[quote=âSharklaser, post:3032, topic:3101â]New game plot called âThe Samson Principleâ. There is human-bourne AI satellite orbiting the earth. It has directive to eradicate the planet when it considers all humanity lost, bringing the planet down permanently.[/quote] Thatâs actually very interesting. In fact, I think itâs highly compatible with the CDDA lore and could easily be implemented into the vanilla game to serve as an endgame goal the player seeks to reach within the timeframe given to them in order to win.
Is it surprising some form of âoverwatchâ has been built after the technological advances in the robotic/medical field, specifically ordered to prevent the whole population turning into robots, or worse yet, getting destroyed by some monster virus/entity created by humans? No. Perhaps it was built after robots started serving humanity in a more active way - sweeping the streets and helping with simple day-to-day tasks, helping the police and the army, even being part of the humans themselves (read: CBMs being common, inside survivor zombies, existence of lab hybrids etc). Itâs there to prevent a robot uprising, or enslavement of the human race by anything dangerous it could possibly create.
I realize you suggested this as a joke but Iâd like to expand on it; Iâd seriously be up for a game where this is the endgoal. I think the 3 year timeframe is good, but donât really understand the other two ways you suggested of reaching the goal (the alternatives to hacking the satellite):
[ul][*] How will creating a group of survivors, instead of having them sprinkled around the planet, change the logic the AI uses when determining whether the planet needs to be destroyed or not? Iâm assuming the countdown starts as soon as the human population decreases to a certain number of members and stays below it. Even if you had more than 3 years, I donât think thereâd be a way to reproduce fast enough to go above that limit; if anything, the number would continue to drop as people die from starvation, disease, by zombies, wildlife, other survivors etc. If the number canât be reached it doesnât matter whether the survivors stick as a group or stay separated.[/ul]
[ul][*] Why would the AI care if the survivors fight back or not? Iâm relying on the same logic I used previously: whether the number of âthreatsâ decreases or increases shouldnât matter as long as the number of survivors stays below the âdeath thresholdâ. A war would only decrease that number further and lower the chances of the humans living to see their planet get saved from total annihilation.[/ul]
TL;DR hell fucking yes, but the idea needs some reworking