Cornflakes_91 wrote:

ThymineC wrote: How is that applying force? The first way is using political intrigue to pit factions against each other, and the second is using ingenuity to infiltrate a corporation, rise up the ranks within it and take it down from the inside. And you're not forced to do either of them, they're two possible strategies out of many.


Well I'm evidently not if I've just given two examples of how you could take down a corporation without one.

its appling anothers force, but its still force.

What force are you applying when you take down a company from the inside?

Cornflakes_91 wrote:

ThymineC wrote: Which is what my proposal does - it makes it possible but very hard for a smaller faction to bring down a faction much more powerful than it.

it makes it impossible for smaller factions without assembling an major battlefleet

with sneaky theft you could steal their technology base (through multiple heists), see their manufactuing empire crumble and finally see their fleets fall into disrepair and being sold because they cannot

But it doesn't make it impossible for smaller factions to bring down bigger ones without a major battlefleet. I've repeatedly said that it's not impossible for smaller factions to bring down larger ones by using devious tactics, of which I give two examples. You're continuing to argue a point that I've shown to be false multiple times. In EVE Online, a single player is capable of bringing down a corporation or alliance - the same should be possible in Limit Theory, and my proposal would not affect that.

With my proposal, you could organise Ocean 13's-esque heists, steal their technology base, see their manufacturing empire crumble and finally see their fleets fall into disrepair and being sold.

Cornflakes_91 wrote:

ThymineC wrote: Well either blueprints are just data or tiny physical storage devices that can be stolen with small spy vessels, or they're big modules that require something more like a heavily-armed heist. You can't have both for blueprints, because they're either one or the other. You can have both types of gameplay for different things, though.

with the blueprint modules you only have heists and robbery.

with small blueprint disks you have both ways.
sneaky and and robbery

Fine. The way I see it, large physical goods need to be stolen Ocean's 13 style. Small physical goods and data can be stolen through stealth or Ocean's 13 style. I view blueprints as being large physical goods in the form of modules, and so only Ocean's 13 style would work. Smaller goods and data can be stolen either way, though chances are it's going to be better to just use stealth.

ThymineC wrote:

Cornflakes_91 wrote:

ThymineC wrote: Which is what my proposal does - it makes it possible but very hard for a smaller faction to bring down a faction much more powerful than it.

it makes it impossible for smaller factions without assembling an major battlefleet

with sneaky theft you could steal their technology base (through multiple heists), see their manufactuing empire crumble and finally see their fleets fall into disrepair and being sold because they cannot

But it doesn't make it impossible for smaller factions to bring down bigger ones without a major battlefleet. I've repeatedly said that it's not impossible for smaller factions to bring down larger ones by using devious tactics, of which I give two examples. You're continuing to argue a point that I've shown to be false multiple times.

not using your own battlefleet is still using a battlefleet

Cornflakes_91 wrote:not using your own battlefleet is still using a battlefleet

You don't need to use any battlefleet in the second example. You work your way up a corporation and steal all of its assets. You may need a carrier or barge to carry it all away but you can steal that too.

ThymineC wrote: Well either blueprints are just data or tiny physical storage devices that can be stolen with small spy vessels, or they're big modules that require something more like a heavily-armed heist. You can't have both for blueprints, because they're either one or the other. You can have both types of gameplay for different things, though.

The idea that the blueprint is a tiny physical storage device has merit. If the blueprint was small it would be easier to carry or harder to detect. You could have a large fleet of haulers of various sizes, from small to huge, transporting this thing. If someone attacks you they first have to find the where the blueprint is going, then they have to find what path it's taking, then they have to figure out which convoy is carrying it, then they have to find which ship has it. Of course, you don't have to send it on a convoy. Feed them false information and then send a false convoy through. The actually blueprint was sent ahead with a small scout ship.

Idunno wrote:

ThymineC wrote: Well either blueprints are just data or tiny physical storage devices that can be stolen with small spy vessels, or they're big modules that require something more like a heavily-armed heist. You can't have both for blueprints, because they're either one or the other. You can have both types of gameplay for different things, though.

