RE: The future of Distant Worlds - Is DW2 necessary? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Distant Worlds 1 Series



Message

Nanaki -> RE: The future of Distant Worlds - Is DW2 necessary? (6/26/2014 1:17:52 AM)

No one has asked anyone to remove anything. That is fanboyism putting words in my mouth. NOWHERE have I stated such a thing. I stated get serious with the lore and to open up the modding so I can have races like the ones that exist in EOTFS if I want to mod them in. I have already modded out the bugs in DW- what I cannot do is mod in the races I truely want..because the game does not support it.

Let me grab the specific quote that started this argument:

I'd like a more serious look at Lore as well. It seems some mad idea that all 4x Space games have talking rodent and roaches...including popular worlds like Star trek and Starwars...but I'm a hard sci-fi guy. My favorite sci-fi movies are 'believable' sci-fi movies like Gattaca or Children of Men....under no evolutionary vision will a rodent ever speak or enter space...it has no thumbs.

You might have had different intentions in mind and this could be a horrible misunderstanding, but the understanding that I got from your argument was: I do not like these races (Teekan and presumably one or all of the insect races?), scrap them and give me something else.


And for the failures there are the successes as well. the most recent being Xenonaughts. Of all the xcom wannabe's they got it mostly right when other's have fallen on thier face. Just a single guy at times. That project went on for far longer than a decade going through all kinds of trouble- the main programmer leaving, an engine jump, money, fans blasting them they'd never finish....that they bit off more than they can chew.


Xenonauts started in 2009, it released 2014, thats only five years. Five years is fairly lengthy (an MMO development cycle is about that long) but not unreasonably so. As for XCom wannabe... If im not mistaken, the new XCom and Shadowrun both sold very, very well.

Beyond that, I have no knowlege of xenonaut's development process, and fans generally tend to be hyperbolic in their arguments so I tend to take their statements with a grain of salt.

Even if you are correct that they 'stuck to their guns' (and really without insight into the development process we really do not know), they just happened to be lucky enough to have enough funding to accomplish everything they wanted. Most games never get this chance, and end up either rushed into market as a buggy/incomplete mess, or end up shut down unceremoniously.

Given the odds, id rather Code Force stick to a reality-based development process so I at least have a reasonable chance of seeing Distant Worlds 2.



Unforeseen -> RE: The future of Distant Worlds - Is DW2 necessary? (6/26/2014 1:30:46 AM)

That's kind of foolish anyways..to assume that Rodents and Insects can't build spaceships because of earth based evolutionary paths. We're talking about other planets here, in a vast galaxy that has AT LEAST ONE HUNDRED BILLION stars in it. That's alot of chances for life, and alot of chances for evolutionary paths that are not at all similar to Earth. Your basically assuming that these rodents have no thumbs, despite the fact that there are no images of their hands anywhere in the game. Regardless of this fact, even if they don't have thumbs Rodents in particular on Earth have proven very versatile without them and likely would not need them anyways. Source: I have pet rats. They don't need thumbs. Trust me.



eyegore -> RE: The future of Distant Worlds - Is DW2 necessary? (6/26/2014 3:28:59 AM)

No one has asked anyone to remove anything. That is fanboyism putting words in my mouth. NOWHERE have I stated such a thing. I stated get serious with the lore and to open up the modding so I can have races like the ones that exist in EOTFS if I want to mod them in. I have already modded out the bugs in DW- what I cannot do is mod in the races I truely want..because the game does not support it.

Let me grab the specific quote that started this argument:

I'd like a more serious look at Lore as well. It seems some mad idea that all 4x Space games have talking rodent and roaches...including popular worlds like Star trek and Starwars...but I'm a hard sci-fi guy. My favorite sci-fi movies are 'believable' sci-fi movies like Gattaca or Children of Men....under no evolutionary vision will a rodent ever speak or enter space...it has no thumbs.

You might have had different intentions in mind and this could be a horrible misunderstanding, but the understanding that I got from your argument was: I do not like these races (Teekan and presumably one or all of the insect races?), scrap them and give me something else.

The last line is yours, not mine. You are the one putting "scrap them" in. If you want cats and bugs I really don't care- they are not my taste- and because the game is centered around those simplistic ideas it's modding options, as well as diplomacy options don't support the type of races I'd want to mod in- as I explained a few posts back in quite some detail laying out the different factions.


That's kind of foolish anyways..to assume that Rodents and Insects can't build spaceships because of earth based evolutionary paths. We're talking about other planets here, in a vast galaxy that has AT LEAST ONE HUNDRED BILLION stars in it. That's alot of chances for life, and alot of chances for evolutionary paths that are not at all similar to Earth. Your basically assuming that these rodents have no thumbs, despite the fact that there are no images of their hands anywhere in the game. Regardless of this fact, even if they don't have thumbs Rodents in particular on Earth have proven very versatile without them and likely would not need them anyways. Source: I have pet rats. They don't need thumbs. Trust me.

If your looking at odds in the Billions and random chaos evolution to justify a bug in space fine...but seems to me, given the intire history of races in 4x games you don't need odds of 1 in a billion. the odds are practically garanteed to have bugs in space...it's the default path these games take.

Realistically, and logically as far as we know science has been consistant through space as we know it. Certain elements are REQUIRED for life, and we search for them. We search for Earth type planets that has a Star simuliar to ours-- given that history it sure sounds to me we are also looking for planets that mirror our own and we expect the science to be consistant- so it is perfectly logical to assume human over bug, cat dog or whatnot.Not there may be scant odds there's something totally different, but scant should not be 100 percent possability every 4x game to come along.

I understand the draw--it's embedded. Has been. But to me it's just not belieavable --however remotely possible or not- therefore I expect things like thumbs and such to weild the tools necessary. A head to support a large enough brain to support the intelligence required, and some forum of language and communication.

I EXPECT everything else to be Alien...Dress, the language they use, their beliefs, who they worship-if they worship- custums and culture, and likely governments/leaders etc.....Yet somehow as minimal a chance of a space fairing bug it's a certainty, but how unlikely any other form of government except Democracy, Republic, Monarchy and the others we know. Apparantly it is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to find Aliens with any other kind of government we've never heard of...even the bugs. Aparantly also they all enjoy some form of capatalism with government and private ships, they all want the same luxuries and they all require the same basic elements like steel and lead for their planets to grown...ANYTHING else is impossible...except of course...a talking spacefairing roach.

Now again...I'm not saying kill your favorite roach race. But I am saying this needs works guys. Let's open things up a bit. Some Aliens may function 100 percent idealogically-- there may not be such a thing as church and state...there might just be church period. It's not here in DW. Yet a world of races fighting over idealogical beliefs must be conceivable if space fairing crickets are possible.

But no, we can't have that.

So the way i see it...it's not me saying dump what you want--it's you saying dump what I want...and the excuses range from "requires an EA with Millions, 100 man dev teams to...BORING. I don't want reskinned humunoids. I should accept the cricket race and stop complaining.

Your post 5 pages why your way is the only possible way, nothing else should be wanted or needed.



fenrislokison -> RE: The future of Distant Worlds - Is DW2 necessary? (6/26/2014 7:25:41 AM)

Nothing to add, except it seems, Eyegore, you replied to both Nanaki and me, it was a bit confusing.





Unforeseen -> RE: The future of Distant Worlds - Is DW2 necessary? (6/26/2014 10:26:26 AM)

It is not "logical" to ASSUME anything. Only theorize based on actual evidence. And right now we have ZERO evidence about our uniqueness and consistency in the universe. As a result there is no basis to make any assessment that Rodents and Insects cannot evolve to a point of being able to use complicated tools and machinery. You seem to have a very limited understanding about how evolution works. You think that what currently exists on Earth must consistently be the case elsewhere. This is not true at all. Let's look at the cricket for instance. Up until recently all crickets created a sound using their legs as a mating call. Unfortunately on a particular island that i can't remember the name of a fly that used this as a tracking device of sorts and dropped maggots on them that eventually would kill the cricket. Evolution created a solution to the problem by eliminating the ability to make the mating call. We now have silent crickets.

I do agree on one point though, the government's in 4x games are extremely repetitive. You would expect to see FUNCTIONAL communism style governments, government that are run entirely by corporate alliances, governments that are run by the church, governments that are run by religious militants...



Nanaki -> RE: The future of Distant Worlds - Is DW2 necessary? (6/26/2014 11:19:03 AM)

The last line is yours, not mine. You are the one putting "scrap them" in. If you want cats and bugs I really don't care- they are not my taste- and because the game is centered around those simplistic ideas it's modding options, as well as diplomacy options don't support the type of races I'd want to mod in- as I explained a few posts back in quite some detail laying out the different factions.

That should have been obvious considering that only your quoted line was italicised. The line below it was not italicised thus not part of the quote. Keep an eye on what is italics and not italics.

If your looking at odds in the Billions and random chaos evolution to justify a bug in space fine...but seems to me, given the intire history of races in 4x games you don't need odds of 1 in a billion. the odds are practically garanteed to have bugs in space...it's the default path these games take.

I do think bugs in space is a bit overdone, if anything the two constants that any 4X will have is that a bug and reptile race will make an appearance. However, im not going to advocate for removing DW's bugs or reptiles. I know some people like them and I am not going to deny their fun.

Realistically, and logically as far as we know science has been consistant through space as we know it. Certain elements are REQUIRED for life, and we search for them. We search for Earth type planets that has a Star simuliar to ours-- given that history it sure sounds to me we are also looking for planets that mirror our own and we expect the science to be consistant- so it is perfectly logical to assume human over bug, cat dog or whatnot.Not there may be scant odds there's something totally different, but scant should not be 100 percent possability every 4x game to come along.


Even exobiologists concede that life can form under unusual circumstances, the only reason we search for Earth-like planets is partially because it may harbor life as we understand it, partially because, well, humanity does likely intend to colonize them down the road and we need some ideas on where to go. As for realism, we gone through this argument before. We are in no position to assume anything about what extraterrestrial sentients may look like. We are not even 100% certain what gives us humans sentience.

I EXPECT everything else to be Alien...Dress, the language they use, their beliefs, who they worship-if they worship- custums and culture, and likely governments/leaders etc.....Yet somehow as minimal a chance of a space fairing bug it's a certainty, but how unlikely any other form of government except Democracy, Republic, Monarchy and the others we know. Apparantly it is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to find Aliens with any other kind of government we've never heard of...even the bugs. Aparantly also they all enjoy some form of capatalism with government and private ships, they all want the same luxuries and they all require the same basic elements like steel and lead for their planets to grown...ANYTHING else is impossible...except of course...a talking spacefairing roach.

[8|]

We went through this before. We have no idea what is realistic or not realistic in spacefaring sentients because we do not know of any that exist. You are basically throwing up assumption after assumption about something we know absolutly nothing about. The realism argument is getting boring to hear. Please stop using it. Your assumptions are not realistic.


Now again...I'm not saying kill your favorite roach race. But I am saying this needs works guys. Let's open things up a bit. Some Aliens may function 100 percent idealogically-- there may not be such a thing as church and state...there might just be church period. It's not here in DW. Yet a world of races fighting over idealogical beliefs must be conceivable if space fairing crickets are possible.

But no, we can't have that.


Except you never worded your argument like that. Your opening salvo in this argument was complaining about roaches and rats and how unrealistic they are. You never mentioned anything about adding gameplay differences between races or races fighting over ideological beleifs.


So the way i see it...it's not me saying dump what you want--it's you saying dump what I want...and the excuses range from "requires an EA with Millions, 100 man dev teams to...BORING. I don't want reskinned humunoids. I should accept the cricket race and stop complaining.


I said it was unfair to compare Distant Worlds to decade-old multimillion dollar franchises.



fenrislokison -> RE: The future of Distant Worlds - Is DW2 necessary? (6/26/2014 12:41:49 PM)

Apparantly it is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to find Aliens with any other kind of government we've never heard of...even the bugs
Way of the Ancients, Way of the Darkness, Utopian paradise, Hive mind, Technocracy, National Corporatism.

Yes, i know, it's not what you meant since they're just percentages on a window. The game still run the same, no difference between bugs and humans and talkings cats.
You want the game to run and feel differently if you play as this species or this other species while still have a lot of room for strategy and various personnalized options and of course a lot of lore which actually bring something to the game so you can feel as if you were living the game instead of mere playing it.

Sorry if i sound a bit rude... i'm a bit tired by you constantly changing subjects instead of supporting your own point of view with adequate examples or clear and logical reasonning.
Really, you started from not liking talkings cats to have a lore like Dune/W40k and now governments and beliefs? So confusing... it's getting nowhere.

Your post 5 pages why your way is the only possible way, nothing else should be wanted or needed.
And this is why i'm a bit upset, since you were the one to bring the issue about talking cats and the rest, not me, not Nanaki.
You are the one who think your way is the only acceptable one, we are just merely stating that your point of view is far too ambitious to make it into reality and i personnally stopped believing in Santa Claus a long time ago (i hope Nanaki will forgive me to speak in his name and correct me if i'm wrong).

Happily, between "nothing" and your expectations, there is still a lot of possibilities for DW2.


And yes, i know i said i didn't have anything to add but i lied and i couldn't help blurting it out, sorry x)




Tormodino -> RE: The future of Distant Worlds - Is DW2 necessary? (6/26/2014 8:44:33 PM)

I'm all for big ideas, but isn't this getting way off topic?
The more interesting suggestions I've seen for DW don't involve a massive reworking of lore or anything like that. Not even huge changes to game mechanics.
They are usually about allowing more flexibility for modding

I would love to see total conversions with the DW system using different weapons systems, unique tech tree, wildly different economies etc.
We won't really know what it possible until more in-depth modding is made possible, if it is possible with the current engine.
This is what was brought up earlier by a few posters. The engine is old and made to do very specific things. Reworking it to be "modern and flexible"(trademark pending), whatever that may be, might be more work than it is worth.

I would love to hear from the creators about what kind of future the engine has. All the stuff you guys are suggesting are just great things that I would love to play if it was modded in. I am curious to hear whether we can hope to see any of this in DW at a point in the future.

Just a few questions to set things back on track. Some of these might be possible to mod currently so just bear with it (and keep in mind that I am asking about DW's potential here):

Would it be possible to open up and allow, however limited, AI scripting?

Would it be possible to create tech trees unique for each race/faction in a game, sharing some similar basic techs, but with some truly unique weapon types, planetary facilites etc.?

Could the private sector be given over to full manual control without breaking the system? (micro hell, I know, but that is not the point)
Could it also be scripted by race/faction?

Can new unique planet types be created?

Can more than one faction potentially occupy a planet without a total rework of the engine? (Peaceful coexistence or not)

Is it possible to transfer the current population model to stations (a permanent colony module that when added to a station or ship allows population growth for example) for economically viable habitation in space? Asteroid habitats, gas giant habitats?

Can resources be given unique modifiers? (Koribbian Spice adds happiness, but reduces development and slows population growth.

Could components have expanded functionality? (Creating a unique Engineering Bay, working as an early and limited variant of the damage control/robotic repair component.)

Is it possible to create more and varied planetary structures. Could structures be built on planets not currently inhabited? Orbital mining stations are fine, but perhaps plantary facilities for resource exploitation could make the fight to control areas of space less about popping starbases and more about ground control.

Mobile starbases?

Can weapons be changed completely with totally new abilities? (The Confusion Beam causes a targeted ship to fire randomly at other ships for a set duration)

Can the political system become more flexible? (Allow the player to develop their factions unique political model throughout the game, and have it change similar to the way characters develop.)

Could factors in the ground combat model be changed to shorten/lengthen the time it takes to fights a planetary battle?

and so on and so on... And with as many of these suggestions as possible utilizing the mechanics currently implemented in the engine.

There are so many of these additions, small and large, that could greatly extend the variety and emergent gameplay in DW. Without having to massively change the system.
I will admit, though, that I still defer to the people who say that the engine simply won't be able to handle it. I don't have enough technical insight to see where ideas meet impossible limitations.
It would love to hear a little developer input on the actual limitations of the engine, however.
For me it's part curiosity and part passion to see a great game become even better.



Gregorovitch55 -> RE: The future of Distant Worlds - Is DW2 necessary? (6/26/2014 9:57:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tormodino

Would it be possible to open up and allow, however limited, AI scripting?



DW uses Lua like Paradox games do but although quite a lot of Lua text files have obviously been added to DW:U it is very noticeable that a game like EU4 or CK2 has vastly more Lua files than DW does and that these text files contain a lot of code, i.e. functions, as well as data definitions, defining all sorts of decisions and actions that AI controlled objects take during a game whereas most of DW's seem to be limited to data definitions. AFAIK Paradox put everything that can possibly be put into a Lua file into a Lua file.

Not only does this make the games very moddable indeed but it also enables Paradox to speed up play testing/tweaking cycles and post release alterations/improvements which they do all the time.

X3 has it's own custom script engine AFAIK that produces X3's hundreds of .PCK files and pretty much everything a game object does is defined using these script files which can be of pretty much arbitrary complexity. Modders can attach script files to any game object and enable the player to activate them using an admittedly clumsy, limited interface, but interface nonetheless. AI controlled ships, for example, have a lot of scripts attached to them which define a wide range of behaviours and conditions that govern the behaviors, most of which I believe are moddable. Player controlled ships can also have scripts written for them to automate tasks, such as the important Commodity Logistics Software mod, and I'm sure DW players would love something like that to create custom anti-pirate defense scripts to attach to their fleets for example.

In both cases practically all behaviour of game objects is defined in scripts separated from the game engine if at all possible and accessible to modders. More so that DW by the looks of it. That is probably the way to go with DW2.




eyegore -> RE: The future of Distant Worlds - Is DW2 necessary? (6/26/2014 10:44:52 PM)

Sorry if i sound a bit rude... i'm a bit tired by you constantly changing subjects instead of supporting your own point of view with adequate examples or clear and logical reasonning.
Really, you started from not liking talkings cats to have a lore like Dune/W40k and now governments and beliefs? So confusing... it's getting nowhere

Sorry if your not following it. but I have been consistant. DW needs to support Idealogical and religion--and the examples I have use are clear--WH40k, Dune or EOTFS. It is not something that actually requires a complete reworking of anything but something to expand upon what's there.

We went through this before. We have no idea what is realistic or not realistic in spacefaring sentients because we do not know of any that exist. You are basically throwing up assumption after assumption about something we know absolutly nothing about. The realism argument is getting boring to hear. Please stop using it. Your assumptions are not realistic.

Actually the people who are bringing up assumption are those defending a bug in a spaceship. "Well Evolution could possibly do that." kind of thing. At best anything anyone can say at all about evolution is it helps a certain creature better survive it's environment, and even that is a giant leap- because of every example of a cricket that stops it's mating call to avoid a predator fly there are 10 other examples where an evolutionary change was actually such a negative it lead to it's extinction. To go from that..to space..requires huge leaps in assumptions--unless someone has suddenly discovered that missing link when i wasn't looking.

We do not enter Space for survival--so the evolution argument isn't even on task.

Aside from that to expand on the idealogical and religous additions--which could also be added to existing races to expand them- it's pretty easy to come up with interesting new races by simply looking at our own history of religion and idealogy. From Sun Worshipors, Shaman to Greek methology or what not-- take for example Horoscopes. it it conceivable a race would or could take to it's serious conclusions, using the stars and planets to base it's decisions--or Greek methology- the great mother sat in heaven and an Eagle landed on her lap. It created a nest and laid eggs. When the earth mother moved the eggs fell, the yoke creating the Sun, the broken shells the Stars and the eagle carried the whites to Earth and created man.




Unforeseen -> RE: The future of Distant Worlds - Is DW2 necessary? (6/26/2014 10:59:55 PM)

Um yeah because we evolved thumbs before we ever could conceive of there being a space. And there you go using that word again. "assumption". There are no assumptions in science. Only theories, and proven scientific laws.

Using evolution as an example of how rats or bugs could build spaceships is perfectly valid because the conditions leading up to such a bug or rat having thumbs or hands etc may exist on another planet. And you CANNOT say otherwise without proof. You cannot make an argument without proven facts to support it. The ONLY thing you are allowed to do is theorize, and say "I think it's possible that Rodents and Bugs on other planets would not be able to evolve in a way that would allow them to build spacecraft". And regardless, your close minded viewpoint is not going to affect how DW2 is developed. So this entire conversation is pointless.



eyegore -> RE: The future of Distant Worlds - Is DW2 necessary? (6/26/2014 11:07:24 PM)

I'm not close minded at all. i just think bugs in Space are dumb and lazy. That's just an opinion. Your allowed to have your own, as I am allowed. you have not proved they could exist anymore than I have disproved it. And that isn't the point anyway. the point is by going that path the Lore isn't as deep nor interesting as it could be.

Belief in evolution is a remarkable phenomenon. It is a belief passionately defended , despite the lack of any observable scientific evidence for macroevolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another).

That is absolutely necessary to see and prove before evolution changes from theory to fact. The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy -- also known as the second law of thermodynamics -- stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity.

This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, best proved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems -- in fact, in all systems, without exception. So yes, your bug will never be flying a spaceship.



Unforeseen -> RE: The future of Distant Worlds - Is DW2 necessary? (6/26/2014 11:27:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: eyegore

I'm not close minded at all. i just think bugs in Space are dumb and lazy. That's just an opinion. Your allowed to have your own, as I am allowed. you have not proved they could exist anymore than I have disproved it. And that isn't the point anyway. the point is by going that path the Lore isn't as deep nor interesting as it could be.


You are closed minded because you are theorizing that something is a fact because there is no current proof beyond the evolution that occurs on Earth. Your not considering the vast possibilities that exist in our universe, and instead choosing to ignore them.

I don't need to prove either theory because I am not making a claim. The burden of proof ALWAYS falls on the one who makes a claim. I have merely stated that it is possible because there is no scientific evidence to suggest that it is not, you on the other hand are stating that it is not possible. Up to this point the only argument you've given in support of this claim is "Earth" which is one single example of how evolution of life can proceed in a vast galaxy of stars and planets amongst a vast universe of galaxies. Because of this, Earth is not a valid argument nor is it Proof.

Lastly, your 'point' is useless as it is merely your opinion that having bugs in space reduces the quality of the lore and makes the game uninteresting. One which is based on an untestable theory which only you seem to support. If you hate bugs and rodents so much, edit them out of the game and get over it.




eyegore -> RE: The future of Distant Worlds - Is DW2 necessary? (6/26/2014 11:34:27 PM)

You are closed minded because you are theorizing that something is a fact because there is no current proof beyond the evolution that occurs on Earth.

let me repeat in case you missed it.

The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy -- also known as the second law of thermodynamics -- stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity.

This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, best proved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems -- in fact, in all systems, without exception. So yes, your bug will never be flying a spaceship.

"No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found -- not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the "first law"), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles."

E. H. Lieb and Jakob Yngvason, "A Fresh Look at Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics," Physics Today (vol. 53, April 2000), p. 32.



Unforeseen -> RE: The future of Distant Worlds - Is DW2 necessary? (6/26/2014 11:48:18 PM)

First of all. This is not Proof. You should look up the word proof while your on your googling/wiki spree. Second of all, you just assumed once again that Rats and Bugs on Earth are what we are talking about. We're talking about species of such on another planet, which may have at the peak of its evolutionary path evolved hands and thumbs.

In any case, just because an exception has never been found on Earth does not mean we cannot find one elsewhere.

Getting information from a magazine or google and presenting in an argument about something that you know very little is not going to help you here. Also, i am a fan of Quantum Physics theories, not so much regular Physics.



Unforeseen -> RE: The future of Distant Worlds - Is DW2 necessary? (6/26/2014 11:53:24 PM)

In any case, you HAVE NO VALID ARGUMENT. AND THIS CONVERSATION WILL NEVER HAVE ANY BEARING ON HOW DW2 IS DEVELOPED. So, lets get back on the topic of the thread shall we...



Kayoz -> RE: The future of Distant Worlds - Is DW2 necessary? (6/27/2014 12:24:24 AM)

I'm so ashamed.

A flame war I wasn't involved in.

The shame. The shame.



Tormodino -> RE: The future of Distant Worlds - Is DW2 necessary? (6/27/2014 12:43:41 AM)

@Eyegore: The way you apply that law as an absolute precludes us, and therefore renders your entire argument moot from a scientific standpoint. Wanting to segue this into a religious, or perhaps magical, argument about deliberate design, is perfectly fine, but the point of this thread was to discuss the practical introduction of new and expanded/improved mechanics to DW and my personal wish to see the current game improved in a multitude of ways.

I am completely with you on wanting both ideology and religiom simulated in some fashion, but if you simply want to argue their merits vis a vis your view of how the universe is constructed rather than suggests ways to introduce them to the game mechanically there are other arenas for that type of discussion.



Nanaki -> RE: The future of Distant Worlds - Is DW2 necessary? (6/27/2014 1:56:00 AM)

@eyegore, the problem is that the arguments you are making are completely incoherant in regards to the objectives you support. Okay, you support implimenting ideologies and religion into the game. What does your dislike for bug races have anything to do with that at all? You are sabotaging your own argument and unnecessarily creating strife on these forums.


Actually the people who are bringing up assumption are those defending a bug in a spaceship. "Well Evolution could possibly do that." kind of thing. At best anything anyone can say at all about evolution is it helps a certain creature better survive it's environment, and even that is a giant leap- because of every example of a cricket that stops it's mating call to avoid a predator fly there are 10 other examples where an evolutionary change was actually such a negative it lead to it's extinction. To go from that..to space..requires huge leaps in assumptions--unless someone has suddenly discovered that missing link when i wasn't looking.


Except they are entirely correct. The key word is 'could', a rather weak word that, when you dissect it, simply means higher than 0% and lower than 100%. When you are dealing with the unknown, almost anything is within the realm of possibility, given, we have no idea how probable bug-like races are, but they are certainly probable.


The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy -- also known as the second law of thermodynamics -- stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity.


That is not what the second law of thermodynamics stipulates. The second law of thermodynamics is that energy will always dissipate instead of concentrate. It sounds relatively mundane on first glance but it is the primary reason why the end of our universe will likely be heat death.



eyegore -> RE: The future of Distant Worlds - Is DW2 necessary? (6/27/2014 2:33:36 AM)

@Eyegore: The way you apply that law as an absolute precludes us, and therefore renders your entire argument moot from a scientific standpoint. Wanting to segue this into a religious, or perhaps magical, argument about deliberate design, is perfectly fine, but the point of this thread was to discuss the practical introduction of new and expanded/improved mechanics to DW and my personal wish to see the current game improved in a multitude of ways.

I am completely with you on wanting both ideology and religiom simulated in some fashion, but if you simply want to argue their merits vis a vis your view of how the universe is constructed rather than suggests ways to introduce them to the game mechanically there are other arenas for that type of discussion.


I make no arguments in support of Creationism. just that Evolution is the assumption here and those using evolution to justify a space roach are assuming a whole bunch of things outside of known science.

Who are we? How did we get here? I don't think either has proven itself or come close. Science will eventually answer it, those are not the only two kids on the block.



Unforeseen -> RE: The future of Distant Worlds - Is DW2 necessary? (6/27/2014 2:36:00 AM)

So on the topic of DW2's diplomacy prospects, I'd like to see a system where every feature is fully utilized by the AI independent of the player. This is something that i haven't really seen before in full functionality. What i mean by independent, i mean that not only will the AI suggest various things based on actual situations that it is in, but also will utilize the system with other AI.

Another feature i would DIE for is for Diplomacy to be possible amongst several different parties simultaneously. I've NEVER seen this in any 4x game before, nor in any strategic map game tbh. An example is another game, Empire Total War. Russia had taken over almost all of Northern Europe, including most of Sweden. I came in as Austria and pushed them back to Moscow and out of Sweden[painfully, i almost lost]. Russia then voluntarily surrendered. But the surrender was only to me. This allowed Sweden, Prussia, Poland, and the Ottoman Empire to conquer the entire country without ANY resistance. The AI needs to be smart enough to recognize that it must end all wars, especially against allies of a country that it just surrendered to when it is no longer able to defend itself against a vastly superior force.



Unforeseen -> RE: The future of Distant Worlds - Is DW2 necessary? (6/27/2014 2:38:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: eyegore

@Eyegore: The way you apply that law as an absolute precludes us, and therefore renders your entire argument moot from a scientific standpoint. Wanting to segue this into a religious, or perhaps magical, argument about deliberate design, is perfectly fine, but the point of this thread was to discuss the practical introduction of new and expanded/improved mechanics to DW and my personal wish to see the current game improved in a multitude of ways.

I am completely with you on wanting both ideology and religiom simulated in some fashion, but if you simply want to argue their merits vis a vis your view of how the universe is constructed rather than suggests ways to introduce them to the game mechanically there are other arenas for that type of discussion.


I make no arguments in support of Creationism. just that Evolution is the assumption here and those using evolution to justify a space roach are assuming a whole bunch of things outside of known science.

Science does not "assume" anything at all. We have theories, and evidence to support those theories. Evolution was a theory, it needed to be tested. It has been tested. We have observed evolution, thus we know that it is exists. However what is not tested, and cannot be stated either way is whether or not evolution on other planets will be similar to Earth evolution. I'll even be fair, and say that we cannot prove whether or not evolution actually occurs on other planets. Though it is probable.



Lucian -> RE: The future of Distant Worlds - Is DW2 necessary? (6/27/2014 5:56:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: eyegore

Belief in evolution is a remarkable phenomenon. It is a belief passionately defended , despite the lack of any observable scientific evidence for macroevolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another).

That is absolutely necessary to see and prove before evolution changes from theory to fact. The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy -- also known as the second law of thermodynamics -- stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity.



There's plenty of evidence for macroevolution...

http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com.au/2009/02/macroevolution-examples-and-evidence.html

It doesn't prove anything of course, but then science isn't about proving things, its about providing evidence to support a hypothesis and evolution has some of the strongest multidisciplinary evidence supporting it of any theory ever proposed.

I wont even go into your "second law of thermodynamics disproves evolution" nonsense since it is so self-evidently, embarrassingly and hilariously wrong.



Gregorovitch55 -> RE: The future of Distant Worlds - Is DW2 necessary? (6/27/2014 8:05:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: eyegore

Belief in evolution is a remarkable phenomenon. It is a belief passionately defended , despite the lack of any observable scientific evidence for macroevolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another).

That is absolutely necessary to see and prove before evolution changes from theory to fact. The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy -- also known as the second law of thermodynamics -- stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity.

This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, best proved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems -- in fact, in all systems, without exception. So yes, your bug will never be flying a spaceship.


Well, at least it has become clear why you have been arguing for pages and pages that a space-faring roach is a ridiculous proposition amongst other things: you don't believe in evolution and you don't understand the second law of thermodynamics. However you are, I'm afraid, simply wrong. Completely so.

There is mountain of evidence of evolution from the fossil record. There is a further mountain of evidence from zoology and taxonomy performed on extant species (which is what Darwin used to develop the theory in the first place). These two mountains by themselves are enough for the theory to wholly convincing, but they are dwarfed by the colossal weight of genetic evidence collated since the advent of accurate DNA sequencing. As far as I am aware the only people who do not accept this are those who cannot accept anything under any circumstances that contradicts a literal interpretation of a religious or quasi-religious scripture or text they adhere to.

A glance at Wikipedia will yield this:

"According to the second law of thermodynamics the entropy of an isolated system never decreases; such systems spontaneously evolve towards thermodynamic equilibrium, the configuration with maximum entropy. Systems which are not isolated may decrease in entropy."

A planet is not isolated - it is bathed in energy from it's star, amongst other things. Therefore lifeforms (and other systems) that maintain or decrease entropy may exist on planets without violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics by using that energy.






fenrislokison -> RE: The future of Distant Worlds - Is DW2 necessary? (6/27/2014 9:12:39 AM)

The worst in all that being that there are actually reasons to think bugs in space is unrealistic and need suspension of disbelief.

Here's a little reasonning.
Base hypothesis:
- brain power is linked to brain size (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_size)
- bugs are limited in size due to exoskeleton issues (http://www.livescience.com/24122-why-insects-are-not-bigger.html)

Therefore, bugs cannot go in space because they're too small to develop the required intellect.

But pushing the reasonning a little further, in the same article, it is also said that higher oxygen levels could enable bugs to reach higher sizes. I suppose, using common sense, that a planet with lower gravity would help a bug species to grow even bigger due to less pressure on the exoskeleton.

But, at the moment, in DW, humans (for example) and bugs species can live on the same planets, without trouble except growth rate and that is unrealistic.
I imagine humans wouldn't be able to live normally in a atmosphere with 40% oxygen for example, without health issues. I'm not even speaking about gravity differences.

So to explain all this, DW2 should introduce 2 new characteristics for colonies:
- atmosphere compatibility with species
- gravity compatibility with species

The atmosphere issue could be fought using new technologies such as domes or shielded cities, or atmosphere processors or genetic manipulations to enable humans to live in different atmospheres.
The gravity issue could be fought with gravity manipulators or genetics or whatever.

And examples to support the feasability: Space Empires V have atmospheres and domed colonies (limited in available space), MoO2 had different gravities and gravity manipulator (don't remember the name), both being grand strategy 4X space games.


I'm not saying that this is what i want, or that it's necessary, but this is the kind of logical thinking i expect from a proposal in favor of a DW2 developpement since this is the subject.
- DW is no realistic because of this and this
- not realistic break immersion and fun
- DW2 is needed because DW1 don't adress this point
- here are some reasonnable suggestions on how to
- here are some examples you could take inspiration from



Unforeseen -> RE: The future of Distant Worlds - Is DW2 necessary? (6/27/2014 10:19:58 AM)

You realize you just argued and disproved your own statement right?



Tcby -> RE: The future of Distant Worlds - Is DW2 necessary? (6/27/2014 10:47:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kayoz

I'm so ashamed.

A flame war I wasn't involved in.

The shame. The shame.

How times change! I never expected a argument over evolution to appear in a 4x space game. I guess I was naive.



Gregorovitch55 -> RE: The future of Distant Worlds - Is DW2 necessary? (6/27/2014 10:54:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: fenrislokison

- bugs are limited in size due to exoskeleton issues (http://www.livescience.com/24122-why-insects-are-not-bigger.html)



As the article states, the most convincing reason for insect size limitations on earth is the static O2/CO2 diffusion system of respiration using trachea (backed up by fossils of much larger insects living when Earth had a much more O2 rich atmosphere).

There is no reason at all why an insect-like extraterrestrial species should not have evolved a lung-type mechanism to pump O2 in and CO2 out of its body which would negate this limitation at a stroke. There isn't actually any particular reason why insects on earth can't do this (or especially other arthropods like spiders that have lung books just crying out to be modified with a set of simple muscles to make them pump). We can only hope they don't [:)]

For this reason there is no special requirement for intelligent bugs in the game.




feygan -> RE: The future of Distant Worlds - Is DW2 necessary? (6/27/2014 10:59:51 AM)

An chance the folks with the debate on things unknown and irrelevant to the issue of a possible DW2 could take their argument elsewhere, or at least a mod delete all their off topic posts. It's a pointless argument all over an issue of personal taste of sci-fi, if the game can mod it then do it and be happy otherwise hush and move on. Clicking on this post to see what could be intelligent ideas over DW2 and finding essays on this is only going to cause at least one less subscriber to this thread.



Spidey -> RE: The future of Distant Worlds - Is DW2 necessary? (6/27/2014 12:16:56 PM)

quote:

Belief in evolution is a remarkable phenomenon. It is a belief passionately defended , despite the lack of any observable scientific evidence for macroevolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another).

That is absolutely necessary to see and prove before evolution changes from theory to fact. The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy -- also known as the second law of thermodynamics -- stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity.

This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, best proved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems -- in fact, in all systems, without exception. So yes, your bug will never be flying a spaceship.

I'm not sure where to start, to be honest. But let's be blunt.

1) There's no macroevolution and microevolution. There's only evolution.

2) Scientific theories don't become facts, they simply explain and predict them.

3) The theory of evolution is well supported by the evidence. There are no refutations of it and there is no scientific alternative. To reject evolution is to reject science as a whole. You cannot believe in evolution without science and you can't claim to believe in the scientific method while rejecting evolution.

4) A scientific law is really just a theory in disguise. A law describes the behavior of observations while theories explain the details of why and how. Laws are not above theories and they're subject to the same weaknesses. Just like theories, the scientific laws are based on what we can see and they operate under the assumption that what we can see is actually real. They're also assumed to be consistent across the universe, which is something we obviously cannot prove.

5) The second law of thermodynamics doesn't actually work that way. What it says is that over time, an isolated system moves towards entropy. For a system to be isolated, it must be enclosed in walls through which neither matter nor energy can pass. If this prerequisite isn't satisfied then the second law of thermodynamics does not apply. Would you say that the Earth is enclosed in walls through which energy cannot pass? Or the solar system? Or the galaxy? Of course not, because then we couldn't possibly see objects beyond those areas.

6) Thermodynamics doesn't deal with "all systems without exception", it deals with all systems of a specific kind. There absolutely are other definitions of "system" than the one used in thermodynamics and there are other perspectives and other variables to look at than heat and energy as it moves about in some body.

7) That thing I put in red? It's one of the most inane things I've seen anyone say in a long time. Because of a rule that describes the behavior of heat in closed systems, the entire world of biology must be wrong, even though they don't deal with heat in closed systems and even though the law makes no claim to apply to their field of study.

Not only is this just mind-numbingly arrogant and completely and utterly ludicrous at face value, but it really boggles the mind that you think all these people simply never heard about the second law of thermodynamics.

All in all, I'm quite sorry for being blunt, but you're definitely more than a bit rusty on your fundamental science, to say the least.



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.766113