Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
91
Development / Re: Gameplay change (hard fork) wish list
« Last post by Snailbrain on October 21, 2016, 03:49:41 PM »
Quote
don't cheat :)
when HUC was 1$ it means that COLLECTING 2 coins you were gaining that sum.... it was kinda balanced: "you risk what you are able to try to collect", but increasing the cost to 200+5 +20xdestruct etc... you unbalanced the game, because the collectable coins per day is the same while the time to recover from a loss is order of magnitude harder

stop pointing fingers (or getting mad so feel the need to insult?) - we'd be at this point 2 years ago if you'd have stopped complaining :)

Quote
e.g.
previously, when you lost a hunter, you lost 1 HUC. To recover its value we just needed to collect 2 or 3 coins
nowadays, when you lose a hunter, you need to collect 205 HUC  PLUS the times you triggered destruct*20HUC, so if you face an opponent and fight back for 5 times then die, you spend 100 in destruct fee + 200 of lost HUC value + 5 hunter creation fee... and to recover 305 coins you need to collect A LOT (just for 1 hunter lost!!)

Truncated Merged Quote (you said twice)

Quote
when you died you lost 1 huc so only needed to collect 2 or 3 coins

when it was 1 huc, so you only needed to recover 1 or 2 coins to get your hunter back, you could not get 1 coin, because there was 10 BGB or chinese bots on EVERY coin spawn.. together with the blockchain increasing 2GB a week.. and it taking 24hours to get any coins..

the game was like the video i linked in another post...


Quote
Destruct Fee -

the 20 huc destruct fee was agreed on because we added lifesteal (so you do not die when you destruct), this was a temporary measure while we considered spell timers as we found, that it could be possible to spam destruct in every block.... spell timers haven't appeared so we will reduce the fee anyway, but it won't be free.
and you know what, yes it's expensive, in hind sight, probably it should have been less. We expected to have another fork with spell timers sooner and it didn't materialize. If we didn't change the fee and we had people walking around the map perma destructing, would you have said ti was a bad idea then? - this is why it's easy to point fingers when you are on the sidelines eating your pasta waiting for money to start rolling in...
wouldn't say that's why huntercoin has had no players since 2 months after launch...

How did increasing the fee to 200 unbalance the game? you mean it prevented someone who was controlling 1000s of hunters on the map to only be able to control 100 hunters?



The only way to balance the game from masses of hunters controlled by one player, and to prevent the game being saturated to the point of no fun (even if 1000 human players), is to put players in direct competition - PVP. otherwise it is not SCALEABLE without completely redesigning the game. and to do that and make it more fair, you need to have a higher initial huntercost to promote PvP. again, the huntercost is onyl 5 hucs, it's only 200hucs if you pvp and lose or win..

Quote
if you want to have an high hunter cost, you need a high coin pool available, otherwise this is a pay-to-win game and not a human mineable coin

no - it's a human minable coin. it is not scalable for what you want ...
it cannot be free to play. and it's not pay to win. it's pay to play to pay. In this world you cannot make money for free. You need to Pay unless you are a Saudi prince..

If you want to human mine you need to put the goods up
if you want to mine a coin you need to buy mining hardware, in this case - hunters + brain.

for what you want, you need a new game (may as well not be crypto currency) or you need to wait until the game is a lot more playable.

Serious question:-
assuming the huc price increases to 1$ a HUC (when the game was at it best, and also now when it has a lot more attention), do you think the Hunter cost should be 0.01 HUC ?

Serious Note : it's easy to point fingers and claim someone made the wrong decisions when something isn't where you want it to be - (i.e. you aren't a millionaire yet), when you are not the one with the responsibility. My goal has been to make Huntercoin useable, not have 1 TB chain and having it so when a new player logs in, he has a chance..
92
Development / Re: Gameplay change (hard fork) wish list
« Last post by Murch on October 21, 2016, 03:49:22 PM »
Changing the huntercoin cost on different days to test is an interesting idea. It might hopefully put this issue to rest.

On the topic of blockchain spam, there seems to be a larger issue lurking here. Considering that the game board can't support hundreds of players (thousands of hunters), what is the path to scaling? Forget about low hunter costs for a second. If the number of players increase, the blockchain will bloat. That's a fact. From what you're saying, it would bloat to hundreds of gigs in the span of a couple of years. Pruning will not fix that. Sure it will be playable, but the chain can't survive without full nodes right? What's the solution to this or am I missing something?
93
Development / Re: Gameplay change (hard fork) wish list
« Last post by wiggi on October 21, 2016, 03:21:37 PM »
if i remember the fee change happened after the first disaster after the specified height (not sure tho) anyway you could apply the same logic: after the first disaster with height > xxx apply changes, this way there is no risk that hunters with different value coexists.

After disaster the old poisoned hunters still live for 30 or 50 chronons, so combat between 10 HUC hunters and 200 HUC hunters was possible imo, but may have not actually occurred.

With this fork's system in place, I think it will be technically easy in future forks to change hunter cost in a way to make pvp combat between "different" hunters impossible.
e.g.
chronon T+0: all hunter on map made spectator
        T+5: hunter price change goes into effect
        T+10: all hunters on map are banked and logged out (as if on bank tile)
        T+15: pvp combat resumes normally when 5-block-spawn-invulnerability of the first new hunters is finished

Then hunter cost could be different for every day of the week, going from very cheap to very expensive (for the sake of experimentation, in case we can't decide on something else)

94
Development / Re: Gameplay change (hard fork) wish list
« Last post by wiggi on October 21, 2016, 03:14:26 PM »

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?

We don't really know how the game will look like and play like post-fork, but 50-100 individuals on the board at one time translate into 1000-5000 more or less active players depending on how long they play on average. Not "global decentralized game" but an very optimistic goal for next year. If this is reached, and "too much competition" or "insane hunter price" becomes the limiting factor, then we must be ready with a total map layout overhaul (with more and more diverse harvest areas) and a clever way to determine hunter (refundable) cost. These are tasks for next year.

95
Development / Re: Gameplay change (hard fork) wish list
« Last post by Mithril Man on October 21, 2016, 02:46:55 PM »
as a side note about increasing hunter costs :

More people were playing the game when 1 huc was 1$, therefore 1 hunter was 1 $ (at the start) (upwards to 3$ at some points).
People stopped playing when the value decreased, not because the hunter cost in HUCs increased. this was long after, when a small handful of players were playing.


Having the high initial costs prevents the map from being saturated and increases risk for the dominator... as previously, he just blocked the entire map with hundreds of hunters

and, don't forget probably one of the main reasons why the price increased - the blockchain was 10gb in 2 months lol.. if we did not increase the fee the blockchain would be 1 TB by now :D


don't cheat :)
when HUC was 1$ it means that COLLECTING 2 coins you were gaining that sum.... it was kinda balanced: "you risk what you are able to try to collect", but incresing the cost to 200+5 +20xdestruct etc... you unbalanced the game, because the collectable coins per day is the same while the time to recover from a loss is order of magnitude harder

e.g.
previously, when you lost a hunter, you lost 1 HUC. To recover its value we just needed to collect 2 or 3 coins
nowadays, when you lose a hunter, you need to collect 205 HUC  PLUS the times you triggered destruct*20HUC, so if you face an opponent and fight back for 5 times then die, you spend 100 in destruct fee + 200 of lost HUC value + 5 hunter creation fee... and to recover 305 coins you need to collect A LOT (just for 1 hunter lost!!)
if you think in therm of daily coin redistribution, you have on map (excluding crown) 8*1440 coins = 11520 collectable coins
if you now compare that with the lost coins for a lost fight, you have to collect 2.65% of the total daily coin supply, that's huge, compared to the previous version where you'd spent 1HUC and so you needed 0.0087% of total coin supply!

And i considered an average fight, but often you ended up spending more destruct, and this lead to a lose-lose situation if you destruct 10 times, becasuse who lose is losing:
205(huc cost+fee)+200(destruct fee)=405 HUC

and who win goes even:
200 (destruct fee) - 200 (gained hucs) = 0 HUC


if you want to have an high hunter cost, you need a high coin pool available, otherwise this is a pay-to-win game and not a human mineable coin

about skill, nowaday the needed skill is very low, I'm not against a competitive game, but you need a competitive platform before implementing a competitive game, and a big player pool too.
I'm pretty sure i could code a bot that would drain you money always going even in a 1vs1, so ending up without a winner (or a winner just because of lag/connectionproblem or human mistake, so more odds to the bot), and so I'm pretty sure your vision would change

my2c
96
Development / Re: Gameplay change (hard fork) wish list
« Last post by Snailbrain on October 21, 2016, 12:55:14 PM »
as a side note about increasing hunter costs :

More people were playing the game when 1 huc was 1$, therefore 1 hunter was 1 $ (at the start) (upwards to 3$ at some points).
People stopped playing when the value decreased, not because the hunter cost in HUCs increased. this was long after, when a small handful of players were playing.


Having the high initial costs prevents the map from being saturated and increases risk for the dominator... as previously, he just blocked the entire map with hundreds of hunters

and, don't forget probably one of the main reasons why the price increased - the blockchain was 10gb in 2 months lol.. if we did not increase the fee the blockchain would be 1 TB by now :D
97
Development / Re: Gameplay change (hard fork) wish list
« Last post by Snailbrain on October 21, 2016, 12:26:44 PM »
I remember you said the same things more than a year alone (let increase price and see what happen) and we saw what happened, almost no one plays and fun is worse
Not blaming you, just exposing facts.
Now we should learn that increasing prices/fees was a bad choice and we should fix that
I know we have completely opposite views about this, you want a more "pay much win more (or lose much!)" attitude while i've the "pay less, win less/lose few (but more players means even more fights/chance to win)

And i didn't talk about distribution but your idea is a big anti-distribution system (like actually it is), where few people have most of the coins and you should consider this in your "cons" list
 
Quote
when a cryptocoin has value and it's worth mining, everyone mines it, when its value drops and it's not profitable, people stop.
Same for huc, if the amount of coins you can get playing huntercoin is worthless (whether looting or pvping), then no one will play (mine)...
there is the arguement about it being a game, but it isn't a fun game yet. There is a long way to go before it's a game for fun.. until then, it's a human mineable coin and therefore follows the above statement

without considering this is a game (but this can't be omitted) you can't really compare standard crypto mining with hunterocoin mining... if you see a valuable coin you mine it but you don't risk to lose already mined coin in the process.

P.S.
about the fun aspect of the game, i remember lot of people was more than happy to play with hundred of players and even if they were facing bots, it was fun or at least a lot funnier than now)

P.P.S.
about bot: with high price, i'm pretty sure that developing a bot would be on the "todo-list" of devs around, it's not a matter of cheap/expensive fees but about HUC price per se (and I'm pretty sure leaving out the HUC vlaue, currently bot aren't running only because of PVP costs (destruct fee) and even humans try to avoid fights if possible, except maybe trying to hit once or twice)

MM, after BGB and the other bot person who was controlling 50k hunters took over after the first few months, there was always less than probably 10 players playing. ALWAYS.

when the price was increased, there were 4-5 people or so playing..
3 left..

the game doesn't scale the way you want it to.

Quote
And i didn't talk about distribution but your idea is a big anti-distribution system (like actually it is), where few people have most of the coins and you should consider this in your "cons" list

that's not how it works - if you have 10k hunters of 1 player, 3 players with 5 hunters, that is not good coin distribution..

if you have 100 hunters of 1 player, and 3 players with 5 hunters, that is better than the above.. whether the 3 players are having fun in the above or not.


Quote
without considering this is a game (but this can't be omitted) you can't really compare standard crypto mining with hunterocoin mining... if you see a valuable coin you mine it but you don't risk to lose already mined coin in the process.

you have to lose unless you wanted unlimited spam.. also if you don't lose and its human mined, then it is not scaleable. in it's current form, you require confrontation so it is sort of human regulated/balancing (can't think of the term )

and you also lose in real mining, you use electricy and hardware costs (intial setup and decrease in value of hardware)... sometimes , you end up investing in a load of mining hardware, onyl to release you lost money and won't get it back... at least in huc, it's down to your brain and skill(ish) or at least avoidance in pvp.

-
Quote
P.S.
about the fun aspect of the game, i remember lot of people was more than happy to play with hundred of players and even if they were facing bots, it was fun or at least a lot funnier than now)

2 or 3 players? - humans playing with 100 hunters? and also players who have a lot of time and automated -we are trying to make it more casual.

Quote
P.P.S.
about bot: with high price, i'm pretty sure that developing a bot would be on the "todo-list" of devs around, it's not a matter of cheap/expensive fees but about HUC price per se (and I'm pretty sure leaving out the HUC vlaue, currently bot aren't running only because of PVP costs (destruct fee) and even humans try to avoid fights if possible, except maybe trying to hit once or twice)

i normally make around 1k in pvp if i play casually for a couple of hours while at work. probably make about 100hucs max from actually looting coins.
98
Development / Re: Gameplay change (hard fork) wish list
« Last post by Mithril Man on October 21, 2016, 12:12:55 PM »
I remember you said the same things more than a year alone (let increase price and see what happen) and we saw what happened, almost no one plays and fun is worse
Not blaming you, just exposing facts.
Now we should learn that increasing prices/fees was a bad choice and we should fix that
I know we have completely opposite views about this, you want a more "pay much win more (or lose much!)" attitude while i've the "pay less, win less/lose few (but more players means even more fights/chance to win)

And i didn't talk about distribution but your idea is a big anti-distribution system (like actually it is), where few people have most of the coins and you should consider this in your "cons" list
 
Quote
when a cryptocoin has value and it's worth mining, everyone mines it, when its value drops and it's not profitable, people stop.
Same for huc, if the amount of coins you can get playing huntercoin is worthless (whether looting or pvping), then no one will play (mine)...
there is the arguement about it being a game, but it isn't a fun game yet. There is a long way to go before it's a game for fun.. until then, it's a human mineable coin and therefore follows the above statement

without considering this is a game (but this can't be omitted) you can't really compare standard crypto mining with hunterocoin mining... if you see a valuable coin you mine it but you don't risk to lose already mined coin in the process.

P.S.
about the fun aspect of the game, i remember lot of people were more than happy to play with hundred of players and even if they were facing bots, it was fun or at least a lot funnier than now)

P.P.S.
about bot: with high price, i'm pretty sure that developing a bot would be on the "todo-list" of devs around, it's not a matter of cheap/expensive fees but about HUC price per se (and I'm pretty sure leaving out the HUC vlaue, currently bot aren't running only because of PVP costs (destruct fee) and even humans try to avoid fights if possible, except maybe trying to hit once or twice)
99
Development / Re: Gameplay change (hard fork) wish list
« Last post by Snailbrain on October 21, 2016, 11:24:44 AM »
my own thoughts are this :

If the cost is too low you won't see an uptake in players at this time, you will see an increase in the amount of hunters the dominator controls (and possibly return of bots).
there will be less coins to harvest and pvp will be less meaningful.

By lowering costs, imo, you will not see an increase in players hardly - the game is not complex/fun enough for people to play for fun (except those using automation). People will play to make money.

you will see an increase of Bot/dominator ratio to humans.
so, lets say now you have a 30:1 Bot (or dominator, currently is not a bot) to human ratio.
if you reduce cost to 1 Huc, you will have a 10000:1 bot/human ratio.

you will end up like it was - pvp worthless and you can only get 1 huc a week :


If the price is too low, we might see hunters stacked on every spawn spot
This shows what it was like when bots ruled the game because it was almost free2play

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYJVG1fKnRo

-

along with the negative aspects - such as, the blockchain is now 16gb or so. The first 14gb of the chain was because hunter costs were so low and the map was saturated. in the last 2 years the chain has probably increase by 2gb only..


The only issue with the "higher price" atm, is that combat mechanics needs to be fixed to allow more "skill". It's not currently skillless, but it almost is.

i think we should at least wait and see what happens with the changes anyway, as this is going to be completely different than what it was... especially as Destruct cost is reduced (with spell timers this may cause some other issues..).


Also - do not forget, your hunter only costs 5 hucs atm (and 1 with the change). It only costs you 200 if you die.. if you don't want to pvp, stay specator mode and lose 1 huc or run away (not hard now there are banks close by).
If you want to learn how to play, go on testnet or maybe someone make a f2p environment.
Hnutercoin is serious, this is where the coins come from, they are minted in the game. The fun in huntercoin is making money - it's not a f2p game.

again, imo - reducing the cost of a hunter will not increase the amount of players at this time. That is not the current obstacle imo.
What will increase the amount of players is this :
Fun to pvp (improve combat mechanics)
Fun to collect coins of $ value
Fun to kill players of $ value
Huntercore - Quick Startup requirements - pruned chain / instant play clients
Huntercore - working fine on normal hard disk
Publicity
Higher HUC Value
AND lower huntercost, once pretty much all the above has been sorted..


Reducing hunter cost at this time will dumb down the game and make it less fun (less coins to collect, less coins from pvp).
When gameplay is more fun and huc value increases a lot more, then reducing the cost may be the best option, although, personally, i think it would bring more publicity, more super AI, if it was 1k$ a hunter, but i'd probably be in a minority so i wouldn't push for that :D

-
anyway, i think we should see what happens after the fork , and if people want to put the cost of huc down after the changes then do so - note, maybe we will need to if the fork works out well and the value of huc increase significantly.

--
edit note:
when a cryptocoin has value and it's worth mining, everyone mines it, when its value drops and it's not profitable, people stop.
Same for huc, if the amount of coins you can get playing huntercoin is worthless (whether looting or pvping), then no one will play (mine)...
there is the arguement about it being a game, but it isn't a fun game yet. There is a long way to go before it's a game for fun.. until then, it's a human mineable coin and therefore follows the above statement
100
Development / Re: Gameplay change (hard fork) wish list
« Last post by Murch on October 20, 2016, 11:17:17 PM »
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

That's fair. Everything doesn't have to happen at once. One step at a time often works out better.

As for the hunter cost's effect on the dominators, I have to agree with Mithril Man. Higher barriers to entry make for stronger, more stable monopolies. If you want competition, everyone needs to be able to play easily. For example, we can look at the extremes.

If the hunter cost were 1000 per, then who would have enough to play? The dominators have been in control for long enough that they would be able to afford that. The ones who are really shut out in that situation are the new players. Not only would that be expensive for a newbie, but even if a newbie tries, they have no practice playing so they'll lose on those grounds alone.

If the cost were 1 per, then who would have enough to play? Pretty much everyone. You mentioned that if the cost goes down, then the dominators' job becomes easier. I strongly disagree with that conclusion. The lower the barrier to entry, the harder it is to maintain a monopoly. Sure, the dominators can afford to flood the map, but that's already true now, isn't it? It's just that there's no need for them to do so. The more unique players on the map, the more complex the task is of maintaining dominance.

Just my $0.02.
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]