Return to “Suggestions”

Post

Re: Communications Gameplay in Limit Theory

#61
DigitalDuck wrote:
JanB1 wrote:Bandwidth limitations. Simple as that. :mrgreen:
Audio requires quite a bit more bandwidth than numbers.
Depends on what kind of numbers. Sensor feeds (i.e. fancy video) probably take way more bandwidth than voice. A textual message takes way less (unless it's absurdly large). And raw scan data would be in huge packets, probably even more massive than combat sensor feeds, because it carries so much more information about its objective.
Post

Re: Communications Gameplay in Limit Theory

#64
DigitalDuck wrote:
JanB1 wrote:Bandwidth limitations. Simple as that. :mrgreen:
Audio requires quite a bit more bandwidth than numbers.
Voice-to-text, text compresses to about 1byte per word in english.
Then text-to-voice on the other side.

Allows voice and text communication.

Imagine it at 1 bit per milisecond PER device you have. Each device is only keyed to a single other device, so is connected at central hub worlds, where many of these devices are networked together to allow for FTL comms between many parties. Allows multicasting, and chat rooms too. :3

If you want, you could have more devices, but most of the data we want to send is in the Gigabytes to Petabytes range (single asteroid scan to entire planetary scans)
This is just not feasible on 125 B/s bandwidth, especially if shared between up and down.


Short range communications are in the Megabits range, enough to transfer data over an hour or so, the lower limit is because EVERYONE else in the same system is ALSO transferring data. It's damned noisy out there in populated systems, and packet collisions are real!
This is enough to allow for reasonably secure real-time sensors sharing, but not enough to transfer complex scans, and other massive data payloads.


Then there is direct communications, eg wired or device transfer. How you move massive levels of data between people quickly.
Stations would have HUGE repositories (disk is cheap), and when you build a new station, you simply clone all the data at your last station and bring it with you. Hell large ships could hold these repositories themselves.

This means maps are static, you either scan yourself, or go and buy scan data from stations.
You can sell new scan data on cheap as dirt (eg no cost) hard drives, and participate in this economy yourself.
And there is no limit to the amount of mapping data you can hold.




Not ONLY does my methodology work for gameplay, it works for REAL science for the last two, and relatively hard Sci-Fi for the first one.
Why are people still arguing this?
Seriously what are your disagreements with this system?
°˖◝(ಠ‸ಠ)◜˖°
Toba - A Development Dump
Post

Re: Communications Gameplay in Limit Theory

#65
Silverware wrote: Short range communications are in the Megabits range, enough to transfer data over an hour or so, the lower limit is because EVERYONE else in the same system is ALSO transferring data. It's damned noisy out there in populated systems, and packet collisions are real!
Because tightbeam transmissions and transmit power limitation dont exist :V
Before you say "thats expensive/complex": every stupid 50buck wifi router does that :V
NASA wrote: LEMNOS will be able to support communications at rates of at least 80 megabytes per second.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/20 ... onnections

Todays tech, a generation 1 device of its kind.
Silverware wrote: and relatively hard Sci-Fi for the first one.
mohs 1.5 instead of 1.3 :V
Silverware wrote: Why are people still arguing this?
Seriously what are your disagreements with this system?
For one: i disagree with your interpretation of "scientific correctness", duh :V

I also find it damn annoying to have to run usb stick freighters between everything to retain semi-current maps between anything.

Range limitations, okay.
But range for anything useful approaching 0?
Nooop.

It also makes no point to build any infrastructure, because it doesnt increase effective range or throughput beyond the first common station.
Why do i even need the common com station in the first place?
Why should i build infrastructure?
because two arbitary ships of the communicating factors being in the same system are enough to produce usable communications links at any bandwith one could want.
And then theres mesh networking as well. As long as i dont want to call a pirate (who wouldnt be on the comm station either) i can reach everyone through the network.

Also, what is it now? Point to point with hardwired endpoints or broadcast type?
Because either the common com station or the interference argument doesnt hold water :V
Post

Re: Communications Gameplay in Limit Theory

#66
Silverware wrote:Voice-to-text, text compresses to about 1byte per word in english.
Then text-to-voice on the other side.

Allows voice and text communication.
Text does not compress to one byte per word in English. That would imply there are only 256 words in the English language.

