Return to “Dev Logs”

Post

Re: [Josh] Monday, May 21, 2018

#76
Josh said he would post about it here, but it seems he forgot, and only posted it on the Kickstarter.
Kickstarter Josh wrote:Before we get to the excitement, though, I would like to announce an unfortunate bit of news: Lindsey has left the team. Rest assured that there are no hard feelings nor burnt bridges; she left of her own volition due to changes in her work availability. During her time here, Lindsey built up an impressive procedural geometry library that I'll be able to leverage in finishing up the remaining algorithms. And, of course, we still have the ridiculously-good fighter algorithms that she devised! Despite her time with us being too short, I am nevertheless grateful for all that she accomplished while here. Thanks, Lindsey! o7
Have a question? Send me a PM! || People talking in IRC over the past two hours: Image
Image
Image
Post

Re: [Josh] Monday, May 21, 2018

#77
In regards to NPCs obeying orders or not, I'm thinking that we could rip a page out of Rome: Total War's playbook. If you played it, you might remember that your different units had levels of Morale and Discipline, where Discipline was how rigid their formation would be, and Morale their willingness to continue following an order vs routing.

If instead of determining unit formation, Discipline could be the likelihood that they would follow an order on a scale of "how high" to "why", then you just have to ensure that your units have sufficient discipline. This would be a sliding scale with different thresholds ranging from "frak you, you're crazy, that's suicide" to "yeah, whatever"to "fine, but if it gets bad, i'm getting out of there" to "my life is yours, your will is my law". And I don't think we would have to worry too much about there being a lack of disciplined NPCs, as the other NPCs probably don't want to hire someone who won't follow orders, NPCs with lax discipline are simply less valuable and less useful. But that's not to say we couldn't train them to increase their discipline (yup, gonna keep pushing that idea :lol: )

In regards to PCG, determinism, and random events:
The seed should only ensure an identical universe only up until the point in which the player enters. After which, only the universe's structure and material composition should remain identical, and cultures should have large, somewhat vague heatmaps which control the more basal PCG, while the specifics are generated on the fly as you approach... yes, this means even with the same seed, universes will diverge somewhat as you get further from the origin system, though it will still be broadly similar.

For random events, we could just say that there is a variable %chance of an event occurring if a valid trigger is in range, whether said trigger is in range is largely but not wholly dependent on the seed, but even the same seed will have different random events at different times...that's why they're called "random" events :ghost:

For history generation and LOD simulation after the player enters, we had a discussion on What is generated at "the edge" and we came to the rough conclusion that there should be concentric circles/spheres of different LOD around the player. Quoting my own post
The only thing that matters in regards to “The Edge” is the same single thing that matters to everything else: Maintaining the suspension of disbelief for the player without breaking the computational bank...
...30-35 Jumps from Player: These systems “exist” in zones/clusters structured like the outermost lane-slices of Warp Lanes. They don’t have discrete systems, but they do have basic, static PCG traits like # of stars, Zone makeup (avg number of planets, avg size of stars, avg material per system, etc) & Gross Resource Value of the whole zone. The game knows these zones exist, but the player doesn’t.
...25-30: zones stay as they are until the player is 25 jumps from them...These use the details from their previous state to create the systems, split the Gross Zone Resource Value into Gross System Resource Values, convert zone makeup to system makeup, and link the stars to each other
...20-25: zones become more detailed as a group when the player is 20 systems out, and go back when they are again 25 out. Here is where LT gains its Broad Strokes Cultural Diversity, Historical generation, and stops being static. Here, the Zone as a whole gets a Population Density, Culture Vector, Hegemony Value (Is it a huge empire, small-medium kingdoms, many isolated islands), Military Value, Tech Value, and Production Value (How much stuff is made here). Historical generation begins here and is calculated once every 5 minutes, but can represent 50 years of Zone History
...10-20: zones take the Information from the above, and split it into a number of polities based on the Population Density and Hegemony Value, each polity getting a variation from the mean of the Zone’s other values and a name. Their economies become more dynamic, having Net Trade of “Stuff from [Polity]” with each other... and a simple war and conquest mechanic. History generation calculations happen more frequently but represent less time (1 minute = 6 months)
...5-10: zones assign systems names, % of polity value, discrete resources, number of planets, warp lanes, Discrete military presence, and General economic simulation (Industrial production, Mining output, Economic Stability, Tech advances, etc) Factions and NPCs now form, these will not always be very important to you, but major developments here can cause major changes for the player and you will want to pay at least some attention to them, these are your big-kahuna neighbors.
...2-5 jumps away: these are fully functional, real-time, but mechanically simplified systems

metacosmic wrote:One idea I'm wondering if you've considered for the AI is observational learning.
Honestly, this is the ideal solution, but machine learning is difficult and computationally expensive for a single AI, let alone thousands. I truly hope to one day see this sort of thing in LT, but I HIGHLY doubt it would be even remotely feasible in 1.0 :geek:
Image
The conquest of Nature is to be achieved through Number and Measure.
It's better to have questions you can't answer than answers you can't question.

Imagination Fertilizer
Post

Re: [Josh] Monday, May 21, 2018

#78
Hyperion wrote:
metacosmic wrote:One idea I'm wondering if you've considered for the AI is observational learning.
Honestly, this is the ideal solution, but machine learning is difficult and computationally expensive for a single AI, let alone thousands. I truly hope to one day see this sort of thing in LT, but I HIGHLY doubt it would be even remotely feasible in 1.0 :geek:
I don't think it is machine learning, it's actually just copying. If faction A is a similar size to faction B, and faction B decides to build a station at location x, then faction A has a random chance of directly copying faction B's action. Maybe change location by a random amount.
A life well lived only happens once.
Seems deep until you think about it.
Post

Re: [Josh] Monday, May 21, 2018

#79
The idea of Discipline as an internal personality trait is very close to how I was suggesting Josh's "Lawful/Lawless" trait could be applied to NPC reliability. So that sounds good to me.

I do wonder about NPCs being able to improve this trait, however. From a pure gameplay sense, sure, you could do it. But it's sort of odd from both a typical-RPG and a real-humans perspective: usually characters can improve learned skills, but not innate attributes (Str, Int, Wis, etc.) or traits (Gregarious, Stable, Energetic, etc.). I think Disciplined (a high Lawful value) is pretty clearly a trait rather than a skill, so personally I'd stick with that being something that's fixed permanently for every NPC... but that's me.

Finally, on universe generation, I don't know about y'all, but I've been notionally imagining the universe generation code as its own thing... but now I'm reassessing that. Why wouldn't it just be the same code that adds new star systems as the player (or the player's immediate lieutenants?) travels near the edge of the known universe, with the only difference being that the game starts with this code operating on an empty data set (the Big Bang)?

For those whose eyes are rolling into the backs of their heads because this is So Obvious, good for you. I mention it here because it connects the idea of a PRNG generating an invariant sequence of values to the idea that as long as no player inputs request a value from this sequence, then every game universe will be identical if their seed + code + elapsed time are identical (where "elapsed time" is a stand-in for "index number of values retrieved from the PRNG"). It doesn't matter how long you let the universe generator run -- as long as the 1,000th, and 10,000th, and millionth (and so on) values from the PRNG are the same for each pass through the same code, the universes generated will be identical in every respect.

But the moment some action external to this system -- such as a player action -- requests a pseudorandom number out of the invariant sequence, that is the instant at which that universe will start to diverge from all others. Even if that single request for a random number is the only thing I ever do in my universe, it is now irrevocably different from everyone else's that started with the same code and seed. And the divergence will increase over time with every new number our universes request from the PRNG, because now those numbers will never be the same.

I don't know; I just think that's neat.

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron