Nobody Wants A Cybergod?

Recommended Posts

It's been about six months since I posted my blog now, and not a single person has said a single word too me about any of it. This doesn't seem possible, and yet it just happened. Apparently there is no level of experience, knowledge, or achievement that can compare to a few years at the Devry School of Game Design. Maybe I should sign up, sleep through all of the “classes” so as not to be corrupted by any of their bad elementary school-level of advice, and then try again! Even reaching the height of simulation design in the world today, the ultimate evolution of 70 years of continuous work by dozens if not hundreds of game designers, and finally arriving at the ultimate goal of simulation design, a simulation of time combined with reality which turns out to also be a functioning simulation of God and is the fundamental basis of “The Matrix”, cyberspace, an insubstantial holodeck, and eventually even a self-programming computer with omniscient communication (MeeSo Confused!!!), is completely irrelevant to modern “game designers”?

The only explanation of this that I can think of is that you don't know enough about game design to recognize that Rube is literally the “Holy Grail” of simulation design. You don't know enough about simulation design to recognize how important this is. Rube is a “universal simulation”. The ultimate goal of scientific simulations, a uniform simulation of anything and everything! Rube can simulate anything and everything that exists in reality, or everything that exists in reality simultaneously. It is the long-sought after “Holy Grail” of scientific modeling. Forget about revolutionizing games, that's just what I would do with Rube. Rube is, quite possibly, the single most powerful tool of science in existence today. Rube is a God, and a God can do anything. Rube can even simulate things at the sub-atomic level! Rube is a functioning simulation of God, which you should all recognize as the Holy Grail of simulation design. But you clearly don't. You clearly don't know enough about game design to even know this. I can't think of any other explanation for nobody having a single word to say about it after six months of patiently waiting. There is nobody in your industry who knows enough about simulation design to understand what is being described too you, none of you have ever even heard of this before. Nothing else makes any sense.

So far not a single person has said a single word too me about the PDU or Rube, other than to try and insult me for having discovered Rube. Not one word... the blog I put up is over 500 pages! Amazing, isn't it? I bet I could invent a warp drive and a phaser and nobody would care, other than wanting to insult me to discredit the idea because they can't understand it. That wouldn't be any different than this, it's just a different field. In fact, that would be my advice to anyone who does discover the fundamental basis of a warp drive and a phaser... save yourself a lot of time and effort and just immediately throw it in the trash! Nobody is going to care. Wow. In fact, the most common reaction is that people just become angry that you would dare to have done such a thing when they don't understand how it can be done. They don't have any questions for you, or even a single comment. Nobody will even even tell me what they think of the story, not a single peep at all. Just insults for you daring to know something that they are incapable of understanding. They just want to attack you for suggesting it, nobody has any interest at all in actually trying to find out anything about it. It just offends them. Rube is potentially much more important than a warp drive. It is a functioning simulation of the combination of time and reality where everything... everything... falls into place so perfectly that you can't help but wonder if this actually is the true nature of the universe and how time and reality really do function together... and nobody cares?!?!? “Moments of time containing reality!”

If you do come up with a warp drive and phaser, just throw them in the trash. I'm serious. Believe me, that is how it will work out the best for you. Save yourself the trouble, all that work is just going to get you hatred and insults from arrogant people who are certain that if such a thing were possible they would have thought if it before you possibly could have... even though they have decades less experience with the subject than you do, and their entire process is based on the group that you came from. I think the English language is, at this point, in need of a word that means “more than arrogant” just to describe these people. This doesn't work like everyone thinks it does, if you do wind up discovering something that exceeds humanity's current understanding of something... just throw it away! Don't waste your time on it. Nobody is going care, although many people will be offended by it and attack you for claiming to have come up with something that they are not capable of understanding. The only thing you will get out of it is people attacking you to protect their own fragile little egos. Rube will apparently die with me because I don't have a hilariously laughable “degree” from the Devry School of Game Design, and even if I did that would just be the same thing as having a lottery ticket. Entirely random luck. I only know ten times more than that, and have been doing this for decades before their silly little “school” ever even existed... which just greatly angers them. It doesn't impress anyone, or get you anywhere, it just draws incompetent people who base their self-worth on the delusion that they are “experts” out of the woodwork to attack you so that they can continue with their delusions of grandeur. It's a psychological disorder, really, that they all seem to share.

Whatever their criteria are in looking for “game designers”, experience, knowledge, and achievement are certainly not factors at all.  I am undeniable proof of that.  So if designing games is a goal of yours, don't waste any time on gaining experience, knowledge, or achieving anything significant in the field. None of those things count at all in their minds. Rube and I have finally managed to absolutely prove that beyond any doubt at all! Apparently it's kind of like a lottery. It's based entirely on pure luck that has nothing to do with anything relevant to game or simulation design, and Rube proves that beyond any doubt. Just buy a lottery ticket once and if you don't win move on to a new career. Don't waste your entire life like I did on, when it comes to simulation design anyway, this completely incompetent group of people. No matter what you do, no matter how much you achieve, no matter how much knowledge of the subject you accumulate, none of that will ever matter too them in any way, shape, or form. If the E=MC2 of simulation design isn't enough to get their attention, then obviously nothing is. They don't know enough about the subject to even realize what they are looking at. It doesn't do you any good to achieve something great in this field because they are incapable of recognizing it if you do. If it is more complicated than Axis & Allies then they are incapable of comprehending it. It really does appear to be essentially a random lottery, based on no actual criteria at all that is discernible. Rube and I have now proven that beyond any doubt what-so-ever. I was certain that this was going to work this time. I was certain that they could not be so incompetent that they would not recognize what Rube means too them. Obviously, even I had always vastly underestimated just how totally clueless and incompetent they actually are when it comes to game design... and that really is saying something!

The source of the problem has become very clear too me now. It's that modern “game designers” believe that they invented game and simulation design in the early 1980's. They are absolutely convinced that game and simulation design did not exist until they invented it to make computer games. The don't know that modern game design actually began in the 16th century with the “Ruler & String” games played by real-world military men (see Battlestar Galactica: Deadlock for a modern example of a “Ruler & String” game, and a game that Rube could work wonders for). Their history begins in the early 1980's, when the actual history begins over 200 years before that. They don't even know, for example, that a simulation of God was the literal “holy grail” of scientific modeling (how science did simulations before computers), so they don't even recognize the significance of Rube. They literally don't know enough about game design to know this, so it is not relevant too them. And they are never going to know this, because they become enraged if anyone tries to tell them about it... and ban them for life from their forums for trying. That way they can maintain the delusion that they are the “world's leading experts in the field” when, in reality, they know almost nothing about game and simulation design. The fact that they have no interest at all in Rube, the literal holy grail of simulation design, finally proves this beyond any doubt at all. They are little kids playing in the sandbox at the edge of our field, they aren't even actually in the field!

Maybe I should become a computer game industry critic. I'd love to hear a programmer-called-game designer explain how their computer science education qualifies them to pat people from Avalon Hill or ADB on the head as if we are children and speak too us as though we actually have something to learn from them. It is very much the other way around, obviously. Although, that probably isn't actually an option because I am pretty sure that none of their web sites would be willing to publish the opinions of someone who has been doing this since before they were even born. They don't take criticism very well and just silence anyone who tries to offer any... even after having asked their permission ahead of time to do exactly that! “Of course, go ahead, we can take a little criticism”... it then took them less than two weeks to ban Pirate Lord for life, because they resembled those remarks! I didn't just come out of the blue back then, I asked the moderators if it would be OK first before I did that! The complete lack of interest in Rube really says all that needs to be said about the modern game industry, and the world will lose this knowledge solely due to their extreme incompetence when it comes to game and simulation design. It certainly won't be for a lack of me trying. Anything more complex than Axis & Allies/Civilization is simply beyond their ability to comprehend, and the suggestion of the existence of anything more complex than Axis & Allies/Civilization just enrages them.

So, this really is for real, then? My entire life was wasted because none of you actually know what you are talking about? I should just take the fundamental basis of The Matrix, cyberspace, a holodeck, and a self-programming computer with omniscient communication and throw it in the trash? That is really, actually the response of the one industry that should care about Rube? “Nobody cares, throw it away?” You really and truly are this incompetent? I really would like a serious answer (insulting me to protect your own ego is not a serious answer) too this. I'd really like to know why my entire life was wasted, and why I should just throw it all away even though it is the Holy Grail of simulation design and would be among the most important tools of science known to mankind. I really would like a real answer. This is for real, then, nobody cares about the final answer and Holy Grail of simulation design, and I should just throw it away? This really is the response of the modern game industry to what is the “Holy Grail” of your own field? I just want to be clear on this before I throw the fundamental basis of what would be among the most futuristic technologies on this planet in the trash and forget about it all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Kylotan said:

What I don't think you appreciate is that you have spent thousands of words talking around your concept, but hardly any time talking about what it actually is.

Yes, this hits the hammer on the head.

Unfortunately, I've spent 20 minutes reading his "blog" and he had this to say about it:

Quote

I want to point out that I am not trying to explain Rube in this blog, in fact I am intentionally wanting to keep anyone from being able to fully figure it out while revealing enough to make people realize that this really is something real. I am completely unconcerned about the vast majority of people on the planet being able to decipher Rube from what I am revealing here. It would take a 300+ page book for me to explain Rube to most people,. Not because I am smarter than anyone else, or because it is too complicated for people to understand, but because having deep a understanding of the phased-turn, the concept of "assembling the battle" within that type of system, and the SFB Impulse Chart are the pre-requisite knowledge to have any frame of reference from which to understand it. The first 200 pages of that book would be bringing everyone up to speed with ASL/SFB, only the last 100 would even be about Rube.

It's a catch 22. Kavik Kang wants to convince people his concept is the next great thing without having to provide proof.

 

@Kavik Kang

We would be fools if we were to simply take the word of some random internet stranger such as yourself that your concept is the next big thing. Either talk about it, or stop wasting everyone's time with your senseless rants.

Edited by TheComet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should already know the significance of a functioning simulation of God.  Rube is, in reality, shockingly simple.  No, I am not going to give Rube away and watch you all make games based on my work while I am still not making games.  I doubt you would give such a thing away simply to be plagiarized, either.  Would you?  The phrase "functioning simulation of God" is all that I should need to say to attract the interest of game designers.  It is your industry's lack of knowledge of the subject that is the issue, not my unwillingness to simply give it too you and watch you all run away with it as you continue to insult and ignore me.

I know there were 70 comments, I mentioned that the only response has been to attack and insult me over it.  There has not been a single response expressing any interest in Rube you, not a single person has said a single word too me about it.  If your industry has no interest in Rube, that just proves that everything I've been saying about you for the last 10 years is true.  Rube proves that beyond any doubt at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kavik Kang said:

not a single person has said a single word too me about any of it.

Ouch, I am a person you know. I have argued with you over the idea many times.

@Kavik Kang, have you browsed the hobby section of gamedev.net? It's full of new developers who hide there ideas and get as little response as yours does. That is how it works, you must first proof beyond reasonable doubt that it can be achieved, before people jump on the bandwagon and help you achieve it.

If you shared more of your idea and the details on how to achieve it, maybe someone would be willing to invest into it.

1 hour ago, Kavik Kang said:

I'd love to hear a programmer-called-game designer explain how their computer science education qualifies them to pat people from Avalon Hill or ADB on the head as if we are children and speak too us as though we actually have something to learn from them.

Because they know what can actually be made and what is just a pipe dream.

How many times when you where a developer did your ideas need to change because there was no way to do what you wanted? I mean it is part of development but it cost money so people like to know there developers have some idea of how programming and art works.

Also a programmer-called-game designer doesn't need a team to build a demo, they can do that much by them self. It's a lot easier to get people to help you when you can prove your idea works.

 

 

Good to see from you again @Kavik Kang.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly can't tell if you're trolling or not, but let's assume not.

Do you think you're the first guy to think of something that seems revolutionary on the surface? We've all done it, and most of the time we then come to realize how crap / unsustainable / etc... the idea really was, so we put it to rest and didn't rub our faces with denial. And to be honest I don't care you're in denial / whatever, I care that you're rubbing your arrogance in my face.

What I personally think is happening is that you realized the amount of effort that's needed to become an expert / professional in this industry (Which I am not, but I'm trying) and have no wish to partake in the struggle, so you've decided to cling onto the extreme cases hoping to catch some luck and bloat about your "brilliance". That's not to say that you shouldn't try the extreme ideas, you absolutely should, but accept them for what they are.

But given your responses.... F#ck it, you're a god of technology and science, just keep it to yourself until you've got something workable.
    Welcome to reality and I won't be your guide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you genuinely have something that deserves to be called a "functioning simulation of god" then why on earth are video games the priority?

 

I don't think this phrase has the same meaning in your mind as it conveys to anyone who reads it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

If you have a functioning simulation of "God," answer me this: what is the meaning of life?

EDIT: I'd also like to know why my C++ compiler spits out the most cryptic messages for the simplest of things?

Edited by ByteTroll

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't about me, it is about Rube. It isn't about me wanting to insult the modern game industry, either. That honestly is the only reason that I can think of that nobody in a “game industry” would be interested in the ultimate evolution of game and simulation design. After 30 years Rube has finally shown me that there can't be any other answer. And this is not about me but, I am not “some random person on the internet saying he has the next great thing”. I have been designing games since before your industry existed. I was a member of the SFB Staff in its early days, the original group of modern game designers who literally invented the process by which you make games today. But you will pick 20-something a recent graduate of the Devry School of Game Design over me every time because you don't know your own history. Your history begins in the early 1980's with Infocom. And that's all about Rube, too. It really is.

This is the right thread to be talking about Rube, it is the ultimate evolution of simulation design finally arrived at, a functioning simulation of God. If that isn't a game design discussion then I don't know what is. So, let's talk about Rube. That was what the original response here said I should do, and that is exactly what I had come here to do. And also because recently I have discovered a whole new way of describing Rube to this audience. My blog, especially the first post, actually explains almost everything about the physical construct that is Rube. That physical construct is the literal E=MC2 of simulation design that leads too... almost anything you want it too within any simulation of anything. I only leave a single “key piece” of the puzzle out of that first post on the blog, but it is a key that is 50 years ahead of where you are so you aren't going to imagine it. But it's actually all there, except for one critical element of it that brings it all together. I'll explain Rube in a way I think this audience will at least start to see a hint of what Rube actually is using one of your own games. Somebody in your industry is making a “proto-Rube” game right now! What they are doing is a simple Ruler & String game on the computer, using Steve Cole's Impulse Chart (probably without realizing that). Like I've said before, Rube is a part of nature.

Battlestar Galactica: Deadlock, which I've spent a few hours watching games on Yahoo to dissect exactly what they are doing, is a “proto-Rube” game. It is a Ruler & String game on the computer, and it is running on Steve Cole's Impulse Chart which is the precursor of Rube. Rube's cardio-vascular system is the next generation of SVC's impulse chart. That little “bar of time” that counts down on the bottom of Deadlock's screen? That is a “moment of time containing reality” which they appear to be defining as 1-2 minutes. On the map the max range line is the string, the ruler would measure distance for movement and shooting, and a turn gauge governs maneuver. This is a modern version of the original “modern games”, the Ruler & String games played by real-world military men since the 16th century. Those “toy soldiers generals played with” were not toy soldiers, those were games that were simulations of warfare. They are the basis of Avalon Hill games, and the many imitators of Avalon Hill that was the foundation of the hobbyist game industry of the 1960s-1990s. This is exactly what BSG: Deadlock is, it is a classic Ruler & String game. And since it is, probably accidentally, using a version of Steve Cole's impulse chart it is essentially also a very primitive and incomplete version of Star Fleet Battles. SFB actually comes with the turn gauges to play it this way instead of using the hex map.

Take a look at BSG: Deadlock. You are looking at the very first baby step towards Rube. If the makers of BSG: Deadlock were to spend the next 50 years continuously refining the game with a staff of 2 dozen or so “Staff Members”, they might eventually arrive at Rube. But we are already 50 years ahead of them, and I am already at Rube. You are already making a Rube game right now, Rube is a part of nature. It's just that your Rube is a newborn baby that is still 50 years away from growing into Rube, and ours is already there.

Scouting Ninja: So you are saying that I should have to reveal every detail about it, so that anyone can just run off and do it on their own, before anyone should have any interest in it at all? I am pretty sure that is not how it works for everyone else, and that's not how it is going to work for me. I am not just giving it away to be plagiarized while I am still not making games. That would be insane. As for your other point, you are providing a perfect example of everything I said in the first post. You are saying that I, with 40 years of experience designing games going back before your industry even existed, should sit down and shut up and listen to “my betters”. That people with, in most cases, less than half of my experience and knowledge know what can and can't be done and that I don't. You have that exactly backwards, said the other way around that is true... and Rube proves it. The fact that this makes perfect sense too you is just making my point for me. You are talking down too me and patting me on the head as if I have something to learn from you, when I am the one that has been doing this twice as long as you have. I am the one who's knowledge is based on over 200 years of history going back to the Ruler & String games, and your knowledge is based on your reboot and re-invention of the wheel that began in the early 1980s. You have provided a perfect example of exactly what I was saying in the first post. You honestly believe that when a 20-something graduate of the Devry School of Game Design speaks that I should sit down, shut up, and listen to their vast knowledge. After all, I've only been doing this for 40 years. Right? In reality, we are literally 50-70 years ahead of you. You have it exactly backwards.

And to one of the other replies, it does not “seem revolutionary on the surface”. Rube exists, and is based on 200 years of simulation design history of which you are unaware. Rube is a continuation of the work of Avalon Hill and Amarillo Design Bureau. It is not an “idea”, in fact the basis of it is older than your entire industry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Kavik, if you want people to take you seriously, don't tell them that they're stupid. Nobody will listen to you after you do that. They don't care about your decades of struggle. They don't care that you think you intellectually tower over them. They also don't care about the cosmic significance you think your idea has.

If you can explain it, do so. If you can't, then work on your communication skills. Don't blame your audience for your own failings.

Your writing has all the qualities of a classic crank. GEORGE HAMMOND claimed to have a SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD. Gene Ray (Cubic) claimed to have proven he was above God, because he knew that, uh, something about there being four days at once in every day, because the Earth is a cube, or something, and that everyone else was stupid and evil. When other people read your writing, they don't think "boy this guy really seems to know what he's talking about", they think "Oh, another crank who thinks he's decoded all of the secrets of the universe."

The #1 sign of a crank is that they say they're so smart nobody else can even understand how smart they are, and that their ideas are so good, nobody else is qualified to judge them. The truth is, a lot of a time nobody can understand a crank because the crank spouts of a bunch of hyperbolic jabber about how great they are, but never actually explains their idea in sufficient detail to tell whether or not it's worth anything. Your writing fits this pattern.

They often use the excuse that their invention or discovery is so revolutionary, they won't publish it, for fear that THE ESTABLISHMENT will steal it from them. Your writing also fits this pattern. If you don't want your idea out there, why are you telling people about it?

Cranks tend to make claims that are rejected out of hand because they're enormously overstated. If someone else told you their work was

Quote

finally arriving at the ultimate goal of simulation design, a simulation of time combined with reality which turns out to also be a functioning simulation of God and is the fundamental basis of “The Matrix”, cyberspace, an insubstantial holodeck, and eventually even a self-programming computer with omniscient communication

then you would probably ignore them because that sounds impossible. It seems very, very, very unlikely that you have actually arrived at the ultimate goal of simulation design. If you had, wouldn't you be out there making the best simulations anyone has ever seen? Clearly, you're not, if your best hope of finding funding is posting angry rants on game development websites.

What response are you actually looking for? What would you consider a successful interaction? Someone simply giving you a million dollars to make your game, sight unseen? That will never happen, because people with "revolutionary" ideas are everywhere, and very few of them have the chops to realize those ideas. If you can, make something with your idea. Make it a phone app and put it on the Android app store. Make it a board game and put it on Kickstarter. If it actually works, people will come calling. If not, well, maybe your idea isn't as good as you think it is.

Finally, "Rube" is a terrible name. It invites unflattering comparisons between the name of your product and your online persona.

Edit: Claiming to be the inheritor of hundreds of years of knowledge, but you're the only one who actually understands it all, is another classic crank behavior. Again, if your idea is as good as you say it is, put out a proof-of-concept, just enough to demonstrate its superiority, or else everyone will conclude you talk a good game but have nothing to back it up.

Second edit: Plenty of people have released free versions of games, then gotten funding to produce the real version. If you say your idea is so magical you can't show it to anyone for fear of being copied, then the natural conclusion is that it's not that good, but by never showing it to anyone, you avoid being found out as a fraud. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_perpetual_motion_machines

Edited by Mooninaut
additonal commentary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Kavik Kang said:

as if I have something to learn from you,

Of course there is a lot you can learn from me, I am a 3D Artist. That is the path I walk has thought me how to make 3D models and implement them into a game near perfectly. Is that something you already know how to do?  What about programming, can you program a game from start to end by yourself?

That's the point, life isn't one path with "Betters" who happen to be further along that path. Life is a open field with no two people standing in the same spot at the same time, every person going there own way. There isn't a person in life that doesn't have something to teach you.

I have no doubt that you have more game design experience than me, or even life experience. A game is not it's design, design is only part of a game and with design alone a game cannot be played by others.

1 hour ago, Kavik Kang said:

Scouting Ninja: So you are saying that I should have to reveal every detail about it, so that anyone can just run off and do it on their own

It's my understanding that you with your 40 years of vast game design knowledge can't even make it happen and the game can only be made by you; so what risk is there in letting people know more about your game?

If any person could just run off and do it on their own, then why can't you who has no "Betters" not do it?

 

You will need to do all the ground work yourself if you can't share the idea, so it's you choice: Either risk Rube to the possibility of plagiarism or make it yourself. No one will risk investing on a promise.

Edited by Scouting Ninja

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I missing some grand significance to impulse charts? They just describe how a ship moves and accelerates over a period of time, right? I might be a very long way off the mark but I'm starting to think you're just describing a physics engine...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read some of your posts and blog entries. I haven't commented before now. But from my point of view, there are two possibilities. 

  1. You DON'T really have the holy grail of game design. (even though you said it 8 times).
  2. You DO really have the holy grail of game design.

In the case of number 1, there's nothing for me to do. You don't have this idea that sounds too good to be true.

In the case of number 2, there's nothing for me to do. You DO have this idea that sounds too good to be true. One might even call it a million dollar idea... But I don't have a million dollars to give you. And I'm pretty sure no one else here does either. For the most part we're hobbyist game devs and a few of us are professional game devs. 

In all your posts I haven't seen exactly what you want from the community. You've talked about how awesome you are, about how awesome your idea is, about how ignorant the community is, about how ignorant the games industry is. You've made some exceptionally bold claims and have the attention of some really smart and experienced game developers. So tell us: what exactly do you want? 

- Eck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Use Rube to predict stock market, make billions of dollars, then hire dumb programmers&artists to make your games?

I mean...I'm not even joking here? That's literally the best advice for someone that invented God. :P

Edited by mikeman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Kavik Kang said:

The phrase "functioning simulation of God" is all that I should need to say to attract the interest of game designers.

Some other similar phrases that are all one should "need to say" to attract interest:

"This will make you a million dollars overnight"

"This will make you sexually attractive to everyone that takes your interest"

"This will grant you and your loved ones eternal life"

It is not hard to come up with statements that, if true, command and demand a great deal of attention. The problem is proving that they are actually true, especially in the face of them being difficult, if not impossible problems to solve. You have not done this, and thus have not passed the basic criteria to expect to be taken seriously.

 

7 hours ago, Kavik Kang said:

I mentioned that the only response has been to attack and insult me over it.

No, you literally said "not a single person has said a single word too me about any of it". It's right up there in black and white. So not only are you failing to demonstrate that your key statement is true, you're actively demonstrating that some of your statements are false, thus eroding whatever hypothetical authority you might have. And given that you keep trying to lean on your authority, it shouldn't be hard to see why this isn't working for you.

 

3 hours ago, Kavik Kang said:

So you are saying that I should have to reveal every detail about it, so that anyone can just run off and do it on their own, before anyone should have any interest in it at all? I am pretty sure that is not how it works for everyone else

No, but I am going to tell you how it does "work for everyone else":

  1. You explain the idea in sufficient detail that it convinces people that you are in possession of a truly world-changing idea, therefore inspiring people to want to help you.
  2. You go away and make a prototype yourself, the results of which will convince people to help you.
  3. You pay people to do your bidding.

There is no "4. Complain that the industry doesn't want to take your word for it that you have solved a mystical problem and won't give you whatever resources are necessary to implement this". It has never worked for anyone else, and you certainly shouldn't expect it to work for you.

The other option is actually, "4. Accept you may be wrong about all of this, and find something else to do with your time."

I suggest you give some thought to which of these is most appropriate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eck said:

So tell us: what exactly do you want?

I've heard echos of funding here and there... otherwise he's seeking attention

I mean if you are pitching your (hidden) ideas to <whoever>, and say "Hey I've got this $10 billion idea, don't ask me exact details though - I don't trust you, you might steal it, just give me the the MONEY and trust me! I'm a design guru from the yesteryears!"

...then you're taking everyone for a fool. In reverse would you do that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming that you've looked at some YouTube of BSG: Deadlock, now I'll introduce you to SVC's Impulse Chart through BSG Deadlock. And if any of those guys are reading this, first of all good work. I like your taste in games;-) Second, feel free to use any of this to enhance your game. I'll be a fan and want to play the best game that you can make. And this isn't me anyway, this is Steve Cole's published SFB. The “second generation”, after Avalon Hill's “first generation”, of Lost Art Studios (which is really just me) “third generation” of what I call “Rube”. So this is the precursor of Rube's cardio-vascular system that runs through those five components described in the first post of my blog. This is Steve Cole's contribution to Rube, not the key part of it that I always leave out.

In ADB/SFB terms Deadlock uses an optional SFB rule called “plotted movement”. SFB's Impulse Chart is far more detailed than Deadlock's “time bar”, but the same thing is still actually happening because Rube is a part of nature. That “time bar” is naturally broken up into what SFB would call “impulses” simply by whatever “internal clock” this game is running on. You only think of it as “time”, but SFB is “space combat in slow motion, under a microscope” and we have a different perspective on it than you do. Time flies past you without you giving it much thought, we studied in detail for decades simply by learning, playing, and discussing these types of games. What I call a “treadmill of time”, which Avalon Hill games had a very primitive version of called “phased-turns”. In SFB, Deadlock's “time bar” is actually more akin to “plotted movement”, a pre-plotting of everything that will happen for the next 8 impulses. At 1-2 minutes the Deadlock “time bar” is equal to an entire turn in SFB, 32 impulses. In SFB plotted movement is ¼ turn at a time over the course of an entire turn, 8 impulses at a time. So you can see how SFB breaks this same period of time up in a much more organized way. Deadlock could use Steve Cole's impulse chart, Avalon Hill's concept of “assembling the battle”, and your own industry's expertise in predictive mechanics to improve their game.

“Rube plans the future”. Break up that “time bar”, which is a “moment of time containing reality”. To keep it board game simple let's say it is supposed to be 1 minute of real time, and give Deadlock's “time bar” 60 impulses. You can define any length you want as a “moment of time containing reality”, and the shorter that time is the more detailed the simulation is. But at 1 minute per turn and 1 second per impulse to keep it simple then there would be 60 “moments of time containing reality” in a Deadlock “time bar/turn”. Each impulse has an “embedded sequence of play”, everything that can happen aboard a ship (in the order they happen) during that 1 second of time. This is a Steve Cole “impulse”. Now, using your own predictive mechanics, you always know the relative positions of the ship during every second of that “time bar”, and can use the 60 impulses to “plan the future” and “assemble the battle”... and make the ships fire and do other things at very realistic times and in realistic looking volleys. Right now, watching the battles, the ships annoyingly shoot at all the wrong times based on your typical AI for that. And the Deadlock team would quickly find that they can do a LOT more with this than just plan the firing and volleys better based on knowing the future and having a means to use that knowledge and “plan the future” through a primitive version of Rube's cardio-vascular system.

Even just using Steve Cole's “second generation” impulses, you can use this to “plan the future” within BSG: Deadlock's own very simple “moment of time containing reality”, that “time bar”. This is the precursor of Rube's cardio-vascular system and is similar to how Rube “plans the future” in a much more sophisticated and universal way.

This really does come from somewhere. I am not imagining things, and I really do know what I am talking about. I've been doing this for a very, very long time.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

and watch you all make games based on my work while I am still not making games.

And how is that working out for ya?

Quote

You should already know the significance of a functioning simulation of God.

I don't see the significance of a real one either.

Quote

you don't know enough about game design to recognize that Rube is literally the “Holy Grail” of simulation design.

No, I guess I'm to busy making games.

You seem to forget, whilst your making long winded posts justifying your ideas existence (Evidently due to the lack of outside validation) that we're here to make games. We're here to make fun interactive experiences, and to help others to do so. We're not here to validate you in any sense if we see nothing worth validating. If you have a problem with that, there is a phrase in the Anglo-Saxon language known as a, "Personal Problem".

Nobody wants your idea. Your disillusions of grandeur couldn't be more self-evident. If you choose, at some point, that you want to implement your idea. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised at this community, and it's dedication to prospering hobbyists. You don't need to spill the beans of your revolutionary idea either to receive this help.

We are anxious to see your game. It couldn't be more obvious from your text that you are indeed enthralled with it. I'm sure every member here would love to be engaged in this euphoric simulation as you so proposed. So what are you waiting for? You're on a site called, "GameDev". Go develop your game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Are you guys *still* talking about videogames? He didn't invent a new way to do melee combat,, for crying out loud, he invented Cybergod.

Kavik Kang, my dude, seriously : STOCK MARKET.

Edited by mikeman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No but.. for real.. what I dont get is how .. he is trolling this hard or just doesnt see the catch 22 ...

the insistence that we should "know how important rube is" yet also the "im not going to say what rube actually is" .. 

having read through a fair bit of the content he's posted cause I get bored sometimes.. rube seems to just be another simulation game? like what makes it special hasnt been divulged as he doesnt want it stolen .. yet he doesnt see how that hinders people being interested

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Kavik Kang said:

Now, using your own predictive mechanics, you always know the relative positions of the ship during every second of that “time bar”, and can use the 60 impulses to “plan the future” and “assemble the battle”... and make the ships fire and do other things at very realistic times and in realistic looking volleys

Oh! So you invented 'delta time!'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Kavik Kang said:

To keep it board game simple let's say it is supposed to be 1 minute of real time

Players don't like keeping time in board games, because they have to move things around. That is why board games are turned based, so players can move as fast or slow as they want.

However from your phases I assume that it can just be switched to time based or the player can "slow" time to allow them self some room to think or act.

10 hours ago, Kavik Kang said:

Right now, watching the battles, the ships annoyingly shoot at all the wrong times based on your typical AI for that.

First AI already "predicts" what a player is going to do in a few steps, if it just tracked a player in the moment it could never hit a moving target.

Second games are planed in similar phases. For example: 1 minute = 8 phases, to keep things easy on the players computer or the game lags.Then the AI checks where the player is going to be and has a timer for when it can use what. So it can fire a volley every 16 phases that does a 100 damage.

Except players find this boring so what is done instead is a 100 single shots are fired over 16 phases each doing one damage, so instead of wait then fire you get constant combat. This also allows players flight skills to matter as missing a few of the shots reduce the damage the player took that turn.

 

This what your describing is exactly how most AI work underneath, except it has been adjusted to make players feel more involved.

What your saying is that instead of dealing the damage over time we should have stuck with volley like fire?

As a turn based strategy that will work as a real time game this still needs a lot of testing to see what happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is easy to write a design document, even one that is not possible to implement, at all or with acceptable fidelity / performance. From what you say, I think it may be the case that you are unaware of the infeasibility of your ideas.

For example, simulating reality at the sub-atomic particle level is not a new idea, the reason nobody is making games like this is that computers are not powerful enough to simulate a non trivial number of particles. Consider that the most powerful supercomputers are needed to approximate weather forecasts, and they don't try to model at the level of particle interactions. Then consider how imperfect the results of these predictions are. You're talking about people with obscene amounts of resources, have you really solved problems that they haven't?

I may be wrong, because you haven't described your idea in sufficient detail, but I infer that your idea is basically some kind of game  / physics engine. I think you believe the ability to predict where the game objects will be in the future is somehow new, which it is not, and will that it would improve game A.I. to make use of this.

A.I. can already try to predict the future, if the designers so choose. Any limitations you feel in computer opponent intelligence is likely due to the difficulty in actually making use of the resulting data, it is not due to a deficit of imagination on behalf of the designers to try this.

For example, a key difficulty is predicting how the human player will react as events unfold. It would be one of the biggest breakthroughs (technologically and philosophically) in history if you or anyone could solve this.

The goal of games is to be fun. Perfect A.I. is not fun - how much fun would it be to play chess against a computer that can beat any grand master? See "playing to lose", an excellent video explaining some of the decisions behind the Civilisation computer opponents.

Sure, there are players who crave an ultra realistic game with incredibly difficult A.I. - but it is a niche, it is not the "Holy Grail" you claim.

In summary, ideas are easy, execution is the hard part. If your experience hasn't taught you this...

p.s. "Rube" seems like a terrible name for any project, much less one as revolutionary as the one you claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of this writing feels like tons of word, but no content. It's like a less entertaining Turbo Encabulator.

I'm still waiting for a single example of what this can do which other systems/applications can't. A simple one-liner with some actual specifics to it, e.g. "It outperforms any chess engine, both in terms of depth and computational speed" would go a long way for this not to just be random gibberish.

Make a falsifiable claim.

 

22 minutes ago, rip-off said:

"Rube" seems like a terrible name for any project, much less one as revolutionary as the one you claim.

Easy fix: random capitalization, e.g. RuBE.

Plot twist: Kavik Kang is actually not an actual person, but an example output of RuBE.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is an example of how to use Rube's understanding of how time combined with reality functions to improve the nature of what is occurring during Deadlock's “moment of time containing reality”, that innocent looking “time bar” that you see after you push the “End Turn” button. Like all computer games, Deadlock does a terrible job with missiles. So this will focus on missiles. Also, there aren't a lot of opportunities for SVC's impluses to do much with the guns in this game.

In BSG the ships move very slowly in relation to the rate of fire of their guns, and they don't appear to have any long-charging “heavy weapons” other than missiles. This makes the guns very bland, with very little dynamic too them. It is like the ships only have secondary weapons, and no primary weapons. This also makes maneuver far less relevant, because there is no reason to need to point at the enemy ships every once in a while to shoot the “big guns”. With all secondaries, and by BSG canon, Deadlock's guns “seem right”. But it doesn't work as well as a game as a design for ships where the ships are moving much faster in relation to their rate of fire. That induces a far more maneuver based fight based on attacking when armed, and evading while rearming. Because of this, “Baby Rube” doesn't impact the guns all that much within this BSG canon universe. These kinds of guns should generally just continuous fire when in range, which doesn't leave much room to “plan their future”.