The idea that the blueprint is a tiny physical storage device has merit. If the blueprint was small it would be easier to carry or harder to detect. You could have a large fleet of haulers of various sizes, from small to huge, transporting this thing. If someone attacks you they first have to find the where the blueprint is going, then they have to find what path it's taking, then they have to figure out which convoy is carrying it, then they have to find which ship has it. Of course, you don't have to send it on a convoy. Feed them false information and then send a false convoy through. The actually blueprint was sent ahead with a small scout ship.

The blueprint is a tiny physical storage device. I mean it's silly that a whole research facility would get wasted to retain tech data, when you could easily just crystallise all that data into a small ASIC and wipe the research module clean for development of new tech without any risk of data leak. Didn't you get the memo from IRC at around three minutes ago? Keep up brah.

ThymineC wrote: The blueprint is a tiny physical storage device. I mean it's silly that a whole research facility would get wasted to retain tech data, when you could easily just crystallise all that data into a small ASIC and wipe the research module clean for development of new tech without any risk of data leak. Didn't you get the memo from IRC at around three minutes ago? Keep up brah.

made my day!

I think working your way up through a corporation to steal something (corporate espionage) is a bit of a cop-out since that argument could be used for pretty much ANYTHING against a corporation. Need to steal tech? Work your way up. Need to take out a VIP from there? Work your way up, etc. I also feel as though not being able to do stealth missions in a James Bond way would be pretty cool.

...Until I realize that if I was the big corporation, enemies can do that to me. We get player/NPC disparaging if we want to be able to perform Ocean's 13-style takedowns, but if someone did that against me, I'd be pissed. Here I am with superior assets, coffers, and power, yet I lost because of something that is much harder to detect. Not to mention, if I'm not as skilled as the AI (which is probably true in many cases) this could also become a case of "The AI can pull it off, but I can't."

This is one reason why I like the idea of being able to take down an enemy with a thousand cuts, from what cornflakes stated. It also makes guerrilla warfare possible.

DWMagus wrote:I think working your way up through a corporation to steal something (corporate espionage) is a bit of a cop-out since that argument could be used for pretty much ANYTHING against a corporation. Need to steal tech? Work your way up. Need to take out a VIP from there? Work your way up, etc. I also feel as though not being able to do stealth missions in a James Bond way would be pretty cool.

I'm not sure why that's a cop out. That would be a pretty time-consuming strategy and very impressive if you pulled it off. I'm also confused about what you're saying: it would be cool to not be able to do James Bond-style stealth missions?

DWMagus wrote:...Until I realize that if I was the big corporation, enemies can do that to me. We get player/NPC disparaging if we want to be able to perform Ocean's 13-style takedowns, but if someone did that against me, I'd be pissed. Here I am with superior assets, coffers, and power, yet I lost because of something that is much harder to detect. Not to mention, if I'm not as skilled as the AI (which is probably true in many cases) this could also become a case of "The AI can pull it off, but I can't."

The player and NPC are equal. Any system that allows you to take down NPCs easily will mean NPCs can take you down easily. Equally, any system that made it hard for NPCs to displace your powerful faction (if you had one) would make it hard for you to displace powerful factions in the first place.

So if you're not as skilled as the AI, then yes, they will be able to pull off what you can't. I have some workarounds this based on Many Worlds that can give the player an advantage without objectively breaking player-NPC parity, but apart from that there's not much you can do.

Ok, I finally got around to reading this thing. I have some comments and questions.

First, if only a portion of the data is stored on any given assembler and the rest must be communicated from the blueprint over a comms network, what happens when either A) The production module moves outside of the network; B) the comms network is destroyed; C) I have an activated production module, but I sell it to the enemy/competitor of the blueprint’s owners.

Is the communication of the information from blueprint to production module a one time thing or a constant ping? If it is a one time thing, why do I need the communications at all, I can just communicate the activation code at construction...If it is a constant ping, It makes the comms network into a new weakness (perhaps a blowing up a single comms router will render half a dozen different production facilities useless until comms is restored), but it also severely limits the usefulness of a mobile production facility to the range of the network.

If I sell an activated production module, presumably the module won’t just stop working. Perhaps I could make a better profit selling my module to your competitor than making my own. I suppose if a production module fell into enemy hands you could simply stop transmitting, making their acquisition useless, but also all of your own modules as well.

Second, What if I have 10 research modules researching on the same base technology? Would they all pop out with 10 different variations (each RM represents each possible variation?), or could they communicate with one another to make the research on one variation go faster (at the risk of being compromised during research). If they communicate with each other, which one becomes the blueprint?

Third, I actually like the idea of a RM becoming the blueprint, it is sort of saying that building or buying an RM is creating the potential for a discovery of a given quality (like an unfertilized egg), but until more time and resources are invested into it, it will remain only a potential.

Now, looking over some of the arguments tossed back and forth it seems that there is simply a fight between a preference for the dramatic versus the realistic. In my own opinion, for the most part, the realistic should win out over the dramatic. In reality, the underdog almost never wins in a direct confrontation. Save for crazy luck, The only ways an underdog comes out on top is when the bigger force has bad information, underestimates the threat of the underdog, is overconfident in their power, is overextended, the underdog has home-territory advantage and is defending, or lures the bigger power into a sense of complacency, or some combination of the above.In fact even in the classic David vs. Goliath scenario, David had a technological advantage over Goliath in that he could fight at a distance rather than in close combat, he also had a serious tactical advantage in that he was a smaller target with greater speed and maneuverability; in many respects, Goliath was in fact the underdog, despite his physical size. This is the precise trade-off of advantages and disadvantages that technology in LT is all about, why should the underlying mechanics be any different?

I think Thymine’s system far too greatly favors the creator of a technology and the almost paranoid levels of defense of that technology, and while I think it is a fair thing that creators can secure their blueprints from theft in multiple ways, there should for gameplay reasons be multiple ways to capture that technology as well, even if realistically many of Thymine’s suggestions make obvious sense; they should of course be incorporated, so long as a way to counteract them is also incorporated.

The most prominent thing I disagree with from Thymine is research modules being different sizes as a natural way to keep high tech stuff out of small hands (Why must Russia and America have the highest tech equipment, why can’t S. Korea be small and yet highly advanced?); Josh has already stated that high technology should simply increase the value density of an object, not value volume; All research modules should be of equal size and mass, with higher tech RM’s simply being able to make discoveries faster, more efficiently, and with higher quality results (research into higher quality research modules could be a very profitable and self-advancing business).

Second, I think that it makes sense for larger items to require larger assemblers and thus larger production modules(which can also produce small assemblers in large quantities), but this should not be too exaggerated. I don’t think there should ever be a Carrier or station sized assembler or production module, Hulls and other modules should be *gasp* modular, with a station or a small fleet of ships that manufacture various components to be put together. At most the largest assembler should only be two orders of magnitude larger than the smallest, and even then since assemblers are merely packages which offer the promise of a product that you can carry with you and assemble later, assemblers should be significantly smaller than the product they make, or else what is the point of carrying a bunch around with you?

Third, if 50% of the data is transmitted, It should be the same 50% for all modules, and by purchasing even a single module you should have a small percentage chance of being able to figure it out, and the longer you have the module, the higher the chance you figure it out. I’m not suggesting you can duplicate the blueprint, but perhaps you can attach a blank production module to an active one to listen in on the transmission, which has a chance to become a clone (Like lighting a candle with another candle, or like copyright infringement if I don’t have permission to do this).

This way the blueprint which can rapidly activate any number of production modules stays unique and relatively secure, but you can still create new production sites, if very slowly*. I think that production modules could have various levels of “openness” in how easy they can be listened in upon; some may prefer very open production modules so that they can exponentially swarm a market with a product, and others may want very closed production modules to keep production low. Cloned production modules may also miss some of the data and have slightly inferior, or perhaps superior variations.

* I think for balance, the default speed for cloning a production module should take about as much time as researching the given technology it produces, it means that investment in production and research will be about the same, and could even be parallel mechanics.

Fourth, blueprints (in whatever form they take) should have various values, the most valuable ones could be worth millions, and the least valuable ones worth only a few thousand. It makes sense for there to be high levels of security for a blueprint that gives plasma cannons a 300% higher damage rate and 80% higher firing rate and 30% higher accuracy while only adding 10% mass, but why in the world would a blueprint that gives +20% damage and adds 20% mass be gaurded in the ivory fortress? You might even just keep that in a rented out storage space on a station you don’t even own, and use production facilities that you don’t even own… (which brings up the idea of renting out a production module for a contracted number of assembler runs)

Fifth, when the research module becomes a blueprint, I should get my researchers back. As you said, its like a giant usb stick, it should be automated.

I have more I could say, but these thumb essays are annoying.

Hyperion wrote: Fourth, blueprints (in whatever form they take) should have various values, the most valuable ones could be worth millions, and the least valuable ones worth only a few thousand. It makes sense for there to be high levels of security for a blueprint that gives plasma cannons a 300% higher damage rate and 80% higher firing rate and 30% higher accuracy while only adding 10% mass, but why in the world would a blueprint that gives +20% damage and adds 20% mass be gaurded in the ivory fortress?

well, the value is determined by how useful the AI will think it will be.
if it thinks that it cannot do anything useful with the technology, the tech will be ignored or at best bought or sold for very low prices.
and vice versa.

value is not something absolute

Yes, quite obviously. I was simply throwing out numbers.

Hyperion wrote:First, if only a portion of the data is stored on any given assembler and the rest must be communicated from the blueprint over a comms network, what happens when either A) The production module moves outside of the network; B) the comms network is destroyed; C) I have an activated production module, but I sell it to the enemy/competitor of the blueprint’s owners.

If the production module moves off the router network, it can no longer be used to produce the assembler. I guess this is kind of like DRM - where you're forced to be connected to the Internet to enable certain functionality. And as much as gamers might hate DRM, I think it'd be easier to appreciate its value if we were in charge of corporate empires.

There's a possibility that transports can ferry ASIC chips containing the other 50% of the data to off-the-grid production modules, and that these chips might be good for, say, 100 or 500 runs. This creates a slight security risk, though (if an enemy faction steals a preconfigured production module and one of these chips, they can produce 100 or 500 of your assemblers).

Hyperion wrote:Is the communication of the information from blueprint to production module a one time thing or a constant ping? If it is a one time thing, why do I need the communications at all, I can just communicate the activation code at construction...If it is a constant ping, It makes the comms network into a new weakness (perhaps a blowing up a single comms router will render half a dozen different production facilities useless until comms is restored), but it also severely limits the usefulness of a mobile production facility to the range of the network.

It's a constant thing, which is necessary to ensure that, when you steal a blueprint module from an enemy faction, they immediately become unable to keep producing assemblers. This is necessary to facilitate the kind of kind of dynamics that Josh wants - that larger factions should be able to be toppled by smaller ones to keep the game lively and interesting. Stealing a very high-value blueprint of an enemy faction should immediately bring about the risk of collapse for them, and this will happen if possession of blueprints are necessary to continue assembler manufacture.

If you do succeed in breaking a comms network in half, it should have quite a number of interesting consequences for the enemy faction - this is a great way of stopping a faction from supplying a good within a particular region.

As for the part about the mobile production facility, the chip thing I wrote earlier could be used to address that, if that is implemented. But otherwise, yes, you're right.

Hyperion wrote:If I sell an activated production module, presumably the module won’t just stop working.

It'd still need to receive the data over the comms network.

Hyperion wrote:Second, What if I have 10 research modules researching on the same base technology? Would they all pop out with 10 different variations (each RM represents each possible variation?), or could they communicate with one another to make the research on one variation go faster (at the risk of being compromised during research). If they communicate with each other, which one becomes the blueprint?

Research modules are vacuum sealed and do not communicate. They'd pop out with 10 different variations, and likely at different times to one another.

Hyperion wrote:Third, I actually like the idea of a RM becoming the blueprint, it is sort of saying that building or buying an RM is creating the potential for a discovery of a given quality (like an unfertilized egg), but until more time and resources are invested into it, it will remain only a potential.

I'm glad you like that, Flatfingers liked it too. However, this is no longer the case - blueprints are now small ASICs. Research modules can be reused.

Hyperion wrote:I think Thymine’s system far too greatly favors the creator of a technology and the almost paranoid levels of defense of that technology, and while I think it is a fair thing that creators can secure their blueprints from theft in multiple ways, there should for gameplay reasons be multiple ways to capture that technology as well, even if realistically many of Thymine’s suggestions make obvious sense; they should of course be incorporated, so long as a way to counteract them is also incorporated.

