Jump to content
Ripper

"Auto-Turrets" and Artificial Intelligence in games

Recommended Posts

What about that massive ship that has ONE weapon?  You know... a spinal mounted capital ship killer.  Why couldn't a single player fly one of those?

 

Or consider the multiplayer ship.  What prohibits the construct from having several small constructs of "Battery Units"?  Where a single player within the multiplayer ship has the ability to control multiple elements (weapons).

 

ONE player isn't going to be effective against a multiplayer ship, if that player is running one script at a time, and the multiplayer ship could be running 50. 

 

Even IF the single player ship could be classified as a "Battleship"...   BTW...  How do you want to classify a ship? 

 

Battleship...  SuperMassiveFighter...  Tomatoe... Tomato....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is little problem with that. It could be fine if there are many players who happy to cover and org have just a few ships and people absolutelly fine to do any other thing (and I'm not saying about player location. Imagine your ship miles away from base and nobody can just respawn on it, bacause it is not the closest one). Now imagine you have 20 ppl and 5 ships with 4ppl crew (in original). So there are 5 good *special role* in org, nobody else can do it well (or do it t all). If to make these roles SO NECESSARY, than it means org NEED to have at least 4 these guys online. If not, others will stuck and can't do what they want to do (even with less efficency).

 

No they won't, because there is no PVE in DU

To answer that with your words:

 

So the most laziest players will have automatic systems When people don't show up, you're not grounded because someone else just flies the ship with no skills - less effectiveness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about that massive ship that has ONE weapon?  You know... a spinal mounted capital ship killer.  Why couldn't a single player fly one of those?

 

Or consider the multiplayer ship.  What prohibits the construct from having several small constructs of "Battery Units"?  Where a single player within the multiplayer ship has the ability to control multiple elements (weapons).

 

ONE player isn't going to be effective against a multiplayer ship, if that player is running one script at a time, and the multiplayer ship could be running 50. 

 

Even IF the single player ship could be classified as a "Battleship"...   BTW...  How do you want to classify a ship? 

 

Battleship...  SuperMassiveFighter...  Tomatoe... Tomato....

That's a good arguement though. Having one ship with one gun, makes sense on having ONE gunner who can dabble as the pilot. It's not like you gonan fire a Mass Driver at am oving target, those things are Siege Engines. You don't fire a trebuchet as you move it.

 

As for Ship classification, they are usually classified by their effective distance or projection. That's derived from their propulsion type, max velocity and fuel capacity.

 

That doesn't reflect their ability to travel, but it does limit their manevuerability in combat. A current day air carrier,  has unlimited projection, due to its nuclear reactors. However, food ain't forever and water purification systems are not infallible and its jet fighters, are not with unlimited fuel or its reserves endless.

 

Then, their armor thickness and weapon calibers dictate their role. A cruiser tat's more agile and has less armor, is dubbed Light Cruiser, but one that's meant to punch a hole on Cthulu's face, is called a Heavy (Duty) Cruiser. A ship that's meant for war, and only war, is referred to as a Line-of-Battle vessel. The ones meant to take a beating and can punch Cthulu's face clean off, are Battleships, the ones that are meant for agility and are not as well armoured, usually meant for pursuit, are called Battlecruisers. 

 

A battleship that has enough firepower and armor to outlast the apocalypse, is called a Dreadnaught. Those things are meant to go 1vs10. And most of them have gone 1vs10 IRL. I mean, one thing Greece did in WW1 was to send one Dreadnaught we had to guard the Black Sea passage so the Ottomans couldn't pass. They didn't.And other ships have seen much more of a brutal history IRL. I guess having an armor plate that can take a torpedo can not even flinch does give credit to a ship's class literally meaning "I have no such thing as dread".

 

Now tell me, are ships like Dreadnaughts, something that should be a one man show? Cause fighting in such a ship and winnign a 1vs10  battle, would mean everyone in that ship did their job right, from the gunner, to the guy repairing the damaged turrets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a single player's LUA script can control a constuct with 50 weapons (yeah an exageration, but maybe not impossible), then your org should be able to build a 10 user multiplayer ship that has 10 SCRIPTED "Battery Constructs" and should be able to field 500 weapons.  Multiplayer ship's BY DEFAULT have an exponential growth in effectiveness via LUA, over the single player ship.

 

Single player ships will NEVER match the effectiveness of multiplayer ships.  No LUA script "Nerfing" needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No they won't, because there is no PVE in DU

To answer that with your words:

It is not only about flying. And why flying ship is flexible, but weapon/turret control (or other systems) need to be very necessary controled by separate player? Why I can fly and control shields or something else? If I have enough skill and multitasking to do that, why I CAN'T do that? Why should I play by schedule and always organise time with somebody else? It is STUPID! It is fine if I don't have multitasking and enough skills to do that. 