Still, to be more realistic, some of these weapons seem to be “machine guns” that are not beam weapons and would have limited ammunition. The ones that aren't pure energy weapons wouldn't continuous fire the moment they enter maximum range and keep firing the way they do in computer games because they would quickly run themselves out of ammunition. They would only actually fire when they were in “effective range” and when they had a good shot, to conserve ammunition. So they wouldn't all just continuously fire at all times whenever they are withing their maximum range. The “treadmill of time” I described in the previous post could be used to have the guns firing only when they “have a good shot”. Even so, as I said before, the ships in BSG move very slowly compared to the rate of fire of their weapons, so this doesn't have as large of an large impact that it does in SFB due to the combat environment being enforced by BSG canon.

Missiles in Deadlock, on the other hand, can be vastly enhanced by the “Baby Rube” I have described for Deadlock. Deadlock currently has your usual “computer game missiles”. They aren't anything like actual missiles. I'll leave electronic warfare out of this, or this will become 10 pages, and just use point defense as a single example. Like pretty much all computer games, there is no point defense in Deadlock and missiles never miss (they are also a “mindless chain on follow pursuit”). Missiles “missing” is intimately related to electronic warfare, so I'll skip that. All the ships should have point defense weapons covering all, or most, firing arcs. They might also have counter measures. The missiles should have very limited fuel/range. If you fire missiles at a ship running away from you at high speed, the missiles wouldn't have the fuel/range to even catch it. If you fire missiles as you are “crossing their T”, in other words when they are moving directly towards you, that is the best situation and achieves the highest rate of closure. There needs to be a dynamic to all this, instead of missiles just being the all powerful wonder weapon that they usually are in computer games.

If you assume a “standard missile attack” is 6 missiles, the point defenses should generally be able to bring down 2-to-5 incoming missiles depending on how well they do. Vipers and Cylon fighters should always try to shoot at any enemy missiles that pass within their range, but it is a low percentage shot. The point defenses are a lot more accurate in shooting down missiles than the fighters are. Now use SVC's 60 impulse version of Deadlock's “treadmill of time” I've created for it here. Use your predictive mechanics, SVC's impulses, Avalon Hill's concept of “assembling the battle”, and the few strings of Rube that I am holding all this together with, to “choreograph” how this is all going to work out over the course of Deadlock's “time bar”. In Deadlock when the player is setting movement plots they are “planning the future”. That known future allows your own predictive mechanics, through SVC's impulses, to “plan the future” of everything else that will occur around that movement plot and literally choreograph this battle into something that looks very realistic.

If you think this through more, now lets forget this is BSG and say the ships also have counter measures, electronic warfare, and tractor beams. So with all that it can probably defeat all 6 missiles, requiring coordinated missile attacks to overwhelm the defenses and actually hit a target. A single ship firing a volley of missiles is just a waste of missiles. And this is all simple to do, and to very precisely choreograph to have a very “realistic” feel too it, within this “Baby Rube” I have described for Deadlock (which in this case is almost entirely simply SVC's impulse chart). Each impulse has a sequence of play of everything that can happen during that impulse, in the order that it happens. Predictive mechanics are simple in the format of Deadlock, you know what the relationship of every object on the map will be in relation too each other during every impulse before it all happens. Anything that happens like point defense weapons firing, using a counter measure, electronic warfare, or a tractor beam to just grab and hold a missile, will happen during a specific sub-phase of a specific impulse. And you know this all ahead of time because even the simple “baby proto-Rube” of Deadlock “knows the future”.

So now the “AI” (or “automated rules”) can “plan the future” situationally, to choreograph (or “assemble”) the battle. For example, if the player tells two different ships to fire missiles at a single target both ships won't just fire missiles at the same time. The “AI” would determine, based on the known movement plots of the firing ships and target, when each ship needed to launch the missiles for them to arrive at the target at the same time. And then that would be made to happen through the impulses with their embedded sequence of play. And now you can imagine a captain saying “Wait for it... One more second... Fire!” in this battle when only one of the ships launch at the beginning of Deadlock's “time bar turn”, and the closer one delays until the timing will be right. Baby Rube “planning the future” to make Deadlock appear to be “more realistic”. “It's a Kind of Magic”;-)

Missiles are just a single, very simple, example of where this whole Deadlock thing winds up going after 40 years of refinement. This “treadmill of time” can handle literally anything that you want to put into it. As for missiles in computer games in general, this is actually only the tip of the iceberg of making “realistic missiles”, but by BSG canon these humans dislike and mistrust computers. So these very simple missiles and no EW environment seems appropriate in this game. In my own PDU universe there are over a dozen different EW abilities that might affect missiles in some way, counter measures, and something similar to a tractor beam that can be used to hold missiles until they can be shot down or run out of fuel. Missiles in computer games have always been really, really badly done.

This isn't Rube. This is “1st grade Rube” speeding along the evolution of BSG: Deadlock, because I am literally from 40 years in Deadlock's future. We already did this, this all exists already.  It's not an "idea" and I am not guessing, this has already existed for 40 years.  This is the very beginning of using Steve Cole's impulses in a different way, not the end of it. This is a first baby step, just a few strands of Rube tied around SVC's “second generation” impulses. But it's also the most detail that I've ever explained any of Rube's individual components, this is a much less sophisticated version of Rube's cardio-vascular system.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.