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.

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'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

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. 

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.