Jump to content
0something0

Scripting and limited automation

Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, blazemonger said:

Again, I never said anything to contradict what you are saying although I fail to see the relation with wealth here.

It relates in the sense that automated weapons give an additional edge towards the lesser eqquiped crafts.

In my point of view,it endangers space battles to become messuring contests of who has the "bigger gun" instead the "most numbers".

This could mean that with enough advanced rocket systems and a large craft wealthy individuals would possibly be able to incapacitate a 20 man plattoon all by themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but warfare should also be about quality, not only quantity. People who invedt in higher-quality weapons system should get better results. In fact, the lack of automation may lead to the "big  guns" senario as people try to cram as much firepower per person. Minmaxing will happen either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 0something0 said:

Yes, but warfare should also be about quality, not only quantity. People who invedt in higher-quality weapons system should get better results. In fact, the lack of automation may lead to the "big  guns" senario as people try to cram as much firepower per person. Minmaxing will happen either way.

The thing is automated turrets would be able to get spammed on a huge ship, and be basically make one invincible = Pay to Win

I don’t see a problem with the “big guns” scenario, because NQ can limit how big those guns will be, so they won't really be "unfair".

 

Also as others have said before realism should not be a reason to support automation.

The top1 priority for NQ should be to design this universe so it is fun to play for everyone. All other aspects of this game e.g. the Lore, are only designed in order to support features which are actually “fun”.

That said IMO its fun to play/coordinate together with other people, and we should thing of features how to encourage that. So instead of automating everything on a huge ship we could think about mechanics to give the crew meaningful tasks to do. Organizing a ship with 100 individuals should be very complex, as this is part of the fun!

 

A mechanic that gives an individual player (with enough Quanta) SIGNIFICANTLY more power over other players should be prevented. The 2 especially delicate aspects are:

- For military: using automation to increase the amount of DPS a player can deal is a no-go

- For economics: using automated mining to basically create a Quanta printing machine is also a no-go

 

 

Now on the other hand there are aspects of the game where automation would make sense:

For me it’s not fun to invest countless hours into building a huge base, just to have it all destroyed over night, without even having the chance to defend it.

-> NQ agrees to that and will provide features like shields, and maybe limited auto turrets for base defense. This will have to be properly balanced, so that attacking a base should also still be fun!!

 

It’s also not fun to have to rebuild your ship by hand every time, because it’s been destroyed for the 10th time during a war against another org.

-> That’s why NQ provides factory units for automated ship building.

 

Even flying a ship for hours could become a bit boring, so NQ allows us to script an autopilot in Lua for that.

The important thing is that none of the above examples is giving an individual player a significant advantage over others.

 

I hope it’s clear now that automation is not a yes-or-no question. It’s rather a question of finding the right balance. -> NQ should use automation to encourage the fun parts of the game while preventing boring, or unfair situations.

 

Actually I think even fully automated turrets are kind of a gray area. If NQ could find some game mechanic so that a player won’t gain any real advantage by having auto-turrets, it could work.

Wizardoftrash made an interesting suggestion about this a while ago:

 

I don’t want to repeat everything, as this post has already gotten too long… this topic has been popping up for years even though NQ is still far away of implementing these PVP features.

Unfortunately automation is somehow a buzzword that gets Twerk triggered, but I hope this discussion won’t get as heated as last time…:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@blazemonger

You also suggested s DU Convention be named DUCON, so you might not have a solid grasp on accurate depictions of certain things.

 

Lua is meant for macros, aka sequences of actions, not self-looping motions that require no trigger by the player.

 

Hitting flip and burn requires player judgement, the script doing it for you does not.

 

 

Also, if you don't like JCs vision of people working together, you can leave, DU is not EVE where everyone is a captain. That's its difficulty, that you need actual social skills to earn a ship chair by managing a crew. 

 

 

I should not expect anything better from an EVE F1 monkey ''captain'' though. You clearly lack any social skills

 

 

Better not be highly ambitious, unlike EVE, DUAL Universe is not power fantasy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fundamental problem that I see with restricting weapon automation is there are going to be alot of people that are going to want to build a big ship and fly it around.  Nobody is going to want to be gunner #3 that gets to do something 'if' you get attacked by someone else.  It will probably just take time but I think weapon automation is going to be in the games future.  One of the videos says the scripts only run when you are close by, they are client side, not server side.   So I don't see too much a problem with the idea as far as server load.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep. this just kills the actuall discussion, as always... I'm really sad this is the way it works on this forum.

(EDIT: this was a respons to this post...)

On 13.11.2017 at 12:56 AM, 0something0 said:

@blazemongerJust don't respond. I don't want this quickly deteriorating into a salt mine.

 

tl:dr 

Lua is for assisting players with macros, not total automation, and JC's vision is people working togather.

 

 

@0something0 A short comment on your initial thoughts:

It's not at all contradictory to limit automation!! I think NQ would want to give us as much freedom in DU as possible, including automation! However they are essentially forced to limit certain aspects of it for gameplay reasons. The core gameloop is based on competition, and you wouldn't want to play a game that just feels unfair(pay2win).

 

It's a bit difficult where to draw the line, but thats exacly why we are discussing this.

Also the term automation has a very negative bias in this community because the only thing people can think of is guns and PvP.

But just like in RL automation can have many benefits. It would help manage the economy in big organizations (e.g. building ATMs), or enable new ways of mobility by scripting a sort of car-sharing service. Also for recreational activities you could build very complex minigames or amuesment parks with the help of automation.

I'd really love to get more into detail about this topic, but I don't want to write another textwall, and this forum isn't the right place for it... <_<

 

In conclusion I think NQ is doing a great job so far, as they implemented amazing scripting possibilities in the game already. I'm sure that stuff will only get limited, if it's actually harming the gameplay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How this has anything to do with P2W I do not get. It seems quite a few here seem to think that this will cause an imbalance where players with RL money can pay their way to OP game play which I feel is just nonsense.

 

Developing scripting to assist in maintaining control of (a ships) subsystems would for me actually be an interesting and potentially very profitable mechanic in game. I could see a whole industry develop around it which is, for me, to a reasonable extent what his game is about. I am not and never have been an advocate of one person being able to control a huge and powerful ship, that is not what this is about.

 

I do feel that the sense some seem to have, that we should basically be bound by medieval mechanics of having to put a body at every gun or other component of a ship to be archaic and not sensible, it will also not work and I do not believe this is actually what NQ is looking to achieve/drive.

 

In fact, this actually tips balance towards those able to muster, and by definition control, a large group of players and put a lot of in game power in the hands of a those capable of (potentially) bullying and aggressing their way to the top. It's a power trip basically and so far a number of those who tout the 'social' component of this really display all the signs of tyrants and despots only abusing the term to try and establish/enforce their ideas of control. Already we are seeing some organizations starting to display signs of this behaviour and members advocating this as they think/believe that the group they are with/part of will back them in their illusions of control and power.

 

Hypothetically speaking (as personally I have zero interest in any of this), If it is the way you want to apparently approach this it will be this exact mechanic that will promote P2W as those with RL money can quickly buy/create in game conditions to bind others to them which will give them the edge over those who don't/can't. I will simply spend enough $$ to be able to buy loyalty and cooperation with perks and commodities in game or just buy mercs to enforce my ideas onto others. I just throw free game time around and I'll get plenty of players to do whatever I ask of them, I will win by spending $$.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not by intention IMO, Obviously there can and will be those who abuse this potential but that does not define it as P2W to me.

 

It's the same as in EVE where there is many people coming in from other MMO like WOW where having bigger guns is basically what controls the game. EVE is not like that and often bigger guns are actually not at all beneficial or helpful. I believe that, like in EVE, DU will see some think they can buy their way to being OP but fall flat on their face as experience and yes, social connections and teamwork, will play a vastly more important role in how you establish yourself.

 

I just hope that weapon and combat mechanics in DU are not just about point and shoot but will take all the mechanics into consideration that would apply. Big guns should not be able to track a small target as easy as smaller guns, what is the falloff of accuracy, how does the angular velocity of the target impact tracking or hitpoint effectiveness? All these should come into play to make this interesting.

 

The people thinking that EVE is like Orbit .. Lock .. Hit F1 should have a rude awakening like they will in EVE when they come across a pilot or group of pilots who know better. Go check out Clarion Call videos by Rooks & Kings on Youtube to see EVE tactics in action (not some prefab hype demo reel but actual real action).. IF DU will be able to develop even close to these mechanics and possibilities in combat we will have a winner.. a huge one. Oh, and if you check these videos, pay attention to how this is anything but 'fully automated hit a button tactics'.. It's co-operation and collaboration as well as sacrifice and quick strategic thinking all rolled into one. There is automation in that people press buttons to make stuff happen, but just pressing buttons will not get them anywhere but deleted, it's the thought and preparation that goes into how and when to press the button that makes it work. This pretty much is the mechanic I have been talking about here and frankly, complex and interesting tactics and game play will be near impossible to achieve without it, in fact you will be stuck with 'point and shoot'.

 

Being able to buy the big  guns outright should not mean you buy yourself into winning, if it does then yes, that would be bad and P2W .. I expect  this will not be the case especially as we know how much JR and his team look upto/at EVE for it's depth and complexity.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The amount of misinformed ignorance in this discussion is staggering.

 

 

@blazemonger

 

Do yourself a favor, do some research. You think your ignorance wins over facts. Deal with it, you will need to socialise. End of story. Be less of a  Signal Cartel "tough talker", cause you will be punished for that in DU via mutuny. You wanna be a wolf? Better build a pack. NQ won't grant you an entire control over a ship like in EVE  You'll have to earn it, not just train it. You won't have multiple ships controlled like your piece of crap of a trademark domi gatecamp multiboxing on Providence.  

 

 

RnK do nothing different than 20 organised people in Lineage 2 vs 100 people. You are not even understanding EVE's allure in combat , you are that much of an F1 monkey.  RnK didn't invent focus targeting or the value of communication. RnK would field a powerful ship in DU, the one that builds fame cause the crew it has is skilled. That's actually awesome for anyone but your antisocial ''tough talker'' fantasy.

 

 

DU can have logi ships. DU can have cruisers or battleships. What it won't have is power fantasy. ACCEPT IT. You are no uberman in DU to technopathically control a ship. It's in your favorite Providence crap, the Lore.  Accept it you will need to learn not to be an F1 monkey in DU. 

 

 

Most of you people won't ever be considered for a battleship position period, most of you "automation" bois lack any ability to socialise enough and clearly YOU GUYS HATE teamwork which is why you want to be ''solo captain", cause you are griefers and only hang around people who grief for "fun" - not even piracy, just "kill miners for tears". Well, you will have to be exposed to your venom with multicrew ships.And I am happy about griefers having to eat each other alive inside a ship. :) makes me happy that mutinies will be a thing in DU. 

 

Accept comradery as a part of a ship, or opt to flying spacecraft, not spaceships, those two types don't mean the same.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As NQ said many times (AMA, interviews) scripting will be a huge part of the game to ease the controls - it's there to make a ship turn fast and precise, to link constructs together for production for example, to balance some weired construct with many engines, to get sensor data on to screens, to modify the behaviour of elements in a limited way so they perform better, use less fuel and so on.

But it's not there to automate big ships or to automate every turret.

 

Will you be able to automate a turret so it shoots on it's own at enemies? No

Will you be able to fly a big ship alone (=pilot, man all turrets, repair the ship, man possible other stations - at once)? No

Will you be able to connect multiple turrets together so they shoot in the general direction of the one you're sitting in? Possibly - has to be seen and balanced

 

It's all about balancing the gameplay so I really disagree here with blaze: it might be "archaic" in a scifi world but it's needed for a mmo. You can't allow single players to do the same stuff as a big group - and you shouldn't restrict single players in their smaller ships either.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Lethys said:

You can't allow single players to do the same stuff as a big group - and you shouldn't restrict single players in their smaller ships either.

Well, I can only speak for myself when I say I never made any such claim and in fact I can agree with that.

 

That said, as an example these two would not in fall under your statement in my opinion;

  • I feel that not having tracking or targeting mechanics and forcing manual firing only would be a mistake.
  • Not being able to secure a perimeter with automated systems will be a mistake as it is simply unworkable when you require a complex to be secured by actual players 24/7 across time zones.

 

These are just two points I believe should be addressed and for now I think some here misunderstand what NQ's intentions are in this as it would simply not make sense. But we'l l see how this develops.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, blazemonger said:

Well, I can only speak for myself when I say I never made any such claim and in fact I can agree with that.

 

That said, as an example these two would not in fall under your statement in my opinion;

  • I feel that not having tracking or targeting mechanics and forcing manual firing only would be a mistake.
  • Not being able to secure a perimeter with automated systems will be a mistake as it is simply unworkable when you require a complex to be secured by actual players 24/7 across time zones.

 

These are just two points I believe should be addressed and for now I think some here misunderstand what NQ's intentions are in this as it would simply not make sense. But we'l l see how this develops.

 

Don't confuse, again, STATIC cores and DYNAMIC cores....

 

Again, those two points are adressed and fall in there, as NQ already said:

 

Quote

 


However, what we can tell you is what the team is aiming for:

- Giving the ability to players to build some automated defense for their base.

- Avoiding to give the ability to players to have a huge multicrew ship entirely manageable by one player. This would defeat the purpose of multiplayer crew ships, and would end up destroying the team play we are aiming for. People wanting to play solo will be able to do many things, but not everything: piloting alone a multiplayer crew ship with maximum efficiency will be one of the things they won't be able to do. Team play must be rewarded by some exclusive activities and piloting a multiplayer crew ship is the biggest one. Without strong incentive, team play just won't happen.

- Regarding AI, it depends what players are expecting: if it's to help in some basic industrial tasks, or basic automated defense, yes, there will be some - limited - possibilities. However, no AI self-replicating robots, no AI able to replace completely a player in a multiplayer crew ship.

 

 

They want team play, that's clearly their intention. But I fully agree: I think some here misunderstand NQ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, blazemonger said:

@Lethys

 

That's a great quote, thanks! It certainly clears up a lot.. 

Seems you are good at collecting and archiving these.. we may need to talk ;)

I linked that post on the first page....if people would actually bother to read stuff, it would be a lot easier ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Say you got a highly automated ship that you take into combat. 

 

Targetting: at least for me, I would think its a good idea to put people to decide where and when to shoot, and things fet nore difficult when I have to try to manage 5 targets at once even if I have 100 turrets on my ship.

 

Damage Control: Due to the random nature of damage control, its impractical to place self repair bots everywhere because it will get really heavy, and you need a full-blown pathfinding ai and a robot able to control the nanoformer and other stuff and....

 

EMP strikes/electronic warfare/cyberwarfare : such weapons might be a useful tool in countering automated systems, requiring mechanical or human-controlled backups.

 

Not easily programmable objects: Instead of doing

 

Turret.aim (target1)

Turret.fire

 

You might have to do

 

--forgive me for my horrible fake code

Radar.getfirsttarget(xsin, xcos, ysin, ycos) --for the unit circle in the plane of the radar and another one for going up in latitude in 3d sphere

Turretconvert(xsin, xcos, ysin, ycos)--convert this to x and y rotations for the turret

Turret.aim (23radians, 15radians)

T

Turret.fire 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, 0something0 said:

Say you got a highly automated ship that you take into combat. 

 

Targetting: at least for me, I would think its a good idea to put people to decide where and when to shoot, and things fet nore difficult when I have to try to manage 5 targets at once even if I have 100 turrets on my ship.

 

Damage Control: Due to the random nature of damage control, its impractical to place self repair bots everywhere because it will get really heavy, and you need a full-blown pathfinding ai and a robot able to control the nanoformer and other stuff and....

 

EMP strikes/electronic warfare/cyberwarfare : such weapons might be a useful tool in countering automated systems, requiring mechanical or human-controlled backups.

 

Not easily programmable objects: Instead of doing

 

Turret.aim (target1)

Turret.fire

 

You might have to do

 

--forgive me for my horrible fake code

Radar.getfirsttarget(xsin, xcos, ysin, ycos) --for the unit circle in the plane of the radar and another one for going up in latitude in 3d sphere

Turretconvert(xsin, xcos, ysin, ycos)--convert this to x and y rotations for the turret

Turret.aim (23radians, 15radians)

T

Turret.fire 

 

 

 

 ... you can't actually aim... at a cosine... it's like being asked :

 "How far is that object?


and replying : 

 

"33 degrees left on my FOV"


...that's... not what cosines are for.



Here's the thing. ( @blazemonger feel free to read as well, you might understand more than non-EVE players).


If NQ allows for people to trigger turrets and forcing them to raycast + fire, then this is how it will go.

1) You set up a turret or group of them to face forward on your ship - fixed guns, like jetfighter noseguns.

2) You use an operator or a control unit command, so when you press TAB, you actually fire the turrets, by making them raycast and if they lock-on to something (softl-locks, this is how the digging tool works on all the videos) the gun will fire at the enemy.

This kind of dumb-firing weapon system is by all means, something you can do solo. But hold on your horses ladies and gentlement (and by popularity alone, furries)  this is not so simple.

See,  raycasting, given how NQ explained it, will work on a "cone of fire". Which means "you got a core in wihch yo ucast targeting rays that lock-on to terrain / voxels, if you lock on a voxel grids EMPTY voxel space, then the shot will go 100% a miss" . Yeap. Welcome to the world of unforgiving math. To be clear, this is ONE type of model they can go with, since it's far easier to implement given their model of programming (Actor Model). Don't ask how, it's math, it's magic, it's algebra.

Now, add the very fact the game - as explained on Kickstarter Update #21 - follows the similar model of EVE Combat. So, your weapons have "muzzle speeds" in the form of optimal ranges and tracking speeds which determine how fast the weapon can turn around, which compares to the targets' "cross-section" and their transversal speed.

So, your dumb-firing ship, has one way of aiming - zero in your nose onto the enemy, and fire, hoping to hit something. AT this point, I need to point out something... the guns are not manned. They don't get hit-chance bonus by their gunner since there IS no gunner to give skill training bonii to the turret itself. it's firing on its default settings, not modified. You are just piloting the ship and just dumb-firing the guns. Remember that, DUMB-firing. It's the equivalent of spraying and praying with a submachinegun, hoping to hit someone 500 meters away, while hip-firing. The chances are PRETTY slim.


Now, let's move onto the thing about, you know, your transversal. Since your ship is essentailly a stick with some guns on its front, ti means your onyl way of shooting is :

1) approach

2) approach even faster or they will shoot you to death, you got no tranversal to throw off their aim

You need to close the gap between you and the enemy so you won't miss your shots. Problem is, while you close in on them, they cna pepper you and kite you to death if they got a multicrew. Notice, they can shoot behind them or on their right, they got gunners to manually turn the turrets and give bonii to them for tracking / optimal range / damage. You got no such thing.


IF you want this kind of thing, then sure, I guess NQ can make an exception, give some people te ability to dumb-fire weapons, I mean, starfighters HAVE to work somehow like that, right?

IF you want that dumb-firing mode of a ship that only works for people who are vehemently against multicrewing, well then, enjoy the pros and cons. Just don't expect to be on any level of equal footing against a moving target, especially a moving target of more players than you.

So, to recap, IF NQ WAS TO ALLOW FOR DUMB-FIRING VIA OPERATORS :

1) you are forced to using CQB weaponry - pulse lasers, small caliber (for ships) ballistics, rockets, blasters (short range plamsa weaponry).

2) you are forced to fly a lightly armored ship to bridge the gap between you and the enemy faster - less mass, more acceleration

3) you are one guy on a ship, any boarding party that sneaks up on your ship, means you are outgunned.

4) pray to the Spaghetti Monster the enemy has no tractor beams, cause you ain't getting out alive if they also got CQB weaponry and peopl;e mannning those turrets, their guns will do more damage cause thier guns are manned by actual people.

Here's a quote from EVE for a ship that behaves exactly like that, the Interceptor class frigate, Taranis :

"There's a reason the blaster Taranis is flown by mental cases. Fear is a handicap when you're travelling at 4km/s in a metal death tube with thin walls and three small nuclear devices strapped to the outside. Should you survive for more than two seconds inside web range, the poor sap you fire those blasters at is seriously going to regret not having a web/tank/neut/whatever as you rip his face off at a close enough range to go through his pockets as you do it. The other outcome is that you wake up covered in slime wondering where the bus that hit you went. The Taranis is a ship for angry people who prefer to deal in absolutes. None of that sissy-boy, "We danced around a bit, shot some ammo then ran away LOL", or, "I couldn't break his tank so I left", crap. It goes like this: You fly Taranis. A fight starts. Someone dies. There is no other possibility." - Stuart Price.

 

 

The alternative, would be to have the Swedish S-Tank's scheme of controls.

The driver is the gunner and the reload is automated. 

What's the catch? You can't drive and shoot at the same time and you need to adjust the gun every time. In DU's terms, you can switch between piloting and aligning the turret(s) you use at one time, which means, you are spreading like butter over a giant slice of bread.

As I said to the original post I made on this thread "the world's most taxing and stressful game of whack-a-mole".

And yes, that means such "solo" ships are only effective if you actually have a PhD in DUAL Universe and are a Jedi to predict when people will burn towards you to use their momentum to close the distance between you two.

The max speed may be 5,5 Km/s in DU, but combined velocities can reach 11 km/s ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not against multicrewing, and will gladly work as a deck hand(probably) given a fair pay. I am however, for futurist technology, espacially considering that without automation, it will take hundreds of people to run nuclear reactors and such. On the other hand, going full Dune could also be interesting.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 0something0 said:

I'm not against multicrewing, and will gladly work as a deck hand(probably) given a fair pay. I am however, for futurist technology, espacially considering that without automation, it will take hundreds of people to run nuclear reactors and such. On the other hand, going full Dune could also be interesting.

 

 

See, this is the thing. Most groups in games like DU, split the profit from an op's loot.

In Albion for example, we got chests set up where we drop a day's loot from PvP, then the people who were on that group thayt night - give ntheir assistis on the group - get a percentage of the proceeds of that chest when its contents are sold.

That's not any different in DU. Being a repairman on a carrier is as important as a pilot who flies a star-fighter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:

 ... you can't actually aim... at a cosine... it's like being asked :

 "How far is that object?


and replying : 

 

"33 degrees left on my FOV"

Technically you can still aim at 33 degrees left of center on the fov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...