this would be possible if we make ship=drone
+Cha0zz:	especially for drones that could be potentially lost
+Slymodi:	it makes for easier mass production
+Cornflakes:	(with varying degree of brain)
military drones are built that way cha0zz
they have some module bay that gets inserted depending on the mission
+outlander:	modular drones
sounds cool
+Slymodi:	^
+Cornflakes:	they are small ships y
+Cha0zz:	yeah, but they all are military, I don't see them suddenly be transporters or miners
+Cornflakes:	you can do what you want
+Slymodi:	that's kinda what I was asking for corn :P
+Cha0zz:	the task share a common base
+Slymodi:	well also
what is the difference between small ships and drones
+Cornflakes:	but you could also have a civilian chassis into which you plug a miner, a container drone, a repair tool etc...
+Cha0zz:	ships require a pilot?
+Slymodi:	true
+Cornflakes:	i'd say drones require "pilots" too, but those sit on the mothership
when only the pilot is on the mothership its mostly independent
+Cha0zz:	well, in a ship there is one pilot/ ship for drones one pilot/multiple drones
+Cornflakes:	the more is on the mothership the more its slaved
+Slymodi:	can we have drones driving other drones
+Cha0zz:	eh
+Cornflakes:	they are ships
have a drone carrier drone
there'd be a bunch of pilots on the moshi though
(tired of writing out mothership)
+outlander:	actually
+Slymodi:	ms should do just fine
+outlander:	depends a lot on wether we are carbon fascists in LT or not
+Slymodi:	carbon fascists
+Cha0zz:	wut?
+Slymodi:	only liking living beings
I think
+Cornflakes:	for the sake of giving workers a purpose i'd say we are carbon facists
+outlander:	do we consider AIs to be just machines?
+Cha0zz:	I think Josh is going to keep that an open question
+outlander:	or do we recognise a sufficiently advanced AI as an intelligence with its own rights and freedoms?
+Cornflakes:	it actually doesnt really matter
+Slymodi:	how do we establish those
+outlander:	because if we do, then sufficiently advanced drones become ships
+Cornflakes:	the "brain" would just be a mcguffin
if its an AI or a pilot doesnt matter
+outlander:	and if we don't, we can use any robotic craft as a meatshield
+Cornflakes:	as drones are still remote controlled and their brains remain on the ms drones cant get advanced enough to get sentient on their own
+Zeadar:	meat! :D
+Cha0zz:	well, drones would always work on behalf off the ms, while ships could also work on their own behalf?
+Cornflakes:	silicon shield in this case :P
+Slymodi:	lol hey Zeadar
+Zeadar:	7AWAY
+Cha0zz:	hey Zeadar
+Zeadar:	Hello! :D
+outlander:	hey Zaaedar
+Cornflakes:	yeah, cha0zz
because ships have their brain on board
and drones not
+Cha0zz:	*not completely
+Cornflakes:	the guiding intelligence
the hardware drivers around that can be on both
+outlander:	well, yes, then autonomous drones become robotic ships
+Cornflakes:	if we say that the guiding intelligence is an AI
and not a drone operator
on a joystick
+Cha0zz:	yeah, outlander that's why I defined the most autonomous drone as 'almost completely autonomous'
+Cornflakes:	the guiding intelligence should be some comparatively big piece of hardware
pilot capsule/AI core/whatever
when the ship has this thing, its a ship
if not, its a drone
but this piece of hardware has to exist
+outlander:	it just doesn't make sense for defensive drones to be remotely piloted when their only function is to select incoming target and slam into it
+Cornflakes:	use missles for that
+Cha0zz:	they can be more
+Cornflakes:	:P
+outlander:	yep
+Cornflakes:	a short range defensive drone would be a turret
not a anti missle missle
+outlander:	but anyway - a mothership should have all the long-range sensors needed to define what to do
+Cha0zz:	spy drones would probably be the most advanced, since constant connetion to the ms would pose a liability
+Slymodi:	Cornflakes I am going to need you to pastebin me the rest of this conversation after I leave
+Cornflakes:	kk
+outlander:	what exactly spy drones are for?
+Cornflakes:	remote sensor
+Cha0zz:	gathering intel, hacking, remote sensing
+Slymodi:	^
and taking up opponent bandwidth
oh can we use drones as communications arrays
+outlander:	well, a sufficient degree of autonomy is needed for that
+Cornflakes:	nothing is keeping you
+Slymodi:	yes
+outlander:	however, there's a room for simple drones
for example, if there's a gas cloud that blocks your sensors, you can send a simple drone packed with sensors into it to get a closer look
some sort of communication relay and sensor extension
+Slymodi:	ooh
+Cha0zz:	hmm
+Slymodi:	have a line of drones before them to send back info
+Cha0zz:	other drones: exploration, minining, transport, combat (long and short range), spy, ...
+Slymodi:	alright
I'm out
+Cornflakes:	prospector probe
+Slymodi:	o/
+Cornflakes:	o/
+Cha0zz:	ciao
+outlander:	japanese drones
+Cornflakes:	honor!
kawaii drones :3
+outlander:	crewed ones, that is :D
+Cha0zz:	kamikaze drones?
+Cornflakes:	that would be ships, though :P
+outlander:	:D
+Cha0zz:	sounds like missiles
eh :(
+outlander:	so, well, a crewed missile is a ship, but a spy drone is still just a drone? :)
+Cornflakes:	the point is crew
+Cha0zz:	well, if it contains a full autonomous being it is a ship
+Cornflakes:	no crew-> drone
crew -> ship
+outlander:	that's racist :D
+Cha0zz:	wut?
no it isn't?
+Cornflakes:	has a hammer head -> is a hammer

has an axe head -> is an axe
same argumentation
+Cha0zz:	yeah
+Cornflakes:	nothing racist there
+outlander:	hahah, just kidding folks
+Cornflakes:	no funny
+Cha0zz:	I think we need a :ghost: here
+outlander:	ok, back to the drones
so if the crew is an AI, it's a ship, right?