And what you have now is a method of sending anything. Except scan data, even though it could be compressed into a few KB. Because reasons.
Games I like, in order of how much I like them. (Now permanent and updated regularly!)
Post

Re: Communications Gameplay in Limit Theory

#67
DigitalDuck wrote:
Silverware wrote:Voice-to-text, text compresses to about 1byte per word in english.
Then text-to-voice on the other side.

Allows voice and text communication.
Text does not compress to one byte per word in English. That would imply there are only 256 words in the English language.

And what you have now is a method of sending anything. Except scan data, even though it could be compressed into a few KB. Because reasons.
https://what-if.xkcd.com/34/
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/myl/Shannon1950.pdf

Ah, sorry misremembered the What-If, it's 1.0-1.2 bits per letter.
Still, on the order of about 1 byte per word.

You could send anything you wanted over it, but a transfer rate of 125 B/s? You aren't sending that data with any speed.


Cornflakes_91 wrote: Because tightbeam transmissions and transmit power limitation dont exist :V
Before you say "thats expensive/complex": every stupid 50buck wifi router does that :V
Cornflakes_91 wrote:
NASA wrote: LEMNOS will be able to support communications at rates of at least 80 megabytes per second.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/20 ... onnections
Todays tech, a generation 1 device of its kind.
Gigabytes per second, vs Petabytes of data for full scans?
Sure. You sit there for the 11.5 days required to transfer 1 Petabyte over a 1GB/s connection...


Cornflakes_91 wrote:For one: i disagree with your interpretation of "scientific correctness", duh :V

I also find it damn annoying to have to run usb stick freighters between everything to retain semi-current maps between anything.
Allowing instant transfers of this data over FTL, immediately makes exploration gameplay boring, you explore, you get paid, you explore. You don't even have to return.
Keeping it to hard drive transfers, you explore, you return with the data, you avoid pirates who want to steal the data to sell or use themselves, you get paid once you return.
It fits more with the trade, and the salvaging, and the mining loops. Go to place, gather worthwhile thing, avoid pirates, return, profit.

The other part, to do usb runs between stations?
Thats more trade/hauling jobs for on, but also allows some stations to give you MORE money for scan data, than others.
If all stations always have the latest maps, then if its been scanned before you wont get a cent.
That would also prevent the PERMANENT loss of data.

Remember, my suggestion is about gameplay first.


Cornflakes_91 wrote: Range limitations, okay.
But range for anything useful approaching 0?
Nooop.
Range limits for short range sensor sharing?
I thought I had implied single system, instantaneous for that?

The large data transfers need to be at zero for the above reasons, the medium data transfers just can't be over FTL.
This means you get only coarse data about remote systems, which means you get a fog of war effect that ALSO helps keep more systems in coarse simulation, making the game performance better.

'
Cornflakes_91 wrote: It also makes no point to build any infrastructure, because it doesnt increase effective range or throughput beyond the first common station.
Why do i even need the common com station in the first place?
Why should i build infrastructure?
because two arbitary ships of the communicating factors being in the same system are enough to produce usable communications links at any bandwith one could want.
And then theres mesh networking as well. As long as i dont want to call a pirate (who wouldnt be on the comm station either) i can reach everyone through the network.

Also, what is it now? Point to point with hardwired endpoints or broadcast type?
Because either the common com station or the interference argument doesnt hold water :V
The comms station idea was purely as an idea, doesn't actually need to be implemented, could be considered to be an inherent thing, or anything else, it was just one explanation for it. Would also explain why you dont just have HUGE masses of the little black FTL boxes, as each would come with a line-rental cost. Which would get prohibitive to even do FTL sensor sharing between two ships.

It also means that comms could be an integral part of stations, meaning if your blackbox from a specific station went dead, it was likely because that station went kaput.

But this isn't part of the communications system I am advocating, it's purely a possible offshoot from it, to attempt to add more interesting gameplay consequences for destroying stations or colonies.
°˖◝(ಠ‸ಠ)◜˖°
Toba - A Development Dump
Post

Re: Communications Gameplay in Limit Theory

#68
Silverware wrote: The comms station idea was purely as an idea, doesn't actually need to be implemented, could be considered to be an inherent thing, or anything else, it was just one explanation for it. Would also explain why you dont just have HUGE masses of the little black FTL boxes, as each would come with a line-rental cost. Which would get prohibitive to even do FTL sensor sharing between two ships.
Because i totally cant build my own stations with my own tangleboxes :V
For no additional rental cost.
And what keeps me from stuffing a thousand or a million tangleboxes into C4 ships and work around the limits?
A single tiny fighter is seemingly able to run a single box without noteworthy power needs, so why cant a ship a billion times larger fit a billion boxes?
Post

