The future of Distant Worlds - Is DW2 necessary?

[Unforeseen]

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]

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]

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/20 ... dence.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]

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]

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-in ... igger.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]

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

[Tcby]

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]

ORIGINAL: fenrislokison

- bugs are limited in size due to exoskeleton issues (http://www.livescience.com/24122-why-in ... igger.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]

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]

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.

[Unforeseen]

Like i said earlier I'm pretty certain he just went onto google or opened his dads physic's magazine, picked something at random and posted about it claiming that it disproves evolution. This is how most debates of this sort, regarding evolution or even more frequently creation tend to go in my experience.

[Cauldyth]

ORIGINAL: Spidey

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

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.

I'd just like to re-quote these, because they are important and absolutely correct.

ORIGINAL: Spidey

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.

Yeah, the second law of thermodynamics is always misused to argue against evolution. The rise of life, and its continual progression does not violate any known law of science. Period. Let's stop throwing that BS around.

I hate to "pull rank" but if credentials are of any value, I have a PhD in theoretical chemistry/physics.

ORIGINAL: Spidey

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.

Sometimes bluntness is required to put to rest the same old disproven arguments that have been thrown around for decades by people who don't actually know much about the subject.

[Spidey]

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

I agree that the planet models are a bit simplistic as it is, and having some form of recognition of gravitic and atmospheric differences would be nice, but I think what you're suggesting is excessively complex.

I'd prefer a SOTS-like approach instead. Abstract these details into a hazard rating and then let different races have different hazard ratings. Race compatibility with a planet is then simply measured as the distance between the race's preferred hazard rating and the planet's hazard rating. That way there's still just one number to relate to but now this number will be different depending on the race in question.

That said, I'd really like it if the current categorization of planets also changed so they weren't either ice or desert or continental or swamp but instead were mixed blends of everything, reflecting the various conditions across the surface of a planet. Then colonization tech wouldn't just be which planet one can colonize but also how much of them one could utilize.

[fenrislokison]

ORIGINAL: Unforeseen

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

I suppose i was a bit confusing ^^'

My post was not intented to defend "no bugs in space" but to show that there could be rational and logical arguments to the drastic "no bugs in space" position that could lead to constructive debate and actual new features for DW2.

Spidey arguing that atmosphere and gravity things are too complex for the need of the game and proposing different solutions is proof in itself that a sane debate can start from even the craziest ideas.

I felt the need to talk about that because at the core, eyegore has a point when he says that the lore of DW is shallow and could be improved or that the different species don't feel this different when actually playing them.

So while i didn't agree at all on the solutions provided by eyegore and the reasons hidden behind said solutions, i still consider the issues he rose valid issues worth debating.

I hope it's clearer now

[Nanaki]

ORIGINAL: Unforeseen

So on the topic of DW2's diplomacy prospects

I have a question. Have you ever played any of Paradox's games? Especially their later games, they tend to treat diplomacy as a core feature rather than an afterthought.

[ASHBERY76]

My problem with cats,dogs,lizards etc in space 4x games is they're all bloody humanoid shaped cats and dogs.Ascendancy tried aliens that actually looked alien.

[Nanaki]

ORIGINAL: ASHBERY76

My problem with cats,dogs,lizards etc in space 4x games is they're all bloody humanoid shaped cats and dogs.Ascendancy tried aliens that actually looked alien.

Ascendancy is exactly what I describe when I talk about '50 different flavors of samey eldrich abomination'

[Tcby]

ORIGINAL: Spidey

That said, I'd really like it if the current categorization of planets also changed so they weren't either ice or desert or continental or swamp but instead were mixed blends of everything, reflecting the various conditions across the surface of a planet. Then colonization tech wouldn't just be which planet one can colonize but also how much of them one could utilize.

I would would like that a lot.

[eyegore]

"Evolution" mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary. Variation (microevolution) is the real part. The types of bird beaks, the colors of moths, leg sizes, etc. are variation. Each type and length of beak a finch can have is already in the gene pool and adaptive mechanisms of finches. We can all see these in our dog and cat breeds for examples. What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of. Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out. And as one characteristic increases, others diminish. But evolutionists want you to believe that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures.

There is much variation in bacteria. There are many mutations (in fact, evolutionists say that smaller organisms have a faster mutation rate than larger ones). But they never turn into anything new. They always remain bacteria. Fruit flies are much more complex than already complex single-cell bacteria. Scientists like to study them because a generation (from egg to adult) takes only 9 days. In the lab, fruit flies are studied under every conceivable condition. There is much variation in fruit flies. There are many mutations. But they never turn into anything new. They always remain fruit flies. Many years of study of countless generations of bacteria and fruit flies all over the world shows that evolution is not happening today.

The first big problem with evolution is that the fossil record increasingly does not, honestly viewed, support it, a fact that famous Prof. Steven Jay Gould of Harvard has described as "the trade secret of paleontology."

"Despite the tremendous increase in geological activity in every corner of the globe and despite the discovery of many strange and hitherto unknown forms, the infinitude of connecting links has still not been discovered and the fossil record is about as discontinuous as it was when Darwin was writing the Origin."

The quantity, quality, and range of the recovered fossils is impeccable. But the more we dig, the more we keep finding the same forms over and over again, never the intermediates.

Anyone who doubts that the bulk of the scientific community could be wrong about a fundamental question like this should consider the case of Newtonian physics, which was thought to be unshakable until Einstein disproved it.

[Cauldyth]

Wrong. But I come to these boards to further my enjoyment of DW, not to saddle myself with teaching basic science to random strangers.

I will just conclude by saying posts like the above are not harmless, they are potentially seriously damaging. I hate to think how many impressionable minds read things like that and believe it. That's how these false, long disproven arguments keep persisting for decades.

Please, for the good of those around you, educate yourself about the subject before you go posting publicly about it. You're causing more damage than you probably realize.