My proposal makes it necessary for blueprints to be carried around frequently (to seed research and production modules). So there are a couple of ways blueprints can be stolen:

• Via ambushes while blueprints are being stolen. This will require "beef", since its likely the escorts will be guarded while they're escorting the blueprints.
• Through approaching a facility where the blueprints are being contained and stealing them. This will require stealth.

Hyperion wrote:The most prominent thing I disagree with from Thymine is research modules being different sizes as a natural way to keep high tech stuff out of small hands (Why must Russia and America have the highest tech equipment, why can’t S. Korea be small and yet highly advanced?); Josh has already stated that high technology should simply increase the value density of an object, not value volume; All research modules should be of equal size and mass, with higher tech RM’s simply being able to make discoveries faster, more efficiently, and with higher quality results (research into higher quality research modules could be a very profitable and self-advancing business).

Nope, I address this earlier; tech level will increase value density but you can still increase value by just increasing volume. Think of a computer - to get more processing power, you can buy higher-tech chips or RAM that pack more value into the same space, or you can buy a bigger computer with more GPUs, RAM, etc. In LT, you will be increasing value through both means - by increasing value density via research, and by simply buying bigger modules that have more value.

This agrees with what Josh wrote. Bigger research modules can perform research faster than smaller ones. I'm adamant on this. But blueprints themselves can now be considered the same size.

Hyperion wrote:Second, I think that it makes sense for larger items to require larger assemblers and thus larger production modules(which can also produce small assemblers in large quantities), but this should not be too exaggerated. I don’t think there should ever be a Carrier or station sized assembler or production module, Hulls and other modules should be *gasp* modular, with a station or a small fleet of ships that manufacture various components to be put together. At most the largest assembler should only be two orders of magnitude larger than the smallest, and even then since assemblers are merely packages which offer the promise of a product that you can carry with you and assemble later, assemblers should be significantly smaller than the product they make, or else what is the point of carrying a bunch around with you?

Production modules should produce objects within themselves. Therefore production modules must be bigger than whatever it is they're producing, in my firm opinion.

I don't see why this constraint would defeat the point of carrying a bunch around with you.

Hyperion wrote:Third, if 50% of the data is transmitted, It should be the same 50% for all modules, and by purchasing even a single module you should have a small percentage chance of being able to figure it out, and the longer you have the module, the higher the chance you figure it out. I’m not suggesting you can duplicate the blueprint, but perhaps you can attach a blank production module to an active one to listen in on the transmission, which has a chance to become a clone (Like lighting a candle with another candle, or like copyright infringement if I don’t have permission to do this).

Well, listening in to the transmission won't let a blank production module become like a preconfigured one, since the transmitted data is the other 50% of the blueprint and not the blueprint data kept inside the preconfigured module. You'd need to access the data kept within the preconfigured production module itself. I don't know about this. I'll need to think about this.

Hyperion wrote:Fourth, blueprints (in whatever form they take) should have various values, the most valuable ones could be worth millions, and the least valuable ones worth only a few thousand. It makes sense for there to be high levels of security for a blueprint that gives plasma cannons a 300% higher damage rate and 80% higher firing rate and 30% higher accuracy while only adding 10% mass, but why in the world would a blueprint that gives +20% damage and adds 20% mass be gaurded in the ivory fortress? You might even just keep that in a rented out storage space on a station you don’t even own, and use production facilities that you don’t even own… (which brings up the idea of renting out a production module for a contracted number of assembler runs)

Absolutely. I don't disagree anywhere with you here. All this talk about security is addressing how high-value blueprints can be protected. For lower-value blueprints, you might escort them around with no protection, and keep them in unguarded facilities in the middle of nowhere. As I propose elsewhere, I think that corporations might just opt to sell low-value blueprints to a government-like faction, which then makes the technology available to the general public.

Hyperion wrote:Fifth, when the research module becomes a blueprint, I should get my researchers back. As you said, its like a giant usb stick, it should be automated.

Yes, this is the case.

Research modules are vacuum sealed and do not communicate. They'd pop out with 10 different variations, and likely at different times to one another.

I would be fine if this were an option, but I fail to see why it should be a requirement, not everything has to be top secret, and in fact most research today isn’t.

I'm glad you like that, Flatfingers liked it too. However, this is no longer the case - blueprints are now small ASICs. Research modules can be reused.

Now I’m confused, are they modules that you attach to a ship/station or equipment/cargo?

Via ambushes while blueprints are being stolen. This will require "beef", since its likely the escorts will be guarded while they're escorting the blueprints.
Through approaching a facility where the blueprints are being contained and stealing them. This will require stealth.

What is the difference between “being escorted, velocity 2000m/s” and “being contained 0m/s”? why would it be any less gaurded where it is contained and stationary? Wouldn’t it have even more security since its location can be compromised? Sounds like you need beef or more beef.

Nope, I address this earlier; tech level will increase value density but you can still increase value by just increasing volume. Think of a computer - to get more processing power, you can buy higher-tech chips or RAM that pack more value into the same space, or you can buy a bigger computer with more GPUs, RAM, etc. In LT, you will be increasing value through both means - by increasing value density via research, and by simply buying bigger modules that have more value.
This agrees with what Josh wrote. Bigger research modules can perform research faster than smaller ones. I'm adamant on this. But blueprints themselves can now be considered the same size.

Fine, I am ok with a small difference in size, a junior’s first lab module could be something a frigate could carry, while an Oxford Uber Alles Jumbo Laboratory Mk 3 “Now with antimatter colliders for even faster discoveries and heisenburg field testing!” might be something that really only a capital ship or a station could handle. But Josh also said he wanted fuzzy limits, in that you could attach the Mk 3 to a fighter sized ship, and the thing would still work...ish, but the juniors first lab should still be quite upgradable and at a high enough tech level be competative with the Mk 3.

Production modules should produce objects within themselves. Therefore production modules must be bigger than whatever it is they're producing, in my firm opinion.

I agree, assemblers should be smaller than modules, but what the assembler creates should be quite a bit larger than an assembler. This is in fact somewhat necessary, because if an assembler had to be larger than what it created and the production module larger than the assembler, the baseline production module would be the absolute largest thing you could build, and leads to a bit of a puzzle as to where the first production module came from...If we say reduced an assembler to say 5% of the product’s volume, you could have a 3000m^3 capacity production module produce an assembler for something that is 60,000m^3 (perhaps the percentage could be a researchable upgrade)

Hyperion wrote:

Research modules are vacuum sealed and do not communicate. They'd pop out with 10 different variations, and likely at different times to one another.

I would be fine if this were an option, but I fail to see why it should be a requirement, not everything has to be top secret, and in fact most research today isn’t.

Well perhaps they can, as they might only need to exchange incomplete snippets of research with one another. I'm not yet sold on the idea of multiple research modules researching the same thing, though.

Hyperion wrote: Now I’m confused, are they modules that you attach to a ship/station or equipment/cargo?

Not anymore. Now they're just like ASIC disks.

Hyperion wrote: What is the difference between “being escorted, velocity 2000m/s” and “being contained 0m/s”? why would it be any less gaurded where it is contained and stationary? Wouldn’t it have even more security since its location can be compromised? Sounds like you need beef or more beef.

Different kinds of security, I guess. Blueprints being escorted will be tightly surrounded by security vessels and there's no way you can steal anything from the escort without being noticed.

Stations, on the other hand, would be pretty big and security will be positioned more loosely around the complex. So stealing from it would be like breaking and entering a complex in real life I guess - there are guards, but with enough stealth you can work your way around them without being spotted.

Hyperion wrote: I agree, assemblers should be smaller than modules, but what the assembler creates should be quite a bit larger than an assembler. This is in fact somewhat necessary, because if an assembler had to be larger than what it created and the production module larger than the assembler, the baseline production module would be the absolute largest thing you could build, and leads to a bit of a puzzle as to where the first production module came from...If we say reduced an assembler to say 5% of the product’s volume, you could have a 3000m^3 capacity production module produce an assembler for something that is 60,000m^3 (perhaps the percentage could be a researchable upgrade)

Oh, assemblers, my bad! I was thinking of production modules. Production modules will always be bigger than the object being produced, because they're produced inside of them. Assemblers will always be smaller than the object being produced, because they form the core of whatever's being produced.

Well Josh did say that ships used some form of spacial compression and cargo capacity was limited by mass not volume so if you made research modules ridiculously light you could stealth out a full research module ...