European Stereotypes, In Maps
Yanko Tsvetkov put together a bunch of funny maps of European stereotypes.
Europe, according to the United States:
Europe, according to the Vatican:
Follow this link to see other maps: Europe according to the French, Europe according to the Germans, etc
Video: The Walking Dead
[Via Fubiz]
This is an interesting little motion-graphics intro to a new TV show. The music is “Fresh Blood” by the Eels.
THE WALKING DEAD “Opening Titles” from Daniel Kanemoto on Vimeo.
USSR’s Moon Lander
This is a pretty cool picture of the USSR’s moon lander. (The USSR never ended up sending a man to the moon.) See more pictures and read more about it here, and read more about the Soviet LK Lander here.
The LK (Lunniy Korabl—”lunar craft”) was a Soviet lunar lander and counterpart of the American Lunar Module (LM). The LK was to have landed a single Soviet citizen on the Moon before the Americans. It completed development and was test flown successfully in Earth orbit, but never reached the Moon because the N1 rocket required to take it to the Moon was never successful.
…
The success of Project Apollo in putting American astronauts on the Moon in 1969 meant that the United States won the Moon race, giving the deathblow to the Soviet moon program, although plans were drawn up until the early 1970s.
Tactical AI Notes
One of the things I’ve been working on lately is the tactical AI. I wanted the AI to be better at coordinating attacks. The image above shows pathway and timing information created by the AI. (The numbers in tenths of a turn, so “17” means “1.7 turns”.) In this image, an infantry is being picked up by a transport in about 1.7 turns, rides inside the transport until around turn 5.7 and then moves into enemy territory. The timing information is useful for coordinating multiple units – so that it’s better at bringing all its transports simultaneously, moving combat ships into the area to protect transports, etc.
Used Games and Rights
A new article says that a US court has ruled that software publishers can prevent reselling software (i.e. used software). The ruling (if upheard) could allow publishers to kill the used games business. The whole “used games” and “used software” sales market has been opposed by a few companies. Some companies see used sales as undermining new sales, and while I don’t agree with their attempts to eliminate used-sales, I can understand why they would be irritated by the fact that GameStop makes a lot of money from used-game sales. Nearly half of GameStop’s profit comes from used-game sales. Because of their markups, GameStop earns 85% more money on the sale of a used game than a new one. At the same time, the publisher gets paid when a new game is sold, but not a used one.
Autodesk* has also tried for years to shut-down used sales of its software – including blocking eBay sales. The typical method for doing this in the software world is to give users a “licence”. When software is counted as a “licence” rather than a “sale”, it opens up more options for publishers to restrict what a user can do with that software. For example, they can sell the user a non-transferable licence (i.e. no software resales). On the other hand, if software is “sold”, then it falls into the legal structure of the “first sale doctrine” which means users can do things like resell their software. The first sale doctrine was originally setup a hundred years ago, and applied to things like books. Book publishers tried to shut-down used bookstores (for fear that used book sales were undermining new book sales), but courts handed down the “first sale doctrine” that said people can resell them. The main way that software “licences” are being challenged is by arguing that publishers are using “licence” as a legal ploy to restrict what users can do, when, in fact, it’s really a “sale” masquerading under the “licence” term.
I think there’s a certain logic to preventing used-game sales, I just don’t think it’s strong enough logic to convince me that users should not be allowed to resell their software or buy used software. I also think the act of shutting down used-sales creates a degree of dissatisfaction among users, and creates the idea that companies have too much control in their lives what they can do with their software. This unhappiness among users has to be weighed against the monetary benefit of eliminating used sales. While eliminating used sales might increase revenue in the short term, it might create longer-lasting resentment, as well. As we all know, CEOs of companies can be ridiculously short-sighted – either because everything is measured and rewarded on a short-term basis, or because they lack foresight. Based on that, I have very little faith in business leaders making the right long-term choice.
On a more positive note, it’s rumored that Steam will begin allowing users to sell their games back to Steam (at a reduced price, of course). Presumably, their logic is that players who can sell back bad games will be more willing to buy new ones (i.e. there is less risk involved since they can get back some of their money if they don’t like the game). Even if it doesn’t immediately result in more sales, it makes their customers happier which keeps them coming back. Funny how companies seem to be moving in opposite directions. Also, I don’t really expect used-game/software sales to disappear anytime soon. GameStop is bringing in $1 billion per year from used-game sales, so they’ll spend millions to block any disruption of the used-games market.
* Footnote: I have to admit that I’m not really a fan of Autodesk. They have a tendency to buy up their competitors (e.g. Maya and SoftImage), in an apparent attempt to prevent meaningful competition in the 3D Modeling world. This allows them to charge higher prices.
Google Knows All
I was just at the coffeeshop, and about fifteen to twenty people came in for a meeting. I could sort of hear what they were talking about. Thought I’d check out what the group was, so I typed in the coffeeshop name, today’s date, and “meetup”. The first google result told me what their group was and linked to their website. It seems slightly creepy that I could quickly come up with so much information so quickly. Twenty years ago, this would’ve seemed unimaginable.
Cool “Diminished Reality” Video Technology
I just thought this was a pretty cool demonstration. It allows for the real-time removal of objects in a video. Admittedly, there are some glitches to it — the background needs to be fairly uniform, as you can see with the artifacts around 1:50 in the video. (See the Popular Science article here.)
Random Game Ideas: AI Personalities and Technology
I’ve been kicking around two ideas on the game lately.
The first one is that I’d like to create some better defined personalities for AI players. Maybe some AI personalities would be easy AI players, while others would be expert AIs. For example, maybe one AI player could be bold and swift. He tends to leave fewer defenders around when he goes for an invasion, choosing to rely on “the best defense is a good offense”. Maybe he feigns attacks, and then attacks elsewhere. A different AI personality would be more cautious and chooses to attack when he’s got his own territory well protected and he’s very likely to succeed in an invasion. The idea is that each the AIs personalities would have more defined styles of play.
At first, I thought maybe there would be some “best” AI personality. And why not use the best one all the time? For one thing, that’s not very exciting because it lacks variety. If there’s one excellent AI and two good AIs, it might be good to add all three of them to the game. Even the uncertainty over which type of AI you’re playing against could put the human player at a disadvantage because he doesn’t know exactly which strategy to use against them, and can’t anticipate what types of moves the AI will use. From that perspective, not only would a handful of AI personalities be more interesting, but the mixture might make it more difficult for human players to win the game, as well.
Players who are setting up scenarios could even set different nations to use particular personalities – to mimic the historical situation. (Example: I want the leader of this nation to be cautious. I want the leader of that nation to be daring, quick, and unpredictable.)
The second idea I’ve been kicking around lately is an idea about redesigning the technology system. (I’ve actually been kicking around this idea for a long time, I’ve just never implemented it.) Right now, players upgrade along a predictable path from unit A to unit B. But, what if there were a whole bunch of technologies with levels. For example, what if there was an “armor” technology and an “engine” technology and a “cannon” technology? Players could decide to create a new type of tank. They’d spend some time and money on a new tank design, and they’d be allowed to specify what types of attributes they wanted it to have. For example, they want a heavy tank with good firepower. Or maybe they want a light, fast tank that is cheap to build. They’d then spend some money, and based on their nation’s technology sophistication and some randomness, they’d have a new tank design a few turns later. The tank design might vary in quality and price. Maybe it performs badly in certain types of terrain. Maybe it’s a very good tank for the level of technology that player has. The player could then decide to build it. The key thing here is that tank designs would vary in terms of their attributes. Players would have to decide whether or not the design should be used or scrapped.
Because other players are doing the same thing, each nation has units of different quality and attributes. Players have take that into account when going to war against other nations. It would also mean that players have to adapt their strategies to the current game. They might’ve had good tanks in the last game they played, but poor tanks in this game. Or, they might’ve had good tanks 50 turns ago, but technology in the game has progressed, and they haven’t funded their tank technology enough to keep up with the latest designs.
I could see this system being used with all the different units in the game: infantry weapons, tanks, aircraft, etc. Maybe the player could get a chance to research some anti-armor weapons and they’d come up with something like an RPG. Maybe the player needs to field test some designs to see how well they work in actual combat. I could imagine some of the attributes being things like: attack/defense numbers, movement rate, movement rate on different terrains, movement range (for aircraft and missiles), production and resource cost, maintenance costs, etc.
It might also be interesting to vary the costs and research time of technologies each time the game is played. Players would have estimates of the time and cost of researching a new technology, but it’s not exact. Some technologies in the real-world seem like they’re not far off, but they never seem to arrive. (Example: Fusion power.)
It would be nice to add tactics into the system as well. For example, some technologies are good for a while, but your opponent learns some new tactics and reduce its valuableness. Or maybe some of your technologies are given a boost because you learn tactics that improve its usefulness. Tactics are something that would be improved and refined through combat experience. Maybe if the player has military academies, they learn new tactics more quickly. The longer a war drags on, the more time the enemy has to learn tactics that mitigate your technologies.
Famous: It’s a job now
A while back, I was thinking about the fact that Ashton Kutcher has almost 6 million followers on Twitter. With that kind of fame, he’s in a position that most people aren’t: he can do things like write a book (even a fictional book) and it’s almost certain to be a success. He’s now in a much better position to have all his work be successful than the average person. But, it’s not even about having that many twitter followers (which acts as free advertizing for whatever he wants to promote), but it’s also about the fame. A few weeks ago, it was reveiled that “The Situation” from Jersey Shore was on track to earn 5 million dollars this year. (Just to be clear: this is more money than you or I will earn in our entire lives.) All of the Jersey Shore cast can earn “appearance fees” — i.e. clubs will give them thousands or tens of thousands of dollars to show up someplace, just because it stirs up a lot of talk and interest in the place.
In effect, their fame makes everything they touch golden.
It may seem naive, but for a long time my philosophy was simply “work hard + make good stuff = success”. I think the “fame” component that would be enormously helpful in making my game a success.
Related: The Rising Price of Snooki: A Comparative Analysis of Jersey Shore Appearance Fees (Gawker)