Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 46

Thread: The concept of hostile nanos and nukes

  1. #1

    The concept of hostile nanos and nukes

    In a way, this is yet another thread about the problem with fumbling, countering and the myriad ways hostiles nanoformulas and nukes work. It is not, however, the game mechanics or the need for lower counters and fumbling that prompts me to write this. I am starting this thread because I want to discuss just what it is that these nanoformulas do... and why there is a major conflict in what we see, what we do, and what we get when we run them.

    A hostile nanoformula. We upload these complicated routines into our permanant storage system for easy reference and application to the nanobots that are the canvas upon which we paint. Some few of us are creative... Kel and Izgimmer, even Enfraam from time to time... but the majority of us are technicians. We aren't writing new code, simply applying existing routines in the field. When the time is right, we do a few quick range and targetting calculations, maybe adapt a little to compensate for environment or weather considerations and execute the formula.

    When this step is taken, we allocate a portion of our nanobot field to perform any number of things: they can seek out the eyes to form a dense cloud capable of absorbing photonic energy, they can process the raw notum in the air to accelerate replication sequences, they can subtly shift the pattern of photons reflected by our bodies to make us more difficult to target, and they can restore parts of our bodies that deviate from a healthy normal template.

    These are, of course, the beneficial uses... but hostile nanoformulas work a bit differently. When a hostile nanoformula is run, the nanobots assigned this task travel away from your field and invade the nanobot field of the target. They then seek to force an algorithm to run locally, corrupting the use of the nanobot containment units and computers to achieve this end. Once the routine has infected the system, it is able to commandeer the necessary nanobot resources to enforce this external effect as though it were run locally.

    Slightly different from the majority of nanoformulas, the nuke (and many other damage producing types) relies on the nanobot's ability to manipulate the environment. Through the creation and manipulate of specific atomic or moleculer structures, we can create many destructive forces. Metal particles can be accelerated using magnetic fields to incredible speeds... without the need for a rail gun. Or the same process can be applied in a nonlinear fashion to create intense heat from friction just prior to the creation of higher combustable materials. Destruction has always been easier than creation, through the simple application of enough notum and nanobots... what couldn't we achieve?

    ---------------------------------------

    So... what's the point here? Well... in thinking about these concepts, I've noticed a few conflicting elements.
    • Most hostile nanoformulas... nuke or otherwise... appear on the victim's display as "X forces your NCU to run Y."
    • As expected the nanobot cost of nanoformulas is charged to the caster, not the victim.
    • The victim is given an opportunity to 'counter' the execution of hostile nanoformulas.
    • The caster has a chance to fumble the execution of the nanoformulas.
    • Many hostile nanoformulas have a tightly bound 'stream' of nanobots that carry the hostile nanobots to the victim.
    • Many nukes have other visual effects that are determined by the type of damage that is being generated by the program.


    If the nanobots that are going to the victim only have the purpose of carrying the formula to execute a routine in the target's NCU:
    • only creatures or people who have their own nanobot fields and NCU would be affected by them. this would mean nanoformulas cannot be used as terrain altering tools (a la Jobe)
    • the victim should get a chance to counter the routine through effective 'firewalls' and security countermeasures.
    • they should cost the victim nanobots from their own field when their computer runs the hostile program.
    • all visual effects should be simply a transmission stream of nanobots with the damage type effect appearing only at the victim and only within the radius of that target's nanobot field.
    • hostile nanoformulas should be preventable by having no nanobots in one's nanobot field or by having no available memory/room in the NCU... or, the hostile formula should disable other programs to clear room for itself and delay activation until nanobots are available to create the results


    On the other hand, if hostile nanoformulas and/or nukes rely upon the nanobots programmed by the person running the nanoformula, many of these things are corrected, but others become problems:
    • Nano cost is decided completely at the point of origin.
    • visual effects appear accurate in all cases (those formulas that use streaming transmission before causing an effect are fairly basic beam paths while nanobots producing damage are beginning their energy transmission process at a point to create maximum yield)
    • The message claiming that someone is running something in your NCU needs to go away.
    • NanoResist needs to be adjusted to work on those nanoformulas that require some sort of 'insinuation' into the victim's nanobot field.


    It is important to note that I'm not saying NanoResist shouldn't apply to nukes or some hostile nanoformulas. However, the explanation needs to be clarified somewhat. In fact... with the removal of the invasion notice about someone else running something in one's NCU... a replacement explanation can be made. Even more so if countering is changed slightly.

    The messages to do this?