Re: Communications Gameplay in Limit Theory

#69
Cornflakes_91 wrote:
Silverware wrote: The comms station idea was purely as an idea, doesn't actually need to be implemented, could be considered to be an inherent thing, or anything else, it was just one explanation for it. Would also explain why you dont just have HUGE masses of the little black FTL boxes, as each would come with a line-rental cost. Which would get prohibitive to even do FTL sensor sharing between two ships.
Because i totally cant build my own stations with my own tangleboxes :V
For no additional rental cost.
And what keeps me from stuffing a thousand or a million tangleboxes into C4 ships and work around the limits?
A single tiny fighter is seemingly able to run a single box without noteworthy power needs, so why cant a ship a billion times larger fit a billion boxes?
Thats presuming a tanglebox is cheap to produce.
If they are cheap, then rental is cheap, and you can get a lot in a single ship.

If they are expensive then rental is expensive, and you cant get as many into a single ship without putting a LOT of money into it.



*BUT* remember, signals have to work over those bands too, not only does your C4 need to have a crap ton of bandwidth, so does all the drones it controls.
Now if all you want it for is the FTL comms to your base? Why not?
Sure, lets let that happen.

You want active sensors levels, so thats Gigabyes per second, call it one.
You are looking at between 8,000 and 10,000 of these devices on your ship. 16,000-20,000 total (2 per ship, to form the link)
Do able. Make it an option.

Question though.
Does it actually add anything to gameplay?

You now share sensors with your home base, and with any other C4 Ship.
Any ships in systems that those C4s are in, also get the benefit of shared sensors.

You might see what and where an enemy fleet is early.
But you could have transmitted this info over chat anyway.
Coarse information vs Fine information.

You don't need to send over the entire scan of a target ship, including position and direction, and fire control data. You just need to send over type and status (hostile, friendly)

We have no inter-system weaponry, so at most you could use this extra data to tell when the enemy ships are about to jump into your system, so you can gate camp them slightly easier.
But then they are likely to use C4 ships as well, and know that you have a gate camp. So they might avoid that all together.



The only difference here is you know where the ships are in a system, not that they are in a system, and you still require scouts to make use of this.
It's just not worth bothering with in my opinion.
°˖◝(ಠ‸ಠ)◜˖°
Toba - A Development Dump
Post

Re: Communications Gameplay in Limit Theory

#70
Silverware wrote: Thats presuming a tanglebox is cheap to produce.
If they are cheap, then rental is cheap, and you can get a lot in a single ship.

If they are expensive then rental is expensive, and you cant get as many into a single ship without putting a LOT of money into it.
why should i rent them in the first place?

what keeps me from just building and installing them myself?

what keeps me from just using them for any-to-any mesh networking myself?
(and thus use all the leftover bandwith of the transmitters as high bandwith long range link)
because when they interfere with each other, they can communicate with each other.

Silverware wrote: *BUT* remember, signals have to work over those bands too, not only does your C4 need to have a crap ton of bandwidth, so does all the drones it controls.
what keeps me from commanding my short range drones over an STL line-of-sight tightbeam link?
what keeps me from using a tight beam communicator in general?
Silverware wrote: The only difference here is you know where the ships are in a system, not that they are in a system, and you still require scouts to make use of this.
It's just not worth bothering with in my opinion.
so when it makes no difference anyway, why remove the capability to see it in the first place?
Post

Re: Communications Gameplay in Limit Theory

#71
Somehow I managed to miss this >.> How? anyways, read it and frankly
Image

The argument boils down to instantaneous vs delayed to give RTS omniscience vs realism

Couriers? Yup, its a low tech solution that some players and cultures prefer for it's security and flexibility, at the expense of sometimes significant time delays for long distances

Mesh Networks? Yup. Pay for the use of, or build yourself an intra-system or inter-system network of relays that can communicate a message via hops, each hop causing a small delay, but much faster than couriers. However each relay in the system is a point where the message could be intercepted. Depending on where you develop this tech, the relays could be several systems apart, or have super tiny delays, or etc... Attach a relay to a jumpgate? Sure! a station? Sure! your ship? You better frakking believe it! Some players and cultures prefer this method.

