Updated* : Recon Satellite mod + Command Line Interface

General discussion about Defcon

Moderator: Defcon moderators

OpenFlow
level2
level2
Posts: 221
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 2:00 pm
Location: BGP

Postby OpenFlow » Sat Jul 28, 2012 4:11 am

SpitJock wrote:It gets difficult to know what reply is in response to what (who/whom?) sometimes in threads. Is using '@' a suitable way of delineating what you mean, if you want to respond to a bunch of stuff in one post?

For example:

@ OpenFlow: Is English your first language? Some of what you've written reads as a bit odd to native English speakers, and it may just be a translation problem. If English is your first language, well - I'm the first to admit I write a lot, but I do try to edit it for clarity if not length, and maybe you could benefit from trying that? You've clearly got an idea in mind, but it's not being expressed very well at the minute, and some people aren't patient with that. It's not a competition to see who can write the most, or use the longest words...

@OpenFlow (again): The "quirks or bugs" you refer to are what other people call gameplay. I have yet to encounter a game of any kind (computer rendered or otherwise) where the path to victory does not rely on knowing the "tricks". An accomplished backgammon player will beat me in seventy percent of games, because he has the "trick" of understanding the odds of the dice rolls and how best to capitalise on them better than I do. That does not mean backgammon is a flawed game, only that I am a flawed player. Using pejorative terms like "quirks", "bugs" and "tricks" when describing Defcon as a game may be the cause of a good deal of the hostility you're experiencing in your thread. There's a big difference between proposing a new game that is different in style to Defcon, and suggesting that Defcon is not a good game in itself...

@ OpenFlow (again, again): It looks like you're proposing a chess-like game. With correct play from both players, a draw is assured. If one player makes a mistake, the outcome is certain to be in favour of the other player (assuming correct play on both sides following the mistake) and the game need not continue. In your game, it's either obvious at Defcon 1 that there can be no winner, or it's obvious that player X has won and there's no need to sit through the firing of weapons to prove it. That's pretty much how the cold war went, thankfully.

@ roflamingo: Dignity - retention of - failed. Miserably. Publicly. Want to try again?

@ xander: I agree it's not always an easy read. But then I struggle to be concise and accurate too, at times, as do many others. It's especially difficult in public forums where you can never be sure to what degree people are on the same page as you, thoughts-wise. Even harder where the language you're using is not your first. [/speculative attempt at benefit of doubt] Some people have the patience to try to reach understanding, some don't. C'est la vie... (Were you referring to me anyway, or to OpenFlow as I've assumed?)

@ xander (again): What's "top quoting"? If it's bad, I wish to avoid it. :)

@ Nukraine: I agree - OpenFlow proposes to create, from Defcon's base code, an entirely different experience. Is that inherently objectionable? I know of two different bands who play cover versions of songs written by a seminal 1970s rock band, radically different from the original versions, yet all equally pleasing to some ears. A truly good piece of work, cleverly manipulated, can cross genres and still be good.

@ Nukraine (again): So don't buy/download/pay attention to it. I'd never buy/download/pay attention to a BoyZone album, but I'll defend to my last breath [/exaggeration] their right to make albums and let people know they have. So would most people, given a few quiet moments to consider the alternative... (OK - maybe BoyZone not a great example - crimes against music and all that, but you catch my drift, I hope?) What I wouldn't do, is go to all the effort of logging on to a BoyZone forum just to say "I'm not interested in your work." It seems unnecessarily combative... And time-consuming, given that I can come up with thousands of things I have no interest in, without even thinking about it. That's a lot of posts in a lot of places...

SJ


@OpenFlow (again): The "quirks or bugs" you refer to are what other people call gameplay. I have yet to encounter a game of any kind (computer rendered or otherwise) where the path to victory does not rely on knowing the "tricks". An accomplished backgammon player will beat me in seventy percent of games, because he has the "trick" of understanding the odds of the dice rolls and how best to capitalise on them better than I do. That does not mean backgammon is a flawed game, only that I am a flawed player. Using pejorative terms like "quirks", "bugs" and "tricks" when describing Defcon as a game may be the cause of a good deal of the hostility you're experiencing in your thread. There's a big difference between proposing a new game that is different in style to Defcon, and suggesting that Defcon is not a good game in itself...

Code: Select all

Let me give you just one empirical example. A carrier being able to maintain a target/radar lock on a submarine half-way across the world perceptively and categorically fits well within the boundaries of the denotative and connotative definition of a 'trick', 'quirk', 'exploit' or 'bug' in the gaming mechanics. Similar to the exploit where fleets could cross land territory (before it was quickly patched up in an update) these are bona fide "cheats" that were obviously not purposely intended by the game developers but nonetheless they have been picked up and exploited by the more veteran members of the Defcon community and this falls within the same functional category as any other "unfair competitive advantage". Namely, regardless of whether or not these aforementioned - and in my opinion, unscrupulous -  tactics are considered in the literary and lexiconal sense to be "cheating" per se, it does indeed seem self-evident to any reasonable mind that these covert tricks do indeed take away from the nuclear theme and nuclear focus, credible deterrence, asymmetric warfare, etc aspects of the game and gameplay.


@ OpenFlow (again, again): It looks like you're proposing a chess-like game. With correct play from both players, a draw is assured. If one player makes a mistake, the outcome is certain to be in favour of the other player (assuming correct play on both sides following the mistake) and the game need not continue. In your game, it's either obvious at Defcon 1 that there can be no winner, or it's obvious that player X has won and there's no need to sit through the firing of weapons to prove it. That's pretty much how the cold war went, thankfully.

Code: Select all

On the contrary, I believe the enhanced gaming dynamic will compel the players to be more diplomatic, or perhaps even more cooperative, but either way, definitely more political. Again, I prefaced all of this by stating that I believe this kind of new and enhanced gaming dynamic would only work and could only be applicable in a multi-player online diplomacy game set to survivor scoring mode.  I do not agree with your chess analogy as I don't believe it to be an apt comparison to this situation. While in the existential sense chess may very well be a "solved game", from a practical and functional standpoint it is anything but solved. There are effectively innumerable branches and seemingly infinite varieties of gameplay. Chess is not exactly Tic-Tac-Toe. You offer only two alternatives, one of them being "there can be no winner". I would assert that you are precluding and discounting the possibility of a "win-win" or "all-win" scenario where everyone ends up a winner.



I am sort of curious about something too, OpenFlow. With the addition of MIRVs, doomsday weapons, fire-n-forget certain-kill anti-shipping missiles, long-reach sub launches and reduced AA efficacy.... How does anyone actually win the game? We play 1v1, you fire your weapons and I fire mine, no-one survives - a draw! Most people play a game like Defcon because they want to win - is there some feature you've not told us about yet that still makes that possible?

Code: Select all

I would suggest something along these lines... only allow anti-carrier kinetic-kill weapons after Defcon 1 + 10 minutes, long range submarine MIRV mode only after Defcon 1 + 20, and deadhand/doomsday weapons after Defcon 1 + 30, etc. The gradual escalation of nuclear deterrence capabilities offers the sort of counterbalance to the scenarios and problems you have delineated. For example, making the doomsday option available only after Defcon 1 + 30 minutes ensures no player can 'ragebomb' and ruin the game for everyone at an early stage. Yet it also offers a more level playing field and gives one the option to employ a practical and effective "defensive" position in the game. Instead of player A directly taking on more powerful or more skilled player B's naval forces with regular subs, player A can elect to apply a more asymmetric approach: retreat, run and hide and wait until his subs develop long range mirv capabilities. At which point, both players will both have credible deterrence against each other. The 'stronger' player will have the same increased nuclear deterrence as the weaker player. It is not like the game would be "unfair". The stronger player will also have to decide whether or not he wants to actively pursue and engage the weaker player early on in the game (because there are pros and cons to each path he chooses) and to what extent he can afford to take the offensive. This will inject a new cost-benefit analysis into the equation and make the game more intellectual. No matter how strong the player is against his weaker opponent(s), he will inevitably and invariably reach a point of diminishing returns as later on the defensive /weaker side that has not expended as much nukes will have increased capabilities leveraged and multiplied both in quantity and in capabilities to compensate for anything lost during the initial raids and then some. There would be more options, more viable styles of play and as a result it would make the gaming dynamic more diverse and accommodating. In effect, what my suggestion does, is gives more powerful players a limited time window to "win", and makes it more challenging for them, thereby equalizing and capping the sometimes widely disparate range and level of skills among the different players, and it flattens and levels the playing field - making it more openly accessible to a broader audience, de-emphasizes on the irrelevant aspects of gaming mechanics that have nothing to do with nuclear warfare, and instead focuses on the more realistic simulation and emulation of the dynamics, psychology, moods, tones and flavors of true nuclear warfare and deterrence.  Likewise, the scoring mode can also be modified to adapt and reflect this new paradigm and new reality. Points earned or lost during each stage of the game will be retained and locked-in for that period, and at the end of the game the composite score is a weighted average. So, to give you one example, even if a noob denotes his doomsday weapon at the end of the game and wipes out everyone's population and units, a more experienced player who played better and accomplished more "real fighting" during the prime periods of the game would still end up with the higher score. Stronger players concede the more visceral satisfactions to the newer players and in return they gain by the fact that there will be less ragequitting, with beginner players given the peace-of-mind knowing that "visual revenge" can always be had at or towards the end. (ironically, this sort of assured-deterrence and assured retaliation capability will actually deter new players from "going all out against a stronger player blindly" and give them the confidence to focus on skilled gameplay and better sportsmanship rather than "fire and quit" emotional defensive tactics)   At the same time, scoring remains equitable, the stronger player will retain his numerical triumph, and also the satisfaction of the experience of beating his weaker opponent during the donut-hole period of the game-play, so this kind of arrangement lets all players have their cake and eat it too and is mutually beneficial wouldn't you agree? It would engage players of all different levels and styles to play together and have fun and reward them each - in albeit different ways - for seeing it through and not quitting early.   This re-imagined, no-compromise, best-of-all-worlds approach affords everyone an equal chance at having fun, (whatever their own definition of that is) whilst retaining the traditional aspects of legacy gameplay yet at the same time enhancing and invigorating its core nuclear experience as well.
-----
The OpenFlow
User avatar
roflamingo
level3
level3
Posts: 404
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 10:25 am

Postby roflamingo » Sat Jul 28, 2012 6:35 am

This is what happens when the autistic meets the autistic.

Page upon page of ***LOOK AT ME, ACKNOWLEDGE AND ADORE MY INTELLECT***


Turn off the computer.

Go outside.

Shut the fuck up, you self-righteous cunts.

Cheers!
--rofl
User avatar
kudayta
Introversion Staff
Introversion Staff
Posts: 945
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:25 pm

Postby kudayta » Sat Jul 28, 2012 7:45 am

Come on roflamingo, let's be reasonable here. A heartfelt suggestion that BGP kill himself for being a liar, cheater and thief is the best course of action.
User avatar
SpitJock
level1
level1
Posts: 74
Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 10:15 am
Location: Cheyenne Mountain

Postby SpitJock » Sat Jul 28, 2012 11:10 am

@ roflamingo:

Oh dear. That sand you got in your vagina is really troubling you, eh sweetie? Is there a lot of it, or are you just particularly sensitive "down there"?

You'd feel much better if you tried using a douche, instead of acting like one...


SJ
I understand your point of view perfectly. If I didn't, I couldn't be certain that you're wrong.
User avatar
Endless
level5
level5
Posts: 1343
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 10:38 pm
Contact:

Postby Endless » Sat Jul 28, 2012 6:35 pm

SpitJock wrote:@ roflamingo:

Oh dear. That sand you got in your vagina is really troubling you, eh sweetie? Is there a lot of it, or are you just particularly sensitive "down there"?

You'd feel much better if you tried using a douche, instead of acting like one...


SJ


Dont talk about my boyfriend like that.
User avatar
TGR
level3
level3
Posts: 416
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 5:34 am
Location: United Kingdom

Postby TGR » Sat Jul 28, 2012 6:39 pm

Endless wrote:
SpitJock wrote:@ roflamingo:

Oh dear. That sand you got in your vagina is really troubling you, eh sweetie? Is there a lot of it, or are you just particularly sensitive "down there"?

You'd feel much better if you tried using a douche, instead of acting like one...


SJ


Dont talk about my boyfriend like that.


He's two timing you with HawHaw
User avatar
SpitJock
level1
level1
Posts: 74
Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 10:15 am
Location: Cheyenne Mountain

Postby SpitJock » Sat Jul 28, 2012 8:07 pm

Endless wrote:Dont talk about my boyfriend like that.


Were you present at the sand incursion, Endless? Was it a moment of passion on a beach that left poor roflamingo so tender and irritated? A caring partner would have helped him get it back out of there by now... :?
User avatar
Endless
level5
level5
Posts: 1343
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 10:38 pm
Contact:

Postby Endless » Sat Jul 28, 2012 9:01 pm

SpitJock wrote:
Endless wrote:Dont talk about my boyfriend like that.


Were you present at the sand incursion, Endless? Was it a moment of passion on a beach that left poor roflamingo so tender and irritated? A caring partner would have helped him get it back out of there by now... :?


No. I just have a sandy load.
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Sat Jul 28, 2012 11:21 pm

SpitJock wrote:@ xander: I agree it's not always an easy read. But then I struggle to be concise and accurate too, at times, as do many others. It's especially difficult in public forums where you can never be sure to what degree people are on the same page as you, thoughts-wise. Even harder where the language you're using is not your first. [/speculative attempt at benefit of doubt] Some people have the patience to try to reach understanding, some don't. C'est la vie... (Were you referring to me anyway, or to OpenFlow as I've assumed?)

It isn't what he is saying, it is how he is saying it. He is using italics for quoting, and code tags for his own posts. It is contrary to the usual formatting of the fora, making it bizarre and difficult to read.

SpitJock wrote:@ xander (again): What's "top quoting"? If it's bad, I wish to avoid it. :)

Top quoting is replying to quoted text above the text that is being quoted. You see it in email quite a bit.

xander
User avatar
roflamingo
level3
level3
Posts: 404
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 10:25 am

Postby roflamingo » Sun Jul 29, 2012 2:08 am

Endless wrote:
SpitJock wrote:
Endless wrote:Dont talk about my boyfriend like that.


Were you present at the sand incursion, Endless? Was it a moment of passion on a beach that left poor roflamingo so tender and irritated? A caring partner would have helped him get it back out of there by now... :?


No. I just have a sandy load.


nigger, please.
OpenFlow
level2
level2
Posts: 221
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 2:00 pm
Location: BGP

Variable Length SubNuke Mirving

Postby OpenFlow » Sat Aug 04, 2012 10:01 pm

Variable Length SubNuke Mirving

https://vimeo.com/46940806

Tomorrow: the kinetic-kill anti-carrier device
-----

The OpenFlow
OpenFlow
level2
level2
Posts: 221
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 2:00 pm
Location: BGP

Postby OpenFlow » Sun Aug 05, 2012 2:59 am

Kinetic-Kill Anti-Carrier and Anti-Ship

https://vimeo.com/46950133

Still in progress. Thinking about making a mirv version of the kinetic weapon so one shot takes out an entire fleet or battle group.
-----

The OpenFlow
OpenFlow
level2
level2
Posts: 221
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 2:00 pm
Location: BGP

Postby OpenFlow » Tue Aug 07, 2012 12:13 am

Kinetic weapon mod completed:


https://vimeo.com/47054354
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=negYCr8D ... e=youtu.be

I'm much more happy with this version. This kinetic weapon ONLY targets ships and fleets and its explosions only do damage to sea going units... so it can't be used to nuke population cities etc. And unlike long range mirv it does have a limited range... My previous version was using the parabolic trajectory and that looked really fake.... this "direct hit" one looks much better and it goes so fast it almost doesn't even need to track the target but it does it anyway... Now naval nuking requires not as much skill as before... and well ... anti-ship is just so kewl.


Next up is DEADHAND. -- for those "speeding up NewPlayer who has left the computer" moments.
Last edited by OpenFlow on Tue Aug 07, 2012 12:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
-----

The OpenFlow
User avatar
TGR
level3
level3
Posts: 416
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 5:34 am
Location: United Kingdom

Postby TGR » Tue Aug 07, 2012 12:21 am

This topic belongs in Mod Projects.
OpenFlow
level2
level2
Posts: 221
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 2:00 pm
Location: BGP

Postby OpenFlow » Tue Aug 07, 2012 3:53 pm

After deadhand, I'm thinking about a spy satelittle with deathray EMP like goldeneye..
-----

The OpenFlow

Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests