Murmandamus
-
Posts
1751 -
Joined
Posts posted by Murmandamus
-
-
Bastage....
-
Quote
Finite vs. infinite games
Carse summarizes his argument, "There are at least two kinds of games: finite and infinite. A finite game is played for the purpose of winning, an infinite game for the purpose of continuing the play. Finite games are those instrumental activities - from sports to politics to wars - in which the participants obey rules, recognize boundaries and announce winners and losers. The infinite game - there is only one - includes any authentic interaction, from touching to culture, that changes rules, plays with boundaries and exists solely for the purpose of continuing the game. A finite player seeks power; the infinite one displays self-sufficient strength. Finite games are theatrical, necessitating an audience; infinite ones are dramatic, involving participants..."[2][3][4]
Theatrical vs. Dramatic
Carse continues these conceptualizations across all major spheres of human affairs. He extends his themes broadly over several intellectual arenas that are largely otherwise disparate disciplines. He describes human pursuits as either dramatic (enacted in the present) or theatrical (performed according to a script of some kind). This distinction hinges on an agent's decision to engage in one state of affairs or another. If motherhood is a requirement and a duty, there are rules to be obeyed and goals to be achieved. This is motherhood as theatrical role. If motherhood is a choice and a process, it becomes a living drama. Carse spans objective and subjective realms and bridges many gaps among different scholarly traditions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_and_Infinite_Games
-
28 minutes ago, Comrademoco said:
They win by however they want to play the game and however they define their winning as.
Except they won't... because it's all in their heads.
2 hours ago, Comrademoco said:But Nanoman, it's all about semantics. IMO ?
Yes of course it's all semantics. Because it doesn't exist.
BUT! .... you DU you, man
someone has to.
-
1 hour ago, Comrademoco said:
You DU you, I DU me. Mkayyy?!
Okay but what about everyone else? ?
-
-
In other words winning and losing exist only in the eye of the beholder.
Which is to say, it doesn't exist at all.
"But Nanoman, you are in no position to tell me how I feel."
"But Nanoman, maybe it doesn't exist for you but it definitely exists for me."
"But Nanoman, that's not very practical."
"But Nanoman, you could be wrong, don't be so arrogant."
"But Nanoman, well that's just like your opinion man."
"But Nanoman, I disagree."
-
Aye, too much realism.
(or should i say surrealism...)
-
Life is a sandbox too.
-
"Winning" is an arbitrary line in the sand.
DU is a sandbox.
-
-
15 minutes ago, xlDvSlx said:
Not all the 20m, they don't owe me and most likely you anything, they've basically delivered on their promise in my eyes for the most part
50k paying £10 a month is half a million a month. Just pure subscription alone. That's low balling imo (player wise). They could lone out their engine like epic games does. Cosmetic. Sponsorships, etc. They could pay back 20m in 2 years if they went hard imo.
The technology alone is worth more than that I'm willing to bet. I would like to see the valuation of NQ come to think of it
Yes, but you were kinda suggesting that they are swimming in money and I think it's a little bit too early for that party just yet.
And don't forget that they will continue to develop and add content to the game after release, rent/maintain a sizable server farm, and aim provide quality service. Those have been some of the reasons mentioned for the subscription model. So that's going to significantly extend those 2 years you mentioned, if we're going to assume that.
Btw. they do owe all the backers a shitload of DACs. Basically everyone who backed will be playing for free for months, years or even lifetimes. So the current playerbase already won't generate much revenue for the first few years. Unless they sell their DACs, but then the buying players still won't be generating that revenue.
I should hope that they will indeed turn a profit at some point, but I wouldn't expect it to be any sooner than any other well run and successful business. For which 3 years to profitability is considered a good average.
So while I understand your point about p2w (although I only partially agree), I can't really see DU as a shameless cash grab by any stretch. They are of course a for-profit business, but I think things could have been much worse if they had to answer to a game publisher instead.
-
Well, it's not like they got those 20m euros as a christmas present. They got it from private investors, who will be wanting all of that money back and more. And that's just for NQ to break even.
NQ doesn't have 20m, they owe 20m.
-
-
-
2 hours ago, Fischerblue said:
I heard that they're using a p2p system, so I'm curious to see how that's going to work with the amount of players they want on the server.
Same here, I didn't know that. I guess that's their way of partitioning the workload into groups of players that are close together in-game, using our own hardware and bandwidth. So that could be good news for the total number of players in the game universe. But it doesn't necessarily bode well for overall performance in busy areas.
-
14 minutes ago, GraXXoR said:
That looks incredible... But I've had enough disappointment with games not delivering what they promise.
Yep, who cares about promises anyway, those aren't the stars I sail by. It looks good nonetheless.
It's not DU, but it has its own qualities, and it might help me wait...
Maybe also a source of inspiration, who knows.
I guess we'll see.
-
Development footage playlist (same youtube channel):
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLh-M5-wAw6pnnb4sXB8SQZtyEu6pOk3tI
-
They also have moving parts and everything is scriptable. You can actually build your own custom factory/assembly line, bolt by bolt, with robotic arms and everything..
-
Link to playlist (videos continue being added by the devs):
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLh-M5-wAw6pmWgu83-8ujEIQnxl5ooz7G
-
-
Would be nice to have some kind of element that facilitates docking/connecting/attaching constructs together in various ways.
For one example scenario, it could allow for otherwise inert container units to be swapped out between hauler ships and warehouses and such.
For another example scenario, it could allow two or more connected constructs to all use their engines and fly as a single craft.
And of course another obvious scenario is to allow players to walk between ships and bases and space stations etc. without having to step out into the open.
-
So, aside from (server-side?) automated defense systems, there is also the related hot topic of scripted weapons (not necessarily the same thing). I can see arguments from all sides, and I'm not taking sides here. I don't know what would be best. But here's an idea that occured to me for discussion, to see if maybe something comes out of it.
Let's say for the moment that there could be valid uses for scripted weapons. But the main objections are gameplay balance and teamwork incentive. Now what if there were items or elements that could create sensor ghosts to confuse scripted weapons? So for example there is only one real target, but the script will see multiple targets and be unable to distinguish the real from the fake ones.
Another option is to have items or elements that could scramble a script's targeting system, making it miss way more often, or reducing the range at which it can lock on for example.
This means that scripting for weapons can have a potential part to play, but that their advantage can be countered significantly by investing in the proper equipment. Both these mechanisms could include some form of tech/skill level. For example low-level sensor ghost projectors might only create one or two sensor ghosts, while high level ones create many, or last longer, or whatever.
A smart script might be able to determine which are the fake targets by analyzing certain stats or behaviors (for example maybe the fake targets don't take damage or whatever, i.e. there's always a loophole). But that would take time and guesswork, during which the automated system would still be compromised. Also, by the time the script catches on, it can be countered again by using an additional projector unit to create new sensor ghosts. Or maybe all you wanted was to buy yourself enough time to escape. And look what we have now: Emergent game play, strategic planning, scalable countermeasures, etc.
Discuss?
Black Holes!
in Idea Box
Posted
?