Return to “Suggestions”

Post

Re: Why Limit Theory needs multiplayer

#121
Cornflakes_91 wrote:Why would either "procedimental" (i guess you mean procedural) or AI=Player would need a refesign of the game at all?

If it changes anything in regards to gamedwsign this would make it easier to build LT into a MP game, as you dont have to change anything.

You dont have to create any new content, as the content creates itself.
Also the NPC=Player part already needs good balancing, the same balancing you need for multiplayer.

if something were broken in MP, it would be as broken in SP.
Cornflakes, I know what you mean when you say this is how it should work. But I think you'll find that in practice, having human beings doing things to each other (through characters/ships in a game) is very different from what NPCs are capable of conceiving and doing.

Again, though, I think you're probably mostly right if MP in LT is mostly or entirely co-op play, or if it's a very small number of invitation-only people doing competitive play.

But if we're talking open servers, all bets are off; people will find the most horrific things to do to each other that no NPC would ever imagine, and they will do those things unless the game is designed -- redesigned from SP in the case of LT -- to at least minimize those actions and cumulative effects.

Otherwise developers of AAA MMORPGs would "only" need $100M and two years to build their games, rather than $300M and five years. ;)
Post

Re: Why Limit Theory needs multiplayer

#122
Flatfingers wrote: Cornflakes, I know what you mean when you say this is how it should work. But I think you'll find that in practice, having human beings doing things to each other (through characters/ships in a game) is very different from what NPCs are capable of conceiving and doing.

Again, though, I think you're probably mostly right if MP in LT is mostly or entirely co-op play, or if it's a very small number of invitation-only people doing competitive play.

But if we're talking open servers, all bets are off; people will find the most horrific things to do to each other that no NPC would ever imagine, and they will do those things unless the game is designed -- redesigned from SP in the case of LT -- to at least minimize those actions and cumulative effects.

Otherwise developers of AAA MMORPGs would "only" need $100M and two years to build their games, rather than $300M and five years. ;)
Well, LT has to be maliciousness (malicty? Maliciousity?) Safe already, as the AI's are the same as players with the same capabilities, so the player will be nasty to them.

Except nasty psychological tricks, as you cant screw an AI's mind as you can screw a players mind
Post

Re: Why Limit Theory needs multiplayer

#123
Cornflakes_91 wrote:Why would either "procedimental" (i guess you mean procedural) or AI=Player would need a refesign of the game at all?
Yes of course I meant that. It's language playing funny mind tricks to me again :lol: You see, that word "procedural" doesn't exist neither in Spanish nor in German at all. I don't know at German, but in Spanish, I use the English word but with Spanisch pronunciation to talk about the intended meaning. The approximately correct word in Spanish would be "procedimental" and so I made the mistake by interchanging both... My mistake :oops:
I have been - and always shall be - your friend.
Post

Re: Why Limit Theory needs multiplayer

#124
Google Translate claims that "verfahrens" is German for "procedural", and that "procesal" is the Spanish equivalent. I'm fairly sure you can tell me immediately that all of this is incorrect, as I have very little respect for Google Translate in anything more than very rough translations... basically for getting the gist of things.

I kind of wish I knew German. It'd be fun to talk to you guys in your native tongue. :P At least until the novelty of it wore off.
Have a question? Send me a PM! || I have a Patreon page up for REKT now! || People talking in IRC over the past two hours: Image
Image
Image
Post

Re: Why Limit Theory needs multiplayer

#125
Cornflakes_91 wrote:
Flatfingers wrote: Cornflakes, I know what you mean when you say this is how it should work. But I think you'll find that in practice, having human beings doing things to each other (through characters/ships in a game) is very different from what NPCs are capable of conceiving and doing.

Again, though, I think you're probably mostly right if MP in LT is mostly or entirely co-op play, or if it's a very small number of invitation-only people doing competitive play.

But if we're talking open servers, all bets are off; people will find the most horrific things to do to each other that no NPC would ever imagine, and they will do those things unless the game is designed -- redesigned from SP in the case of LT -- to at least minimize those actions and cumulative effects.

Otherwise developers of AAA MMORPGs would "only" need $100M and two years to build their games, rather than $300M and five years. ;)
Well, LT has to be maliciousness (malicty? Maliciousity?) Safe already, as the AI's are the same as players with the same capabilities, so the player will be nasty to them.

Except nasty psychological tricks, as you cant screw an AI's mind as you can screw a players mind
Malice. But I can't see the AI griefing in the way that a player would. One way in which the player-AI duality will always break down is that humans are incredibly irrational, even the rational ones are irrational. Unless Josh specifically designs for AI to be able to grief (and I mean more than a tendency for it to 'make mistakes' every now and then), then playing with another malicious player will hurt more than playing with a malicious AI. People know how to push people's buttons.
Post

Re: Why Limit Theory needs multiplayer

#126
Hmmmm... yes Talvieno, there are direct translations of that word for both languages, but any of those mean wath procedural means in the context at hand here. The folks here could speak better about the German ones, but I can say that the translation into Spanish is way off. You see, "procedural" comes from "procedure" and that translates into "procedimiento" in Spanish. The adjective for that word is "procedimental", not "procesal". The latter would be the translation for "procedural" in "legal affairs", so nothing to do with our matter at hand. :D
I have been - and always shall be - your friend.
Post

Re: Why Limit Theory needs multiplayer

#128
But if we're talking open servers, all bets are off; people will find the most horrific things to do to each other that no NPC would ever imagine, and they will do those things unless the game is designed -- redesigned from SP in the case of LT -- to at least minimize those actions and cumulative effects.
The infinite universe would mean that you could just leave, build up a fleet, then come back and get your revenge.
Post

Re: Why Limit Theory needs multiplayer

#129
bewareofsmell wrote:
But if we're talking open servers, all bets are off; people will find the most horrific things to do to each other that no NPC would ever imagine, and they will do those things unless the game is designed -- redesigned from SP in the case of LT -- to at least minimize those actions and cumulative effects.
The infinite universe would mean that you could just leave, build up a fleet, then come back and get your revenge.
One of the many reasons that I wait for LT with such vigour- the ability to have my vengeance on some one. :twisted:
Image The results of logic, of natural progression? Boring! An expected result? Dull! An obvious next step? Pfui! Where is the fun in that? A dream may soothe, but our nightmares make us run!
Post

Re: Why Limit Theory needs multiplayer

#132
Scytale wrote:But I can't see the AI griefing in the way that a player would. One way in which the player-AI duality will always break down is that humans are incredibly irrational, even the rational ones are irrational. Unless Josh specifically designs for AI to be able to grief (and I mean more than a tendency for it to 'make mistakes' every now and then), then playing with another malicious player will hurt more than playing with a malicious AI. People know how to push people's buttons.
I more ment that it must already work for player vs ai.
The game must still work if the player starts griefing against AI, for example conquering a system and blasting everything to hell.
Post

Re: Why Limit Theory needs multiplayer

#134
Scytale wrote:The game would work because an AI doesn't rage quit if you deliberately spawn camp it :P
Nicely said. :)

Another way to say this: simulated characters in a computer game don't "meta-game" in the way that human players can and do. They can't pop out of the game -- we can. That allows human players to bend, fold, spindle, and mutilate the rules of the game in ways that are impossible for a piece of code inside the game world to imagine.

It is conceivable that a game might be designed to allow characters in the game to perform some kind of meta-gaming... but then humans would meta-meta-game them. And there's been no whisper of a hint that Josh is imagining anything remotely like that for Limit Theory.

The surest path to demonstrating what I'm talking about would be to mod LT for MP with no special checks and no additional play balancing for competitive collusion, then open it to the world and see whether everyone plays fairly together.

I'll wait to hear the results of that experiment; I wouldn't go in there for love or money. :D

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests

cron