McDuff wrote:So if that communication system isn't implemented, the whole thing works exactly as it does before.

No, if communications systems aren't implemented, this breaks.

McDuff wrote:Given that Josh's overarching design tweak here was to change the products of research from being abstracted data-entities to real physical things that can be moved and destroyed, isn't this in fact going against that idea so that you get to have a hacking mechanic?

No, this proposal is based on the idea that the products of research are physical items that can be moved, stolen and destroyed. Like I said in the original post, it is based upon the ideas that Josh presented in the dev log, which imagining the products of research as physical objects was part of.

ThymineC wrote:

McDuff wrote:So if that communication system isn't implemented, the whole thing works exactly as it does before.

No, if communications systems aren't implemented, this breaks.

Yes, that's what I said. Josh's system + your communication thing + bolted on reason to use the communication network.

McDuff wrote:Given that Josh's overarching design tweak here was to change the products of research from being abstracted data-entities to real physical things that can be moved and destroyed, isn't this in fact going against that idea so that you get to have a hacking mechanic?

No, this proposal is based on the idea that the products of research are physical items that can be moved, stolen and destroyed. Like I said in the original post, it is based upon the ideas that Josh presented in the dev log, which imagining the products of research as physical objects was part of.

But you already specified that you're adding a "data network" aspect to it. The point being, as far as I can see, making it harder to steal blueprints and use them against the originating players, unless you double up with a hacking mechanic.

Edit: point being, is "blueprints being stolen and used against players" a problem that needs a game-mechanic solution?

McDuff wrote:

ThymineC wrote:

McDuff wrote:So if that communication system isn't implemented, the whole thing works exactly as it does before.

No, if communications systems aren't implemented, this breaks.

Yes, that's what I said. Josh's system + your communication thing + bolted on reason to use the communication network.

There are a few other differences. As "blueprint" replaces "prototype" and "assembler" replaces "blueprint":

• Production modules have to be configured to produce one kind of assembler at a time.
• Assemblers require resources to produce, presumably unlike the blueprints they replace.
• Reverse engineering is either dropped, or implemented in a different manner to preserve blueprint uniqueness.

McDuff wrote:But you already specified that you're adding a "data network" aspect to it. The point being, as far as I can see, making it harder to steal blueprints and use them against the originating players, unless you double up with a hacking mechanic.

"Blueprints" are physical objects that encapsulate all the design information of a product and allow research to be based off of them. Think of something like a USB or the holocron from Star Wars. Now, these objects can be connected to the LT internet and used to broadcast a fraction of their stored data over that network, which production modules configured to produce the corresponding assembler can access. If you want to get ahold of my complete product designs, you need to steal my USB from me - a physical object that I will occasionally need to fly around to different points in my empire in order to get my production modules producing what I want.

McDuff wrote:Edit: point being, is "blueprints being stolen and used against players" a problem that needs a game-mechanic solution?

I'm not sure why you're asking that question. Blueprints can be stolen and used against anyone, including the player.

Edit: Unless you mean "players" as in, the player non-player characters? Hell, that is one confusing term. Can we call them executives or high-LOD NPCs or something if that's what you mean?

There should be a physical blueprint and a digital blueprint. The physical blueprint has everything about a tech tree node. Like how to build the assembler, the physics, how they got results. Stealing a Mk20 physical copy will give you everything from the Mk1-Mk19th node. The digital copy doesn't have nearly as much stuff. It only has the technical specifications and how to build the object. A digital blueprint, unlike a physical blueprint, can be copied.

Right so basically you're saying "no Reverse Engineering from blueprints/assembly chips".

Sometimes I do wish you'd bullet point the actual changes in gameplay you want to see happen, Thymine!

McDuff wrote:Right so basically you're saying "no Reverse Engineering from blueprints/assembly chips".

Sometimes I do wish you'd bullet point the actual changes in gameplay you want to see happen, Thymine!

This wasn't something I thought at the time of originally proposing the mechanic, though. Josh came into chat after I'd posted the suggestion and explained about how others elsewhere had explained that RE should naturally lead to non-unique blueprints (because you can theoretically RE your own blueprint), so I proposed "Why not scrap RE?" and most (but not all) others agreed with that in the IRC. There's possibly still scope to have RE in a way that still allows for unique blueprints, though, and mcsven both propose ideas.