If some dumbs can't fly and control shields at the same time (as example), it does not mean everybody else MUST NOT do it. 

 

If I have enough skills and multitasking to control, aim and shoot well from 10 turrets, game must not limit this (because some retards can't do that). 

Yes, it will be less effective that if all turrets will be controled by different players, but IT MUST BE AVAILABLE.

 

I am very against Hard Requirements to have Crew. I don't want have another job, I have one, it is enough for me. 

 

Thanks, 

Archonious

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not only about flying. And why flying ship is flexible, but weapon/turret control (or other systems) need to be very necessary controled by separate player? Why I can fly and control shields or something else? If I have enough skill and multitasking to do that, why I CAN'T do that? Why should I play by schedule and always organise time with somebody else? It is STUPID! It is fine if I don't have multitasking and enough skills to do that. 

If some dumbs can't fly and control shields at the same time (as example), it does not mean everybody else MUST NOT do it.

If I have enough skills and multitasking to control, aim and shoot well from 10 turrets, game must not limit this (because some retards can't do that).

I am very against Hard Requirements to have Crew. I don't want have another job, I have one, it is enough for me.

Thanks, 

Archonious

 

Well you don't have to have a schedule, just people to socialize with.... you'd find plenty of people in your org to help you in your task (whatever that might be). And if you don't - then the org is shit.

 

What do you expect will happen when you could control shields and pilot at the same time?

I know you can't see it so I'll tell you: NO ONE will need an engineer. So people who want to play as engineer can't do that, because they would not be needed.

While YOU as singleplayer could STILL play alone - just fly smaller ships.

 

I want to kill a planet in DU, or mine to it's core. But I simply CAN'T because the game isn't designed that way. NQ doesn't FORCE me not to destroy that planet, they just balance the game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you don't have to have a schedule, just people to socialize with.... you'd find plenty of people in your org to help you in your task (whatever that might be). And if you don't - then the org is shit.

 

What do you expect will happen when you could control shields and pilot at the same time?

I know you can't see it so I'll tell you: NO ONE will need an engineer. So people who want to play as engineer can't do that, because they would not be needed.

While YOU as singleplayer could STILL play alone - just fly smaller ships.

 

I want to kill a planet in DU, or mine to it's core. But I simply CAN'T because the game isn't designed that way. NQ doesn't FORCE me not to destroy that planet, they just balance the game

I didn't write it need to be easy that every single player can do that. And if it is so easy (that everyone can do that), why SHOULD I do this primitive/easy job ONLY? If you want game for dumbs, we will never agree, because this is real trash and I don't want see DU as DUMB game.

 

It is like in real life to create rule that car need 3 people in (easy multitask that everyone can do that, from your message). One for drive, one for transmission and one for pedals. You can do all 3 things? No, YOU NEED 3 PEOPLE! It is VERY STUPID! Why? Because there are some players who want to control transmision. 

I hope you can see analogy.

 

P.S: And you say, I should not schedule. Example. My ship (and 5 members who NEED to be on ship to make everything work) goes somewhere away (few hours or even days trip, as we know there would be long distances between planets and other objects). So nobody else will have chance to respawn (respawn in closest resp only). If 1 or more of crew Leave (long DC/AFK or something else) I can't replace person, it is impossible, we far away. Ship can't be controled, so all others need to wait for unknown time or wait another ship with some people who can replace DC crew member. Woooow, so much fun! 

I can say, I understand your dreams about "How it could be fantastic!", but it would be pain in the ass in many many situations, if it would be not flexible system.

 

Thanks,

Archonious

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't write it need to be easy that every single player can do that. And if it is so easy (that everyone can do that), why SHOULD I do this primitive/easy job ONLY? If you want game for dumbs, we will never agree, because this is real trash and I don't want see DU as DUMB game.

 

It is like in real life to create rule that car need 3 people in (easy multitask that everyone can do that, from your message). One for drive, one for transmission and one for pedals. You can do all 3 things? No, YOU NEED 3 PEOPLE! It is VERY STUPID! Why? Because there are some players who want to control transmision. 

I hope you can see analogy.

 

Thanks,

Archonious

That bulletproof logic is why people get into traffic accidents.

 

Drive and text? NO YOU DON'T NEED TWO PEOPLE TO DO THAT. In fact, throw in some DUI in the mix, cause you don't actually need to take a cab to go home, you can handle driving and texting while drunk. Trust Archonious, he has a Truthology PhD.

 

 

P.S. : Don't text and drive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't write it need to be easy that every single player can do that. And if it is so easy (that everyone can do that), why SHOULD I do this primitive/easy job ONLY? If you want game for dumbs, we will never agree, because this is real trash and I don't want see DU as DUMB game.

 

It is like in real life to create rule that car need 3 people in (easy multitask that everyone can do that, from your message). One for drive, one for transmission and one for pedals. You can do all 3 things? No, YOU NEED 3 PEOPLE! It is VERY STUPID! Why? Because there are some players who want to control transmision. 

I hope you can see analogy.

 

P.S: And you say, I should not schedule. Example. My ship (and 5 members who NEED to be on ship to make everything work) goes somewhere away (few hours or even days trip, as we know there would be long distances between planets and other objects). So nobody else will have chance to respawn (respawn in closest resp only). If 1 or more of crew Leave (long DC/AFK or something else) I can't replace person, it is impossible, we far away. Ship can't be controled, so all others need to wait for unknown time or wait another ship with some people who can replace DC crew member. Woooow, so much fun! 

I can say, I understand your dreams about "How it could be fantastic!", but it would be pain in the ass in many many situations, if it would be not flexible system.

 

Thanks,

Archonious

Yes because a car has guns and shields. No, a more fair comparison would be actual warships and submarines. You cant drive and shoot alone in those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes because a car has guns and shields. No, a more fair comparison would be actual warships and submarines. You cant drive and shoot alone.

 

Haven't you seen Death Race 2050 or how about any Batman movie?

 

:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes because a car has guns and shields. No, a more fair comparison would be actual warships and submarines. You cant drive and shoot alone.

Are you dumb or don't want to see analogy with your "Everyone can do that, so this need to be separated" to make this boring as shit? =)))

 

With your example "submarines" crew need to be about 200-300 people then! YES, Let's create virtual world same as real. OMG! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you dumb or don't want to see analogy with your "Everyone can do that, so this need to be separated" to make this boring as shit? =)))

 

With your example "submarines" crew need to be about 200-300 people then! YES, Let's create virtual world same as real. OMG!

His example at least is a far better one than yours with the car. And no one said you should need so many people, you made those numbers up.

 

And btw: I just took YOUR example of being a pilot and operating the shields

 

Insults never work for a discussion though so maybe you should watch your language

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His example at least is a far better one than yours with the car. And no one said you should need so many people, you made those numbers up.

 

And btw: I just took YOUR example of being a pilot and operating the shields

 

Insults never work for a discussion though so maybe you should watch your language

Stop! You say "...because everyone can do that". I give example which fit "everyone can do that". Now you tell his example is better. His example does not fit "everyone can do that" at all. 

 

And there was no insult, there was a question. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't you seen Death Race 2050 or how about any Batman movie?

 

:P

Nanananananananana Space Batman.

 

 

 

Stop! You say "...because everyone can do that". I give example which fit "everyone can do that". Now you tell his example is better. His example does not fit "everyone can do that" at all. 

 

And there was no insult, there was a question. 

Your Car example only works for the Ship's Pilot's Job.

 

Guess what an Armored Patrol Vehicle driver doesn't do. Exactly, they are not operating the gun. I know, shocker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of Twerks old posts helped me... SHOCKER!

 

He pointed me to:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1949863330/dual-universe-civilization-building-sci-fi-mmorpg/posts/1702763

 

"Moving on to Construct vs Construct combat, that is part of the next stretch goal. You can add “weapon elements” to your construct (that you can craft or buy on the in-game markets with in-game money). Let’s say, for example, a railgun turret. In the first version of the CvC gameplay, the only way to use that turret is to get close to it, and activate it. You will then sit on the seat and be able to rotate it and target other ships. In future expansions, we will try to implement a way for you to control several weapons at the same time in a tactical view, and script how you coordinate them. But for the moment, it is “one man = one weapon element”. The only exception is the cockpit (which is a control unit, so you can host scripts in it), which you will be able to connect to various weapon elements in your ship and control from there, so therefore you can have a “dog fight” experience. In any case, be it via orienting the ship to have the cockpit facing the target, or by rotating the turret, you will be able to lock a particular point on the targeted construct (if it is far away, a random point will be chosen), and then fire. Again, we can have an insta lock + fire mechanism here to make it more immersive."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of Twerks old posts helped me... SHOCKER!

 

He pointed me to:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1949863330/dual-universe-civilization-building-sci-fi-mmorpg/posts/1702763

 

"Moving on to Construct vs Construct combat, that is part of the next stretch goal. You can add “weapon elements” to your construct (that you can craft or buy on the in-game markets with in-game money). Let’s say, for example, a railgun turret. In the first version of the CvC gameplay, the only way to use that turret is to get close to it, and activate it. You will then sit on the seat and be able to rotate it and target other ships. In future expansions, we will try to implement a way for you to control several weapons at the same time in a tactical view, and script how you coordinate them. But for the moment, it is “one man = one weapon element”. The only exception is the cockpit (which is a control unit, so you can host scripts in it), which you will be able to connect to various weapon elements in your ship and control from there, so therefore you can have a “dog fight” experience. In any case, be it via orienting the ship to have the cockpit facing the target, or by rotating the turret, you will be able to lock a particular point on the targeted construct (if it is far away, a random point will be chosen), and then fire. Again, we can have an insta lock + fire mechanism here to make it more immersive."

Yes, what part of it is "shocker" ? They are talking about gimbaling. That's the mechanism that allows you to control multiple gusn at once. Tat's right out of the CvC update on Kickstarter. So one battery operator can coordinate one battery, but still, people will be needed to do that. There's no automation involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We never disagreed on linking weapons, or batteries.

 

And Archonius: you just don't get it that your example with the car is completely wrong and nothing good in this discussion.

That's why rl comparisons never work. People don't get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, not sure what is so hard to understand about, if you don't have enough crew either fly a big ship VERY ineffectively or fly a smaller ship.

 

The WoW raid example is a good comparison because if not enough show up for raid can either still do the raid but it'll be harder to do or you do other content more suited to your groups size. Demanding that you should be able to play any content regardless of its requirements is pretty selfish/immature and going against the basic design of MMORPGs. Yes you need to socialize to experience the most content, if you don't want to socialize or anything that comes with it, then fine, you just won't be able to do everything in the game and will need to adjust how you play based on your own limitations/restrictions you put on yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"In future expansions, we will try to implement a way for you to control several weapons at the same time in a tactical view, and script how you coordinate them."

So instead of the player being the gunner, they are a gunnery officer. They would be able to 'command' multiple guns at once (lock and fire), but the guns would all be linked to a control group and fire at one target at a time (each gunnery officer could only control one control group of guns, and the amount of guns could be dependant on skill training). This would make the crew size to ship size logarithmic, but then again the ability to field larger crews gets exponentially higher since you all have to be there at the same time.

 

As for the OP, I would say that auto turrets work for bases and stations (static constructs) since they don't move (and are easier to hit). You want at least some defense for your small group wilderness base for when you are all offline. Same works for stations, since you can create turret platforms (and spam them if need be) that can dissuade bandits from hitting your massive station, but does not really stop a military fleet since their guns will likely out-range the platforms (or hit them from orbit if they are planetary, think space artillery).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Combat is a very complicated topic, as there are endless ways PvP will be carried out outside the safe-zone.

This discussion mostly focused on active ship vs ship combat, where I agree that 5vs1 should always win. If the 1 player would buy 100 automated canons it would just be pay2win! (Linking cannons together is a good compromise though)

 

But jacobean brought up another important point for static bases:


As for the OP, I would say that auto turrets work for bases and stations (static constructs) since they don't move (and are easier to hit). You want at least some defense for your small group wilderness base for when you are all offline. Same works for stations, since you can create turret platforms (and spam them if need be) that can dissuade bandits from hitting your massive station, but does not really stop a military fleet since their guns will likely out-range the platforms (or hit them from orbit if they are planetary, think space artillery).

Obviously NQ already provides "protection bubbles" for that situation, but I think these are only good for short protection, to give the defenders time to react.

However the attackers are always in favor, as they can plan their attack during a time where the defenders are in lower numbers (eg. 5am).

To counteract that the defenders could "transfer" their firepower to others, when they go offline. Of course only for static constructs and for 4-8 hours to prevent abuse.

 

An example scenario would be a big mining station with 50 players that gets attacked during the night: The miners placed temporary automation scripts into the turrets as they expect pirate raids. 3 players from other timer-zones play "night guard", to keep the scripts running.

Then a group of 10 pirates try to loot the mine. They break through the defenses and loot some minerals, but as the automated cannons are still dealing damage to them, they have to retreat. If there would be no defense at all, they would've been able to level the place to the ground!

 

Again, BALANCE IS KEY. We need to provide mechanics that are the most fun for ALL types of players. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, BALANCE IS KEY. We need to provide mechanics that are the most fun for ALL types of players. ;)

I bet nobody cares about ALL players here. Everyone pull on own side only. That's the problem of this community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet nobody cares about ALL players here. Everyone pull on own side only. That's the problem of this community.

Quite ironic there. You have all this time been arguing for only one sort of player. The "i must always strive for a bigger ship" solo player. I think there's a much broader variety of players you would hurt by having it your way than vice versa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...