Installa Steam
Accedi
|
Lingua
简体中文 (cinese semplificato)
繁體中文 (cinese tradizionale)
日本語 (giapponese)
한국어 (coreano)
ไทย (tailandese)
Български (bulgaro)
Čeština (ceco)
Dansk (danese)
Deutsch (tedesco)
English (inglese)
Español - España (spagnolo - Spagna)
Español - Latinoamérica (spagnolo dell'America Latina)
Ελληνικά (greco)
Français (francese)
Indonesiano
Magyar (ungherese)
Nederlands (olandese)
Norsk (norvegese)
Polski (polacco)
Português (portoghese - Portogallo)
Português - Brasil (portoghese brasiliano)
Română (rumeno)
Русский (russo)
Suomi (finlandese)
Svenska (svedese)
Türkçe (turco)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamita)
Українська (ucraino)
Segnala un problema nella traduzione
Regole e linee guida per le discussioni
Segnala questo messaggio
The Nomai determined the Eye wasn't on Ash Twin. So don't fire a probe into Solanum's livingroom.
The Nomai determined the Eye wasn't on Brittle Hollow. So don't fire a probe into the tower of quantum knowledge.
The Nomai determined the Eye wasn't on Giants Deep. So don't fire a probe at the island where the cannon was constructed.
All of those locations have already been thoroughly searched and after ruling out 9,318,000 or so more locations you'll have an even better idea of where the Eye is not, thus narrowing down where it could be.
My comment was hinting at the signal blocker , but it's not relevant, I think I misread your comment when I replied earlier.
Then after enough loops where they have a map of where the Eye isn't and it shows locations the probe is having difficulty reaching they can just put off blowing up the sun until Giant's Deep is on the the other side of the system where those locations will be more accessible.
Instead the sun went supernova of natural cause thousands of years later (after they were all killed by the ghost matter) which trigger the ATP
This is supported in the murals.
YARROW: Exactly 22 minutes after these orders are received, the Sun Station will again trigger the supernova to send the probe data from this cannon launch back in time.
YARROW: In total, each cycle created by the Ash Twin Project will last precisely 22 minutes. We can end this cycle at will.
-and-
RAMIE: It's comforting to know the statues will not pair until the project succeeds. Otherwise, I imagine the experience would be hard to endure!
PHLOX: Ideally, they'll only need to activate once the project succeeds; as a safety measure, however, the statues will also activate in the event of equipment failure.
RAMIE: They will? Why is that?
PHLOX: If anything goes wrong with the Ash Twin Project, the statues (and their masks) will make us aware of the situation and enable us to fix it. Otherwise, it would be possible for us to remain permanently unaware of the problem.
RAMIE: I hadn't thought of that! What a profoundly horrific thought that would be.
I think part of what Phlox says in that second mural actually supports that they aren't checking it, not that they are: "If anything goes wrong with the Ash Twin Project, the statues (and their masks) will make us aware of the situation and enable us to fix it. Otherwise, it would be possible for us to remain permanently unaware of the problem. "
If they were doing checks anyway, despite the lack of memory of doing it already, they'd notice that the probe had a problem - they can end the cycle at will, but the only trigger they get to do that is if the Eye is found, or the thing malfunctions.
I think what might be more plausible is if you included "slamming into a planet a whole bunch" (and similar "this is stopping the probe from doing what it's supposed to") as part of the failure criteria - that would still fit what's explained in the game.
- Edited for missed word.
Meanwhile manually checking to intervene is flawless: the system does mention how many loops have been completed so it's irrelevant that it'd be the first time they see the data. They'd still know it had taken too many tries and to pause everything manually to figure out the issue.
As for the overall topic: either the system does have functionality to delay firing until a particular angle is free and we just happen to be in x-million loops where it doesn't have to yet/anymore, OR we got lucky that the Eye happened to be in an accessible line of sight at the 22-minute mark before the natural death of our star. The majority of sight from the cannon is space and not planet, therefore it was considerably more likely it'd work out. So maybe they did rely on that luck (and manual intervention), but it's not unreasonable to assume they did program a firing delay and we just don't happen to see it. Only thing that means is that they'd need to know the Eye is less distance away from their current location than 22 minutes at max power minus the time it takes to see any position.
tl;dr no proof of a flaw in the plan
If they were looking anyway, they could just turn it off without the statue pairing and the "permanently unaware" problem wouldn't need to be mentioned, because they would be.. aware. I don't really see where you've gotten the "if it takes more than the time of one loop to fix the problem, the statues will pair" from.
When you knowingly put yourself into a timeloop, you have to account for any possible stupidity you may perform within said loop. Trust nobody, not even yourself.
Meanwhile if they didn't check the output data on each loop, they'd possibly doom themselves too. What if the linking accidentally doesn't work and they get stuck forever assuming it hasn't been found? What if it's impossible to find? The only protections against this are checking the number of loops every time - and we already know for a fact they do send the loop number each time so why not check it - or putting in a failsafe number to stop at which would have possibly doomed us.
My argument is that just checking then number of loops and having the failsafe is enough to make it perfect, while neither alone works. No need to have someone "proverbially biting the bullet" as you said and be very painfully aware of every single loop. Would you enjoy sitting through 9 million loops of 22 minutes and dying in a fiery blaze each time?
If say, the last 100,000 probes didn't return any location data that was distinct from already recorded data, then it would trigger the fail safe. Not send the signal to fire the cannon into the next loop and activate the masks. Thus the Nomai become aware a loop occurred and can look into why it stopped.
Alternately if the Nomai themselves noticed something had gone wrong they can stop the cannon signal and activate the masks to be aware of what they need to fix in the next loop.
to
I'm assuming you meant "off", since the loop's presumably running here - I think you were correct the first time. The statues pairing provide them memory of the loops, it doesn't state anywhere that this stops the sun station firing again/stops ATP. Even finding the Eye doesn’t stop it, it just makes you aware of the loop via pairing, that’s why we have the game we play. Regardless, making them “aware” means the next loop, they’ll know didn’t have enough time and stop it before trying to fix it again, so this is a bit of a moot point.
Yeah, fair point - so why would they not then have some mechanism that records the outcome of the check the Nomai is doing each time via a statue (which is arguably better than having someone pair with a statue and live through each one, I'll admit - the benefit of sleep)?
This is also why I mentioned the "first time seeing the data" thing, so I'll explain what I meant - let's say it's loop 7 million, no Eye found yet. You're doing the checking, like you're assuming you do all the time - the only surety you've got that you haven't made a mistake/missed something when you’ve (presumably) checked the previous ~6.9 million is that you... trust you've not made a mistake, because it's a loop, and it's still running. The alternative would be to go through all the data each time, which at 7+ million entries, could become a little tedious, and is just very inefficient if you’re going to be doing it every single loop with an ever-expanding data set.
I guess it’s feasible that they may look at the number of tries after a while and go “hmm, that’s high” and want to stop to check things out, but why not stick a loop limit in as a failsafe, too (because they’re in a time loop and can’t trust even themselves). They could even stick checkpoints in. They could have done all of this (there could be a loop-limit that’s not mentioned and it’s just higher than anyone would feasibly go through in the game, who knows), including having a way to record the outcome of whatever they're checking each time – but it’s not explained in the game.
The only way they’d really “doom themselves” is equipment failure that they didn’t know about/couldn’t retain memory of - I assume this is what you meant if the “linking doesn’t work”? How is the statue pairing when there’s a fault not working going to be helped by checking the number of times the probe’s launched and where it went? I guess the other pairing error could be if it found the Eye and didn’t pair, and you looked at a photo it may have sent back or something, but then we’re back to asking if you’d trust yourself to not make a mistake in all previous loops etc.
Anyone got a copy of Dr. Dan Streetmentioner's Time Traveler's Handbook of 1001 Tense Formation lying around, to cross reference?
Also please note that "aware" in the context of my post, specifically says aware of the issue, not "aware of the looping" or anything to that extent. I feel like I was pretty clear in my wording there considering the words right before the part you emphasised. Unlike the Hatchling the Nomai were already aware of what would happen, they just wouldn't experience it, so using aware to mean experiencing the loop would be considerably too open to misinterpretation. So once more: if it only made them aware of an issue (error popup saying "something wrong my dudes") they could get stuck in a timeloop of attempted fixing, pairing doesn't have that problem.
Meanwhile, your original argument was that they didn't have anyone checking anything each loop, because the text says they'd possibly remain permanently unaware. I described said unawareness scenario despite checking to you. Do you now see why it is not a moot point?
The only data they send is the loop number, if they've found it, and where. Or at least there's no other data available in the Probe Tracking Module. They don't even send data about the previous directions, those are chosen at random through quantum means before the data is received at the OPC. That's why it doesn't stop firing after it's found, which would have saved us having to find the broken module, and it's explicitly stated to be random in in-game text.
