Nobody Wants A Cybergod?

Recommended Posts

I'm mostly reiterating what has been said before:

What exactly are you looking for here in this forum?

The concrete things that you have elaborated on are nothing that haven't been done before. Honestly, you don't seem like a terrible game designer. Many of the things you've stated are decent mechanics. However, I don't think your ideas are half as original as you think. You come off as an arrogant ****. No one wants to work with an arrogant ****.

You have a huge presentation problem. If you cut out the hyperbole, namedropping, blaming, and self boasting your posts are quite empty. Show or describe something concise and tangible. The game industry is not your problem. Even if the fools in 'the industry' are the root of your problems, do you expect an entire industry to change? Has your current approach been working for you?

It isn't too late to change. It won't be easy, change is hard.

I think rube is either not as revolutionary as you think, or not feasible with current computing power to be revolutionary. If you die without rube being realized that's on you not us. I hope you prove me wrong. Good luck.

 

Also: Children of a Dead Earth

A game that I would pit against any spaceship game that you concoct in your lifetime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 8/5/2017 at 2:27 PM, Kavik Kang said:

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

I doubt that anyone on this forum doesn't understand the significance of the idea but that's all it is at the moment, an idea. All we have is your word that Rube is an actual 'thing'.

People tend not to care about other peoples ideas; everyone has ideas. If you want help building it though  this is the place; gamedev.net is an exceptional helpful community.

Demonstrate what it is Rube can do, show us why we should care.

Edited by Capoeirista

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nacro: I am just trying to find a way to make at least one of my games, I would assume Territories, before I die. I've spent my entire life on this since I was 7 years old, I'd just like to publish at least just one game before I die. I tried it the normal way for 20 years, in all that time only one game company ever even responded too me. Someone early gave me advice about interviews... I've been hired at every game company interview I have ever been too. I don't have 20 years to manage to get a single response again. There is also the issue that just sending a resume to someone that lists the Task Force Games and the Star Fleet Universe as your primary experience does no good when nobody has heard of it before, or understands the significance of who we (and our fearless leader) even were.

I always forget to mention this, but because of IKNFL Sierra offered both me and my brother jobs designing Front Page Sports Football 99 out of the blue. I hadn't even sent them anything. Of course, my luck, that came at the same time as GameFX so I had to choose between them.

To put some of the things I say into perspective, I really only make two kinds of games. Like pretty much all game designers I have one or two things I do well. I would never dream of competing with an FPS guy making an FPS, or an RPG guy making an RPG. With the sole exception of Armageddon Chess which is a board game where all I have really done is add a simple combat system to chess, all of the games of the PDU are either strategy war games or tactical space ship games. That's my thing, that's what I do. I can only make a truly good sports game with my sports-guru brother to put the final paint job on it, I can't do that alone. There are no RPGs in the PDU, because people who like RPGs wouldn't like mine. Same goes for everything else. If you are a talented “FPS guy”, you are the reason I can't make an FPS. Mine would suck compared to yours. If I tried to make an RPG I'm sure anyone who likes RPGs would say “this isn't an RPG, this is X-Com with a few RPG elements”... and they'd be right. That's why I wouldn't try to make an RPG. The RPG guys would destroy me. I don't think I can do everything, I make strategy war games and tactical space ship games. That's it. I can't compete with anyone who is talented at working in any other genre because that's their thing, and it's not my thing.

I thought that I should take the time to give you an example of this knowledge of “2D ACM without gravity” (most of it also applies in 3D) that I had mentioned in the previous post. This is not my knowledge, this is the accumulated knowledge of hundreds, if not thousands, of people over a period of 40 years. I possess this knowledge at a level that maybe only three or four dozen other people in the world do. I was never an great “ace”, I was a great “rules lawyer”. One of the most complex subjects within this body of knowledge is what we call “The Kaufman Retrograde”. This is one of those types of subjects that has no final answer and another SFB expert and I could endlessly debate several points I will make, so this is partly my take on what is an endlessly debatable subject. This is a very brief and incomplete synopsis of this concept, any true SFB expert could easily write 10 pages about this subject before needing to stop to think of something to write next.

The Kaufman Retrograde has a deep effect across almost all aspects of the tactics of “2D ACM without gravity”. The basic concept is simple. A ship moving away from a pursuer is at a great advantage. Any mines dropped by the running ship are weapons moving quickly towards a pursuer, any mines laid by the pursuer are simply left behind and irrelevant to the enemy. Any missiles launched by the pursuer have a long, slow, uphill climb to the enemy. Any missiles launched by the running ship have a significantly increased rate of closure. The design of the ships would change this, but as the ships of the SFU are designed the Kaufman Retrograde can be almost a 3:1 advantage. Three equal ships would be a fair fight against a retrograding opponent. It can make that big of a difference depending on the design of the ships involved. This is probably the most serious balance issue within this type of combat environment, it affects most aspects of tactics and maneuver.

Although it is always a viable tactic, sometimes even only very briefly without any extended pursuit taking place, the retrograde is normally only a serious balance issue when the sole objective is attrition (the destruction of ships). You can't attack an objective by running away from it, you can't defend an objective by running away from it. The retrograde is not usually a balance issue whenever there is an objective other than attrition. So adding an objective to a scenario/map can be used to eliminate or at least mitigate this as a balance problem. The best general “solution” when the objective is attrition that the SFB community knows of is to limit the size of the map, what we call “the boxing ring”. Because of the Kaufman Retrograde map size is a critical factor in balancing a tactical space ship game. An “open map”, one that is not restricted in size, will provide a large advantage to any ships that excel at the retrograde, which are usually ships with seeking weapons such as missiles and plasma torpedoes. It can also make for very long, drawn out, and boring fights. Space might be infinite, and it might seem “right” that the map should be endless, but you will encounter very serious balance issues on an “open map”.

This is a core subject, a part of the very beginning of truly understanding the “2D ACM without gravity” that governs this type of combat. You don't have to tell me, I already know that you are aware of this concept by whatever term you use for it. You can't miss it, it jumps off the map/screen at you. But, based on your games, you don't understand many of the implications of it. I've played most of your space ship games and they are riddled with easily solved problems caused by the Kaufman Retrograde. If you had this knowledge, those obvious and simple to resolve issues wouldn't be there.

Going back to the Deadlock example I've been using, and applying this to that issue, the retrograde is not really a factor in Deadlock. The ships move so slowly, the combat is at such close range, and the missiles are moving so fast compared to the ships that the Kaufman Retrograde effect is essentially not present in Deadlock. Deadlock is one thing, an approach into an endless knife fight. I don't doubt that Deadlock will be a game that a lot of people like, it looks like I will like it because I love this stuff so much. But, in reality, there is almost nothing too the combat in Deadlock... “gamers don't miss what they have never had.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...and there you go again, just ignoring the advice I gave. What you're telling us might be true, but it's not verifiable or believable.

5 hours ago, Kavik Kang said:

I did not just help with the SFB tactics manual, I as a member of the Staff who represented the Romulans during my time on the staff.  

[...]

 I was also one of only four people to ever be hired by the company, I actually worked at Task Force Games.

Maybe true, but not verifiable or believable. Where is the design credit on the released product to show this?

If you just keep saying it without any proof it looks like unbelievable hyperbole.

 

Share this post


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

And I have shown you 14 inter-woven games on my blog...

No, you haven't. You've talked a lot about the games, and most of it has actually been bits of story and songs which probably don't mean the same thing to you as to other people (because enjoyment of music is subjective) no matter how much they've tried to understand your rambling. You've given us a lot of history about FSB that doesn't actually help us to judge your skills.

The games you've actually given us? 10 years ago you gave us a poorly written and disorganises 'design document' for Pirate Dawn. More recently you gave us a design for Armageddon Chess, claiming it would be revolutionary, but then backing down to "it's only a rough prototype" when you got feedback that it wasn't very fun.

So you've arguably given us two games, and with only one playable (and that taking a lot of work) I'd argue only one.

So I say again, where are the complete, polished, playable games showing your work? Rambling about 14 (I thought it was 10 or 12?) games with no depth to the information just doesn't count, any unskilled kid could do that. 

Share this post


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

One of the most complex subjects within this body of knowledge is what we call “The Kaufman Retrograde”

See, this was almost interesting, you promised to show some of your design knowledge, and you started to talk about something interesting. You described the basics, and while you admit that the basic principle is so obvious we would be foolish to miss it, you claim to understand deep implications that we're missing. I don't know about everyone else, but I was actually really interested to see what you had to say...

...and then you just stopped. You didn't describe those implications, you jyst described the basic premise, claimed to have deep knowledge, and moved on to talking about how far behind 'we' are.

Really disappointing. It's like an introduction with no essay or conclusion. Why don't you actually describe some of the implications we don't understand? Stop wasting words telling us how much we don't understand, and actually explain something to us. I promise people would be interested if you can actually do it, and then you would have something you can point to that verifiably shows you have at least some of the talent you claim. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After a short period of some good discussion, we seem to have circled back into the territory of telling all game developers that we have no idea what we're doing. As such, it's time this particular thread was closed. I would encourage any future discussion of this topic to be preceded by some sincere reflection upon the advice given in this thread, so that we don't end up just retreading the same ground.

Share this post


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