• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10979 Excellent

About rip-off

  • Rank

Personal Information

  • Interests
  1. Please do not reply to old topics, thanks.
  2. As mentioned, this thread is very old, please do not reply to old topics - thanks.
  3. C++ C++ saving this ptr offset

    Even if you did need to do something like that, why jump through hoops to calculate offsets and adjust the "this" pointer? It looks like you could just store the value of the dynamic_cast<>ed pointer as a member instead of the offset.
  4. Using a cloaking device that hides you from the majority of other ships is still wise, not every opponent will have a genius on-board able to cook up a way to by-pass it. In any case, this has historical precedent. Camouflage has always been a technological game of cat and mouse, with new techniques working for some time until an opponent comes up with a way to compensate. The fact that they do not re-use the same way to track them may indicate that cloaking technology has kept moving on in response to such discoveries in the past.
  5. Moved to Lounge (note that Artificial Intelligence is nested under Programming).
  6. C++: Custom memory allocation

    Please do not reply to old topics. Create a new post, linking to this one for context instead - thanks!
  7. Can you describe at a much higher level what you're trying to achieve? Is the AI trying to predict where objects will be at some point in the future?
  8. Does violence stem from video games

    I agree with others who question the survey, I tried to answer it and found the questions ambiguous and/or leading. In my case, I abandoned the survey part way through due to these issues. Even if this were fixed, if the majority of the survey respondents are people who have an active interest in game development, that will likely skew the results (unless your aim is to measure beliefs in the game development community specifically). In my personal opinion it seems unlikely that playing violent computer games at an inappropriately young age is a common cause of real world violence. Sadly there will always be a few outliers, and the sheer novelty of it will attract undue media attention and make it seem to the causal observer that there is a much bigger "problem". While I'm thankfully sheltered from day to day experiences of violence, the little that I have seen anecdotally I would correlated with poverty, lack of education and opportunity and I would speculate that there are cyclical aspects where the individuals were raised in difficult circumstances (e.g. abusive parents). I find it curious that there is such a focus by some on computer games in connection with real world violence. One possibility is that it serves as a distraction that diverts attention away from the more fundamental issues that would need to be addressed to reduce violence, measures that might be unpalatable to people in power (wealth inequality, etc). Another is that the people who drive these conversations are earnest but have (IMO) "simpler" view of the world, driven by emotionally vibrant anecdotes rather than statistics and seeing direct cause and effect where other people might see co-incidence or mild correlation. Yet another might be that these people object to the existence of the violent computer games and don't mind exploiting tragic circumstances to demonise them in order to regulate and/or censor the games.
  9. Goodbye!

    Thanks for all the fish!
  10. I'd recommend watching the video "Playing to Lose", which might get you think about the problem in a slightly different way:
  11. Deciding on what your gameplay and design is.

    Experience. The games you love were not the first things that their authors did. In addition, commercial games are team efforts, you might be surprised at how big those teams are - check the credits! Uou need to decide which skills you want to invest in. Art, game design, music, programming, etc, these are all areas that one can dedicate a lifetime to mastering. Few people will be able to do all the above for even a modest game (exception that proves the rule: Cave Story?). Start small. Make clones of other games, or mods. Hone your chosen skills. Try to find others who have the skills you don't - for example an artist friend can sketch concept art that could guide your visuals. Keep your best ideas simmering, evolving, motivating you to improve. You'll be disappointed if you try too soon - imagine someone expecting their first painting to be the Mona Lisa! When you have more experience, you'll have a better idea of what you want (based on your skills), what others will bring to the table, and the uncertainty of discovering the answer to the questions that are best deferred to leave the design space open for exploration.
  12. random selection of array elements

    Whether it is mathematically correct depends on whether you've defined what "correct" is. If you're using it for a game (presumably), then if it "feels good" then that is probably enough. That said, the code you've posted may not very general, I suspect, as it depends on the largest number to calculate the "weight", so I imagine you might be less happy with the results if the largest number were either extremely large or not very large compared with the others. Generating the random numbers inside the inner loop could result in surprising distributions, particularly as the array size increases. That said, I cannot really visualise the resulting distribution, I could be wrong, these are just intuitive guesses. Without knowing your use case, from your description you probably do want the "Fitness proportionate selection" algorithm.
  13. What exactly do you have at the moment?
  14. Nobody Wants A Cybergod?

    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.
  15. Nobody Wants A Cybergod?

    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.