+Cornflakes:	its some mind
what we call independent mind is pretty secondary
+Cha0zz:	if the AI is fully independant and autonomous, yes
+outlander:	ok, fine by me
+Cornflakes:	whatever a worker is -> mind
+outlander:	ok, and the drones don't have a mind of their own, serving merely as extensions of ms's mind
+Cornflakes:	i'd say the drones' minds reside on the ms
but they have independent minds
they just arent on the same object
+outlander:	what's point of that. exactly?
+Naed:	:P
+Cornflakes:	you have smaller ships that are cheaper and are throw away products
+Cha0zz:	drones always need instructions to function, ships don't
+Cornflakes:	and dont need may things on board that a ship would need
+Cha0zz:	and you technically aren't risking the life of a pilot
+outlander:	ok, but you don't need anything intelligent for throw-away defensive platforms that do nothing but shoot at what's coming at them
+Cornflakes:	there comes the carbon facism into play
if we say that something that shoots on its own doesnt need a mind behind it
nothing really needs a mind behind it
so we dont need workers
as commodity
so the distinction of drone and ship becomes really moot
+outlander:	US drones don't always need a pilot
+Cornflakes:	they rarely need a pilot
+outlander:	and one drone pilot can fly multiple drones at the same time
+Cornflakes:	if we extrapolate from today the player becomes superfluos
+Cha0zz:	I get a feeling that we're going in circles :s
+outlander:	basically, drones of today need human to make decisions
shoot/no shoot, fly there/no fly there
+Cha0zz:	yes
+Cornflakes:	you dont need any person for that if you extrapolate
+outlander:	and it's an operational requirement, it won't go away in the future
you need a person for that
+Cornflakes:	nope
+Cha0zz:	eh
+Cornflakes:	not with the tech level on LT
+Cha0zz:	¿
+outlander:	it's an ethical quiestion, not a technological one
+Cornflakes:	romulans dont care for ethics if they want to nuke your homeworld
if its possible, it will be done
+outlander:	They do it, not their drones :)
+Cornflakes:	not even humans adhere to ethics
why should a universe of potentially aggressive aliens care
+Naed:	because friendship is magic?
+outlander:	nope, but humans can be hold responsible for their actions, and drones not
+Naed:	:P
+outlander:	*helf
+Cornflakes:	nobody cares for responsibilities
+outlander:	*d
you are being especially nihilistic today
+Cornflakes:	homeworld is a pool of radioactive magma
who done it doesnt matter
because the universe doesnt care for ethics
+outlander:	it doesn't, but living being do
+Cornflakes:	not even humans care for ethics many times
why should aliens care?
do you care for an ants idea of ethics?
do you care for a pigs idea of ethics?
+outlander:	I care for ants
hate killing them
+Cornflakes:	because of your own ethics
+outlander:	have to, though :(
+Cornflakes:	not because of their ethics
+outlander:	Alien ethics is bound to be different, but it will exist, and they'll have moral or cultural restrictions in place
+Cha0zz:	how did we come to ethics?
+Cornflakes:	and those could be as nihilistic as im outlining
you cant assume that someone cares for ethics
or any special aspect of ethics
+outlander:	ok, let's not call it ethics
+Cornflakes:	their ethics may just be "the strong one wins"
+outlander:	let's call it 'giving shit about consequences'
if your Spy-Annihilator S8 ыщ ыщ ыщ 35 Mark III finds new species
what should it do?
kill them all?
spy on them?
go away?
+Cornflakes:	if unknown: spy on them and report to base
+Cha0zz:	would depend on the programming
+Cornflakes:	if hostile, kill em all
thats just a matter of programming
no mind needed
+outlander:	and what if information is not sufficient?
+Cha0zz:	again, refer to programming
+outlander:	what if the object encountered is plain weird and not covered by the program?
+Cornflakes:	it doesnt matter
+Cha0zz:	probably call home
+outlander:	yep
+Cornflakes:	the default process could just be "shoot it"
+Cha0zz:	and wait for instructions
or that
it would depend on the programming :P
+Cornflakes:	or "fly away"
+outlander:	well, Flakes, shoot it, and then it turns out they are much more advanced then you, and have the same shitty ethics :D
+Cornflakes:	you dont need a "mind" in the loop
+Cha0zz:	then you lose a drone?
+outlander:	yes
+Cornflakes:	doesnt change that you dont need a mind in a guided missle
+outlander:	and then they nuke your homeworld just for fun
+Cha0zz:	well that's a big jump
+Cornflakes:	a crewed vessel could cause the same response
+outlander:	not so big
+Cha0zz:	that's assuming, they can determine the origin of the drone
+Cornflakes:	people are stupid
at times
+outlander:	Golden Horde invaded ancient Russia for one killed ambassador
+Cornflakes:	and did the fact that they had minds change the stupidity?
+outlander:	Nope
+Cornflakes:	so your argument is moot
people are stupid as well
as stupid as a drone can be
grades of stupidity vary
+outlander:	well, it's LT we are talking about
basically, a drone shoul need an oversight
+Cha0zz:	I think I'm starting to get what you mean outlander
+outlander:	you can't just load it with information and let it go on its merry way
it's be stupid as capturing one will instantly give all your secrets away
+Cha0zz:	you mean that a drone never thinks about consequences but just executes it's instructions while a pilot can (but not necessairily will) think about consequences?
+outlander:	yes
kind of like that
+Cha0zz:	also, about capturing, there are kill switches for that
+outlander:	EMP'd that kill switch, and it's done. There are ways around everything. Basically, I think that drone recieves information on the need-to-know basis, and orders when it doesn;t know what to do
a crewed ship decides it itself - constrained by the orders given, of course
+Cha0zz:	have it have volatile memory
+Cornflakes:	and can screw up as well
scare the crew out of its mind an  it will probably start shooting
try scaring a drone
+outlander:	Well, yes, everybody fraks up from time to time (or always)
there's nothing wrong with that
and the debate is not about superiority of machines anyway :)
+Cornflakes:	yeah, but it devalues your oversight argument
you can build drones that can act on their own
+outlander:	basically, the difference is:
+Cornflakes:	so they'll exist
+outlander:	drone - see something weird? - Yes - Ask for instructions
Crewed ship - see something weird? - Yes - Think what to do
+Cha0zz:	Well, I think a drone would never be operating with the bigger picture in mind, not with the final goal in mind, but only with a goal that's a small part of the bigger goal
+outlander:	yes, that
+Cornflakes:	we are completely away fromt he initial argument
+Cha0zz:	outlander, that's not always true
+outlander:	Well, yes, in military people are just drones anyway
+Cornflakes:	if you can build autonomous drones, they will exist, so we should limit it gameplay wise that you CANT build completely autonomous drones
a completely autonomous drone is a ship
+outlander:	yeh, so why not build those as well?
+Cornflakes:	if its a "drone" its pilot is not on board
if the pilot is on board, its a ship
thats the core of the distinction i'd use
nothing more, nothing less
+outlander:	Flakes, you won't need 100 K pilots to fly all your 100 K stupid defensive drones
+Cha0zz:	did he say so?
+Cornflakes:	says who?
+outlander:	I got that impression
you told that drone's pilot is on the ship
+Cornflakes:	i'd still say that every "ship" like object needs one pilot
+outlander:	well, that's exactly what I am against
it doesn't make much sense to have one pilot per drone
+Cornflakes:	depends on what is a drone
+outlander:	the need for pilots should be scaled depending on the drone, yes
+Cha0zz:	qdmfhqpeqhzeb
+outlander:	100 K defense drones would need like a team of a dozen to control them
+Cornflakes:	why use a team at all
+outlander:	basically, to control the swarm
+Cornflakes:	slave them to the targetting computer
+outlander:	or that, yes
depending on your tech and whatnot
+Cornflakes:	then we get to a point where we dont need pilots at all
which would make workers moot
+outlander:	no, we still need them for what I told you before
+Cornflakes:	which would make the player moot
which is moot
as it only depends on coding
+outlander:	oversight, decision-making
+Cha0zz:	what?
+mib_7mj9hl:	:O
+Cornflakes:	hoihoi
+outlander:	you can't let one drone to make certain types of decisions on behalf of an entire faction
+Cha0zz:	hey mib_7mj9hl
+mib_7mj9hl:	coo, this place is still alive eh?
even though the Boy has gone AWOL
+outlander:	alive and going strong
+Naed_:	why should it not be?
+Cha0zz:	mcsven?
+Cornflakes:	but the targetting computer can outlander?
+outlander:	reveal yourself mib_7mj9hl
+mib_7mj9hl:	bah, you already know
as per Cha0zz
+Zeadar:	I don't know =(
+outlander:	Flakes: if its scope is limited, yes.
+Cha0zz:	targetting computer would get instructions from the pilot wouldn't it
+Naed_:	but that is just you Zeadar
+Cornflakes:	yeah, but where is the border?
+Cha0zz:	Zeadar it's mcsven
+outlander:	It's activated when you've seen an enemy and told it that it's an enemy
+Cornflakes:	where to define what can be done and what not
what is an enemy
the computer analyses and paints objects according to your settings
this games AI can do that
+mcsven:	game's
+outlander:	enemy is what you as a player - or an AI in charge of NPC - decided to be an enemy
+Cornflakes:	why shouldnt the board computer of my mothership not be able to do that
+outlander:	because it's not allowed to
do you allow spambots to chat on your behalf?
+mcsven:	good to see Cornflakes up to the usual.
+Cornflakes:	why should i disallow it if its perfectly capable to do so?
possibly better and more objective than a human could ever be
+outlander:	if it's perfectly capable, then it's a cybernetic life form and no longer a computer
+Cornflakes:	no
doesnt have to be
its a specialist system
+outlander:	the final decision is yours, Flakes
+Cornflakes:	doesnt have to be
build ship, set it lose
+outlander:	if the on-board PC tells you that this trade convoy is not an enemy
+Cha0zz:	well, I rather decide my enemies myself in the end :/
+outlander:	but you still want to raid it?
+Cornflakes:	your whole argument doesnt prevent anybody to build such drones
+outlander:	those would be cybernetic life forms
+Cornflakes:	nope
+outlander:	deciding on their own
+Cornflakes:	not necessarily
+outlander:	they'd have to be
+Cornflakes:	have them have some primitive code, and let them lose
+outlander:	atually
you know
+Cornflakes:	it doesnt have to be sentient or aware or anything to do such things
+outlander:	let people build mindless drones
let then loose control over them
let them frak up half the galaxy
it's more fun that way
+Cornflakes:	im arguing for everything having a pilot
im arguing against your that its acceptable to relieve control over drones with semi control
and less
and less
and less
as computer systems would only get more capable
+outlander:	Transporting 100 K pilots for 100 K defensive platforms is a waste
+Cornflakes:	but it makes it very easy to relate gameplay wise
+outlander:	yes, but it doesn't make sense
you build 100 K ships instead
+Cornflakes:	pilots at all dont make sense
+outlander:	they do - they have free will
they can make decisions
+Cornflakes:	nothing what a computer couldnt do better
and more reliable
+outlander:	you can't entirely substitute it with programming
+Cornflakes:	your brain is also just programming
+outlander:	it's not
+Cornflakes:	other language, but software nevertheless
+outlander:	there's no hardware/software separation in the human brain
+Cornflakes:	its a deterministic machine running on algorithms
the nature of that is irrelevant
deterministic machine
its a complex machine
but a machine
+outlander:	if your drone is also a deterministic machine, shouldn't it be considered alive?
+Cornflakes:	then you are back to everything having a pilot
a mind thats alive
and every drone has one
+outlander:	that makes pilots moot
yes, yes
+Cornflakes:	no, everything would have a pilot
+outlander:	what I am trying to tell is that drones are simpler than that
+Cornflakes:	just the nature of it would be different
+Cha0zz:	well, I think every drone can have a pilot but a pilot can pilot multiple drones
+Cornflakes:	have different classes of minds?
+outlander:	Ok, that's better
one pilot per many drones
+Cornflakes:	small minds for small things, up to full pilots
and the "drone pilot" is a commander and not a pilot
+outlander:	Yes
more like a shepherd
+Cornflakes:	i'd still say that the "decisions" lead to 1 "mind" per 1 "ship"
if that mind is small and stupid doesnt matter
+outlander:	well, yes, that's what I was trying to tell
all important decisions are referred to the commander in charge
at that moment, it's 1:1
+Cha0zz:	well Cornflakes, I think 1 mind/ 1 ship doesn't exclude multiple ships/1mind
+Cornflakes:	it would just make the whole game design around that easier
@Bele:	well I just stumbled on the RPS article from last week
which shows how in the loop I am
good to know Josh is alive
+Cornflakes:	you have 1 "end point" where the NPC is
+outlander:	let's say, 1 decision : 1 pilot
for several drones can be in the same place asking the same question
+Cornflakes:	the small drone mind asks for directions
the commander
the commander doesnt have direct control over the drones
he commands the minds, minds do the flying
its a commander/subordinate relation
+outlander:	yes, well, the difference is
+Cornflakes:	not a ultra multitasking keyboard jockey to rc toy relation
+outlander:	when the commander is destroyed, drone doesn't know what to do, while ship becomes its own commander until it finds his superior
+Cha0zz:	eh no?
it justs waits for a new commander without becoming it's own commander?
+Cornflakes:	there would be the default actions that cha0zz outlined
"go home" "self destruct" etc
+Cha0zz:	yeah while executing normal programming offcourse
+outlander:	it can't execute normal programming because it has nobody to refer to for decisions
it just goes home or self-destructs
ship can fight, run away, do whatever its commander deems necessary
it can run away into the nebula, observe the enemy, then report everything
or whatever
+Cha0zz:	normal programming could still be, self defence and stuff
just the default programming without commander input
+outlander:	well, yeah, attack when attacked
+Cha0zz:	probably very basic
+outlander:	so I don't attack it
just sit nearby and hack it
it rhymes! :D
+Cha0zz:	yeah, if you want
and maybe it detects you and responds according to program?
I don't think I'm getting your point?
+outlander:	Well, I think drones should self-destroy or be locked in a certain type of action upon the destruction of the mothership
and shouldn't try to find a new owner
+Cornflakes:	or just go intert because their intelligence was on the MS
+Cha0zz:	they don't
+outlander:	because, in theory, an enemy can fake communications and hack them
+Cha0zz:	what you describe is their programming
but if it is a drone that is expected to have regular communication blackouts, well...
+outlander:	well, mothership dies -> sends a signal -> drones lock into permanent-agressive mode and attack everything previously marked as an enemy
+Cornflakes:	which doesnt work because all their mind was on the MS
+Cha0zz:	you're assuming that the mothership can send a signal
+Cornflakes:	they go inert and end
+Cha0zz:	eh that would depend upon how autonomous the drone is, wouldn't it?
+Cornflakes:	thats what (at least i) defined as drone
+outlander:	well, as soon as the drone will encounter a decision point it'll go inert anyway, not being able to get an answer
+Cornflakes:	has mind -> ship
if not -> drone
no mind, no action
+outlander:	well, my drones don't have a mind, they execute programs pre-loaded by their operators
+Cornflakes:	"the part that orders the rest of the ship around"
thrusters dont decide on their own to fire
+outlander:	programs can give them wider or narrower autonomy depending on the task
+Cornflakes:	again -> no need for pilots
like, ever
you have a single commander for all your drones
+Cha0zz:	wait, I thought we already agreed that a drone doesn't need constant contact with the ms to function?
+Cornflakes:	hm
would clash with the distinction
can it make any kind of decision "fly left or righ" on its own it has a "mind"
+Cha0zz:	because like you're describing it UAV's aren't drones, and they are the very definition of current drones :/
+Cornflakes:	which dont make anything good for a game
why use a piloted ship if you can use a drone?
+outlander:	Well, no, you have a single commander over stupid defense drones. Or a team of commanders, or a sufficiently advanced AI. It's because tasks for defensive drones are limited in scope. More advanced drones need higher involvement of the commander
+Cornflakes:	you dont need decision making 99% of the time
why would they
+Naed:	because for X reason, the race/universe/setting dont trust AI behind the controls of something with firepower?
+outlander:	the wider the task, the more oversight id neeeded
+Cornflakes:	so the more intelligence it has the more you need to micromanage it?
seems backwards
+Cha0zz:	a drone can't suddenly become a trader if it was designed as a fighter, a commander can
commanders are more complex than drones
+outlander:	No, the more complex is the task, the more micromanagement you need
+Cornflakes:	what is a "complex task"
+outlander:	I'd say that all drones have the same intelligence level
+Cornflakes:	"fly there, scan area, report back"
piloted ships take the same amount of input
+outlander:	Well, fly there, scan the area, report back, recieve more detailed scan instructions, scan again, report back - go check that exact area - scan - report- scan again - report
+Cornflakes:	just a matter of programming
+Cha0zz:	yes but if the player stops hiring the pilot, it doesn't
+Cornflakes:	as pilots are bought in general that doesnt really change anything
especially in 1.0 where you dont have executives in your army
+Cha0zz:	I also assume that pilots would be able to take initiative
+outlander:	yes, I assume that pilots are AIs
they can act on their own
well, if your drones have pilots in the ship. they can also act on their own via their drones
so why have drones?
