Jump to content
  • Advertisement
Kavik Kang

Nobody Wants A Cybergod?

Recommended Posts

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
Advertisement
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

" rel="external nofollow">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
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 this post


Link to post
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 this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
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... :P

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 this post


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

  • Advertisement
×

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

Participate in the game development conversation and more when you create an account on GameDev.net!

Sign me up!