Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - sirwagginston

Pages: [1] 2 3
1
General Discussion / Re: cheat
« on: December 27, 2016, 03:27:12 AM »
It is mathematically impossible to cheat in a blockchain-based game.

2
Trading HUC / Re: Exchanges
« on: December 21, 2016, 02:16:48 AM »
Huntercoin is back up for voting to be listed on the C-CEX exchange! Please GO HERE to cast your FREE vote so we can get some more trade activity. You simply need an account with any non-0 amount of funds in it; if you are willing to donate funds, however, you can improve our chances of winning by sending them to this BTC voting address: 1FCWQerKfppxQ497f4SnG1QUx5wwRCqCyf

3
Development / Re: Gameplay change (hard fork) wish list
« on: October 23, 2016, 06:29:14 AM »
final testnet in a box:
http://forum.huntercoin.org/index.php/topic,22265.msg30111.html#msg30111

I played with this for 1000 blocks after fork, and the new Huntercore node and the old Qt clients work well together. No bugs.

And, partial ghosting of coins is in:


Alright, so to summarize for everybody who glanced over the development work going on: we've pretty much decided upon what's going into this upcoming hardfork. You can test the new protocol by checking that link Wiggi provided, but it's not yet hooked up to the official testnet you can access via Huntercoin QT. It's like a testnet in a box, with you being the only node, connecting to yourself with 3 different test clients.

It can, however, test the new Huntercore client (will enable blockchain pruning), but you can't yet play the game on it. Gameplay changes must be tested on one of the older clients. You can see the spawn/bank ring around the coin farms, now, and I think that coin ghosting will also appear once you've mined to the block where it begins. I'm trying to make that work on my Windows machine, now, and recommend others do the same. Once domob has approved it on the official testnet, we can plan a launch date.

This plan should give enough time for any bugs to arise. We'll be able to get Huntercore glitch-free in that time, too, and also work on updating the external unity client so it plays well with Huntercore and its pruning, and visually registers the gameplay changes in the hardfork.

Speaking of which, here is a list of the new features/changes included in this upcoming fork:

  • Tile reduction. New Hunters spawn and also bank at a ring of tiles around coin farms, instead of at random locations around the map. You can see the ring in the above screenshot. This enables you to get in and out of the action more quickly, an improvement for casual players. We estimate a reduction in minimum required play time from over an hour to around 15 minutes.
  • Coin ghosting. According to a specific pattern--part of which is visible in the above image--coins on certain tiles will be unlootable, and will instead accumulate and pile up until the ghosting period ends. This forces players with entrenched positions to move around, and causes a flood of players to attack those positions to get the piled up coins.
  • Spectator mode. Hunters start the game in an unattackable state, which lasts a few chronons or until they move or launch an attack of their own. This gives them time to decide if they want to spawn there (could be too crowded) and plan. If they stay still the whole period, they go into spectator mode permanently, making them not part of the game. Wiggi's client with games on top of the Huntercoin blockchain needs this for its 2.0 functionality, as it uses Hunters to store information in the blockchain.
  • Lower costs. Once the fork goes live, a timer will count down until the cost of creating a Hunter goes from 200 HUC to 100 HUC. Also, the fees for creating Hunters and using the Destruct ability will be reduced to a fraction of what they were.

Somewhere along the way, in-between now and the fork's launch, I'll also resume the Huntercoin marketing campaign. Expect articles and such. Considering the tiny number of Huntercoin developers, I think the extent of the changes are pretty impressive, so we should all try to spread the word.

4
Development / Re: Gameplay change (hard fork) wish list
« on: October 22, 2016, 06:26:49 AM »
It's unfortunate that we got so off topic. Arguments will always devolve into flame wars when they're about issues we're not yet ready to tackle. We have to put this fork out, first, as it lays the foundation for a lot of important things. Soon we can start a new thread with a wishlist for the next fork, and then get back to the debate.

Dynamic fees would be great in the future, but for now, we just have to all compromise on a Hunter cost. Last I recall from talking to SnailBrain and wiggi, 100 HUC was where we were at, which is a 50% reduction. We had agreed to lower all the fees, as well, but I forget what to. Is that all set in the testnet in a box you made, Wiggi?

If making the Hunter cost different on different days is easy to implement, I strongly support that, as well. Experimentation can answer some questions for us. I'm fine with just lowering the cost, though, in the spirit of promoting progress.

5
Development / Re: Gameplay change (hard fork) wish list
« on: October 20, 2016, 05:42:58 AM »
wiggi, it sounds like you would prefer a higher cost game with fewer players. did i read correct you would prefer ~50 individuals on the board at one time? is that not orders of magnitude too low for a "successful" global decentralized game? when you have time, i'd like to hear your thoughts on this one?

I had the same concern, but Wiggi and SnailBrain have good points. More expensive Hunters makes the system harder for someone to game. We have a recurring problem called the Dominator, where someone makes hundreds of them and takes over the map.

There are some saving graces to having expensive Hunters, though. Wiggi is already making an additional game on the Huntercoin blockchain, and I think more games will follow, and they could be meant for a wider audience. Also, we can and probably will make additional maps with more or less expensive Hunters.

In the future, when we have an account system, a lot of the aforementioned won't be a problem. We just can't pull all of that off with this fork. Maybe the next fork, in 2017

I liked foglight's idea to have the hunter cost tied to a USD value. Then the concern comes up that the amount could change abruptly or be open to some sort of manipulation. So instead of pegging it directly to the current price, it could be based off of the price average of the past 30 days (or whatever period MA makes the most sense). This would prevent behaviors like only summoning a bunch of hunters on price increases.

I also like that idea. I had brought it up before, in fact, but it doesn't appear to be within the scope of things we can do with this upcoming fork. Like I said above, our wishlist for the 2017 fork may be more expansive

6
Development / Re: Gameplay change (hard fork) wish list
« on: October 15, 2016, 06:23:47 AM »
20% of blocks ghosted: it would be 15%, one 100 blocks break and one 50 blocks break per 1000. We can vote the numbers, or even kick this out in case everyone is confident that it is not needed to un-dominate the map.

I thought it was 50 blocks per 500, which would be another 100 per 1000 = 200 / 1000 = 20%. Personally, I kinda like this idea, but I favor no more than 10% max.

Pegged currencies attempts, afaik, have all failed in their implementation, they aren't reliable and as i said we should avoid being dependend on external services
I'm not against the solution idea per se, but technical implementation prevent this solution to be implemented properly

Yeah, I don't think it's within the scope of what we can do with the upcoming fork. We have to just make a guess on the price and lower the fee to something. The fork after that, we can do something fancy.

Perhaps we can have both, not annoy players too much and still have a big wave of new hunters, by making the ghosting partial.
Example: for 150 blocks, every 4th coin spawn is ghosted (game continues normally but coins already accumulate)
    then for 30 blocks, 3 out of 4 coin spawns are ghosted (2 out of 4 would look ugly graphically)
    then for 20 blocks, full ghosting
repeated every 500 blocks so that every "timezone" has one event per day

can be done by just changing the formula. It's not ghosted if...
Code: [Select]
if ( (((x % 2) + (y % 2) == 0) && (nHeight % 500 < 480)) ||
     (((x % 2) + (y % 2) <= 1) && (nHeight % 500 < 450)) ||
     (nHeight % 500 < 350) )

Would have to check for each hunter if they're allowed to loot at the current chronon and coordinates, but still fast and easy.

I really like this idea, way better than the simple ghosting idea. It gives the game sort of a day/night cycle, and diminishes the likelihood of interfering with players who don't care for it.

7
Development / Re: Gameplay change (hard fork) wish list
« on: October 12, 2016, 09:35:19 AM »
Brief recap: it looks like we've settled on tile reduction as the solution to our gameplay problems... it looks like he's successfully made it so that Hunters always spawn near coins (spawn tile reduction), but the bank tiles haven't been reduced, yet.

You didn't actually look at it, right?

Player spawn tile reduction is working.
Bank spawn tile reduction is working.
Additionally you can logout on the player spawn tiles, faster than currently on banks
Fee reduction to 1 HUC is working.
Hunters who stand there for longer than 5 chronons will irrevocably become spectator.

I didn't run the testnet, no, my apologies. I'm a Windows guy, and a disaster at my IRL fiat job (a female ESL student murdered) has kept me very busy.

I just recalled a statement on Skype about you waiting for domob for something. Is that not the case? If so, then great. :) There's other fork stuff we should continue to discuss.

