Trancedence vs Singularity

Species suggestions, story ideas and contributions.
Message
Author
User avatar
Aquitaine
Lead Designer Emeritus
Posts: 761
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 1:54 pm
Location: Austin, TX

#16 Post by Aquitaine » Wed Dec 21, 2005 6:09 pm

Don't read too much into the 'story' pieces of FO when considering how the gameplay will work out.

It is possible to deal with transcendence as a technological victory, but it's also possible to say, for example, that transcendence requires that you build a temple to Aquitaine on Orion and the fallen homeworlds of some older races (like the dead race homeworlds in MOO3), thus turning it into more of a 'Domination' style victory.

I also don't think I'm presuming too much when I say that, no matter how each victory condition is interpreted, it will be possible to turn them off and probably mod them quite easily as well (ala Civ4).
Surprise and Terror! I am greeted by the smooth and hostile face of our old enemy, the Hootmans! No... the Huge-glands, no, I remember, the Hunams!

ErikAlbert
Space Floater
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 2:00 pm

#17 Post by ErikAlbert » Sun Feb 26, 2006 8:44 pm

utilae wrote:The singularity is not just rapid progress, it's a massive paradigm shift, it's a major event. It could be a race ascending, the self destruction of a race (apocalypse, end of the world), it could be a race evolving, or merging with machines, even creating machines, who wipe out the original race and takeover.
I would agree it is a major paradigm shift, but your examples of apocalypse etc might not be the best examples.

There is a certain tradition to say that after the Technological Singularity event (as per Vinge Vernor), there is no way to predict what will happen next. Literally speaking after the singularity, if "you" still existed, the post singularity "you" couldn't explain what was happening to the old pre-singularity "you" because the older you lacked the capability of comprehending what was happening.

Think of a homo sapain with language prior to one without. and you get a small glimpse on what a singularity means.


I personally don't think there is any difference between Singularity/Transcending/Ascendation.

But I can go with it, if you decide that Singularity is through technology and Transcending is through some quirky psionic thing (but isn't that technology too?)

User avatar
Geoff the Medio
Programming, Design, Admin
Posts: 12277
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

hint: post count

#18 Post by Geoff the Medio » Sun Feb 26, 2006 8:46 pm

ErikAlbert wrote:I personally don't think there is any difference between Singularity/Transcending/Ascendation.
I'd explain it, but you probably wouldn't be able to understand...

ErikAlbert
Space Floater
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 2:00 pm

Re: hint: post count

#19 Post by ErikAlbert » Sun Feb 26, 2006 9:51 pm

Geoff the Medio wrote:
ErikAlbert wrote:I personally don't think there is any difference between Singularity/Transcending/Ascendation.
I'd explain it, but you probably wouldn't be able to understand...
My first reaction to this post is that you are trying to be insulting.

But I'll be generous and assume you are making a joke keying off the point about singularities making predictions/descriptions of the future impossible as stated by Vinge. (His stories are all based on near singularities events).

The lack of the smiley though could easily make me think you were going for the first.

User avatar
Geoff the Medio
Programming, Design, Admin
Posts: 12277
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

Re: hint: post count

#20 Post by Geoff the Medio » Sun Feb 26, 2006 10:08 pm

Allow me to be more transparent with my context-establishing quoting:
ErikAlbert wrote:Literally speaking after the singularity, if "you" still existed, the post singularity "you" couldn't explain what was happening to the old pre-singularity "you" because the older you lacked the capability of comprehending what was happening.
The joke doesn't work if I just quote that, because there's nothing there to not understand, other than the point of understanding itself. Also, it's a bit strained if I quote that specifically, because that talks about "you" before and after, whereas the joke is about the hypothetically transcended "I" not being able to explain to "you"... so by not quoting that, I can use the concept without the grammatical-person inconsistency.

Sometimes I think people want to be offended... :roll: Please always assume it's a joke and/or not an insult.

ErikAlbert
Space Floater
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 2:00 pm

Re: hint: post count

#21 Post by ErikAlbert » Sun Feb 26, 2006 10:49 pm

Geoff the Medio wrote: Sometimes I think people want to be offended... :roll: Please always assume it's a joke and/or not an insult.
Surely someone with your experience on the internet is aware how miscommunications easily occur on a medium that is purely text based, due to lack of facial cues , particularly when communicating with another party whom you have zero or limited prior contact.
The joke doesn't work if I just quote that, because there's nothing there to not understand, other than the point of understanding itself. Also, it's a bit strained if I quote that specifically,
Adding a smilely goes a long way towards making your intention clear. Don't you think? Or do you have some deep reasoning to explain why adding one would spoil the joke? :P

User avatar
Geoff the Medio
Programming, Design, Admin
Posts: 12277
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

Re: hint: post count

#22 Post by Geoff the Medio » Sun Feb 26, 2006 11:05 pm

ErikAlbert wrote:Surely someone with your experience on the internet is aware how miscommunications easily occur on a medium that is purely text based, due to lack of facial cues , particularly when communicating with another party whom you have zero or limited prior contact.
Which is why I always assume no intended malice or insult, and think others should do the same.
Adding a smilely goes a long way towards making your intention clear. Don't you think? Or do you have some deep reasoning to explain why adding one would spoil the joke? :P
Yes, I agree. However I thought the context made the intent clear, I'm generally restrained in the use of smileys (just personal dispreference), and, to a lesser degree, it would spoil the joke a bit... I mean this is supposed to be a transcended being speaking down to a lowly baseline sentient... A smiley would slightly break the tone of haughty superiority. And even then, would such a being have human-like "emotions"... and if so, would they even be expressible in the form of one of sixteen yellow circular faces? :shock: :? :wink:

... that was almost on-topic there at the end...

User avatar
Krikkitone
Creative Contributor
Posts: 1415
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 6:52 pm

#23 Post by Krikkitone » Tue Mar 21, 2006 8:43 pm

Well I think the idea of a 'Victory Condition' needs to be replaced with the idea of a 'game ending' condition

Game ending condions I can think of would be
1. Escaping the bounds of the 'map' (ie Civ's Ship to AC)
2. Removing all competition within the 'map' (Diplomatic+Military Victories)


I see Transcendence and Signularity both justified as a type 1 Victory Condition.

Usually that type of VC depends on technology, but I can see how Transcendence could be different.

The best measure I can see for that is having Transecendance be something like a 'Cultural' Victory.
I'd say the requirements would be
1. Certain player choices, which come more often while maintaining a certain 'type' of society. (ie happy, stable)
2. Those choices tend to weaken you in the real world (like choosing Good in Gal Civ II)
3. Those Choices ALSO increase Diplomatic+Social tension (if you are higher than someone on the "Transcendence" scale they tend to fear/hate you. so their people are more happy when they attack you, etc. Makes sense with the Psionics getting additional steps... also every time you society takes a 'step' it suffers from unhappiness due to tensions between pre-post step populations.... these slowly fade, but too many steps too fast can cause massive unrest)

This means it tends to be a complex Victory Condition, and provides a non 'game' reason for others to try and stop you.

So essentially it is maintaining a Utopia in the face of a hostile world (note that World is LESS hostile if other species are also pursuing Transcendance.... they will hate you less because they aren't as far behind you)


So for the Escape game enders
Transcendance: Someone achieves enough 'Harmony with the Universe' to leave...'Qualitative Victory' you need to survive a certain way, strong diplomatic+sociopolitical elements

Singularity: Someone achieves technology so great it allows them to leave the Galaxy on a regular basis... 'quantitative victory' you need a certain amount of tech

Domination: all Spacefaring species on the map are collected into one government (through a mix of the pen and the sword).. combination quantitative+qualitative. because you have to maintain political stability for a large empire.


Once a "Victory" occurs, all players are rated on their accomplishments (both current surviving ones and previous). And how much they conributed to/benefited from that final step. (so players Pursuing Transcendence would get a boost to their score even if they weren't the ones to get it... Players that Voted to form a United Galactic Government would get some extra points even if they weren't the ones that headed it)

User avatar
Yota_Sensai
Space Krill
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 7:47 pm

#24 Post by Yota_Sensai » Sun Jul 09, 2006 11:06 pm

What if this transcendence concept would be only avaible fo single player? It could be part of the main campaign, if there will be one. During gameplay, certain choices could be made, like the moral choices in galactic civilizations. The player can choose between 3 Options:

- Option 1 brings you closer to transcendence, however it will have some negative results.
- Option 2 wont bring you closer to transcendence, but you gain some small bonus
- Option 3 is a backstep in the way of transcendence, but it gives you a relativly big advantage

All bonsus will only last some turns ...

For example, you have just researched a theory-only tech, and a message appears:

"Sir, some of our sienticsts belive, that this theory could give us some philosophical understanding of the nature of univerese itself. They are eager to investigate it more deeply. However, while this egg heads debate over philosophy, they wont fully concentrate on recent research. What shell we do?

1. Fascinating! I'm very interested in what they find out and I want a status report on a daily base! (-16% Research, +1 Tarnspoints)
2. They can do this in their sparetime. It will be a good diversion for them from their work. Nothng about an interesting hobby! (+3% Research)
3. What?! Enough of this nonsense! Put this egg heads back to work, working hours are doubled and not-project-related activity forbidden! (+10% research, - 1 TransPoint) "

SowerCleaver
Space Squid
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 8:59 pm

#25 Post by SowerCleaver » Thu Nov 02, 2006 6:10 pm

Since this thread looks like the most recent one on the topic of victory conditions, allow me to go a little-bit off topic and unload my thoughts:

1. Transcendance (ala Childhood's End)
I like the concept. Just one caveat - I believe a victory condition should be something that the player can achieve by conscious decision and continued efforts, and therefore too much importance on random events would force the player to stay clear from this path.

2. Singularity (good ole' tech victory)
Sorry for interposing a realism-based criticism, but I always find a total transmution of a race into a different lifeform (as I understand what singularity is) somewhat tortured concept. There must be many, if not all, individuals of a race resisting such total transmution. For example, if a new tech that allows downloading of human mind into computer system (but killing off the human body in the process) right now, would you make the choice? Or how many % of human population do you think would make the choice within reasonable time period? With anything short of global governmental coercion, I don't think such transmution will be spontaneously adopted by individuals in any meaningful time. In terms of game mechanics, maybe this point can be translated into a requirement to force your citizens into the transmuted state, during which period you will continue to lose pop and be faced with severe revolt and morale problems.

3. Diplo victory
Sorry - another realism-based criticism. Unless you have a means to force the Galactic Senate's mandate (of which you are the Presidential Empire) to a rogue Empire, what good does it do to be elected as the Presidential Empire? Civ-style diplo victory is a bit dissatisfying in that sense. Even if you have huge pop (which usually helps in terms of your own vote), if the mechanism you are relying on as the source of your diplomatic power - i.e. the Galactic Senate - is laughed at, you essentially have no power to control the other Empires and therefore not "victorious".

4. Another tech victory - Stable, large size time machine
Pretty obvious, right? If you can send a battleship fitted with Stellar Converter to the past and blow the Homeworlds of other races to smithereens before they even get around to invent stone axes, you automatically achieve Annihilation of all competitors. (assuming no time paradox or multiverse type of defenses here) Therefore, this should be a tech victory condition. Alternatively, the fact that you alone have this tech should be enough motivation for other Empires to submit themselves to your rule - and therefore this could be a solid basis for a diplo victory.

User avatar
eleazar
Design & Graphics Lead Emeritus
Posts: 3858
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:09 pm
Location: USA — midwest

#26 Post by eleazar » Thu Nov 02, 2006 8:24 pm

SowerCleaver wrote:4. Another tech victory - Stable, large size time machine
That's a clever rational for a tech victory.

User avatar
marhawkman
Large Juggernaut
Posts: 938
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 9:34 pm
Location: GA

#27 Post by marhawkman » Sun Nov 05, 2006 4:57 am

but what if two player acheive this simultaneously? would the resulting time war have the same result as the war between the Timelords and Daleks? (annihilation of almost all of each)Would the game spontaneously reset to have both civilizations toatally destroyed and living on each other's homeworlds?
Computer programming is fun.

SowerCleaver
Space Squid
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 8:59 pm

#28 Post by SowerCleaver » Tue Nov 07, 2006 5:52 pm

marhawkman wrote:but what if two player acheive this simultaneously? would the resulting time war have the same result as the war between the Timelords and Daleks? (annihilation of almost all of each)Would the game spontaneously reset to have both civilizations toatally destroyed and living on each other's homeworlds?
We can go as simple or convoluted as we want.

In SP, we can just let the human player win (or lose). In MP, whoever put in the more research at the time of discovery wins (on a theory that more research means an earlier discover by a few month, week, day etc.)

Alternatively, if we have Theory-Application system, an Application for Time Machine also needs to be researched. Then a Time Gate needs to be built, and you need to send a fleet through that. If two players tie in that timing as well, then whoever has the more powerful fleet wins (on a theory that the fleet can destroy the other race's homeworld a little earlier, thereby saving one's own race from genocide).

We can even come up with a special battle that decides the superiority of one time-traveling race. The fleets collide on the time-lane and whoever wins that battle gets to go back to the past.

User avatar
utilae
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2175
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 12:37 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

#29 Post by utilae » Tue Nov 07, 2006 6:39 pm

Some other time tech idea:

*Time Summon - Summon powerful advanced ship from the future for X seconds during combat. Posibble permanent alternative.

User avatar
eleazar
Design & Graphics Lead Emeritus
Posts: 3858
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:09 pm
Location: USA — midwest

#30 Post by eleazar » Wed Nov 08, 2006 12:37 am

Hmm, perhaps the time gate can only be built in a black hole system. However, the construction of the time machine should end the game, unless it's a tie, and some sort of battle could decide it. Actually playing the game in the past would i believe be ultimately disappointing, if not stupid.

Post Reply