Jump to content

GraXXoR

Alpha Tester
  • Content Count

    953
  • Joined

  • Last visited

4 Followers

About GraXXoR

  • Rank
    Novark Citizen

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location:
    Japan, Tokyo.
  • Interests
    All things space, Particle Physics, Photography including Astrophotography, and Craft Beer.
  • backer_title
    Patron
  • Alpha
    Yes

Recent Profile Visitors

967 profile views
  1. You mean ARPANET (Yes, it was funded by a DARPA, later renamed ARPA and then back to DARPA under Clinton... but the network's name was ARPANET). The Advanced Reasearch Projects Agency Network, which came out of a desire for a network with the express ability to be able to route around "outages" (cutely metaphorical word for being nuked, which allowed them to unlock federal funding), when in reality it was more the fact that electronics were so unreliable that they needed a way to ensure that the network remained operational even if some blown transistors rendered a node inoperable. It became, in effect, a drive to create an automated, digital version of the telephone network which at the time consisted of patchboards and switched operated by human switchboard staff. By the end of the fifties, it was still limited to just four disparate machines and in order to expand beyond the original four computers, DARPA enlisted the help of various universities and research labs. Research laboratories and universities of course saw the need for reliable exchange information and federal funds were made available for them to research packet switching and proto TCP/IP which is the basis of modern TCP/IP today which was finally introduced around 1969 and the first "customer" nodes were attached to the network soon thereafter. The concept of routing protocols and redundancy was also addressed during this period. By the early 70s, many top universities in the US were connected and the first international connection was completed in or around 1973 to the UCL (University College, London)... Again, it seems you are under another common misapprehension. This time you're stating that civilian interaction with ARPANET was them basically creating the World Wide Web on top of ARPANET and conflating the WWW with the internet, when in fact the first civilian interactions were 20 years prior, in 1969 or thereabouts and used to share proto-emails, later file transfer and still later, just before the WWW, concepts like FTP and Gopher. So, it's a stretch to say that war created the internet when it was basically created by universities and private institutes, to all intents and purposes. It's like saying that the first car was actually a horse drawn carriage... Which, to an extent is true... I guess... This is somewhat different to NASA, which was very active during the Cold War and was a centrally, coldwar focused body of research. NASA's many projects were indeed focussed on military prowess and technical prowess in general and surely wouldn't have succeeded to the extent they did without the competition from the USSR. But, see, that is as I mentioned in a previous post: Competition. Which is healthy.. Neither the US nor the USSR engaged in actual direct war... nuclear or otherwise. And after the collapse of the USSR and until Putin, relations with East Europe had been fairly stable. I'll give you ENIAC, though, which was designed for ballistic calculations and later used for simulating nuclear weapons... But that wasn't really a generally programmable device in the modern sense because it required massive rewiring for each problem... Real computers were developed separately, after the war once regular business resumed and things calmed down. Truly programmable computers with punch cards and optical tape were invented that, while not as fast as ENIAC were actually useful for general purpose tasks... Again, a rather separate branch with separate purposes. ENIAC was more like an FPGA than a "real" computer, in that it could only solve a single problem at a time and it was more like an uncle than a father to modern computing in that respect. I could go on, since this is the sort of stuff I wrote a dissertation on at the end of the 90s.
  2. If they blocked screen scripts, people would just make cheesy "ASCII" art with voxels.
  3. ^^This!!! It needs to be the OP of another thread. So, so true. The problem is that planets are 10% of real size, meaning only 1% surface area and 0.1% of the volume... (That's 1/1000th of the volume for those who struggle with percentages 😉 ) And mining speed is so, so fast (>200L per second per person). Let's call it 10x realistic... These two multipliers mean that we are hollowing out the planets far more rapidly than in real life. By this scale, 200 players mining in a single org is equivalent to 2,000,000 miners on earth, all with advanced, quantum, material-beaming mining equipment.... With a single org able to entirely map a planet out in a couple of days with TSs, you just know it's going to end badly. But JC, as a fellow PhD, should have calculated that trivial fact as easily as I did... or even easier since he didn't have to reverse calculate a load of figures... Heck I said before the "beta" dropped that even if we reset the planets, at the rate we were mining pre-beta we will have removed all the >T2 mats within a year and people scoffed at me, telling me I didn't understand how big the planets were... I said if extra players joined the "beta" and the largest orgs coordinated they could basically rape all the planets of >T2 mats within 3 months... Strange how simple mathematical and statistical calculations actually work... Also strange that JC didn't figure that one out. Here we are just over 3 months after "release" of the "beta" and even though most of the players appear to have quit, all the meganodes and anything T3 and above is Swiss cheese.
  4. As it does in mine... and in mathematics. Your second "or" is apparently right according to this below. Seems that it was an intentional balancing leading to JC wanting to deliver more content... I mean wanting to slow down the fastest players. Yes... Those were the two skills that I presented and it is obvious how they work... Just like how +5% ore extracted means plus five percent ore extracted. But how do you THEN say that +5% ore per level equates to speed? How does your curious interpretation of the skill's meaning mesh with the two skills you yourself defined identically to how they actually work, given the tweet from NQ. This is just so wrong I can't even... You even literally used 1+5/100 in the next part of your calculation.. i.e. +5% We do not know if it really is a compound multiplier or a linear multiplier, leading to two different answers. compound 1 * 1.05*1.05*1.05*1.05*1.05 = (1.05)^5 = 1.276 linear: 1 + 0.05 + 0.05 + 0.05 + 0.05 + 0.05 = 1.25 but given that things like container capacity bonuses, fuel tank capacity bonuses, weight reduction, thrust bonuses etc are all linear and not compound, I'd go with the latter. Heck, as mentioned by someone in the thread, it could even start from 75% of the max extraction at L0 and go from 80% at L1, 85%, 90%, 95%, to 100% (full extraction) at L5. This would lead to relatively larger percentage increases of 85/80 (6.25%) for L1... 90/85 (5.88%) etc... It would be nice to actually get OFFICIAL information in the OFFICIAL forum and not have to trawl through the morass of umbrage that is Twitter, like US citizens used to have to do to find official information until last week.
  5. I see i derailed a bit there. my apologies. I completely agree with this above and yes, I"ve noticed the same issues pop up among the newer players repeatedly...
  6. I think he might be a roleplayer, TBH. Elite Dangerous has a few characters like him. Lot's of talk, very little in the wedding tackle department.
  7. You are honestly claiming that WW2 and coldwar were the times of the most advancement? Srsly? This is such an old Hollywood myth used to glorify and justify conflict. You're completely discounting the 70+ years of relative peace after the war where we have seen unparalleled advances in science and technology, privatised space travel, medical breakthroughs. So many major mathematical and scientific breakthroughs were made during peace time and only a few were coopted for war (missiles, poisons, biological weapons and nukes)... The vast majority of breakthroughs were made outside of war or even despite war, not because of it. Sure, some projects were funded by the military (GPS) but they are few and specific compared to the general peacetime advancements enabled by allowing adults to go to university and study and not to war to kill. Art and culture also. Look at the 400 years of Japanese isolation, creating some of the finest woodworking, caligraphy, art, music, tea ceremonies, silk, flower arrangements and yes, karate and katanas, too. The years of European peace that lead to the renaissance in art, music, literature and philosophy that were unmatched throughout the world. Civilization leads to breakthroughs in all fields, war just picks up a few bits and bobs and perverts them for destructive uses. Moreover, war and conflict can just as easily lead to the loss of those advancements; Library of Alexandria, Twin Towers attack, Religious destruction of ancient artifacts... All of this comes from conflict... But yeah, unbridled conflict.. whoopie. Competition and challenges are needed, not war and conflict. Nothing good can come out of the latter other than a few people getting an ego massage. People who insist on and glorify open conflict merely lack imagination.
  8. WHy would the AI wake us up just so that we can kill ourselves, though? Creating a new civilizaion but not even bringing laws and police from the old one is Junior-high school level stupid... Aphelia or whoever is AS not AI. The whole premise of the lore of this game was thought up over several rounds of some stout beverages in a bar, taken down on the back of a napkin and hasn't been readdressed since.
  9. Listening to these people taking themselves seriously while sparring for control over fictional resources in a game hardly anyone plays as if there were real consequences is kinda cute but considering they're grown adults, bordering on sad. I just warped in picked up a full load and warped out a couple of days ago. nothing. they remind me of the local street lads in my old litter filled, graffiti festooned hometown when I used to unfortunately live in the UK.. They walked and talked as if they owned the place, knifing anyone else who came near them but basically not actually achieving anything of actual value other than acting hard and eventually getting knifed themselves. Ah the UK... a bastion of honour and dignity. Shame that this sort of mentality makes its way into games, too... "Build a civilisation." more like "Build another shitty pigsty for people to fight over and subjugate others in."
  10. That's a very... creative... interpretation there. How does that stack with "Mining Optimizations" -5% time to reach max sphere size skill. And the "Advanced Mining" +5% max sphere size. please show us. I'm going to test this language on my employes.... +5% salary earned per year... After 5 years you"ll be +25% more earned.... but only get paid for the first 80% of the day.
  11. NQ only react if they feel personally attacked, like the famous NQ RDMS gaffe that cost them a marketplace and a proportion of their player base. I doubt they will do anything until the situation becomes entirely dire. Due to NQ's lack of willingness/ability/capacity to code around the delays and even to remove the plethora abandoned constructs, they will not likely do anything unless someone encodes an XL screen with a full SVG animation of JC sucking c... (this is just an example and is not a call to arms 😉 ) NQ; Please prove me wrong, I know you can if you try!
  12. JC keeps saying players are advancing too quickly. seems like a no effort required way to slow down the industrialists ... /s(kinda)
  13. Scuttlebutt is that the Dredger, Mining Efficiency skill (5% more ore extracted per level) has been nerfed by JC. According to our miners, they are getting only 2.6% increase for LEVEL 5.... That's 2.2m Skill points (17 days or so) for a 2.6% increase in extraction. But I waited over 2 weeks for this skill to stew and now can't detect any increase in my maximum or "bite" size which stayed somewhere around 300L per "bite" rather than increasing to 330 or over 360 as expected. Still getting around 4k for a standard "mini" node as per usual when I was expecting to be able to extract 5k per node. I really hope our miners and I are just being thick and that this is merely a grave misapprehension. JC wouldn't purposefully nerf a skill in order to slow down progress without giving the players half a month of subscription worth of skill points back. Would he? Surely? No...
×
×
  • Create New...