So there's not really anything for the checker to do "wrong" but we do know for a fact they send data, why do that if no one checks it? As for what I said about linking not working, I meant what you described as "the other pairing error", they don't get memories from before and no one ever bothers to check the terminal that says its been found. They tested the masks before on the island, but as a programmer I am very well acquainted with projects that worked an hour ago breaking during important presentations :P
All in all I feel pretty confident that I was right to say you were mistaken in your original statement of "I think part of what Phlox says in that second mural actually supports that they aren't checking it, not that they are"
And about the automatic loop limit, I stand by that it may have saved the universe if they didn't include one. Especially since the direction is random, there's no upper limit on how many tries it might take. Someone just managed to beat the game after 100+ hours with many shorter failed runs, it's not inconceivable that some Hatchling would take a vigintillion attempts. The Nomai may have shut it off by then and tried a different heuristic, had they been alive, but in our reality it's safer.
Though I probably would have put a limit on the loop myself to be safe. Imagine it takes 20 seconds to turn off the loop and 10 seconds after it's turned on the Stranger went off, they'd have been stuck in eternal suffering. Not that anyone would realistically think of that exact scenario, but I would imagine one where the loop itself causes something like that and I'd prefer to rest in peace at some point.
So if I were the Nomai maybe the universe would have been doomed, glad I'm not. Also since it's technically a quantum bogosort with multiverses and not really true timetravel, there'd be some alternate universe where a Hatchling gets it first loop (like the achievement) so the theoretical super dumb one doesn't matter. Man, time travel is whack as usual.
I didn't think we we're taking the perception of the individual into how we're talking about this, which has been from an “outside” perspective. Again, I agree the pairing of the statues makes them "clued in"/conscious of the loop/begin to retain memories of the previous loop (or version), just to be clear.
I personally would not have phrased becoming cognisant of the time loop as having the ATP “turn on the loop”; yes, to the unknowing individual with no statue pairing, time is not looping, but without wanting to get into an completely different tangent about perception and reality, etc. – regardless of if you’re aware of it (of the time looping with or without your memories carrying over, just to be completely clear on this use of the word aware), in the game’s setting, it’s still happening and there is information retained to establish it is, right? The counter on the probe tracker ticks over each time. I hope that explains why I misinterpreted the way you phrased that.
Anyway, even if we use “aware” solely as “aware of the problem with ATP because the ATP provides an indication of this problem which is separate to the statue pairing”, Phlox’s statement still doesn’t quite fit, because if they’re stuck in an endless loop of trying to fix a problem and running out of time before the loop resets, you aren’t “permanently unaware” of the issue with ATP.
I agree that the failsafe does prevent the “running out of time” scenario from happening, I’m not arguing that it doesn’t, or saying the fault detection/notification -> statue pairing mechanism works any differently than you are – I just don’t think that scenario is what Phlox is talking about, and why I interpret Phlox's statement the way I do. I can see why yours is different now.
You're mixing up two things I said - the reason I said what I'd quoted you on was moot is because I thought you meant the fault-failsafe stopped the ATP and meant “aware” as being privy to previous loops, which was a misunderstanding.
Yeah, in hindsight, it doesn’t, really. It doesn’t support that they are either, though, which is why it was brought up.
I’m glad we're both now going on what's explained in the game now - again (really what I’ve been saying the whole time), there's nothing in the game that indicates they are checking what data they get back from the probe, what they are checking for, or what they'd do with that information.
Thanks for clarifying the “linking not working” thing – I’d go back to my point about the possibility of an error being made if the Eye’s found, the pairing/linking doesn’t work and they need to check the data just in case, though – that would be what the checker can do “wrong”, yeah?
Yes, I know this - my comment about the project not stopping when it finds the Eye was in response to a comment you made about "turning on the loop", which I misinterpreted.
This is really the crux of why I don't think they're checking (or if they are, it's pure curiosity and not anything to do with the design of ATP - which is what my first comment in this whole back and forth was about, by the way) - if they are going to do something the outcome of the check, it would make sense to record it, for the mistake reason and to have record of the fact you’ve looked at all of this data previously. If they are not going to do anything with the outcome of the check, what's the point in checking at all?
Yeah, I don't disagree with this (I’m not sure if that’s what you’re implying), it's basically what I was also saying.
Anyway, after all that, it seems at least you and I agree on how the thing works, just maybe not on the intent behind the word “aware” in some cases. Fun talk, though!