I like the ghost coins idea, but I think the frequency is too high.

Yes, could be reduced a bit. perhaps:
 for 100 blocks after every full 1000 blocks, and
 for 50 blocks after every full 500 blocks?
If nerfed too much, it might be not enough to serve its purpose.

That would be 20% of blocks ghosted, correct? We just need to think about how much casual players will tolerate. Could come down to vote.

Also, we must not forget to adjust the fees and Hunter cost, especially with recent price increases. We also really need to revisit the feasibility of tapping the gamefund with something like random coin drops, because it's getting too big. I predicted a while ago that it could scare investors, who view it as a ticking timebomb waiting to hit exchanges.

Yes. Perhaps *not confiscating* hunter loot for the gamefund (in case of disaster) would be a one-liner (in HandleKilledLoot?) and could easily go into this fork. If we've managed to un-dominate the game there will be time to think of intelligent gameplay ideas to tap the gamefund.

Or perhaps it's better to not thinking about gamefund at all because this is what creates the irrational fear of it being dumped (which is just as impossible as with the other 27000000 coins that are not mined. They don't exist. The gamefund coins don't exist, too)

I like the not confiscating idea. I agree that we should try not to harp on it overly much, though, since the funds technically don't exist without a fork.

still reading and thinking but want to try to help improve game play.

1) Cost to play - needs to be cheap when no one is playing and expensive when people are playing,

- caveat, a user can create as many accounts as they like, so account-dependent behavior doesnt make sense.

Potential Solutions:

A) regular scheduled hard-forks to update the hunter_cost
- ex, if its scheduled once per 100 days, this could be a simple solution to keep the costs within some desired $ range.

B) hard code cost of hunter to usd value
- ie, $1 dollar per hunter. continuously calculated via exchange rate

C) hunter_cost = median(num_players_per_sq) * A; // where A=100 or some other constant.

- if, 100 x 100 grid: 10000 squares, and A=100.

a) few hunters    - ~100 hunters, 0.01*100 = 1 HUC to play.
b) some hunters - ~1000 hunters, 0.1*100 = 10 HUC to play.
c) many hunters - ~10000 hunters, 1*100 = 100 HUC to play.

- Cant enforce players paying more per additional hunter as they will just create new accounts. However, this would serve to regulate cost by popularity across the board.


2) use gameFund to randomly distribute coins on the map.
- this will start using the massive account and give back to the players.
- this will provide additional incentive to travel around the map to all tiles.

3) if keeping disasters, keep them randomized.

4) other stuff for later.

Some interesting thoughts, here. Follow up points:

  • We have considered altering the gameplay such that creating additional accounts is penalized. For example, removing the color-based system could enable a friendly fire dynamic... if the game doesn't know your Hunters belong to the same person, they might incidentally hurt each other.
  • Wiggi has put chronoDollars on the Huntercoin blockchain using his client, but I don't know how robust it is, yet. Also, everybody would have to be using his client. So this might require a lot of work. It would be particularly suited to handling Hunter base cost, though (currently 200 HUC, which is separate from the fee and not lost if your Hunter survives)
  • I really like your idea of making the fee vary based upon how many Hunters are on the map (not spectating). It doesn't sound too hard to implement, to me, but I could be wrong about that. If I am, somebody will probably correct me.

8
Development / Re: gameFund - 2017
« on: October 12, 2016, 09:09:55 AM »
so no one has a private key for them to dump any coins.

That's the crucial point

9
Trading HUC / Re: Huntercoin Price Resurgence
« on: October 11, 2016, 12:05:08 AM »

The HUC price leveled up--old resistance, new support. Based on where lots of buy orders have been placed, it seem the market roughly agrees, but the line is still being tested. I don't think the market has any idea yet where exactly the ceiling should be, though; just some rough guesses based on the recent spikes. I don't usually sell, anyways :P

10
Development / Re: Gameplay change (hard fork) wish list
« on: October 11, 2016, 12:00:03 AM »
Brief recap: it looks like we've settled on tile reduction as the solution to our gameplay problems... it looks like he's successfully made it so that Hunters always spawn near coins (spawn tile reduction), but the bank tiles haven't been reduced, yet. So it now takes less time to get into the game, but still takes the same amount of time to bank Hunters and log out.

Skype just banned me. Probably thinking we're evil pirates for posting Mega links.

Anyway, here is the testnet-in-box implementing many of the proposed changes plus something new:

All coins go into a ghostly state periodically where they keep spawning but can't get picked up. Now if someone wants to play 24/7 and keeps large groups of hunters on all harvest areas they are free to do this, but normal players will naturally start to play when a "ghostly period" is about to end, so the dominator (if any) has to face the attack of all other players at the same time.


schedule:

current testnet height:  331025
fork hits at:            331100

coins becoming immaterial: for 200 blocks after every full 1000 blocks
                           for 100 blocks after every full 500 blocks
                           for 50 blocks after every full 200 blocks

hunter invulnerability after spawn: 6 blocks (ends if waypoints set, or stand still to become spectator)
spectator lifetime:                 15 blocks (then refund normally)


hunttest_timesave4_no_blockchain.zip, 14.4 MB
https://mega.nz/#!WEUhWKoL!mv9YaTMIjvX0M2pK3n4sKb8CzieUjdXdBLJ0UfudTiI

Everyone please test this. To run, it also requires blk0001.dat, blkindex.dat, game.dat, nameindexfull.dat, and utxo.dat from testnet blockchain

Snapshot of the testnet blockchain at height 331025 for reference:
hunttest_timesave4_blockchain.zip, 322.3 MB
https://mega.nz/#!CNcCRAgY!84D2j1ynXRZGebkkFQ3Mcg5zyP2Di93sgmbscSmddjI

I like the ghost coins idea, but I think the frequency is too high. I personally would find it annoying when I want to casually hop in and collect some coins, but I can't. If you made it less frequent, it might also amplify the effect where lots of players log in once the ghost period ends, ganking the dominator.

I also think 4-5 blocks might be a better invulnerability duration for new Hunters, but that's not such a big deal, really. I'm curious about spectator lifetime, though, I didn't realize they'd have a lifetime. Why don't they just stay there until banked like other Hunters?

Also, we must not forget to adjust the fees and Hunter cost, especially with recent price increases. We also really need to revisit the feasibility of tapping the gamefund with something like random coin drops, because it's getting too big. I predicted a while ago that it could scare investors, who view it as a ticking timebomb waiting to hit exchanges. This thread kind of confirms that: http://forum.huntercoin.org/index.php/topic,23560.0.html

11
Development / Re: gameFund - 2017
« on: October 10, 2016, 10:38:54 PM »
"gameFund" : 1159624.34093456,
"height" : 1422789,

This is a lot of coins relative to total supply. How it is distributed will have a significant impact on the ecosystem.

What are the current thoughts on how and when to start using the gameFund?

This is an excellent point, which I have expressed privately to SnailBrain and Wiggi. Such a large gamefund could hurt the price if dropped on the market all at once, but this money is intended for gameplay utilization (not marketing or paying developers) so I doubt that will happen. I like the "coin drop" idea, myself. There are other special events we could come up with, too. I'm hoping we can manage to include some of that in the upcoming fork (see the wishlist thread), if possible

12
Development / Re: Gameplay change (hard fork) wish list
« on: October 04, 2016, 11:38:22 AM »

Why do you want to de-randomize the disasters? Anyway, I agree that we need random coin dumps from the gamefund or other sources, like maybe disasters. 10 per tile would be good, or make some of them have even more, to penalize players for camping entrenched spots around coin farms. We could also make random "coin fountains" pop up, that are basically like a makeshift coin farm that pops up somewhere on the map for a relatively short period of time.

The non-combat game (as it was in the past) would start with the disaster block, when new hunters can spawn in the bases, and the random coins present a competitive traveling salesman problem. Hunters must pick coins without falling behind the other hunters.

All coins available for the time between the 2 disasters get dumped at once right after the disaster. (no camping involved)

In case you find this interesting to play, would you rather want to know "a new round will probably start tomorrow between 7 and 9pm" or
"a new round can start at any time with a chance of 1 in 10000 per minute, day and night"?

Not a bad idea. My only problem with it is that I thought randomizing disasters was meant to mess up the dominators, but we've discussed many other alternative ways to do that. It sounds like we're all in agreement on random coins, but before we get into details (quantities, single tiles versus fountains), we should proceed with voting on other issues. Stuff like:

  • Should we de-randomize disasters? I'm pretty neutral.
  • Should we have a dynamic Hunter creation fee? This only works in combination with reinforcements or friendly fire. I propose an increasing one... a gentle exponent.
  • Should we have reduced spawn tiles, or reinforcements and random portals, or some other combination? I like reinforcements and random portals.
  • Should we get rid of the color system (for combat, I mean)? It would make guilds more effective later on down the road. I lean slightly towards keeping the color system, but I think I could go either way.

It's also a given that we want standard names, but in terms of the color system, it sounds like expanding it (as in its use in the back-end, not adding more colors to the combat dynamic) might make modding the game easier for people like himself... less "start from scratch." If that's correct, I support doing so. Let's get wiggi's input on that.

13
Development / Re: Gameplay change (hard fork) wish list
« on: October 03, 2016, 12:42:00 PM »
This is the reason why i wanted to remove color system and introduce the account system, you could then allow "friendly fire" to hunters of the same account, and in future you could add the guild concept where accounts register too (imagine a special name/value that create a named guild/temam, of course that team will have an associated address and an account name/value could subscribe to it, nothing hard to implement, is just an address reference

You mean disable friendly fire between hunters of the same account? That makes sense, yeah, but guilds would ruin things a bit. If friendly fire is the price for not declaring ownership of multiple Hunters, then people who want to avoid paying an increasing fee for buying too many of them will just create their own guild and fill it with pseudonyms of themselves. Friendly fire would thus be avoided, negating the utility of the fee. Can you think of a way to make that unexploitable?

not time to read all now, but about the hunter creation fee cost, as i said here previously in this post
Quote
A fix to overpopulation, in the long term, could be the implementation of an Account system, that allow you to create few hunters at a decreasing price each one, but limited
(e.g. 1st hunter in game costs 50, 2nd 40, 3rd 30, 4th 20, 5th 10 and you can't have a 6th in the same account (just throwing random numbers but explaining the rational)

so basically i didn't proposed a progressive incremental price, quite the opposite, but with a limit number of hunter that an account can create
so you pay the higher fee for the first (but lower than now of course, in my example it was 50) then 40 for the second, then 30, etc... until you fill your 6 available slots
so if someone wants to "cheat" and create lot of accounts with a single hunter, they pay the max for each one

numbers aren't significant, just an example and need to be balanced
moreover we could add kind of powers to accounts, so that the hunter performance affect the account status (loyalty)
loyalty could lead to "lower fees" or more hunters that can be added (but always looks for balanced gameplay)
you may argue about the higher fee required for a noob to enter the game (that would work if fee were increasing instead of decreasing like mine) and my idea about this is to allow a player to chose if to enter in the competitive field (so with my fee proposal) or in a "training area" where hunters cost less but collectable coins are less and hunter's can't harm each other

sorry but can't elaborate more (@ work)

A reputation system would be cool, but I think it's a side-benefit... What's really important about an account system is that it's necessary for friendly fire mechanics, the reinforcements option and dynamic Hunter creation fees. If we're not adopting at least one of those things, we should not worry about it until the next fork. Fix gameplay, first.

I can get behind the idea of a noob map where Hunters cost less, but for the main map, I feel increasing fee for Hunters is better. Then we can make the bots pay, literally. Design is such that the exponential increase becomes extreme when the number of Hunters a player has reaches levels that are obviously beyond the possibility of human control. Personally, I never really have more than 10 (usually less), because I don't like automated behaviors... I consider them a last resort for if I'm falling asleep and need to bank.

14
Development / Re: Gameplay change (hard fork) wish list
« on: October 03, 2016, 05:37:33 AM »
I just wish there was a way we could effectively make people pay an increasing Hunter creation fee the more Hunters they have... I assume they would just get new private keys to look like different people. One benefit of removing the color system might be that we could remove friendly fire entirely, forcing people to do everything under one key. Friendly fire would become the cost of anonymous gang attacks. But this would also reduce people's incentive to form teams, as ganking will be less effective due to FF

This is the reason why i wanted to remove color system and introduce the account system, you could then allow "friendly fire" to hunters of the same account, and in future you could add the guild concept where accounts register too (imagine a special name/value that create a named guild/temam, of course that team will have an associated address and an account name/value could subscribe to it, nothing hard to implement, is just an address reference

You mean disable friendly fire between hunters of the same account? That makes sense, yeah, but guilds would ruin things a bit. If friendly fire is the price for not declaring ownership of multiple Hunters, then people who want to avoid paying an increasing fee for buying too many of them will just create their own guild and fill it with pseudonyms of themselves. Friendly fire would thus be avoided, negating the utility of the fee. Can you think of a way to make that unexploitable?

EDIT: I just realized reinforcements could alleviate that issue... please read below. We could also do the account system without changing the color system, actually. In fact, reinforcements might require an account system.

about the idea of random coins, this is already something i asked time ago, using the gamefund coin, but extending it, we could even re-design completly the map, removing (or reducing) the coin spawn areas and dropping random the coins, except few areas (that must be well designed) where most coins are and pvp is incentivated (this remind the old BGB concept of layered map, with a map zone that's for noobs and allow some little reward, a medium area where the risk increse and an high risk area where most of the pvp and $$ are centralized (and extending it too, the map could have different rules based on the map "level", so the "noob" zone could just have the HUC collection aspect implemented, denying the PVP, so no destruct allowed there

I think that, since we need an hard fork, a map chance should be mandatory

Perhaps the "just the collection aspect" thing could be implemented together with spectator mode

If spectators (color 4-7) spawn in the old bases...

...and the 4 areas with base + about 5 harvest areas are cut of from main (pvp) part of map, and normal hunters (color 0-3) don't spawn there, and coins that would normally spawn there go to gamefund.

Then, after non-random disaster (please lets kill the random disaster for this) these lost coins get dumped at random (10 per tile or so) in the cut off non-pvp zone.

It would make "this year's hardfork" more complicated, but also has an advantage: non-pvp hunters (==spectators) don't need to be different from regular hunters, still could kill and get killed, only they never encounter an enemy.

Why do you want to de-randomize the disasters? Anyway, I agree that we need random coin dumps from the gamefund or other sources, like maybe disasters. 10 per tile would be good, or make some of them have even more, to penalize players for camping entrenched spots around coin farms. We could also make random "coin fountains" pop up, that are basically like a makeshift coin farm that pops up somewhere on the map for a relatively short period of time.

In defense of using the gamefund, it's getting way too big IIRC. That scares investors, who see it as a ticking timebomb waiting to hit an exchange. At the very least, it needs to be used enough to stop growing. I also think we should tap it for seasonal contests with prizes, like we had at CoinFest, or some other neat random event. Random events make MMO's more exciting, and I think they could be simple to implement, such as additional random coin drops.

When it comes to updating the map further, though, I'm worried we'll start stalling if we try that. I would be content with minor adjustments to the current map alongside random coins and some portals or bank/spawn changes. If we have some empty spaces like old bases lying around, we might as well utilize those, too. Removing the coins from a farm and using that space for something else isn't so hard, either.

But if somebody wants to design another map--either PVP, non-PVP, or a hybrid--then I would likely vote to integrate it with the fork. I think standard names would allow you to do that with your own clients, however, which (for marketing purposes) you might prefer to including it in the base protocol. Free advice from me ;)

I think we should focus more directly on getting people into and out of the action faster. Having portals, reduced spawn/bank tiles, and also reinforcements all at once would be total overkill. One great benefit if reinforcements I just realized, however, is that it could alleviate the issue of people using multiple keypairs to avoid the extra-Hunter fee: if they do everything with a separate account, then they cannot use reinforcements effectively, as the game wouldn't know the Hunters are owned by the same person.

I think it would be ideal to combine reinforcements with random coins and portals. I'm not worried about reinforcements being used to steamroll the map, since we can do the fee for too many Hunters... attempts to prevent that will just make mobility more difficult for everyone else. With sufficient random coins, running away from the farm zone when Dominator arrives won't be too bothersome. If you guys propose tile reduction or something else, though, let's put it to vote.

15
Development / Re: Gameplay change (hard fork) wish list
« on: September 30, 2016, 06:26:02 AM »
For the color system, bank despawn time, tile reduction, spawn tiles, etc., we should debate a bit more. Personally, I'm neutral on the color system... I can see how removing it might lead to interesting gameplay dynamics,

Can you give an example of this?

If it were such that all Hunters could damage each other with Destruct, then simply stacking Hunters on a tile or adjacent tiles to overwhelm opponents would be ineffective--you would have to position them to avoid friendly fire. Otherwise, they all cancel each other out... or at least, I think that's how it would work if (for example) a red, blue and yellow Hunter all used Destruct within the vicinity of one another.

I kind of think the color system already allows that dynamic sometimes when different-colored Hunters are nearby. Colors also allow additional gameplay dynamics, like stacking and also choosing a same-colored Hunter to sneak passed stacked opponents. Overall, I think I'm not neutral, actually, and think we should keep the color system the same.

Can we wrap this up, perhaps once again going through the bullet points, giving thumbs up, thumbs down, don't know/don't care, or what the alternative would be (as exactly as possible)

1) reduction of possible player spawn tiles (as in OP)
1a) player spawn tiles work like banks
2) reduction of possible bank tiles (as in OP)
2a) reduction of Bank despawn time from 3 to 1 blocks
2b) allow reinforcements/hunters can summon their buddies for a fee
3) change fee for new hunter from 5 to 1 HUC
4) change fee for destruction from 20 to 1 HUC
4a) newly spawned hunters can't get destructed for 3 blocks, or until they send destruct themselves if this comes earlier.
5) allow spectator mode
5a) leave color system otherwise unchanged or not?
5b) allow "normal" names, decide on rule how the nodes recognize these names

Most of these are a given. We need a spectator mode, normal names, lower fees for Hunter creation and destruct (as well as lowering the cost of a Hunter itself... 200 HUC is too high), and reinforcements. We just have to decide upon exact HUC amounts and choice of technical implementations.

I think "1) reduction of possible player spawn tiles (as in OP)" and "2b) allow reinforcements/hunters can summon their buddies for a fee" don't go well together. A skilled player could maintain a few groups of hunters of the same color and systematically steamroll the entire map, moving them from harvest area to harvest area for a relatively low fee.

Without 2b), spawning for example 500 blue hunters isn't that efficient, if 20 out of 80 harvest areas are already "blue", another 15-20 get perhaps only 1 hunter, and on the remaining 45 the wannabee dominator would have to fight simultanously, against different actual human players. This won't end well for him, or even for a group of 3.

...

Maybe there are other ways we could lessen the time to get into the action, like with the portals MithrilMan was talking about.

Random portals would have similar dangers to balancing like 2b), but I think some static portals that make high value harvest areas more attackable would be fine (and would make the map less monotone)

From the way the "list of possible player spawn tiles" and "list of possible bank tiles" is currently coded, I could implement 1) to 2a) with minimal code changes. Data would come from an array similar to ObstacleMap.

Other than the somewhat hairy "color" bitflags, all remaining tasks is then tweaking of numbers. (portals is also not that difficult)

I've had the post editor open at this part for a while, thinking this over and over again in my brain. I can understand the dichotomy between reduced spawn/bank tiles and reinforcements as solutions. I think we're going about this all wrong, however. Backwards.

I realized that the reason I favored reinforcements is because I fear the map becoming modular... what I mean is, if you can easily zip from coin farm to coin farm via spawn/bank points or portals (with reinforcements, at least one Hunter needs to actually walk the distance), nobody would ever travel most of the terrain. It may as well not exist, and the map be broken into a series of battlegrounds.

Proposed solution: adjust coin spawn locations. If we could put little coins here and there throughout the map, people will be less bored traveling between farm locations, greatly reducing complaints about the time it takes to get into the action. If we could make some coins appear around the map at random, building in quantity until collected, it would liven up gameplay and make Hunters move around more.

I think this would complement reinforcements, in particular. It's not so bad exploring a bit with that first Hunter who has to reach a coin farm if there's random coins to find along the way. Also, if somebody tries to steamroll the map, it's less costly for Hunters already at a farm to leave, as they have more other things to pursue. Portals would also be exciting in the exploratory aspect, whereas restricting spawn/bank tiles may feel more forced.

I just wish there was a way we could effectively make people pay an increasing Hunter creation fee the more Hunters they have... I assume they would just get new private keys to look like different people. One benefit of removing the color system might be that we could remove friendly fire entirely, forcing people to do everything under one key. Friendly fire would become the cost of anonymous gang attacks. But this would also reduce people's incentive to form teams, as ganking will be less effective due to FF

Pages: [1] 2 3