    For hostile nanoformulas (not nukes):
    victim: X has transmitted a hostile nanoformula (Y) through your nanobot field.

    victim: Your defensive nanobot security routines of interrupted the transmission of a hostile nanoformula.
    user: Your nanoformula was disabled by the target's security routines.

    For nukes:
    victim: X has initiated an offensive nanobot attack (Y).
    (damage message)

    victim: Your security routines identified hostile energies being formed by nanobots. Dispersal force successful.

    user: Your offensive nanobot attack was disabled before reaching effective levels of energy.


    With this, there comes the consideration... if you have no nanobots available for a security system... can you resist anything? Easily solved by saying there is a dedicated amount of nanobots available for defense at all times, determined by your nanoresist score. This opens up more logical reasoning for NR buffs/debuffs as it becomes a 'prepared defense' rather than one happening while you're in combat.

    This also lends strength to the argument that nukes should be more difficult to "counter" than other hostile nanoformulas, because there is a great deal of difference in security systems preventing hostile nanobot intrusion into your nanobot field and using it to disable an attack of nanobots creating substances and energy fields that are not nearby. Take the various projectile nukes for example... NR/security should have a hard time distinguishing the approach of a small metallic particle from a soldier's weapon and one formed and propelled by nanobots. Once its up to speed, there aren't any nanobots involved.

    I would argue that there is no NR for a projectile nuke... that it should be a matter of dodge-ranged... unless the security nanobots have the ability to detect the execution of the routines that create the metallic particle and the magnetic forces to propel it... and then travel to the point that this is occurring and disrupt it before it finishes. Possible? Yes. Probably too complicated to worry about... but its something to consider as we continue to discuss how NanoResist affects us.


    Jaesic

  2. #2
    Priapus
    Guest
    Far too well written and thought out for the forums.

  3. #3
    Originally posted by Priapus
    Far too well written and thought out for the forums.
    uh... thanks, I think.

  4. #4
    WELL WRITTEN:d

    Maybe you should apply for a job making the game more ...alive?


    /message countered by target
    I want to be a campaign!!
    Tarilliux MP fun,fun,fun (should have been a crat with a name like this )
    Hexar ::::Nanotech::::
    Imothar Engie (For once on the recieving end of MP buffs)


    And a few other lowbies can't for the life of me remember their names

  5. #5
    Originally posted by Hexar
    WELL WRITTEN:d

    Maybe you should apply for a job making the game more ...alive?


    /message countered by target
    If I could get a job doing that... I would.

  6. #6
    What a thoughtful and interesting working out of the ramifications of FC nanoprogram metaphysics! I suspect this is a bit deeper than they ever looked at the issue themselves.

    On the other hand, one should never use "flavor" considerations to drive or to override considerations of game balance and game mechanics. While it is nice to have a consistent story, and FC should strive to make their's more coherent, this sort of thing is always secondary to playability and balance.

    Push anywhere on the sense of this game and it more or less collapses, in terms of its realism.

    With something like NR and hostile nanos, the question is and always should be, how does having this as a primary angle balance against the other professions? etc. etc.
    Regimental Beastie

    Easy math:
    whiners = bad players

    Rhetoric is useful because... before some audiences not even the possession of the exactest knowledge will make it easy to produce conviction. For argument based on knowledge implies instruction, and there are people whom one cannot instruct. Aristotle, 1355a20-27

  7. #7
    Originally posted by Routeen

    With something like NR and hostile nanos, the question is and always should be, how does having this as a primary angle balance against the other professions? etc. etc.
    Yeah... but I'm really tired of those arguments

    As I think back to those dark ages of gaming with dice and stacks of books and notes... I remember that the most fun games were the times we didn't have to use the dice or the books or the stacks of paper. When the mechanics became secondary to the enjoyment of an environment that seemed almost real.

    Why do we spend all our time dealing with game mechanics now? Because there's this ridiculous idea that somehow we can 'win' this game? So we spend weeks and months trying to convince developers that we aren't given the same chance to 'win' as someone else. We might be right... we might not be.

    I made this thread because I'm tired of our focus being on the pure mechanics. There is an inconsistancy in the environment that could resolve the issue by changing how it is viewed. I'm providing a different perspective that has just as much chance as any other one to be viewed by the people in charge. Maybe they'll be interested, maybe not.

    And if you think that the only thing that matters is how the numbers work out for balance between professions, you're missing out on a big part of the potential of the game.
    Last edited by Jaesic; Jan 28th, 2003 at 20:46:29.

  8. #8

    Talking Bump

    I hear that... Ferocious Impactor Missile would rule the planet...

    This sounds like a really cool idea Jaesic... would add another facet to an already difficult class to play but Im all for it . I think noone would bother with any other nanos when they could use the all UBER FI... Nice post from a well organized mind tho... sheesh.

    /me wonders what Jaesics sock drawer looks like
    Ashes and dust...

    205 Okonkwo

  9. #9

    Re: Bump

    Originally posted by Okonkwo
    I hear that... Ferocious Impactor Missile would rule the planet...

    This sounds like a really cool idea Jaesic... would add another facet to an already difficult class to play but Im all for it . I think noone would bother with any other nanos when they could use the all UBER FI... Nice post from a well organized mind tho... sheesh.

    /me wonders what Jaesics sock drawer looks like
    People actually keep socks in their sock drawer?

  10. #10
    Very nice post Jaesic!

    Though I doubt FC would ever use more time on the issue than it takes to read the post, it would be awesome to actually have the feeling of being a Nano-Technician.

    Now it's just like "Oh, yea I'm an NT. Someone coded more and cooler nano programs for us than anyone did for you <paste profession here>s "


    Originally posted by Jaesic
    As I think back to those dark ages of gaming with dice and stacks of books and notes... I remember that the most fun games were the times we didn't have to use the dice or the books or the stacks of paper. When the mechanics became secondary to the enjoyment of an environment that seemed almost real.
    Oh yea, I remember those days

  11. #11
    Hey, why you have to remember those days? They aren't gone, you know. You can still play outside the grid, with paperpiles and dicearmys. I do exactly because those games offer an in-depth roleplaying and lack of game mechanic issues I couldn't even imagine how to do in a computer game.

    Regarding the primary topic: I'm all with you. Well thought Jaesic!

  12. #12
    Couple of questions...

    Why does every single hostile nano formula have the NCU cost attribute associated with them, yet NCU status of the target has no effect?

    I realize that there are certain nanos/items that can remove certain hostile nano programs and that the NCU cost attribute maybe used in factoring the effectiveness of said nanos/items, but am still curious as to why the attribute is not factored space-wise against the NCU capacity of the victim when determining successful execution. One would think that every nanoformula that resides in the NCU of the target, whether hostile or friendly, would logically occupy space...

    Why are nukes even checked against nano resist when in concept, a nuke is simply a nanoformula that allows us to create matter and use that matter to damage our adversaries (much like a weapon uses ammo to damage whatever it is targettted at)?

    It is understandable that debuffs & the debuffing effects of certain nukes get checked against nano resist because those effects reside in the NCU of the target, whereas a nuke hits like a weapon would.
    .: Naraya :.

  13. #13
    Originally posted by Naraya
    Couple of questions...

    Why does every single hostile nano formula have the NCU cost attribute associated with them, yet NCU status of the target has no effect?

    I realize that there are certain nanos/items that can remove certain hostile nano programs and that the NCU cost attribute maybe used in factoring the effectiveness of said nanos/items, but am still curious as to why the attribute is not factored space-wise against the NCU capacity of the victim when determining successful execution. One would think that every nanoformula that resides in the NCU of the target, whether hostile or friendly, would logically occupy space...
    The ncu cost does matter actually... this is what determines whether you get that feedback saying a better version is already running.

    But... it does conflict with itself conceptually. The simplest way to resolve this would be to just turn off the player's ability to see the NCU cost on the hostile nanos... maybe just tagging it 'hostile' in the NCU cost spot.


    Why are nukes even checked against nano resist when in concept, a nuke is simply a nanoformula that allows us to create matter and use that matter to damage our adversaries (much like a weapon uses ammo to damage whatever it is targettted at)?

    It is understandable that debuffs & the debuffing effects of certain nukes get checked against nano resist because those effects reside in the NCU of the target, whereas a nuke hits like a weapon would.
    Yes, thats the question I'm trying to raise with the thread, though FC hasn't responded... not uncommon, unfortunately.

    The way I presented the nuke vs. non-direct nanoformulas is my view of how these work, btw (mainly from years of reading sci-fi... i'm not by any means a researcher in nanotechnology )... so depending on the concept that FC is basing their mechanics on... it could be completely wrong.

  14. #14
    Why are nukes even checked against nano resist when in concept, a nuke is simply a nanoformula that allows us to create matter and use that matter to damage our adversaries (much like a weapon uses ammo to damage whatever it is targettted at)?

    It is understandable that debuffs & the debuffing effects of certain nukes get checked against nano resist because those effects reside in the NCU of the target, whereas a nuke hits like a weapon would..
    In which case it could be evaded and as 99.5% of peoples evades are a lot higher than NR you would “miss” more often than you get resisted.

  15. #15
    Originally posted by Tiggy


    In which case it could be evaded and as 99.5% of peoples evades are a lot higher than NR you would “miss” more often than you get resisted.
    In the instance of projectile based nukes (relying on dodge-ranged) or fire/explosions (duck-exp), yep... absolutely right. I'm glad someone noticed that fact. Most of them could very easily be applied to one of the 'physical' resistances.

    On the other hand... there's also an argument or two for why it would necessarily be 100% or more defense against those. At least part of the process of dodging bullets is the awareness of those people pointing weapons at you and predicting the moment at which they are about to pull the trigger and changing your direction of travel so they track past you (yes, its really possible to dodge bullets... but don't try it at home, these are trained professionals).

    With a nuke, the NT doesn't necessarily have to even be looking in the direction of the target. This makes it significantly more difficult to pick the moment when it it necessary to dodge or duck and roll. Additionally, we can argue that the nanobots are given target data and depending on the means used to cause damage, could reduce that normal chance to get away. But admittedly, not in all cases. So yes... things like FIM would not rule the world because it would probably be easier to avoid than it is currently.

    But then... I never intended this to be an argument that would make the NT more powerful. I simply wanted to provide a more conceptually consistant view of how hostile nanoformulas function.

  16. #16
    Fantastic post!

    The little things like this tend to bother me about AO. The inconsistencies.

    If you, as an NT, coalesce matter into a ball and launch it at your target, I would expect that particular 'nuke' to check against Dodge Ranged. Tho' you used nanobots to create and propel the projectile, this is irrelevent to the victime. There's just a ball coming at him at high speed.

    Now, this may or may not be a good thing for the NT if the defensive skill for a particular nuke were changed to Dodge Ranged. You might have it easier on some targets and tougher on others. I should point out that a projectile travelling at magnetic-field induced speeds would probably check vs. 80% of Dodge Ranged or less. An accelerated pellet is probably tougher to dodge than a lead bullet.


    In any event, situational usage would really add a bit of skill factor to playing your profession. It's so disheartening to hear young NT's say 'which nuke should I use after XXX?' and for him actually to get an answer. That's a sign of a lame game with little thought put into its implementation.

    The proper answer should be 'Well, that depends ... tell me about the situation. Who is the target? Who are your teammates? Is it a social Mob? What about range?"

    You guys got about a zillion nukes and besides AoE, and taunt vs. no-taunt, there's no real reason to pick one over the other (Ol' Faithful being a noteable exception). It's all about how much DPS.

    I wish there were some people at FunCom who really cared about the heart of the game more than the veneer. Notum Wars really showed us that they are scared to get close to the soul of the game.
    Last edited by Bionitrous; May 28th, 2003 at 19:39:55.

  17. #17

    BUMP

    lol my bad... stupid cuz got a hold of comp...

    *backspace**backspace**backspace*

    However, bump for the excellent post
    Last edited by Nudicles; May 29th, 2003 at 07:07:24.

  18. #18
    Jaesic, I don’t see evades as being used by timing a dodge to coincide with the point slightly prior to an opponent pulling a trigger. I see them working like a boxer, proactively ducking and weaving to make a harder target to hit in the first place rather than a kung-fu style reactive move to actually evade a specific attack.

    Point taken about resistance not necessarily being over 100% but I guess this is in an attempt to balance the effectiveness of the NT’s extra high MC vs the average Joe’s not nearly so good NR. If nukes were reconfigured to work against the higher average resistance of peoples evades my guess is that they would be a more consistent as most people raise evades throughout the game therefore opponents defences would be more consistent but then some people really would be nigh on impossible to hit too. NR only tends to get attention at title cap time. So some people are very susceptible to nukes while others are not quite so easy. In the low to middle level game I hardly ever get resisted. However in the high level game I’m sure you see far more resistance as people start to consider NR very seriously at that stage.

    Moving nukes to evade bases wouldn’t neccisaraly improve things but it would certainly change them. Fixers for example would suddenly become extremely hard targets to hit. In fact they would probably own NT’s, docs/MP’s would become softer and MA’s would become harder to hit too.

    NR plays an important part in the mechanics of the game in that all combat classes are traditionally weak in that department allowing nano based professions a unique level of success against them. Also it makes it harder for the combat classes to land a nano on a casting class as again, traditionally, casting classes have better (or can have better if they chose to do so) NR especially when compared to the combat characters attacking nano skill. I find rooting NT’s far harder than rooting soldiers and rightly so as they are a nano specialist. Having said that I would certainly prefer if nanos were targeted against evades as my success in rooting NT’s would be dramatically improved and my resistance to being rooted/cast against would also be a lot better as my high level agent cannot use NR clusters which puts me at a 207pt NR disadvantage.

    Thinking about it NR is an evade and should be lumped in there with dodge evade and duck.

    Tiggy

  19. #19
    Funcom, offer Jaesic a job as a Dev!!

    Good post, most interesting reading : )

    TYVM

    Accid.
    Accidents, -Rimor's first TL6 Trox Eng, RK's First TL7 Trox Eng~ Resting til AI fixed Lvl 205 AI lv 3
    Accidentz, 74 Engineer, Test Server-playing now.
    Headshottz, 19 Soldier, Rimor.
    Devilry, 177 Trader, Rimor.
    Headspin, 178 NT, Atlantean, Retd December 02.
    Moneyspin, 111 Trader, Atlantean, Retd December 02.
    Acciswrath, 122 mp, Rimor.
    Spares, 125 Engineer, Rimor.

  20. #20
    Originally posted by Tiggy
    Jaesic, I don’t see evades as being used by timing a dodge to coincide with the point slightly prior to an opponent pulling a trigger. I see them working like a boxer, proactively ducking and weaving to make a harder target to hit in the first place rather than a kung-fu style reactive move to actually evade a specific attack.
    Or a combination of those things... and some other things not currently mentioned here.

    Point taken about resistance not necessarily being over 100% but I guess this is in an attempt to balance the effectiveness of the NT’s extra high MC vs the average Joe’s not nearly so good NR. If nukes were reconfigured to work against the higher average resistance of peoples evades my guess is that they would be a more consistent as most people raise evades throughout the game therefore opponents defences would be more consistent but then some people really would be nigh on impossible to hit too. NR only tends to get attention at title cap time. So some people are very susceptible to nukes while others are not quite so easy. In the low to middle level game I hardly ever get resisted. However in the high level game I’m sure you see far more resistance as people start to consider NR very seriously at that stage.
    While this is something to consider if implementing this sort of concept, the formulae/numbers crunching is actually not what I'm trying to deal with here. Could I? Ya... I could show some calculations and tables and other spiffy mechanics for how to balance these ideas. However, when I wrote this, I was (and for the most part still am) tired of the same repetitive debates on the numbers. I wanted to discuss nanoformula use from a purely conceptual basis... and point out the discrepancies. I'd lay odds that the moment we started actually discussing numbers, the thread would go off topic and become an argument between several professions on who has the worst deal with attk vs def. ratings.


    Moving nukes to evade bases wouldn’t neccisaraly improve things but it would certainly change them. Fixers for example would suddenly become extremely hard targets to hit. In fact they would probably own NT’s, docs/MP’s would become softer and MA’s would become harder to hit too.

    NR plays an important part in the mechanics of the game in that all combat classes are traditionally weak in that department allowing nano based professions a unique level of success against them. Also it makes it harder for the combat classes to land a nano on a casting class as again, traditionally, casting classes have better (or can have better if they chose to do so) NR especially when compared to the combat characters attacking nano skill. I find rooting NT’s far harder than rooting soldiers and rightly so as they are a nano specialist. Having said that I would certainly prefer if nanos were targeted against evades as my success in rooting NT’s would be dramatically improved and my resistance to being rooted/cast against would also be a lot better as my high level agent cannot use NR clusters which puts me at a 207pt NR disadvantage.

    Thinking about it NR is an evade and should be lumped in there with dodge evade and duck.

    Tiggy
    Well... you've made an assumption, there... I think... that I'm going to the opposite extreme. While some nukes are conceptually based such that they could be dodged, evaded, or ducked... others cannot be physically avoided at all. How do you avoid radiation that you cannot see? How do you avoid the introduction of a nanobot created infection... etc. In these cases, the nanoformula can only be prevented by nanoresist. The decision must be made conceptually...


    Roots/mezzes/snares... are probably nanoresist oriented... though there is no reason why we couldn't develop a versions that can be dodged. Nanobot generated webbing (a la spiderman, perhaps) that you could avoid at the last minute before it sticks to you is one example.

    The key here is that if they make consistant sense in description, mechanics, and usage... then the NT (and anyone else for that matter) is not simply a fire off the best DPS profession anymore. It would actually take quick thinking on the part of the player to make the best use of the character in any given situation.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •