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? 

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.

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.

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.

11 hours ago, jbadams said:

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

I thought it sounded like Pirate_Lord!

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.

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.

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.

27 minutes ago, Kavik Kang said:

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.

 

I didn't ask whether you had any private notes, I asked whether you had anything concrete that you were willing to share with others. I'm an engineer, I use tools to build things. If you don't give me a tool to use, then I can't use it... If I can't use it, why would I care about it?

In your first post in this thread you ask why no one wants your magic technology. I answered that -- if you are keeping it a secret, then it's not possible for us to even begin to care.

As for turns vs impulses, etc, we talked about this in one of your previous threads. Event-based simulation using timelines instead of turns was covered in my 1st year data structures class at University. The other part of your problem is that you don't know what everyone else has been doing for the past 70 years, so you're not qualified to tell us what we do and don't know. Maybe there's practical reasons why people choose to use one over the other? Big projects involve hundreds or thousands of trade-offs between different technology choices, often based on mundane practical reasons. The structures used by your secret magical tech may well have been considered by a lot of games over the years, may have been used, may have been discounted for practical reasons. You simply don't know. And you'll never know if you insist on just rambling about what some secret magical system does for you, instead of actually sitting down to do the work to tell us what it is.

If you have nothing to share with us, then it doesn't matter what you have. To us, it doesn't exist.

So for all practical purposes, your tech does not exist right now.

Stop being lazy. Do the work required to make it exist to us, or you'll die alone without ever having left behind a legacy that anyone cares about.

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.