Return to “Suggestions”

Post

Re: Squaring the "Vertical Progression" Circle (maybe)

#63
I usually don't like ratios when you have something open-ended because normally, when you do get far along enough into massive end-game, you can't become a jack of all trades. However, if you did own 99% of the wealth, workforce, and everything, there should be nothing stopping you from maximizing everything.
Image
Early Spring - 1055: Well, I made it to Boatmurdered, and my initial impressions can be set forth in three words: What. The. F*ck.
Post

Re: Squaring the "Vertical Progression" Circle (maybe)

#64
When I hear "infinite universe" I don't imagine "something I can become king of."

Josh has said that the universal constants will be tweakable - sliders again, unfortunately. So I would tend to view something like this as being initially optimised (along with other things like fragility) so that one character could never get so far ahead as to be impossible to catch up, be they player or NPC.

I'd rather LT had games that didn't have to approach "end game," wandering around owning all the stuff, being Captain Badass, so big that nobody could ever challenge me, until I get bored. I'm OK if people want to dial the difficulty down so they *can* do that, but to me that's when games start to get a bit boring. When the accumulation of stuff becomes rote because you already have the best gear.

If there's always someone snapping at your heels, there's always a game to be played.
Post

Re: Squaring the "Vertical Progression" Circle (maybe)

#65
But at the same time, a sandbox environment can be played many different ways.

For me, at least in one game, I'm going to want to try to have such a big research to leave everyone with the equivalent of sticks and stones compared to my ultra-uber weapons, shields, ships, etc. It might take time, but I would love to be able to do that. Besides, what happens when you give one of your ultra weapons to a single pirate? You can influence a lot via technology and money.

Edit: This brings another good point. If you want to limit research via ratios, when research can be seen a valuable commodity, but not limiting things like money the same way, then they're enforcing the ideals that you must acquire money in order to be seen as 'powerful'.
Image
Early Spring - 1055: Well, I made it to Boatmurdered, and my initial impressions can be set forth in three words: What. The. F*ck.
Post

Re: Squaring the "Vertical Progression" Circle (maybe)

#66
It's not the size of your bank balance, it's what you do with it that matters.

The accumulation of lots and lots of high tech gear and weaponry is just the accumulation of wealth. You're just keeping that wealth tied up in capital stocks rather than liquid form. And if you don't spend all your money on things, how does it actually make you powerful?

As far as "limiting money" goes, though, I did already suggest several things in other threads designed to try to scale against "unlimited accumulation", as well as ways of switching them off for the player if they wanted to play as the person who ends up with all the loot.
Post

Re: Squaring the "Vertical Progression" Circle (maybe)

#67
Double post to make something I think is important extra clear:

If any player-grade agent can become super-wealthy, ultra-high-teched, and unbeatable, then the chances are that one of the NPCs, being drawn from a large population and having a good head start on you, will do so. As a player who wanted to be that guy, you will find him being in the spot in the first place something of a problem for your playstyle.

I suggest, therefore, that the game's default mechanics that apply to everyone be balanced in such a way as to prevent one NPC becoming dominant no matter whether you run the simulation for a week or a hundred years. I then suggest that the player be given options to allow him or herself to make it easier if they want to play the game with an advantage over the NPCs.

The aim of this is that, if there's going to be a player who ends up as a level 70 Dragonborn with one-shot-kill guns, it should be the actual human player, not some NPC who found himself on a runaway spiral to Godhood.
Post

Re: Squaring the "Vertical Progression" Circle (maybe)

#68
I get what you're saying McDuff, but here's the scenario I'm tossing your way (utilizing your pictures for reference).

Say you spend money equally between all five points. Let's also say you have enough income to be able to spend an exorbitant amount on each of the points. Because the ratio doesn't change, are you saying there won't be any advancements, regardless of money I through at it as long as they're all allocated equally?
Image
Early Spring - 1055: Well, I made it to Boatmurdered, and my initial impressions can be set forth in three words: What. The. F*ck.
Post

Re: Squaring the "Vertical Progression" Circle (maybe)

#69
Yeah, nice.

A few thoughts I'm just throwing out for discussion.
  • Perhaps the ratio between Damage and Defence isn't a single number, but a range. This would allow temporary advantages of the sort actually seen in real life (think WWII Axis-Allies fighter planes).
  • When the ratio starts edging towards the upper end of the allowable range, then offensive technologies (guns, missiles, mines etc.) start to slow and defensive (armour, shields, cloaks etc.) technologies are accelerated. At least this seems like the way to do this... not sure how else?
  • This could easily be displayed as concentric circles for each tech "level". All points on each arm that are averaged to determine the level must exist between the inner and outer circle. This then effectively becomes the "potential" of that tech level.
  • Increasing the tech level is an interesting question. I'm still quite partial to the mechanic I outlined here, which could easily work here. Enough research into Pure R&D could unlock new concentric circles that are larger than the last. Circles could be unlocked for both offensive and defensive technologies at the same time to maintain the ratio... or perhaps there's a time lag to allow even more short-term differentials to exist.
  • Tech levels could always be limited to an arbitary number (5 or 10 or something like that - let's assume 10). At the start of the game, everyone would be on tech level 1, but with more research the upper levels are unlocked (i.e. larger circles). Once tech level 11 is unlocked, then all levels simply get reduced by one, with 11 now becoming 10 (the top). This means that your Level 10 weapon bought five years ago may now be Level 6, indicating that it's time to trade up. As long as the cost of each level (and the ratios between them!) stay more or less constant (think microchips) then this could be a really nice system.
Interesting stuff, good post McDuff.
Post

Re: Squaring the "Vertical Progression" Circle (maybe)

#70
McDuff wrote:Double post to make something I think is important extra clear:

If any player-grade agent can become super-wealthy, ultra-high-teched, and unbeatable, then the chances are that one of the NPCs, being drawn from a large population and having a good head start on you, will do so. As a player who wanted to be that guy, you will find him being in the spot in the first place something of a problem for your playstyle.

I suggest, therefore, that the game's default mechanics that apply to everyone be balanced in such a way as to prevent one NPC becoming dominant no matter whether you run the simulation for a week or a hundred years. I then suggest that the player be given options to allow him or herself to make it easier if they want to play the game with an advantage over the NPCs.

The aim of this is that, if there's going to be a player who ends up as a level 70 Dragonborn with one-shot-kill guns, it should be the actual human player, not some NPC who found himself on a runaway spiral to Godhood.
Good point --- however, prima facie this does seem to compromise on player-NPC parity.

We can fix that, though. If we assume Limit Theory to be a highly competitive and relatively violent world as I propose in Market Dynamics in a Dog-Eat-Dog World and couple that with my proposed Many-Worlds death mechanic, then it will be hard for any one agent to retain power at the top of corporate/economic/political pyramids for very long before being dethroned (in possibly quite a bloody way) by those on the rungs beneath him. By virtue of the fact that the proposed death mechanics cause the player to become subjectively immortal from his (and your) point of view, the player will seem to have an advantage over others in ascending into positions of powers and remaining there.

Yes, I know that some of you don't like the Dog-Eat-Dog idea because it would be more elegant to have dynamicity arise out of the mechanics of the economic systems themselves. And yes, I know that the Many-Worlds proposal isn't the most popular. But you know...

#SorryNotSorry

Edit: Of course, there will still be a fair deal of challenge for the player to attain and remain at the top, because there should be plenty of means for an agent to lose power without being killed, but it still provides the player with an apparent advantage (from his point of view) over others.
Post

Re: Squaring the "Vertical Progression" Circle (maybe)

#71
Gonna come back with a bit more, but I think that there is clearly a need for a trade off with difficulty levels, player parity, economic modelling etc. I do not believe you can get everything out of any system, especially not with the range of outcomes LT is promising to deliver. Something's got to give.

I don't see the "dog eat dog" proposals, for example, making it so that people who want an easy coast through the game amassing loads of ships and shiny things can get that easily.

One of the things I find fascinating with any proposal - and I'm sure I do this too - is that people will criticise it from every angle. It's too hard AND it's too easy! This thread was about was "squaring the circle", trying to please most of the people most of the time. That necessitates trade-offs between theoretically perfect mechanics that suit one particular playstyle in order to get to mechanics that generally work across a range.

Getting a system that can produce both balance and dynamism that the NPCs play in, that is complex but comprehensible, is one problem. Creating a range of systems strikes me as untenable, but maintaining NPC-player parity over every single possible playstyle seems to demand that.

It strikes me that the people who care most about player-NPC parity are also those who care more about the in-depth simulationist aspects of the game. If those two factors are as aligned as I think they are, simming with opt-outs seems like a reasonable compromise over multiply changing game mechanics.
Post

Re: Squaring the "Vertical Progression" Circle (maybe)

#72
McDuff wrote:I don't see the "dog eat dog" proposals, for example, making it so that people who want an easy coast through the game amassing loads of ships and shiny things can get that easily.
In general, such a feature would be desirable though, for the reasons you gave here, right? It'd put limits on how large and powerful corporations would get and all the warfare would help maintain a constant demand and supply of goods.
Post

Re: Squaring the "Vertical Progression" Circle (maybe)

#73
DWMagus wrote:I get what you're saying McDuff, but here's the scenario I'm tossing your way (utilizing your pictures for reference).

Say you spend money equally between all five points. Let's also say you have enough income to be able to spend an exorbitant amount on each of the points. Because the ratio doesn't change, are you saying there won't be any advancements, regardless of money I through at it as long as they're all allocated equally?
No, because X increases. So you'll be "better" overall than someone with a lower X value, but if they've put all their X into one node, they might well be "better" than you at some aspect of it.

You might have missiles that go a little further, a little faster, and do a little more damage, with a little more accuracy than when you started. But they'll have missiles that go no further or faster or do any more damage but hit a lot more accurately, even though their overall tech level might actually be lower than yours.

If they put resources into increasing Def at the same rate you increase Dam, then yes, you've essentially got an arm's race on your hands. Your better lasers are cancelled out by their better shields. But that's how it always is, right?
mcsven wrote: Perhaps the ratio between Damage and Defence isn't a single number, but a range. This would allow temporary advantages of the sort actually seen in real life (think WWII Axis-Allies fighter planes).
Yeah I apologise if I wasn't quite clear. I'm saying that there would be some maximum ratio, so Def cannot exceed Dam by more than a factor of 2 or 5 or whatever, and vice versa.
When the ratio starts edging towards the upper end of the allowable range, then offensive technologies (guns, missiles, mines etc.) start to slow and defensive (armour, shields, cloaks etc.) technologies are accelerated. At least this seems like the way to do this... not sure how else?
Correct. Less payoff for researching at the bleeding edge. More payoff when you're catching up.
This could easily be displayed as concentric circles for each tech "level". All points on each arm that are averaged to determine the level must exist between the inner and outer circle. This then effectively becomes the "potential" of that tech level.
There are actually concentric circles in the diagrams but you can't see them because it's black against dark grey. D'oh! I may redo the images.
[*]Tech levels could always be limited to an arbitary number (5 or 10 or something like that - let's assume 10). At the start of the game, everyone would be on tech level 1, but with more research the upper levels are unlocked (i.e. larger circles). Once tech level 11 is unlocked, then all levels simply get reduced by one, with 11 now becoming 10 (the top). This means that your Level 10 weapon bought five years ago may now be Level 6, indicating that it's time to trade up. As long as the cost of each level (and the ratios between them!) stay more or less constant (think microchips) then this could be a really nice system.
Something that "scales down" at the bottom, be it obvious or transparent, would be really nice. How you'd do that without telling people "your laser is now doing 500 dam and not 600 dam" is a trickier question. But yes, something like this would be good.
ThymineC wrote:
McDuff wrote:I don't see the "dog eat dog" proposals, for example, making it so that people who want an easy coast through the game amassing loads of ships and shiny things can get that easily.
In general, such a feature would be desirable though, for the reasons you gave here, right? It'd put limits on how large and powerful corporations would get and all the warfare would help maintain a constant demand and supply of goods.
I see "letting people get powerful then stomping on them" as being less intrinsically flexible than building in systemic instabilities that work across the general range of scenarios.

I agree that you can have more than one system at work to try and keep NPCs from having runaway success and shutting out the player.

The question is, for the players who want a lighter game, does that mechanic "switch off" easily to let them be the big bad boss, if they want to be? Perhaps making faction aggression towards the player independent of aggression towards other NPCs?
Last edited by DWMagus on Thu Apr 10, 2014 11:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Edited for TRIPLE post -- I can usually ignore intelligent doubles, but triples...
Post

Re: Squaring the "Vertical Progression" Circle (maybe)

#74
McDuff wrote:
[*]Tech levels could always be limited to an arbitary number (5 or 10 or something like that - let's assume 10). At the start of the game, everyone would be on tech level 1, but with more research the upper levels are unlocked (i.e. larger circles). Once tech level 11 is unlocked, then all levels simply get reduced by one, with 11 now becoming 10 (the top). This means that your Level 10 weapon bought five years ago may now be Level 6, indicating that it's time to trade up. As long as the cost of each level (and the ratios between them!) stay more or less constant (think microchips) then this could be a really nice system.
Something that "scales down" at the bottom, be it obvious or transparent, would be really nice. How you'd do that without telling people "your laser is now doing 500 dam and not 600 dam" is a trickier question. But yes, something like this would be good.
nah, as i understand it would not scale down your weapons stats but only serve to denote your relative level of power to the other weapons available.

for example:
you buy a class 10 weapon which does 600 damage

some time passes

your weapon is now class 6, but still does 600 dam.
so why did your weapon fall in its level?
because the new level 10 weapons do 1000 damage
Post

Re: Squaring the "Vertical Progression" Circle (maybe)

#75
Yeah that's cool, and that's how I could envisage it working.

The only problem is at some point weapons start gaining values that begin to look ridiculous.

The mechanism stops it mattering when guns do 100,000 dam and shields absorb 10,000,000, because everything's still in scale. But it is the bit of this that grates on my sense of aesthetic.

There are also, problematically, some nodes that it simply doesn't make any sense to extend "infinitely" anyway. Range, for example.

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests

cron