Wormhole Internet? If you got the tech, energy, and money to build em, you can make a hub that will create data-wormholes that can connect from any hub to any hub in the network, regardless of distance, giving you instant communications across vast distances, however they can be jammed and instantly lose connection to the whole network. Some players and cultures prefer this.

Beam vs Broadcast? Por que no los dos? Beams, are instant and difficult to intercept, but you need to know exactly where you're aiming. Broadcasts have power-dependant ranges, glaringly obvious to anyone in the area; Everyone will know you're broadcasting something, but you can have an encryption key so they don't know What you're broadcasting.

Bandwidth? DO MOAR RESURCH, GET BIGGUR PIPES!

This also allows for hybrid systems to be in use when and where appropriate. Perhaps a mesh network connecting several systems to a Wormhole Internet Hub, which connect to another mesh network 12 sectors over. In this other mesh network, is a courier station to deliver the message out into the wilds where there is no infrastructure.
Image
When you're trying to fill an infinite multiverse, if you're not willing to consider the entire creative output of humanity as a starting point, you're wasting your time.
User: JoshParnell is accountable for this user's actions.
Post

Re: Communications Gameplay in Limit Theory

#73
Silverware wrote:
Sun Jun 04, 2017 5:36 pm
DigitalDuck wrote:
Silverware wrote:Voice-to-text, text compresses to about 1byte per word in english.
Then text-to-voice on the other side.

Allows voice and text communication.
Text does not compress to one byte per word in English. That would imply there are only 256 words in the English language.

And what you have now is a method of sending anything. Except scan data, even though it could be compressed into a few KB. Because reasons.
https://what-if.xkcd.com/34/
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/myl/Shannon1950.pdf

Ah, sorry misremembered the What-If, it's 1.0-1.2 bits per letter.
Still, on the order of about 1 byte per word.

You could send anything you wanted over it, but a transfer rate of 125 B/s? You aren't sending that data with any speed.
1.0 to 1.2 bits? How do you do 1.2 bits? 1 bit is either 1 or 0, so you can only display 2 letters. So...what?
UTF-8 uses 1 to 4 bytes per letter. So, yeah: 1 byte for 1 word? How? Work with a phonetic alphabet that gets encoded to binary? Dunno if that works...
Automation engineer, lateral thinker, soldier, addicted to music, books and gaming.
Nothing to see here
Flatfingers wrote: 23.01.2017: "Show me the smoldering corpse of Perfectionist Josh"
Post

Re: Communications Gameplay in Limit Theory

#74
Jan, you are thinking with numbers. That's not how words work.

I mean look at "word" and "work" both are 4 letters long, both start with "wor"
If I put "wor_" down you would have a fair chance at guessing correctly. If you throw context into the mix too, then you can bring that up to 100% easily.

"I was at wor_ the other day"

The idea is that with ENGLISH words, there are only so many options that fit and make a word.
And that there are even fewer options that make a word *AND* make sense.

Now, this doesn't mean that we will *actually* transfer at this rate, but that's the theoretical lower limit on perfect compression of English.
°˖◝(ಠ‸ಠ)◜˖°
Toba - A Development Dump
Post

Re: Communications Gameplay in Limit Theory

#75
JanB1 wrote:
Sat Jun 17, 2017 1:40 pm
1.0 to 1.2 bits? How do you do 1.2 bits? 1 bit is either 1 or 0, so you can only display 2 letters. So...what?
UTF-8 uses 1 to 4 bytes per letter. So, yeah: 1 byte for 1 word? How? Work with a phonetic alphabet that gets encoded to binary? Dunno if that works...
One word: averages.

If you assume perfect compression for a given language and then divide the amount of bits transferred by the amount letters transferred you get to that number :P

for example if you encode the whole of english with a Huffman Code you'll get a lot of words whichs code representation is shorter (in bits) than the word itself (in letters) pushing it down into the general area of silvers one bit per letter


Also: entropy analysis of the language gives you a very precise amount of bits (with many digits after the decimal point) representing how much informational content a word/letter has.

For example if you have 3 possible words each word has log2(3)=1.58bit of entropy ~ information ~ data
With a single word to transfer you gain nothing. But when you send long texts you can use the "extra space" in the second bit to encode 0.42bit of the next word in it

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron