# Nobody Wants A Cybergod?

## Recommended Posts

57 minutes ago, Kavik Kang said:

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”.

private IEnumerator FireWhenInRange(Int MaxRange,GameObject Attaker, GameObject Target)
{
while (Target != Null){
yield return new WaitForSeconds (0.1f);// Will only check 10 times a second for the target

var Distance = Vector3.Distance(Attaker.transform.position, Target.transform.position);
If ( Distance < MaxRange){//If the target is in range
FireMissile();
}
}
}
OnAwake(){
StartCoroutine(FireWhenInRange());//When the ship is created it starts looking for a target
}

No "treadmill of time" is needed modern languages have functions like that build into them that does it for you. This is how a AI instruction looks in Unity a mostly free game engine.

Also you will see in the above code I ask for the location of an object using the code, because the game already knows where it is. The engine knows the state of every object at that moment. Expanding to know more states have been tried and abandoned because of the huge amounts of data that is stored.

1 hour ago, Kavik Kang said:

So now the “AI” (or “automated rules”) can “plan the future” situationally, to choreograph (or “assemble”) the battle.

No planing is needed. The ships already know the details of other ships so they can just ask for the speed of the missile and the distance of both the enemy and friend. Then using a simple formula you can calculate how many phases the missile from ShipA and ShipB will take to reach the target. wait X phases and launch the missile.

Then here is what you did not consider: What if the X phases is a decimal? What if the target moves while you are waiting X phases?

Well there is a easy answer for both you just divide the phases into smaller phases. If the ships is moving away stop firing as it is no longer possible to hit it at the same time unless you have missiles faster than the firs. If it moves closer shorten the wait time.

This is not knowing the future, this is the developer planing for possible actions and then adding branches to the code to deal with it.

Do you understand that Rube sounds just like a modern programming language?

1 hour ago, Kavik Kang said:

This “treadmill of time” can handle literally anything that you want to put into it.

That is the problem it can only handle any scenario you think off. The problem is the player doesn't always act the way you think they will, even using game theory you can only predict what the players should have done; not what they will do.

1 hour ago, Kavik Kang said:

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.

Yes, because programming turned int your idea of Rube to help developers do things like you describe.

You should play more modern games, examples like what you describe can be found everywhere; because it takes only a few lines of code to replicate it.

##### Share on other sites

I am already aware of all of that Scouting Ninja, and I play modern games all the time.  You are speaking Avalon Hill too me, that's first generation stuff.  70 years old from my perspective.

The missile example was intentionally a very simple one, focused on a single thing. And that was just a single component of my Rube, it's cardio-vascular system. Like I had said, the example I was giving with Deadlock was just Steve Cole's impulse chart and what it can do all by itself (with just a few general concepts taken from Rube to help out). That's just the cardio-vascular that runs through Rube, not Rube. My Rube is an “artificial universe” (MeeSo!!!) that looks a lot like what you know as “The Matrix”. Assuming a computer existed that could handle it, which I doubt is the case right now, and the many decades it would take just to create the content, my Rube can handle everything that exists in reality simultaneously. It is an “artificial universe” that, assuming an “Ultimate Infinity Rube” (where all of Rube's components have infinite capacity), could re-recreate the entire planet Earth and everything on it in exacting detail. A complete “artificial universe” of the planet Earth complete with every human, animal, insect, plant, building, car... everything that exists in reality all “controlled” by a single “God”! In a theoretical “Ultimate Infinity Rube” all of reality could be re-created in exacting detail within Rube's artificial “time combined with reality”.

Of course, all of the bottlenecks that you are imagining are valid. That's why “Ultimate Infinity Rube” as described on my blog is theoretical. Current computers can't do it, they don't have the computing power to handle Ultimate Infinity Rube. The “humans” of this artificial universe would only be as “intelligent” as present AI would be capable of making them, it would take over a century just to create the content, etc. All of that is true, which is why “Ultimate Infinity Rube” is only theoretical. But it's still the E=MC2 of simulation design. My games aren't like “The Matrix”. Territories and Armageddon are like very “board game primitive” versions of The Matrix, you can see it in them. That's where I discovered Rube, by seeing the foundation and spine of it within Territories. But Territories is not The Matrix, it just has “Matrix-like qualities”.

Rube is a physical construct, not a game. My games are based on this physical construct, exactly as I used just a single component of this physical construct with Deadlock to provide the very simple and basic example that I gave in this thread, and show you a glimpse of the future of where Deadlock would ultimately go if it were further developed for a few decades. Rube the physical construct, with all of it's components having an infinite capacity/capability, is The Matrix (Territories), a holodeck (Mission), cyberspace, or a self-programming computer with omniscient communication (Struggle 1: GIBROH) depending on how you use it. Out of habit I say “Rube” whenever I am using this physical construct in any way, which confuses the issue. My games are not full-blown artificial universes, GIBROH comes the closest to being that, but they are based on a design for an artificial universe that actually functions. There won't ever be an actual “fully-powered Rube” in our lifetimes, because “Ultimate Infinity Rube” is still far beyond our ability to create... even though I can tell you exactly how to create it.

Rube is a complete general simulation of “time combined with reality”. We didn't set out to create a cybergod. Avalon Hill created the primitive “phases” that you still think in terms of today. You think in “first generation” terms, Avalon Hill, a way of thinking that from my perspective is 70 years old. Steve Cole took the idea of “phases”, as you know them, to the next level in the mid-1970's with his “Impulse Chart” and “Mass-Based Proportional Movement”. And our “treadmill of time” went from being steam-powered to being warp-powered. Steve Cole introduced the concept that it was not simply “time” that needed to be represented, but “time combined with reality”. His “impulse with embedded sequence of play”. I then took that and used that warp-powered “treadmill of time combined with reality” to complete the work, and created a complete general simulation of how “time combined with reality” function. It wasn't until that moment, when this 70 years of work had been completed, that what it actually was became visible. Not until it existed could you step back and look at it and see that, very surprisingly too me (it took me a couple months to come to grips with), a complete general simulation of “time combined with reality” is indistinguishable from what we perceive as “God”. There is no difference between them, they function identically. This is the main reason that Rube can be so hard to understand, it can seem like nothing at all... “you haven't done anything, that's just how reality functions”. It's a compliment, actually... yet another indication that I have it right! But it makes it difficult to explain and difficult for people to understand, because sometimes Rube can seem like “nothing at all”. Of course, that's what you should expect of a simulation of “time combined with reality”, right? That it would often look like... just reality. That's why I sometimes say “It's a Kind of Magic”, because sometimes reality and Rube are the same thing and can't be distinguished from each other.

This really is for real, and I really do know what I am talking about. The foundation of Rube has existed since before your industry existed, I am not imagining things. I continued this work from where it had left off, you began re-inventing the wheel from scratch in the early 1980's. That's not an insult, that explains how this has happened. It explains how I can literally be 50 years ahead of you in this area. You abandoned this knowledge and started over from scratch, leaving us about 50 years ahead of you here in 2017. I was kind of a “young wiz kid” of the final days of this era of gaming, so today I am among what have to be a very few people left in the world who have this level of knowledge of this form of simulation design. Almost everyone else who ever knew these things is no longer with us. In many ways, Rube is an “accident of history” that wouldn't exist if I were not abnormally obsessed with simulation design and had never let it go even after all this time.

##### Share on other sites

Do you actually have any code or documents yet? Anything concrete that people can use themselves?

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@Kavik Kang I suggest summarizing your ideas in 20 lines or less, the lenght of your post is the reason I have no idea what this topic is all about...

Edited by MarcusAseth

##### Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Hodgman said:

Do you actually have any code or documents yet? Anything concrete that people can use themselves?

Thats the part he's been saying people might steal/plagiarise/or run away with

On 05/08/2017 at 11:09 PM, 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, 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.

Lets hope he has a change of mind

And this too::

Quote

@Kavik Kang I suggest summarizing your ideas in 20 lines or less, the lenght of your post is the reason I have no idea what this topic is all about...

The length  is massive, details too long winding and poorly explained. Also if its not too much to ask, some graphics and/or diagrams would help

##### Share on other sites

Hodgeman.  I am not a programmer, although I have used computers since the days of DOS.  I think, in reality, you would have a classification of "programmer" that describes what I can directly do.  I have been involved with making one computer game before, Sinistar: Unleashed at GameFX.  There it took one of their programmers about an hour to show me how to alter the values they exposed too me in raw text data files (getting all those parentheses to be equal, etc), and then after asking him questions occasionally for the first couple weeks, I made all of the game levels using those raw data files and testing them with local builds.  So, whatever you would call that, that is my level of "programming" ability based on having been pretty good with DOS and system configuration (for playing games, of course) on the earliest PCs.  I am just a game designer.

I have design documents in various stages for most of the games, all of the first half of them.  My "board game primitive" proof-of-concept of Rube game is Territories, where I first noticed/discovered it.  I've been creating this universe for about 20 years now, the PDU began in 1997.  I first noticed what I now call "Rube" within Territories, which is very old and has existed in many forms over the years.  Since noticing Rube in it, a new "full notes" version of it is about have way to being done.  It would take me another month or two of working on it to bring it back to what I call "full notes" form, which from there takes 3 or 4 months to bring it to what I call a "first draft" state like Pirate Dawn is on my blog.  That is what I consider to be a starting point for discussion in a game development process, not anything close to a rigid guide to creating the game.  Since noticing Rube as a physical construct, Territories has been dismantled back to starting over because I have such a better understanding of what it is now.  I learned long ago not to bother taking a design document to "first draft" state, like the old version of Pirate Dawn on my blog, because you always wind up undoing it all later when too many new ideas have made it obsolete.  So I generally only go to "full notes", where Territories/Rube is headed back for, which is always then only 3 or 4 months away from being ready to go.

Grumpyolddude.  This is a semi-humorous response, but also a true one.  That's Rube for you... One of the last of my blog posts describes "MeeSo", and you get to meet him.  MeeSo "with the tank tread", is the "Rube II" of Territories.  I doubt it will help much, though!  Haha!  I'm sorry, I just couldn't resist... and it does also answer your question.  MeeSo is Rube, most of him anyway.  If only he didn't have that crippling tank tread!

##### Share on other sites

I've given the Deadlock example I came here to give, hopefully it makes a difference. I'm happy to discuss this if anyone wants too, like some of the questions I just answered. But I'm not going to argue for the sake of arguing and prolong this thread with off-topic issues. I am not trying to make an annoyance of myself. So other than any serious questions anyone has, I gave it one more try. There is nothing that I can do about your industry being absolutely insistent that a 20-something recent graduate of the Devry School of Game Design is an “expert professional worthy of consideration” and a person who has been designing games for over 40 years, longer than your industry has even existed, is a “know nothing fool who we won't even consider” who can't possibly compare to a 22-year-old who says “I like games”. This dogmatic insistence of yours is just plain incompetence, and I can't overcome that. In reality, Rube makes a good argument that today, in 2017, I am the top person in this field. I did it! Towards the end of my life I completed the work of the primary branch of the hobbyist game industry. A general simulation of time combined with reality that results in the framework of a uniform artificial universe, the literal “Holy Grail” of game design. That's not arrogance or delusions of grandeur, I would think that it's pretty obvious that at this moment in time I am a serious candidate for being called “the top person in the field today”. And yet, in your minds, not even worthy of consideration compared to a child with almost no experience or knowledge of the subject. That's just incompetence on your part, and there is nothing that I can do about that.

I will not have internet access between August 20th and the last week of September. So, in the unlikely event that anyone tries to contact me, I won't see any e-mails during that month. Maybe, if I am lucky, someone in this industry might finally decide that maybe, just maybe, someone with 40 years of experience might actually be a better choice, and know just a little bit more, and make better games, than a 22-year-old who says “I like games a lot”. It's a radical concept in your minds, I know, but maybe somebody out there might actually consider it.

Finally, if there is anyone out there who actually got into the story of the Pirate Dawn Universe presented on my blog and, taken all together it probably all amounts to a 200+ page book, I would very much like to hear what you think about it. The story itself. I'm no great writer, and I fully realize that this story will never shine for other people as it does for me until a professional editor fixes my elementary-level grammar, prose, and composition. That's not my talent, that's their talent, and just like simulation design, or playing football like John Elway, you have to be born with that talent. You can't learn it, not to be truly good at it. But I really have spent over 20 years coming up with this mythology, pseudo-science, and intricately inter-woven story of the history of all of humanity from the formation of the Earth to the explosion of the sun... and a few hundred years beyond that, actually. When I spent a year putting the blog together from my files on the 19 games of the Pirate Dawn Universe (I don't mention the “side-games” I would never live long enough to make at this point on the blog), I thought I couldn't lose this time around because by focusing on the story this time I would at least finally find out what people thought about the story. Still now, if nothing else comes of this I really would like to at least hear what people think of the story. At least just one person, but the more the better. You can send me a private message.

I'm really shocked I haven't heard from at least one Rush fan... I would have thought at least one Rush fan would have said at least something about it! You won't pick up on much of what is there by skimming through it, I'd really like to hear from someone who has actually gotten into it, and there is kind of a built in test for that. So I'd really like to hear from anyone who has come to realize who Cindy McAllen actually is. I intentionally made that more obvious on the blog than it is in my files, anyone who has actually gotten into the story will eventually realize who she is. So if you know who Cindy is, I'd love to hear what you think of the story. Even if you hate it... especially if you hate it! But if you like it, too, that would of course also be nice to hear. My biggest concern is the “weird, off-the-wall, oddness” I have tried to add too it in some places. I love it, but I've always worried about how it all comes across to other people. So if anyone out there has actually got into the story, I'd really like to hear what people think about it. Just for myself, and to maybe tone down the “strangeness” if that just isn't working. I want to complete the “spine and ribs” of the story just for myself even if I never wind up making any of the games.

“...and the stars look down.” - Pirate Dawn Universe ;-)

##### Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Kavik Kang said:
2 hours ago, Hodgman said:

Do you actually have any code or documents yet? Anything concrete that people can use themselves?

No.

^^I fixed that for you^^

You are very good at posting huge amounts of text, but don't have anything concrete that other people can interact with... which means we have nothing to talk about, and most people have very little motivation to dig through your massive amounts of text.

If you want people to be excited for you, either produce a concrete thing that they can play with, or, work on conveying your ideas in a much more concise and clear form.

##### Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Kavik Kang said:

This dogmatic insistence of yours is just plain incompetence, and I can't overcome that. In reality, Rube makes a good argument that today, in 2017, I am the top person in this field. I did it!

I dont think anyone has yet Argued that Rube isnt some revolutionary breakthrough in gaming ... what people have argued is.. the very little youve said so far.. already exists, the slightly more youve elaborated on just either isnt possible technically yet due to hardware limitations, or just doesnt work in a non turn based environment ...

And then the rest of rube you refuse to share because "someone will steal it" ...  so you may be the best game designer ever... but your refusal to share the design, makes that a moot point entirely ... I mean, if I told you that I know how to cause perfect cell replication in the human body... but im not going to share that... it just seems likely that I havent.. and even if I have.. its a moot point...

You mostly, from your posts here just seem like inconsistent ramblings about how old turn based board games are better than modern games and how you like simulations ... If you actually divulged some details to what makes rube special instead of just "because its special" .. then ya know.. people may take you more seriously

##### Share on other sites

It's been very nearly ten years since Marc/Kavik/Pirate_Lord started posting here and nothing has really changed in his posts.  I don't expect he's likely to suddenly change and actually explain himself now.  I'll leave it up to each individual to decide if they want to spend time engaging in this conversation again or not.

@Kavik Kang : Just how many times are you planning on beating this dead horse making "one last post" about this?  If nothing else, it's hurting your credibility when you don't keep your word over and over again.   You don't even ever try anything new, just the same old overly long insane ramblings where you don't give any actual details but insist we should believe you have this revolutionary idea.

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

It's been very nearly ten years since Marc/Kavik/Pirate_Lord started posting here and nothing has really changed in his posts.

I know, right? At least he could learn the difference between "to" and "too".

Also, he still *hates* Devry, man.

Edited by mikeman

##### Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Kavik Kang said:

today, in 2017, I am the top person in this field. I did it!

I think we're done here.

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

--------------
Assuming a computer existed that could handle it, which I doubt is the case right now, and the many decades it would take just to create the content, my Rube can handle everything that exists in reality simultaneously. It is an “artificial universe” that, assuming an “Ultimate Infinity Rube” (where all of Rube's components have infinite capacity), could re-recreate the entire planet Earth and everything on it in exacting detail.

--------------

Assuming a computer existed that could handle it, *any* programming language could do that. You just need to write the correct instructions.

I really think, like Scouting Ninja said, you've re-"discovered" what one can do with general-purpose programming, and you're so overwhelmed by it because you're unaware that...we've already been doing it. Deadlock's missiles behaving "dumb"(if they do, I'm taking your word for it) isn't because its designers lack the language to describe a "smart" behaviour. It's all just scripting. Write a script that implements a missile with finite instead of infinite fuel, and it happens. Basically, with any turing-complete programming language you can implement any set of rules you can think of. Yeah...it *is* "kind of magic"...but we already know it?

Now, I *assume* what you're getting at(it's really hard to get through all the walls of text) is : Okay we wrote a new script that now implement the missiles with finite fuel, so if you fire a missile after a ship that is accelerating away from you, it will not reach it. But that doesn't automagically alter the behaviour of the pilots - they are still firing missiles the "old" way. Two solutions are :

1) Update the pilot logic script, so it takes into account now that missiles have finite fuel - calculate before firing if the missile can actually make a hit before running out of fuel. This is an ad-hoc solution, each time you add a new "behaviour" like "finite fuel", you must update the pilot AI too.

2) Have a more general-purpose solution. The pilot AI simulates internally the trajectory of the missile, up until some time T. Predict the future, that is. In intervals, the pilot asks "what if I launch a missile now"? The game engine can answer that question by creating a "parallel" simulation where the missile is launched, and examine what happens. If the simulation shows the missile launch will result in good hit, then the pilot actually does launch it(or has some % chance of launching it, if we want the pilot not to always be correct).

This is more general-purpose, because, if implemented correctly, you don't need to update the pilot AI each time you alter the behaviour of the missiles - the hypothetical/parallel simulation the game runs in order to ask the question "if I launch the missile now, what will happen to it" takes into account whatever missile behaviour you have implemented - heat seeking, finite fuel, electronic warfare, whatever. The downside is, of course, it's usually more performance-intensive to do, especially when you consider all the permutation of decisions you need to make. This is indeed as if each pilot is asking an omniscient "god" - "if I launch a missile now, will it result in a good hit" and this "god"(the game engine that is) creates a parallel world where the missile is fired, simulates it up until X time, and comes up with an answer. The only thing the game can't know is the human player's reaction - it can only guess at what are the most probable. I'm *guessing* this is what your magical "Rube" is supposed to do, but again it's very hard to decipher your walls of text, and you're not being very specific anyway.

------------

I am already aware of all of that Scouting Ninja, and I play modern games all the time.  You are speaking Avalon Hill too me, that's first generation stuff.  70 years old from my perspective

------------

No, he's demonstrating what algorithms are. So, you know. About 2500 years from our perspective.

Edited by mikeman

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

It's not as if nobody's ever implemented "missiles" that had limited range and relied only on sensors to track their targets. This footage is from a game that's supposed to come out next year.

And this is gameplay footage from "Cold Waters," the spiritual successor to "Red Storm Rising" - a submarine game that came out in 1989. Pretty much all cold war-era and post-cold war era sub simulators have wire-guided homing torpedoes and missiles that have limited fuel and can have their seekers confused by countermeasures. I've seen AIs in these games do things like send commands to re-aim their torpedoes when I successfully evade them.

"Cold Waters" was made in Unity, I believe, which is something that you have easy access to (https://unity3d.com/).

Edited by Oberon_Command

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Well yeah, that's the point, I don't think anybody here is arguing that we lack the "language" to implement any behaviour we want into a game's entities. It's just a matter of figuring out what kind of rules we want to implement, and actually doing it.

I mean, at least Kavig Kang *has* given a concrete example, but that only made things more confusing.

----------------------

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”;-)

----------------------

Cool I guess, but, like others have said, that's...just programming? I'm half a mind at this point that Kavik Kang, whenever he sees a game lacking an "X" behaviour he considers should be in the game, he thinks the designers were literally unable to describe this behaviour. I actually think, like I said, he re-created in his mind the concept of algorithms and general-purpose programming, the basic concept of game loop and/or input-processing-output and thinks it's something new. I mean, I am really trying to decipher his walls of text, but he uses weird expressions to describe familiar concepts:

- "Treadmill of time" : Okay, so the game world updates its state in discrete time steps? That's it? That's what every game does.

- "Functioning simulation of God" : Joking aside, as "God" we could probably describe an entity that has perfect knowledge about the current state of every component of the world and can perfectly predict its future state(omniscience), and also can change the state of any component at will(omnipotence). For our own physical universe, that would be the God(s) of monotheistic religions. For a virtual universe, a game that is, ...that's just the game engine, the program itself. So again, what are we talking about here?

Of course, I could be wrong, but he has to give us at least one example of an actual problem that "Rube" solves. in what way it makes existing games "better". So far the most he has given is "Deadlock's missiles don't do this thing" and naturally the response was "okay...but we could program them to do it"? Does "Rube" generates the rules on its own or something? And based on what?

Edited by mikeman

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 6/8/2017 at 2:15 AM, OandO said:

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...

I may be way off here too, but from what I read, impulse charts, or impulse-based turn system is a way to implement fast-moving ships with short-range weapons, overcoming the limitation of hex-based turn-based gameplay.

Like, in a traditionally turn-based system, you would roll the speed of your ship, then you would move your ship as many hexes as the dice rolled. The problem is that the ship isn't supposed to teleport, in its way to its final destination it could be in the range of another ship that could fire upon it, but since the whole thing happens in one step, you simply can't simulate that this way.

So what SFB does is : Break the game turn into sub-steps(32 maximum). Each player rolls the dice simultaneously, rolling a speed of 1-32. So you have 32 sub-steps(actually, I would guess you would really have as much sub-steps as the maximum speed rolled) inside the turn and the impulse chart determines which ships can move(by only 1 hex I assume) each impulse. I'm guessing if you rolled 1 you can only move 1 substep out of 32, if you rolled rolled 16 you can move only half the substeps, with 32 you can move during all substeps. Also guessing that this restrictions are only for movement - "slow" ships can still fire their weapons each substep.

It's a clever way to overcome the limitation of turn-based system and a map divided into limited hexes, although I imagine it takes a long time to complete a turn this way. In any case, it seems Kavik Kang claims he has invented a uber-version of it that can deal with any conceivable scenario, so I'm guessing it's only for turn-based games. Still not sure about the whole "cybergod" thing, but since he refuses to divulge any more info, let's just accept it's possible he has come up with something good - the question is what he expects from the community.

Edited by mikeman

##### Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, mikeman said:

Kavik Kang claims he has invented a uber-version of it that can deal with any conceivable scenario

I think he is claiming to have some kind of rule set that can make any game fun, although that is a paradox because games as sub rule sets that are no two alike.

So the only other thing I can think of is that he some how invented a guide for making games. Using these guide rules people could design complex rules for there own games.

These guide rules he designed is also not limited to making games, you could make any kind of instruction with them, even replicate the universe by recreating the rules of life.

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, Scouting Ninja said:

I think he is claiming to have some kind of rule set that can make any game fun, although that is a paradox because games as sub rule sets that are no two alike.

So the only other thing I can think of is that he some how invented a guide for making games. Using these guide rules people could design complex rules for there own games.

These guide rules he designed is also not limited to making games, you could make any kind of instruction with them, even replicate the universe by recreating the rules of life.

But we already know what the "rules" of nature are.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model

I mean, we know it's not the complete "theory of everything" and tbh I'm not sure if even a classical model of the universe is computable, but that's what we have. Kavik even mentioning "simulating things in sub-atomic scale" which seems like another totally bizarre thing to say - AFAIK scientists at CERN run particle simulations all the time, is he saying this "Rube" things is somehow better than what they use? Or...what?

Anyway, after all this time, we have absolutely no idea what this "Rube" *is* and what it *does*, apart that is super-duper awesome but Kavig Kang can't tell us because we'll steal it.

Kavig Kang, assumine we all concede you have something great in your your hands, but you can't reveal what it is...the question is, what do you seek from this community of mostly hobbyists othan that "congratulations, man!" ? What do you want us to *do* in order for Rube not to be buried with you or something? We certainly can't spread the word about it; we don't know what it is.

Edited by mikeman

##### Share on other sites

It's been very nearly ten years since Marc/Kavik/Pirate_Lord started posting here

I thought it sounded like Pirate_Lord!

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mikeman said:

this community of mostly hobbyists

There are probably more professionals here than you think, I don't think 'mostly hobbyists' is actually accurate when looking at regular visitors.

##### Share on other sites

The description about missiles, being the most concrete description given so far, is interesting. While I've not played the game, so I can only speculate, it sounds like such an approach has the potential to add additional mechanical depth to such a game.

Now, to play devils advocate against such an approach. from your description it sounds like it takes power away from the player and gives it to the ship "captain", which may not be ideal. For example, imagine the ship in question is likely to be destroyed shortly - perhaps the player would rather the missiles be fired now while the ship is definitely alive rather than gamble on whether it gets to the "perfect" attack position. Or perhaps the player has a different goal in mind, maybe they want to feint an attack for some reason, hoping to distract or panic the opponent (assuming multiplayer).

Off the top of my head, and bearing in mind I've not played the game in question, another approach might be to make it easier for the player to co-ordinate attacks between multiple ships, rather than to try automate this for them. This might feel more subjectively fun approach, the player feels like they've executed the tactics rather than issuing an order and watching the game "play itself".

In any case, it is very important to realise that the lack of intricate details is not a flaw in a game. The fact that the game chooses a simplistic modelling of missiles is likely an intentional choice. The designer may be trading off such depth for other goals like shorter play sessions or reducing the complexity to achieve a broader appeal. That is not to mention the production difficulties like trying to integrate many competing features in a balanced and accessible fashion, or simply the commercial necessities of completing the game in a given timeframe.

Incredibly detailed simulations exist (e.g. Dwarf Fortress), but they are a niche.

In contrast, if you look at ancient games with relatively simple and abstract rules. like chess or go. They're deep game in a different way, ones you can play for a lifetime. Their lack of detail is not a limitation, their enduring popularity attests to this.

Maybe you've got a decent idea, but that shouldn't take away from the many developers designing different games and being successful with it.

##### Share on other sites

No, you didn't “fix it”, Hodgeman. I do actually have a 20-page thing on Rube that are notes too myself I didn't bother mentioning, because Territories is where Rube will actually come from. I know exactly what Rube is, I've been using it my whole life. It is second nature too me at this point. This is not stuff you already know, what you know is Avalon Hill's phased-turns. SVCs impulses are quite a bit more sophisticated than that. And Rube is yet even another step beyond that. What you already know is similar, but primitive by comparison. You still don't seem to get that your way of doing this is the elementary school level version of just the cardio-vascular system of Rube. It's not just the key piece I am leaving out that is making Rube so “invisible” too you, is it equally that you don't really have a frame of reference to understand the “third generation” of this. You are thinking in terms of the “phased-turns”, when the “cybergod” runs on “impulses”. You want some reading to do? The SFB impulse chart and sequence of play would take you into the second generation to at least have better, and more modern, frame of reference to understand some of this. An SFB expert would understand a lot of things in this thread, and on my blog, that you don't.

It's not that I am “worried someone will steal my idea”, or care about money. Rube is how I make games. It's my style, the thing that makes my games so uniquely different than everyone elses. Since it is very unlikely I will ever actually get to make one of my computer games, I'm certainly not going to reveal exactly what my style of making games is and then watch people start making games in what really is my unique style of doing it. That's what Rube is, in a way, just my unique way of making games that results in unique games. No different than Will Wright is seen as having a unique style. It's bad enough for me that I never get to make any of my games, I wouldn't be able to take watching other people making games in my style while I still don't get to make mine. I would think anyone could understand that. It isn't about anyone “stealing my idea”, or money, it's about my own sanity in the future.

Mikeman, table-top games were a lot more sophisticated than you are imagining. You don't roll dice to determine how many moves you have in SFB. Those would be like “Candyland” rules. Steve Cole also introduced the concept of “energy allocation” to gaming. Faster Than Light is simply two fundamental components of SFB, the Energy Allocation Form and Ship System Display.

SFB's impulse chart, used in a very different way, is just one of six components of what I call Rube. Like on the first post of my blog...

Top Spinning Wheel of Time (Heaven)

Rube Goldberg Card Sorting Machine (God)

“Living Entities” within the A/P Map (Souls)

Active/Passive Map (Mortal World, AKA “The Matrix”)
Bottom Spinning Wheel of Time (Hell)

That's what I call the “Rube II” of Territories. Something like SVC's impulse chart runs through all five of those components. This is a general of framework of time combined with reality. A uniform simulation of any part of reality, or all of reality, that you want it too be. That, in turn, has long been known (at least in my day it was) as the “Holy Grail” of simulations that would be useful to science. That's the reason I pointed out that it even works at a sub-atomic level. That's not useful to me and making games, but could be to scientific simulations. You can define Rube's “moments of time containing reality” as any length you want and it all still works. The shorter they are the more detailed the simulation is, but the more computing power it takes... exponentially more than you are imagining because of that part I always leave out. It really does function exactly like what we perceive as God.

Kylo: I had thought my point would be obvious when I said that. My point was that I am a lot closer to that than any 20-something recent graduate of the Devry School of Game Design. Rube doesn't qualify me as a game designer in your eyes, 40 years of experience doesn't either, but you'll hire a 22-year-old in a heartbeat. It's just plain insulting. Do you hear me saying I that expect Rube to make me wealthy? Or trying to start my own company? I just want to make games. I would think that 40 years of experience would be enough all by itself, but no. I was certain Rube would be enough... but no. If I was 22 and went to the Devry School of Game Design, then it wouldn't be a problem? What do I have to do to finally be seen as at least the equal of someone with almost no experience, and even less knowledge? Your industry is like the twilight zone from my perspective. It really is.

Forgetting Rube, you have no idea what I could do to Deadlock. I could advanced that game 20 years in 20 months. Not just me, I know a dozen other people who could do the same thing. Because we are all from 40 years in its future. But none of them know computer games half as well as I do.

##### Share on other sites

Talking about Devry graduates for a minute... they're not exceptionally skilled, and they aren't hired as team leads or genius designers. Many studios in fact prefer to hire people with traditional degrees and strong portfolios instead if candidates are available, as the education tends to be more well rounded. Devry graduates are expected to be entry level employees who will still require on-the-job training.

But, Devry graduates will generally have a baseline of demonstrably useful skill in their chosen discipline: a hiring manager can trust that they have basic programming or asset creation skills, have worked on small-team projects, and have demonstrated that they can see something through to completion. They will have a portfolio demonstrating their basic skills.

To compete with these people for a job, you first need to be applying for the same entry level jobs (not claiming you will revolutionise the industry). You will need similar demonstrably useful skills (you can't just say you have them, you need proof). You need a similar portfolio of work you have completed, where the interviewer can be reasonably sure of what your contribution is.

Once you're on a par with those things you'll need to pass the interview: if a seemingly equally qualified candidate seems more likeable they will get the job before you. If you seem full of yourself you are less likely to get the job. If you can't communicate with others clearly you are less likely to get the job.

Let's be honest: as you've presented yourself, it's perfectly normal and correct that a Devry graduate should get a job you miss out on - but those people aren't getting the jobs you seem to feel entitled to anyway, so there's not really any point repeatedly mentioning them.