So no, I'm not necessarily saying that. My thoughts on RE aren't strong one way or the other right now. If RE can be implemented in a way that still allows blueprints to necessarily remain unique, I'm all for that.

The bullet point is here: "Reverse engineering is either dropped, or implemented in a different manner to preserve blueprint uniqueness."

Anybody here read Schlock Mercenary? ( schlockmercenary.com )

In that universe, all kinds of things are made in "Fabbers" (fabricators)

Fabbers are variable in size, ranging from big enough to engulf (or build) an entire battleship, to barely big enough to build a torpedo. They're how a ship resupplies itself on long missions, they just snap up the raw resources needed and then fab what they need. Ammunition, parts and so forth. You would keep the usual things in stock, but any unusual needs that come up, they just feed a design into the fabber, tell it how many they need, and walk away.

It kinda sounds like we're getting fabbers in LT



By the by, the term "reverse engineering" applies where you're taking an actual machine, sitting there on your workbench, and you're picking it apart trying to figure out how it was engineered.

You wouldn't need to "reverse engineer" a blueprint -- the blueprint IS the data you're trying to derive by the process of reverse engineering. See, the term is inapplicable there.

You want to be able to build this awesome, shiny, super-efficient thruster? Well, what you do is you unmount the thing, pull it apart piece by piece, carefully catalog the alloys it's made of, its dimensions, parts used, analyze its circuits, trace all the wires and connections, even take X-rays of the thing, etc, etc. You also would fire it up and test it, check its power output and so forth. Eventually you'd gather enough data about the thing that you could draw blueprints to build another one, and... voila! Reverse engineering accomplished.

Alcazabedabra wrote:Anybody here read Schlock Mercenary? ( schlockmercenary.com )

I've read a bit of it, not much.

Alcazabedabra wrote:In that universe, all kinds of things are made in "Fabbers" (fabricators)

Fabbers are variable in size, ranging from big enough to engulf (or build) an entire battleship, to barely big enough to build a torpedo. They're how a ship resupplies itself on long missions, they just snap up the raw resources needed and then fab what they need. Ammunition, parts and so forth. You would keep the usual things in stock, but any unusual needs that come up, they just feed a design into the fabber, tell it how many they need, and walk away.

It kinda sounds like we're getting fabbers in LT

Sort of. I looked at the Wiki and it said that fabbers are combinations of molecular assembly devices and machine shops. Rather, in our proposal, assemblers (the consumable things) can be better thought of as molecular assemblers akin to the kind that Eric Drexler describes in Engines of Creation with limited "machine shop" ability, and production modules are capable of providing more specialised "machine shop" capability as well as enabling assembly of macroscopic components outputted by the assembler into completed products.

Alcazabedabra wrote:You wouldn't need to "reverse engineer" a blueprint -- the blueprint IS the data you're trying to derive by the process of reverse engineering. See, the term is inapplicable there.

I don't think anyone is suggesting this.

One little problem. Stock parts. When you get into the game it is assumed that everyone will know how to make the components that everyone is presumably mass-producing. These parts are the parts that make up your first ship. You will arm yourselves with these parts and you will fly with these parts. It is these parts that make up the beginnings of your tech tree. If their is no possibility of coping the 'Prototype' then you will be removed from the research career entirely. At least, that's the impression I'm getting from all of this. And that impression makes me sad .

Idunno wrote:One little problem. Stock parts. When you get into the game it is assumed that everyone will know how to make the components that everyone is presumably mass-producing. These parts are the parts that make up your first ship. You will arm yourselves with these parts and you will fly with these parts. It is these parts that make up the beginnings of your tech tree. If their is no possibility of coping the 'Prototype' then you will be removed from the research career entirely. At least, that's the impression I'm getting from all of this. And that impression makes me sad .

You'll presumably be given your starting ship. You also presumably know about as much as Jon Snow at the start of the game, and research everything from first principles as Josh describes in this devlog.

ThymineC wrote:

Idunno wrote:One little problem. Stock parts. When you get into the game it is assumed that everyone will know how to make the components that everyone is presumably mass-producing. These parts are the parts that make up your first ship. You will arm yourselves with these parts and you will fly with these parts. It is these parts that make up the beginnings of your tech tree. If their is no possibility of coping the 'Prototype' then you will be removed from the research career entirely. At least, that's the impression I'm getting from all of this. And that impression makes me sad .

You're presumably be given your starting ship. You also presumably know about as much as Jon Snow at the start of the game, and research everything from first principles as Josh describes in this devlog.

Who is Jon Snow?
Let's try another angle. Say you're an inventor. You find joy in researching and building things. Then one day you wonder "if I find joy in what I make, why can't everyone find joy in what i make? But I don't want money. I want everyone to have access to my work no matter where they are". You can't do that with the single-run blueprint. Nor can you do that with the non-copyable 'Prototype'. unless you could copy the 'Prototype'. And you could copy the 'Prototype' to the 'Internet'. Now everyone has access to your work, wherever they may be. And you don't need to pay any money to fund the production of clumsy single-run blueprints that someone could only access from one place. I know.
OTOH what if Jon Snow is really a genius?

Idunno wrote:Let's try another angle. Say you're an inventor. You find joy in researching and building things. Then one day you wonder "if I find joy in what I make, why can't everyone find joy in what i make? But I don't want money. I want everyone to have access to my work no matter where they are". You can't do that with the single-run blueprint. Nor can you do that with the non-copyable 'Prototype'. unless you could copy the 'Prototype'. And you could copy the 'Prototype' to the 'Internet'. Now everyone has access to your work, wherever they may be.

What I imagine is that, based on discussion elsewhere, the most powerful faction within a system or region is its de facto government, and serves the general interests of the public (while still, of course, serving its own selfish interests). I suppose that all blueprint modules eventually end up in the possession of this government faction after enough time passes and the technology stops being cutting edge (the government faction may pay for access to antiquated technology from private corporations). When the government gains access to the blueprint module, they can configure their own production modules to produce the corresponding assemblers and make them accessible to the general public. In this way, technology can be made available to the general public.

If you want to be altruistic, you could I guess develop technology and then hand the blueprint module straight over to the government faction.

Idunno wrote:And you don't need to pay any money to fund the production of clumsy single-run blueprints that someone could only access from one place. I know.

Let's get the terminology right - those "single-run blueprints" are assemblers. It's not "clumsy" that they're single-run - they're a component used to make and form the core of the products they're designed for, and the idea of a multi-run equivalent makes about as much sense as an engine that can be fitted into multiple cars simultaneously.

ThymineC wrote:

Idunno wrote:Let's try another angle. Say you're an inventor. You find joy in researching and building things. Then one day you wonder "if I find joy in what I make, why can't everyone find joy in what i make? But I don't want money. I want everyone to have access to my work no matter where they are". You can't do that with the single-run blueprint. Nor can you do that with the non-copyable 'Prototype'. unless you could copy the 'Prototype'. And you could copy the 'Prototype' to the 'Internet'. Now everyone has access to your work, wherever they may be.

What I imagine is that, based on discussion elsewhere, the most powerful faction within a system or region is its de facto government, and serves the general interests of the public (while still, of course, serving its own selfish interests). I suppose that all blueprint modules eventually end up in the possession of this government faction after enough time passes and the technology stops being cutting edge (the government faction may pay for access to antiquated technology from private corporations). When the government gains access to the blueprint module, they can configure their own production modules to produce the corresponding assemblers and make them accessible to the general public. In this way, technology can be made available to the general public.

If you want to be altruistic, you could I guess develop technology and then hand the blueprint module straight over to the government faction.

Idunno wrote:And you don't need to pay any money to fund the production of clumsy single-run blueprints that someone could only access from one place. I know.

Let's get the terminology right - those "single-run blueprints" are assemblers. It's not "clumsy" that they're single-run - they're a component used to make and form the core of the products they're designed for, and the idea of a multi-run equivalent makes about as much sense as an engine that can be fitted into multiple cars simultaneously.

So your invention can only be accessed from the territory of the faction that you are based in? Why not everywhere? And if the faction is producing it's own Micro-assemblers that still means that whoever wants access to your invention can't get access to your invention. What if you want people to make modifications to your invention? This can't happen without the 'Prototype'.
I apologize. I will refer to them by the proper name from now on.
Edit: I accidentally modified your quote with my counter-argument.

Idunno wrote: I apologize. I will refer to them by the proper name from now on.

Yeah, no problem, it's just that using the correct terms helps avoid confusion.

On the plus side my post count is increasing.
My posts will pierce the heavens. Maybe, if I'm lucky, I will reach Jupiter.
OTOH ThymineC is somewhere around Neptune.