+Cornflakes:	beause they are cheap and you can throw them away en masse
+outlander:	just because you can shoot the pilot if he decides to do some trading on the side with his advanced transportation drone?
you can throw pilots away, too
they are just bought
+Cornflakes:	pilots cost
a ship without a pilot costs less to replace
+outlander:	Chinese pilots, anyone?
+Cornflakes:	life support costs too
and maybe more than your chinese pilot
+outlander:	all the PCs, all the communication software, a mothership with all the pilots stuffed in, with life support, too
+Cornflakes:	point is: you throw away less with drones
yeah, but you dont throw that away
+outlander:	you do if it's destroyed
if some of your ships are destroyed, they can run away
+Cornflakes:	if some of your drones are destroyed, the ms runs away
and the drones continue fighting as long as possible
as they are much cheaper than a full ship
+outlander:	Ok, then it becomes more of a liability than an asset
if you can't risk it
+Cornflakes:	so, carriers are no assets?
only liabilities
+outlander:	carriers are a bad example
+Cornflakes:	fuel dependent fighters in enemy territory are as screwed as drones without their mothership
a drone MS is a carrier
+outlander:	they are more flexible
+Cornflakes:	why
+outlander:	in certain ways
you can recover fighters with another carrier
+Cornflakes:	you can do that with drones too
+Cha0zz:	the requirement of constant communication link makes it almost too tempting not to try to take the enemies drones over
+outlander:	yes, but not their pilots if they are stranded
+Cornflakes:	pilots dont get stranded, they are in a pretty self reliant carrier vessel
+outlander:	how can it be self-relieant if it has like 100K pilots eating, breething and defecating on board?
+Cornflakes:	it has to be, as its your base of operations
+outlander:	it's the same as with US carriers
+Cornflakes:	a carrier has the same requirement
+outlander:	the need for supplies
+Cornflakes:	which doesnt change with drones or not
+outlander:	Nope, but it becomes a treat magnet
+Cornflakes:	as your usual carrier too
+outlander:	More so
+Cornflakes:	not really
+outlander:	pilots in the drone carrier can't escape easily
+Cornflakes:	its the life support for all the fighter pilots in the area
if it dies, the pilots are already dead
with the difference that the drone carrier doesnt have to wait for the drones to return when retreating
as the drones are throw away products
they can run fighting
+outlander:	Well, they can run away, board a station, loot for supplies, whatever
+Cornflakes:	a manned carrier has to run
without fighting
without logistics or rearming? they'd have to overtake the station
+Cha0zz:	if a drone carrier dies, its drones are useless, if a carrier dies, the ships in the air are still a treat, this would make drone carriers very good targets
+outlander:	exactly
+Cornflakes:	yeah, weakness of the concept
in exchange drones are more potent per mass/money than a full fighter
+outlander:	you take out the drone carrier, and it's no longer a treat, and your enemy has minus 100 K pilots dead in one go
+Cha0zz:	weakness? A drone army only needs one ambush to be destroyed completely
+Cornflakes:	because they forego every unneccessary piece of equipment
+outlander:	and since you have to hire pilots anyway, you only save on equipment
can be a lot, can be not that much
+Cha0zz:	battle plan, lure drones away with group A, group B comes in from the back and destroys the carrier: losses: minimal
+Cornflakes:	i have the heavy equipment in the already big and lumbering capital
+outlander:	and then there's a question of an open comm channel. Why don't we hack it?
+Cornflakes:	in exchange my fighters have 150% combat powress
thats the trade
fighters communicate with their carrier, why not hack that channel?
+Cha0zz:	yeah, Cornflakes giving the drones no autonomy at all doesn't make sense :/
+outlander:	fighters have their eyes and their brains in place
drones don't
+Cha0zz:	yeah
+Cornflakes:	doesnt matter if the joystick doesnt do what they want
+outlander:	it's not that
communication with the pilot is about giving an order
it's then free to execute it or question it
+Cornflakes:	and the pilot has to communicate with his ship to execute that
+Cha0zz:	if you hack a drone, you are its boss, if you hack a fighter comm channel, the pilot won't magically be on your side
+Cornflakes:	if the ship doesnt follow the orders the pilot can do what he wants
+outlander:	exactly
+Cornflakes:	its a game of tradeoffs
+outlander:	it just makes it a very niche offering
+Cornflakes:	if they behave the same why bother having two different things at all
+Cha0zz:	the constantly open comms channel is basically a big neon sign that says HACK ME PLZ
+Cornflakes:	that assumes that you can just highjack the channel
+outlander:	ypu can jam it
EMP it
+Cornflakes:	yeah
+outlander:	drones would stop working
+Cornflakes:	EMP works on all ships
+outlander:	then nuke the carrier
+Cornflakes:	emp the fighters, board computers stop working, nuke the carrier
same process
+Cha0zz:	fighters come back online, you lose your ships
+outlander:	Nope, I don't see it that way
+Cha0zz:	drones are dead, you take them with you
+outlander:	battle-ready electronics is hardened against EMP
+Cha0zz:	you gain free drones :DDD
+outlander:	so, drones would survive the EMP
+Cornflakes:	and why should be drones not be shielded?
+outlander:	but comms will be out for a little while
and that's when you drop a nuke
+Cornflakes:	not really
+outlander:	EMP disrupts the comms
+Cha0zz:	yeah, all you need is a signal scrambler
not even an EMP
+Cornflakes:	if you are that close to land the nuke in a splitsecond you dont need the emp
+outlander:	well, laser it
+Cornflakes:	again, its a tradeoff
what would do drones or fighters against a laser?
+outlander:	defensive drones would form a shield
+Cornflakes:	in like a microsecond?
+Cha0zz:	Cornflakes, your whole drone army could be disabled by a bunch of signal scramblers
+outlander:	well, if they don't they are useless anyway :D
+Cornflakes:	as could a conventional army with ECM generators
+outlander:	anyway, I am not entirely convinced with the whole drone idea
Starcraft had it, EVE has it
+Cha0zz:	except that soldiers don't stop shooting when you scramble their comms
+outlander:	never made any sense to me
exactly for the reasons told by Cha0zz
jam the comms, destroy the mothership, profit!
+Cornflakes:	jam sensors, destroy mothership, profit
difference where?
+outlander:	you can't jam passive sensors
+Cornflakes:	bullshit
send them fake images, overload them with noise
+outlander:	you can overload them, but you'll blind yourself that way
+Cornflakes:	same stuff you do with comms
you know the noise, you know the fake images
you can filter it out
+Cha0zz:	yeah, you overload the sensors, but a pilot can still fly on sight
+outlander:	then an enemy can analyse it and filter it out, too
+Cornflakes:	in the time it takes me to fire my laser/nuke?
+Cha0zz:	and hitting a huge carrier doesn't really require fancy targetting equipment
+outlander:	unless the noise is randomly generated
+Cornflakes:	it is a seeded random generator
or chaotic oscillator
+outlander:	well, yeah
then it's using your eyeballs
+Cornflakes:	you need to know the very precise parameters and exact specs of the oscillator to know whats going to come
+Cha0zz:	Cornflakes, does an F-16 pilot becom useless when he losses his comms?
+Cornflakes:	which is rarely of use in space
+Cha0zz:	does your drones become useless?
+outlander:	LT space is not real space
in real space, there's no need for carriers
+Cornflakes:	in real space theres no need for more than one person per ship
if at all
+outlander:	Yep, but we are not talking about that
in LT, there is friction due to space ether or something, so small, nimble ships make at least some degree of space
*sense damn it
so carriers make some degree of sense, too
because friction depends on mass and area and whatnot
+Cha0zz:	to defeat your drone army there is only one ship that needs to be destroyed
+outlander:	if, on the other hand, pilot-to-drone ration is like 200 drones per pilot or something, carriers make sense
still - easy to defeat given the right equipment, but not as risky
+Cornflakes:	you overread that i compromised with you there?
+outlander:	Nope, I remember that
so, I am thinking maybe we should take pilots out entirely?
+Cornflakes:	then theres the question of where do all the program parts respond to?
where is the player in the loop?
+outlander:	well, where's player in EVE drone ships?
+Cornflakes:	the mind/pilot is also where the player controls his ships
drones are small ships
i wouldnt give them any special condition
maybe some smaller "drone" mind
that can do one limited thing
or whatever
but for unification of everything
and to avoid special cases
1 "mind" per ship
one gameplay object that is "in command"
which should be unique per ship
+Zeadar:	are you still talking about drone ethics?
+Cornflakes:	your 100 drones per worker could still be there
not ethics anymore
but there should be some small mind betwerrn
+outlander:	well, it can be implemented however it feels right and simple in the game logic, but the gameplay should reflect the way it doesn't feel outrageously stupid
+Cornflakes:	that everything stays unified
+outlander:	so, a small mind per drone + drone controllers who are full minds
+Cornflakes:	the "mind" is the software the "pilot" gices commands to
drone minds should be very limited, and not usable for big ships on their own
if you want a "real" ship you need a full mind
+Cha0zz:	...
+outlander:	Well, yeah, kind of makes some sense
+Cornflakes:	thats all i want
details are negotiable
+Cha0zz:	well, that's what I've been saying all along :/
+outlander:	but that's just saying that drones have some degree of autonomy
+Cornflakes:	but for the sake of unification every ship should require one mind
+outlander:	which implies that they have some degree of oversight
+Cornflakes:	the question of autonomy was not mind or not
it was where the mind resides
if its aboard the ship
its a ship
if its somewhere else
its a drone
+Cha0zz:	define 'mind'
+outlander:	ok
+Cornflakes:	a worker NPC or a small, limited "drone control program"
+outlander:	In all honesty, I'd prefer a big computer controlling my drones
for player too lazy to shoot
you point at your enemy, you say 'catch', and your drones shoot it
+Cornflakes:	exactly
there are you the "full mind"
they just do
if you dont tell them, they dont do
+Cha0zz:	yes
+outlander:	Well, yess
but what with the spy drones?
they need to make decisions
+Cha0zz:	intercept comms in area
+outlander:	can they, like, call you back?
+Cha0zz:	hack system x
+Cornflakes:	i still dont like to have them have their own mind aboard
because where would they be different from a ship?
+Cha0zz:	ow frak, not again
+Cornflakes:	im not wanting to argue
+outlander:	if you assume direct control over them
+Cornflakes:	im talking from a gameplay point of view
+outlander:	you say, drone - scout there
+Cornflakes:	what can a worker do what a drone mind cant do
+outlander:	it flies there
and at that moment it gives you control, and you can see what it sees
+Cornflakes:	why not give all your freighters drone minds and tell them "carry from here to there"
where is a drone fighter different from a manned fighter?
it shoots targets
+outlander:	well
+Cornflakes:	and if it has its mind on board and is self reliant, it doesnt haev the comms issues
+outlander:	I think I know how to do that
when you're flying a single ship, you're doing it in the pilot's view
+Cornflakes:	yeah?
+outlander:	with drone carriers, it's RTS view always
for players too lazy to fly :D
+Cornflakes:	which wouldnt make that much of a difference
+outlander:	it will
+Cornflakes:	if i have a drone carrier, i sit in there and command RTS style
+outlander:	yes
+Cornflakes:	if that fighters are drones or manned doesnt matter
+outlander:	yeah, but basically it's a type of ship that permanently puts you in the RTS side of things
not really an RTS, kind of like EVE
+Cornflakes:	that doesnt really matter
i wouldnt play it any else
+outlander:	which is totally different from flying like in freelancer
+Cornflakes:	i can control my carrier as usual
+outlander:	(I do hate EVE)
+Cornflakes:	and my masses of fighters are controlled RTS
if i want to fly personally i use my own fighter
+outlander:	(I thought it had some flying, but it's just an RPG)
+Cornflakes:	lol
+outlander:	(wasted like the whole day on it)
+Cornflakes:	(i actually enjoy eve, played 2 times the 2 week trial)
+outlander:	(got hit on by a guy from the UK who thought that I am a girl from New Zealand)
+Cornflakes:	(just not worth paying 10? bucks a month)
+outlander:	(frak EVE)
+Cornflakes:	lol
+outlander:	so, yeah, when you just fly, you fly, but when you fight it's in the RTS mode
+Cornflakes:	which wouldnt make that much of a difference imp
i would never control all my drone fighters manually
i'd command them RTS stly
+outlander:	and RTS mode makes it possible to implement things like scrambling/jamming zones indicator, see your enemies in advance, etc
that alone give a single carrier vs single cruiser an advantage
+Cornflakes:	you can control a single cruiser RTS style too
if not, get a small stealthed shuttle to hide in while sending the cruiser into battle rts style
+outlander:	and back to the original question - why not give your trade ships small minds - you totally can
but it'll be limited to one star system, and you'll need the control station
+Cha0zz:	ehm
Cornflakes, are you also seeing a netsplit?
+Cornflakes:	yeah
+Cha0zz:	ah k
+outlander:	woah
my first net split, folks
+Cornflakes:	so, what was the last thing you wrote?
over here it was this <+outlander> and back to the original question - why not give your trade ships small minds - you totally can<+outlander> but it'll be limited to one star system, and you'll need the control station
+outlander:	That was the last one
+Cornflakes:	the problem with that is, when minds can be mounted in the ships they control
and have independence
they dont need a command station
which is the problem
+outlander:	Yeah
+Cornflakes:	if drones have independence
+Cha0zz:	then who tells them what to do?
+Cornflakes:	they dont need a dedicated command ship anymore
you order them through normal comms channels
+Cha0zz:	ah yeah
+Cornflakes:	at which point they become normal ships which dont need pilots
and that bothers me
+outlander:	I think rather that you order them from the RTS view
drones always do what you say
+Cornflakes:	"however you command your minions"
workers do too
+outlander:	pilots will do what you say if it's reasonable
+Cornflakes:	execs act so, workers not
+outlander:	if you tell them them to fly into a star, they'll tell you to frak off
+Cornflakes:	workers do what you say without asking
they are your stereotypical RTS minions
worker NPC's are what im calling the "pilots"
they do what you say
but have some creativity
+Cha0zz:	well honestly, I think they're basically the same, except maybe that you could make drones hackable and cheaper while workers would be more expensive and unhackable
+outlander:	yeah
+Cornflakes:	this is what i want to avoid
hence why the forcing of drones having to be dependent
2 times the same thing, why bother?
+outlander:	and add the rule that workers won't fly into the star no matter what you tell them
how did those 'workers' came into being, anyway?
+Cha0zz:	well, you could still have dependent drones, just not for combat situations
+Cornflakes:	AI needed to much processing power and the question of why they should do what you say during war
+Cha0zz:	resulting in 'players' and 'workers'
players being AI that is also 'playing' the game
+outlander:	Hmmm
+Cornflakes:	players are equivalent to the player, they make own decisions and act "reasonable"
they have to be hired and can betray you and whatnot
+outlander:	maybe it'd be enough to limit AI by hierarchy? The higher the job in the faction, the more independence AI can have?
+Cornflakes:	workers are bought once and do what you say
theres the question: why should the AI form a hierarchy?
+outlander:	Well, it needs something to do low-level tasks
+Cornflakes:	1 master, 1 million minions
no master-officier-lieutnant-minion
+outlander:	I don't know
+Cornflakes:	( i know that a lieutnant is a officier rank)
(but it just kinda fit)
+outlander:	We'll need to hear from Josh about that, I suppose
he needs to experiment with how many AIs can do their things
+Cornflakes:	i tried introducing a "force" to build a hierarchy in communications pipelines... but the whole concept hat at best a reception of "meh"
+outlander:	honestly, I'd rather prefer scarcely populated space with full AI than space bustling with activities performed by mindless drones
+Cornflakes:	they are not mindless and react somewhat like you would except
but their higher level goals are set by their master
+outlander:	well, pretty much like real life
+Cornflakes:	kinda
+outlander:	let's say
+Cornflakes:	but without any rebellion
+outlander:	they have personal goals, but they are not calculated until worker reaches a certain position of influence
+Cornflakes:	theres again: why should he gain influence?
+outlander:	he might not
+Cornflakes:	he's just a cog in the machine
like all other workers
+outlander:	most won't
+Cornflakes:	i mean
why should any get influence
flat hierarchy
master -> everyone else
+outlander:	Well, make it less flat
+Cornflakes:	how
+outlander:	it has to be less flat
because once faction starts spanning several systems, you'll have to have at least regional masters
then, wing leaders
+Cornflakes:	why
+outlander:	fleet leaders
+Cornflakes:	why
why would the master need to give away some of his power
+outlander:	because he can't do it all
I mean, AI can
+Cornflakes:	how to keep him
+outlander:	but gameplay-wise it's stupid
gameplay-wise AI is just like you
you can't micromanage every single transport in 100 systems
+Cornflakes:	still, i give them their standing orders
then they just do
+outlander:	Yes, but they decide how they do it
they don't have tactical freedom, but they have operational freedom
and then higher generals have tactical freedom, but not strategical one
+Cornflakes:	you mixed operational and tactical
I believe I did not
+Cornflakes:	im going from flats definition
and that article sounds backwards to me
an "operation" is something longer and bigger than a tactical engagement
+outlander:	It's business-related
they all sound retarded
but it's a definition
+Cornflakes:	i'd prefer to use the def flat has beaten in all heads in the forum, but yeah, continue
(brb 15-20 min)
+outlander:	operational is about how you shoot, tactical is about whom you shoot, and strategical is about what do you shoot them for? Several levels of gameplay should correspond to them: it's simple flying-trading-reparing-fighting for operational freedom, RTS view for tactical, and a bigger RTS multi-system view with flows (pipes) for strategical
if you're free player, you have all three of them, if you in a faction, your freedom depends on your position in the faction
if you're in a trade convoy, you give up all freedom
if after that you're given a solo mission, you get your operational freedom back
so, those things should shift dynamically depending on the type of mission given
that way, a simple worker behaves as a minion when not given enough freedom to operate
but he's given access to the AI if he's given a task that requeres more brains to operate
so that way, there are no workers and no NPCs
rather, their access to AI logic depends on what they do
+Cornflakes:	but theres the thing: why should an AI give up the will to betray you when it has not enough freedoms?
+outlander:	Hmmmm
+Cornflakes:	why should it get more submissive when its lower in the hierarchy
+outlander:	'cause it'll be fired upon if he does?
+Cornflakes:	that changes how he does it
but not that he wants to do it
in your concept he would not do it if he had the chance, but not the "freedoms"
+outlander:	Well, 'freedom'  is about how much access to AI logic it has
+Cornflakes:	yeah, i know
+outlander:	which is set by the mission
+Cornflakes:	but its illogical
+outlander:	how so?
+Cornflakes:	a person doesnt cease to want to revolt just because you send him on a mission without freedoms
+outlander:	nope
+Cornflakes:	if you send him alone to some remote location, his "freedoms" might be very low
but he'd do it if he had his full AI
so it appears illogical to me
hö naed
+outlander:	it's actually in reverse
+Naed:	hello again Cornflakes
+outlander:	if you send him in remote location without supervision, he's given a full access
if he's in your convoy, he's givin limited access
+Cornflakes:	you, fly to this positon, no deviations, no refueling
and stay there
he has no freedom in the missions sense
+outlander:	you give a solo mission, it implies operational freedom
+Cornflakes:	under direct supervision from me
+outlander:	yes, but he's alone to act
you're doing tactical things
where. when, how long
+Cornflakes:	and how
you fly there, through this thing do this and that
+outlander:	no, that is decided by the NPC
+Cornflakes:	i can precise my orders as much as i want
+outlander:	well
do you know what Italian strike is?
+Cornflakes:	he has no freedom in this job i've given him
+outlander:	it's when you follow orders to the letter
so, you give detailed orders
there's a deviation
for example, your target appears several km away from the spot you've detailed
NPC does nothing
mission is fucked up
and you're to blame
not the NPC
+Cornflakes:	still, he'd just fly away if he's alone out there
regardless of italian strikes
if he wanted to
+outlander:	again - you shouldn't be able to give absolutely no freedom to NPCs on solo missions
+Cornflakes:	which would be backwards
+outlander:	nope
how do you give orders to people?
+Cornflakes:	regardless of what i order him, if a human being wanted to break out, he'd do it in that situation
the orders dont make a difference
+outlander:	and if they have operational freedom, they'll do just that
+Cornflakes:	its where he is and how many people are around to keep him
+outlander:	and solo mission gives hims that
+Cornflakes:	not if i bind him to the letter
+outlander:	Well
+Cornflakes:	he's far away from me, i may see that he does shit but i cant keep him from doing so
+outlander:	how are you supposed to tailor ridiculous orders in LT, exactly?
+Cornflakes:	"move to that position"
the most simple to give ones would be the most stringent
"fly to that asteroid field" would be less stringent
+outlander:	move there. stay there, wait for orders
+Cornflakes:	yeah
+outlander:	'and don't resist if local pirates shoot at you'?
+Cornflakes:	then i set his behavioural rules
like in any RTS
+outlander:	you're a mean person Flakes
+Cornflakes:	why am i
because i point out holes in your idea? you did that too :P
+outlander:	:D
Let me think
+Cornflakes:	i see what you are trying to do
but i dont see it working how you described it
+outlander:	Well, my idea is more or less to give full operational control to NPCs when they are alone
that way, you can give them orders, and AI will cover everything that;s not covered by the order
this should prevent NPCs from being docile sheep when you ask them to do stupid things
+Cornflakes:	send them in groups
then they arent alone
+outlander:	yeah, and then wing leader may thing your idea is stupid and they'll desert en masse
if wing leader is killed first, then another pilot from the wing becomes a leader
+Cornflakes:	hm
send them as equals
take those 5 other idiots and do what i say
+outlander:	then they each will have operational freedom
you'll be able to check loyalty that way
send them all with full AI access
those loyal to you will die
those who are not will desert
it'd be late, but hey - no we know!
the general rule of command is 'don't give stupid orders'  :D
+Cornflakes:	and have your computer regularily slow down to a crawl because the number of full AI would fluctuate regularily
also: why should they be loyal?
surviving would always win
+outlander:	well, surviving alone in the enemy territory is not guaranteed
sticking to the plan gives a chance
+Cornflakes:	"why should i follow, i have a frigate and resources"
its by far not always enemy territory
+outlander:	then, pay
they don't do then for free, you know
they have salary
+Cornflakes:	still, why should he do it?
why should i die for money ?
cant spend it either way
+outlander:	You can try for money
if you die, well, bad luck
+Cornflakes:	that would still be far below the loyality you have in RL
you'd have a bunch of mercenairies
not an army
+outlander:	I don't know if AI can simulate other things, such as ideology, patriotic feelings, hatred etc
it's for Josh to answer :(

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests