| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Chal0ner
Coreli Corporation
The Kadeshi
135
   |
Posted - 2015.02.19 06:09:40 -
[1] - Quote
Just a thought, what if it was possible to reasearch items that currently are unresearchable. Like Salvage drones (there are only T1), researching these blue prints to produce T2 salvage drones. Limited run of course.
It would be a way to extend the item tree in "interesting" ways. Researching standard T2 module bpc's would have a pretty low probability but the end result (standard T3 module bpc) worth it.
As I said, just a thought - what do you think?
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
6275
|
Posted - 2015.02.19 06:59:52 -
[2] - Quote
Chal0ner wrote:Just a thought, what if it was possible to reasearch items that currently are unresearchable. Like Salvage drones (there are only T1), researching these blue prints to produce T2 salvage drones. Limited run of course.
It would be a way to extend the item tree in "interesting" ways. Researching standard T2 module bpc's would have a pretty low probability but the end result (standard T3 module bpc) worth it.
As I said, just a thought - what do you think?
A drawback of a game system is that the rules, and items are a kind of rule, are established ahead of time and do not exist in any other manner beforehand.
So there is no "pure invention". I don't know if there has been any other system where something was purely invented dynamically.
On a system level I have pondered this myself over the years. What I figure is that to make dynamically invented objects we would have to break items down into atomic level concepts. In the perspective of a computer program the levels of class inheritance and template usage would be both incredible and ridiculous. Then we would have to dynamically develop objects in a kind of polymorphic way.
Once on an academic project I had something of a space sim whereby every "thing" was an "entity" class and then "technical entity" derived from that, "anomic entity" derived from the same class, and then the same functions, but implemented differently could be called on said derived objects. But from the "top level" of interaction with every object, reflection (in computer code that's taking an object and finding out what it is) and then acting on the results of the reflection, typecasting while calling the functions of the class were in order. I still have the code of that project and looking back (written in 1997), it's the only clue I have as to the insanity I had around that time period.
(Ok the 3 years up to 2000 writing programs that wrote programs that edited out Y2K bugs might have had a lot to do with it but I'm better now. I swear).
So I figure that from atomic class creation and then stringing inheritance together and using polymorphism *might* enable some sort of dynamic object creation in a game world. But since I never had an original idea in my life I'm sure better people have had the same idea and have not been able to do it for numerous reasons ranging from computing power to the time it would take to write that kind of code.
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
Chal0ner
Coreli Corporation
The Kadeshi
135
|
Posted - 2015.02.19 08:28:08 -
[3] - Quote
Hmm, yeah you are probably right.
While having each property of each object dynamically strung together into larger object would presumable require an indecent amount of computing power, and a total re-write of of the underlaying platform. Or possibly a drastic reduction in properties of a lot of objects. Or even a combination of this.
Well, it was a thought anyway =) |
Liafcipe9000
Critically Preposterous
33502
|
Posted - 2015.02.19 10:44:50 -
[4] - Quote
from the thread title alone I can tell that OP has gone potato.
Founder of the Graycember movement and LAGL's pet cat.
|
April Cross
Phantom Squad
Skeleton Crew.
0
|
Posted - 2015.02.19 11:42:35 -
[5] - Quote
My favorite color is ham |
Memphis Baas
171
|
Posted - 2015.02.19 15:10:03 -
[6] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
A drawback of a game system is that the rules, and items are a kind of rule, are established ahead of time and do not exist in any other manner beforehand.
So there is no "pure invention". I don't know if there has been any other system where something was purely invented dynamically.
CCP does have formulas for the stat allocation for various items and ships, so they're balanced. All they'd have to do is procedurally generate items based on the T1 variant + various x% bonuses that add up to the stat allocation for T2 items.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |