Author Topic: Gameplay Changes Discussion with Future Hard Fork  (Read 26970 times)

BGB

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 226
    • View Profile
Gameplay Changes Discussion with Future Hard Fork
« on: November 03, 2014, 09:02:37 PM »
We have accepted that carrying capacity will be included in the future game play. The idea here I believe is...
  • to help reduce camping
  • force players to bank more often
  • make the game appear more active
  • have a positive impact on disaster runs by possibly diversifying who picks up coins

I believe carrying capacity is a positive change, I have doubts that it will impact the current gameplay very much. Also do we need to jump right into a hardfork for this change when there are other things that are on the table to keep considering? I realize that to many changes at once are not positive, but really there are only a handful of us still around playing (and is decreasing still), so the changes to players are pretty minimal right now. I feel the most pessimistic about gameplay right now as ever, but am still optimistic about the future.

So I wanted to put some of the things that we have been currently discussing in one thread, with some getting more attention than others. Quite frankly if SnailBrian or others don't like it, then lets veto it and move on. These ideas are NOT all mine...

Disaster Bots
I completely agree with how the current disaster bots are perceived as a negative. However, I think changes for this are somewhat minor compared to the other things that are being discussed much less. With the planned single function call to create a player, combined with a bot in Mithral's client to create and move a general at disaster block, there will make more opportunity for the human player to take advantage of the disaster run. Also, looking at the numbers from the last disaster for example, I picked up 6,500 HUC (before fees) during the 250 block safe period. This 6,500 is about 50% of what is generated on the map daily. Then of the daily generated coins (about 13,000), I suspect 95% of the coins are going to only a few people dominating the current game play. Again I don't disagree there is a problem, I just think there are some bigger fish to fry at the moment (as long as the single function call happens and a bot can be put in Mithral's client), and I am unsure this would be much of a problem if we had 1000 people playing.

Spawn Death
I think we have agreed that with the disaster built into the game, that killing of players automatically that are in the spawn is not necessary. I think this can also enhance some other opportunities in gameplay (below).

Spawn Safe Zone
Since you can no longer die in the spawn zone, could that area be considered a safe zone so that you can not be killed while in that area? This gives an opportunity for the casual player to return his character to the spawn area for safe-keeping while they are away. I believe that the safe zone should be respectful of what color you are, so a yellow character is only safe in the yellow spawn etc... Having this a safe zone also plays into the next item...

General Recharging
I think this is an interesting concept from Mithral, and needs more attention on how it might play out. I might be wrong here so correct me, but I was thinking this is how it might work?
  • General is created with 2000 (maximum) life (could use the already existing remainingLife from disaster implementation?).
  • Before the general gets to zero life (death) he needs to return to his spawn to 'recharge'. So as he sits on the spawn he would gain 25 life per turn sitting in the spawn area. 2000 is still the maximum life.
  • The crown holder would be immune to this and have unlimited life (up to a disaster, another benefit of the crown yay!!)
  • Disasters would work the same assigning up to a 50 block death, but 'recharging' would have to be off during the first 50 blocks of disaster

Crown Gameplay
Gameplay for the crown has been pretty much non-existent since probably April. The current problem with the crown is it does not need to be banked in order to collect its revenue. I proposed this on another thread: In order to collect revenue from the crown, it has to be banked into a spawn area. HUC being held by the crown holder during a death (destruct or disaster) does not get dropped on the tile. Some possibilities of where the HUC can go:
  • Randomly distributed among the coin spawn tiles
  • Placed into 'lostCoins' for future contests, prizes, or other ideas that increase the game depth (I personally prefer this idea, but at this time we don't have these other mini-games in place)
Of course another benefit to holding the crown is having unlimited carrying capacity. But I think having to bank that coin in addition to the crown is a must. I would expect that the crown would be taken back into the spawn areas and heavily guarded as it was treated several months ago. Then the crown would be checked in as soon as the disaster struck to collect its revenue. I don't know if that is good or bad, but sounds a little better than what is happening today.

redbeans2012

  • Guest
Re: Gameplay Changes Discussion with Future Hard Fork
« Reply #1 on: November 03, 2014, 10:39:17 PM »
Disaster

I disagree with the Disaster, I think how its handled is one of the biggest issues in the game right now.  You collected 6000 coins in just a few minutes, I have been playing for months and dont think I got 6000 coins the whole time I've been playing  ;D.  I do not believe the best solution is just to give everyone a bot to deal with it.  Even if I had a bot I it still wouldnt' feel right to me.  Like Mithril said, it feels like its "stealing".  Even if everyone had a bot to take part in the "disaster run", there will always be a smarter bot maker (like you) that is always working on getting that extra step.  Or calculating the best path to get the most coins.  There will be innocents that didn't have the bot ready etc. It will be a battle of bots which could easily be avoided by not dropping any coins at all, and dispersing them in the coin spawn areas over time like you proposed for the crown.

Spawn Death

Yes do away with that.
Spawn safe zone

Like this idea

General Recharging

The goal behind this would be to stop people from camping out in areas correct? Carrying capacity and Disaster without coins dropping directly to the ground would solve this IMO.  If all your coins would be slowly spread around the map in coin spawn areas upon disaster, you will bank more often and have less generals out there waiting to die.

There are some things about Recharging that could be positive and negative at the same time though depending on which side you are on.

Invading colors could not stay in their opponents territory for very long. (although they could just send relievers while their other guys go to recharge, I could see wira doing this)

Long trips across the map would be non existent, for some reason that makes me sad.  :'(

It might deter these kinds of situations where the reds have taken coin area close to green.



Although they would probably just let those players explode and recycle them and send in new reds to take their place.

50/50 on this idea still thinking about pros and cons.  :P

Seems like alot of extra worry, when the time between mandatory disasters isn't even really that long (compared to life span).


Crown

I like this idea.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2014, 11:41:21 PM by redbeans2012 »

Mithril Man

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 589
    • View Profile
    • Mithril Man Web!
Re: Gameplay Changes Discussion with Future Hard Fork
« Reply #2 on: November 03, 2014, 11:46:21 PM »
i adhere to what BGB said, except for disaster, where i share more the redbeans2012 thought but not his modality.
I think disaster should be fixed and not left as it is, where bots have clarly advantages and above all, the modality disaster happen leave a feeling of "something unfair happening".
In my opinion bots/behaviours are a tool to ease humans and take care when they have to go afk, not a way to take advantage where avoidable, so where we can, we should limit their usage.
Giving the fact that we can't exclude bots from being implemented and used, we can remove or change the gameplay aspect that favors bots over humans (and disaster run is one of them)

this is why  i proposed a delay on player creation/firstupdate on disaster (and this check should be done considering even the trick to create hunters 1 block before mandatory disaster to see them created just when disaster strike)
I don't think that money should be removed from the field, i think that the disaster run is something fun to be played, as long as it's fair or at least not so unbalanced
I can imagine nice runnings where everybody have characters created on the same block and everybody have the same chance of going first to the coin,
maybe there will be many run "leaders", but this would mean that at least anybody can collect some, and this is something that let feel to players that the game is fair


regarding the 50/50 opinion redbeans2012 has about General Recharging, imho having an autonomy of 2000 blocks is more then enough to reach enemy base, fight and come back, maybe even too much

« Last Edit: November 03, 2014, 11:52:23 PM by Mithril Man »
Alternative GUI client for Huntercoin http://www.mithrilman.com
HUC donation: HMSCYGYJ5wo9FiniVU4pXWGUu8E8PSmoHE
BTC donation: 1DKLf1QKAZ5njucq37pZhMRG67qXDP3vPC

redbeans2012

  • Guest
Re: Gameplay Changes Discussion with Future Hard Fork
« Reply #3 on: November 04, 2014, 12:20:58 AM »
i adhere to what BGB said, except for disaster, where i share more the redbeans2012 thought but not his modality.
I think disaster should be fixed and not left as it is, where bots have clarly advantages and above all, the modality disaster happen leave a feeling of "something unfair happening".
In my opinion bots/behaviours are a tool to ease humans and take care when they have to go afk, not a way to take advantage where avoidable, so where we can, we should limit their usage.
Giving the fact that we can't exclude bots from being implemented and used, we can remove or change the gameplay aspect that favors bots over humans (and disaster run is one of them)

this is why  i proposed a delay on player creation/firstupdate on disaster (and this check should be done considering even the trick to create hunters 1 block before mandatory disaster to see them created just when disaster strike)
I don't think that money should be removed from the field, i think that the disaster run is something fun to be played, as long as it's fair or at least not so unbalanced
I can imagine nice runnings where everybody have characters created on the same block and everybody have the same chance of going first to the coin,
maybe there will be many run "leaders", but this would mean that at least anybody can collect some, and this is something that let feel to players that the game is fair


regarding the 50/50 opinion redbeans2012 has about General Recharging, imho having an autonomy of 2000 blocks is more then enough to reach enemy base, fight and come back, maybe even too much

Even if everyone gets to start at the same time.  The bots can still make alot more characters than the average human.  Me and BGB might be on the same tile, yet BGB has 100 characters and I have 5.  He takes most of every coin that we land on.  To me that isn't very fun at all. Its alot more trouble than its worth in my opinion and I think bots will always have some sort of advantage with disaster in its current form, even if there is a start delay.  HUC already has a bad reputation of being ruled by bots we shouldn't help this bad reputation. I know you agree.

With my idea the coins do not have to be dropped in the coin spawn areas, they can be dropped all over the map randomly over the next couple of days, so that the poor guy that was sleeping during disaster or the guy that was at work during disaster can still come home and collect some coins.  The profits shouldn't just be limited to the lucky few that were awake, not at work, and by their computer at disaster time.  Thats not very fair in my opinion.

As far as the other thing, I feel changing disaster would make that idea not necessary, but happy to see everyone else talk about it.   Wish we could get some of the other chinese players to chime in.  :D

« Last Edit: November 04, 2014, 12:49:13 AM by redbeans2012 »

Mithril Man

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 589
    • View Profile
    • Mithril Man Web!
Re: Gameplay Changes Discussion with Future Hard Fork
« Reply #4 on: November 04, 2014, 01:05:31 AM »
Even if everyone gets to start at the same time.  The bots can still make alot more characters than the average human.  Me and BGB might be on the same tile, yet BGB has 100 characters and I have 5.  He takes most of every coin that we land on.  To me that isn't very fun at all. Its alot more trouble than its worth in my opinion and I think bots will always have some sort of advantage with disaster in its current form, even if there is a start delay.  HUC already has a bad reputation of being ruled by bots we shouldn't help this bad reputation. I know you agree.

why you have to create 5?
if you have 10 blocks to create players, you can create as much as you want/need
and if it's not enough,  you could already use my behaviour (or some modified version) to help collect coin along the way

With my idea the coins do not have to be dropped in the coin spawn areas, they can be dropped all over the map randomly over the next couple of days, so that the poor guy that was sleeping during disaster or the guy that was at work during disaster can still come home and collect some coins.  The profits shouldn't just be limited to the lucky few that were awake, not at work, and by their computer at disaster time.  Thats not very fair in my opinion.

As far as the other thing, I feel changing disaster would make that idea not necessary, but happy to see everyone else talk about it.   Wish we could get some of the other chinese players to chime in.  :D

i see difficult to distribuite coins in many blocks, and it wouldn't solve the numeric problem, your "100 enemy hunters" will go in mass to coin spawn areas, stacking up on every cell with multiple hunters, and taking always more then you anyway, without the "fun part of running over the map"


update:
about your complain about all should have same chance of partecipating to disaster, i think that a random thing isn't bad at all, give some more depth to the game, and services could be created to warn players that a disaster just happened, and if they have some blocks of time to login to the game...they could partecipate
« Last Edit: November 04, 2014, 01:07:52 AM by Mithril Man »
Alternative GUI client for Huntercoin http://www.mithrilman.com
HUC donation: HMSCYGYJ5wo9FiniVU4pXWGUu8E8PSmoHE
BTC donation: 1DKLf1QKAZ5njucq37pZhMRG67qXDP3vPC

redbeans2012

  • Guest
Re: Gameplay Changes Discussion with Future Hard Fork
« Reply #5 on: November 04, 2014, 01:47:16 AM »
To me that just isn't fun.  So I create 500 guys as fast as I can then launch the MM behavior just to keep up with the other bots and collect some huntercoin dust with everyone else.  There is zero fun in that if you ask me.  After seeing BGB's brains (and others like him) I am confident he will always find a way to use his after disaster bots to get a little bit ahead of everyone else.  Again not bashing BGB, we are lucky that he is in Huntercoin.

Even with a 10 minute delay or 30 minute delay you are still going to piss off alot of people that are watching a movie with their girlfriend, or sleeping or working.  Bots are ready 24/7 and will always get something from disaster.  The game will keep getting bad reputation.  Russians and Chinese will continue to curse in chat and quit.  :D

I thought about bots stacking  the spawn areas, thats why I said, the coins can be dropped on all tiles of the map slowly over time.

 There would be coins all over the map just like after disaster, the only difference is that they are dropped slowly, so that its more fair to people that were busy at time of disaster.  The coins shouldn't start dropping right away maybe a couple hours after disaster. 

I dont think fighting bots with bots is the right option here.   I'm not a developer or programmer, just a human player that wants to get 1000's of other humans playing without needing to rely on too many bots. :).

Noone likes this idea though so I dont want to be difficult.  :-\

« Last Edit: November 04, 2014, 01:53:26 AM by redbeans2012 »

Snailbrain

  • Developer
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 987
    • View Profile
Re: Gameplay Changes Discussion with Future Hard Fork
« Reply #6 on: November 04, 2014, 12:05:03 PM »
We have accepted that carrying capacity will be included in the future game play. The idea here I believe is...
  • to help reduce camping
  • force players to bank more often
  • make the game appear more active
  • have a positive impact on disaster runs by possibly diversifying who picks up coins

I believe carrying capacity is a positive change, I have doubts that it will impact the current gameplay very much. Also do we need to jump right into a hardfork for this change when there are other things that are on the table to keep considering? I realize that to many changes at once are not positive, but really there are only a handful of us still around playing (and is decreasing still), so the changes to players are pretty minimal right now. I feel the most pessimistic about gameplay right now as ever, but am still optimistic about the future.

So I wanted to put some of the things that we have been currently discussing in one thread, with some getting more attention than others. Quite frankly if SnailBrian or others don't like it, then lets veto it and move on. These ideas are NOT all mine...


Yep I think carrying capacity isn't going to be a massive change to gameplay. In the long run (maybe when huntercoin becomes popular), it will be more important.

I believe it won't really effect camping so much -- life expectancy i believe will fix this. -- maybe even a sort of random life expectancy - similar to disaster except for individuals as well... although the problem with random stuff, is that a miner may not include a block in which his players die. If life span is "generated" at player creation then players/bots can just recycle that character right away and "re-roll". So, instead of random, maybe fixed life expectancy.

Quote
Disaster Bots
I completely agree with how the current disaster bots are perceived as a negative. However, I think changes for this are somewhat minor compared to the other things that are being discussed much less. With the planned single function call to create a player, combined with a bot in Mithral's client to create and move a general at disaster block, there will make more opportunity for the human player to take advantage of the disaster run. Also, looking at the numbers from the last disaster for example, I picked up 6,500 HUC (before fees) during the 250 block safe period. This 6,500 is about 50% of what is generated on the map daily. Then of the daily generated coins (about 13,000), I suspect 95% of the coins are going to only a few people dominating the current game play. Again I don't disagree there is a problem, I just think there are some bigger fish to fry at the moment (as long as the single function call happens and a bot can be put in Mithral's client), and I am unsure this would be much of a problem if we had 1000 people playing.

yep maybe --- if we can find a solution to it though, then great.

Quote
Spawn Death
I think we have agreed that with the disaster built into the game, that killing of players automatically that are in the spawn is not necessary. I think this can also enhance some other opportunities in gameplay (below).

agree

Quote
Spawn Safe Zone
Since you can no longer die in the spawn zone, could that area be considered a safe zone so that you can not be killed while in that area? This gives an opportunity for the casual player to return his character to the spawn area for safe-keeping while they are away. I believe that the safe zone should be respectful of what color you are, so a yellow character is only safe in the yellow spawn etc... Having this a safe zone also plays into the next item...

not sure tbh
if we improve crown it would render it impossible to get - of course then we can make it so you can't enter that area with the crown (but then how to bank).. maybe crown would need some major changes. ---

random thought - maybe all coins on the map dropped at disaster go "into" the crown.. and this is picked up by one person who can only die by being killed (there won't be many/any none generals hardly to pick it up. This may make the crown MUCH better and cause real PvP fights over it.. (6k coins or whatever).
If someone tries some sort of trick to split the coins, they won't be able to, because when the coins are "dropped" the need many generals / hunters to pickup the coins dropped.

Quote
General Recharging
I think this is an interesting concept from Mithral, and needs more attention on how it might play out. I might be wrong here so correct me, but I was thinking this is how it might work?
  • General is created with 2000 (maximum) life (could use the already existing remainingLife from disaster implementation?).
  • Before the general gets to zero life (death) he needs to return to his spawn to 'recharge'. So as he sits on the spawn he would gain 25 life per turn sitting in the spawn area. 2000 is still the maximum life.
  • The crown holder would be immune to this and have unlimited life (up to a disaster, another benefit of the crown yay!!)
  • Disasters would work the same assigning up to a 50 block death, but 'recharging' would have to be off during the first 50 blocks of disaster

maybe yes. i think something like this needs a lot more thought.. players are will always be returning to bank..
possibly a big change and not for next hardfork imo?

Quote
Crown Gameplay
Gameplay for the crown has been pretty much non-existent since probably April. The current problem with the crown is it does not need to be banked in order to collect its revenue. I proposed this on another thread: In order to collect revenue from the crown, it has to be banked into a spawn area. HUC being held by the crown holder during a death (destruct or disaster) does not get dropped on the tile. Some possibilities of where the HUC can go:
  • Randomly distributed among the coin spawn tiles
  • Placed into 'lostCoins' for future contests, prizes, or other ideas that increase the game depth (I personally prefer this idea, but at this time we don't have these other mini-games in place)
Of course another benefit to holding the crown is having unlimited carrying capacity. But I think having to bank that coin in addition to the crown is a must. I would expect that the crown would be taken back into the spawn areas and heavily guarded as it was treated several months ago. Then the crown would be checked in as soon as the disaster struck to collect its revenue. I don't know if that is good or bad, but sounds a little better than what is happening today.


Snailbrain

  • Developer
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 987
    • View Profile
Re: Gameplay Changes Discussion with Future Hard Fork
« Reply #7 on: November 04, 2014, 12:29:19 PM »
Quote
random thought - maybe all coins on the map dropped at disaster go "into" the crown.. and this is picked up by one person who can only die by being killed (there won't be many/any none generals hardly to pick it up. This may make the crown MUCH better and cause real PvP fights over it.. (6k coins or whatever).
If someone tries some sort of trick to split the coins, they won't be able to, because when the coins are "dropped" the need many generals / hunters to pickup the coins dropped.

actually.. whoever who has the crown will just pickup them all.. so transfering crown be a bit pointless

The coins would need to be "inside" the crown.. if that makes sense

i think this would make for exciting gameplay around disaster time

edit: in the original concept idea (chronokings) - The crown is supposed to be the "ultimate sort sought after item"
« Last Edit: November 04, 2014, 01:44:02 PM by Snailbrain »

BGB

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 226
    • View Profile
Re: Gameplay Changes Discussion with Future Hard Fork
« Reply #8 on: November 04, 2014, 01:26:46 PM »
Regarding 'Recharge', after the conversation, it does need more thought, and maybe it won't really help camping because players would use it to recycle and triple/quadruple stack. Probably needs tabling until the future to see how other things work out.

After more thought with disaster runs, I sort of agree with both realbeans and Mithral, but don't see a way to hybridize them. I think the disaster run is a fun element of the game (but is subject to a not so fun future), but allowing more coins for persons playing with sprinkling them on the game would be good for players. Although, I feel like I can debunk the latter with the current gameplay we have now. We know the game is controlled even more today by a few persons, so they will have the opportunity to get almost all of the disaster coins anyway and I think I have the only bots that look for coins outside of a destination. Of course Mithral can add that to his bots.

Although with realbeans proposal, it probably has the biggest impact on camping. If all those coins weren't available on the map at disaster to be recycled, then would we see hundreds of generals stacked in locations to be picked up after disaster? Although I like the disaster runs, this would keep a focus on what the disaster is about and that is limiting domination in my opinion. I think it is great and part of the gameplay if you can take over an area and dominate it. You deserve the coins for that. Then disaster is a reset button to keep gameplay going because the game becomes equalized for everybody. Of course the question is what to do with the disaster coins. I wish we had a dozen internal mini-games going on to pump those values up, but we don't.

For the crown, I think if any coins are dropped from the crown it invites splitting as have been seen for several months. I suppose with crown protection in the base, you are thinking the generals would be sitting in the spawn safe zone for destructing opponents and they themselves would be untouchable. The ideal spot for that would be the one tile right next to the spawn area, for example 15,0 then. Maybe that tile can be turned into a spawn or a rock can be put on it. :) If the generals were then in the safe zone, then they wouldn't be able to protect if an opposing general came in.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2014, 02:05:25 PM by BGB »

redbeans2012

  • Guest
Re: Gameplay Changes Discussion with Future Hard Fork
« Reply #9 on: November 04, 2014, 03:58:44 PM »
Quote
After more thought with disaster runs, I sort of agree with both realbeans and Mithral, but don't see a way to hybridize them. I think the disaster run is a fun element of the game (but is subject to a not so fun future), but allowing more coins for persons playing with sprinkling them on the game would be good for players. Although, I feel like I can debunk the latter with the current gameplay we have now. We know the game is controlled even more today by a few persons, so they will have the opportunity to get almost all of the disaster coins anyway and I think I have the only bots that look for coins outside of a destination. Of course Mithral can add that to his bots.

Yes I know it would not be exactly perfect because there are only like 8 or 10 of us playing.  The goal would be to at least get rid of the Time advantage bots have at disaster and discourage camping and recycling.  Even someone running QT without a bot would have a fair chaince of a 9.6 or more HUC popping up in his area. The idea is to give everyone as fair of a shot as possible. MM could add a "coinseeker" bot or something to pick up extra coins that might pop up.  . I'm open to other ideas with what to do with the coins after disaster, I just see the dropping them as they currently are, doing way more harm to the game than good.

I think snails idea of putting them "inside" the crown was good, I agree with him that the crown should be the most prized possession in Huntercoin and there should be constant battles for it.  Adding the coins to the crown would certainly do that.  (maybe sprinkle half on the map and half in the crown?). I also like your idea that it has to be banked to release the coins from the crown.  It would make it a hell of alot more exciting.

I also think after its banked it should reset to the middle or something, so you dont get the whole thing where it stays in one spawn areas as in previous times.

EDIT: When you say "splitting" what do you mean?
« Last Edit: November 04, 2014, 06:04:58 PM by redbeans2012 »

BGB

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 226
    • View Profile
Re: Gameplay Changes Discussion with Future Hard Fork
« Reply #10 on: November 04, 2014, 04:50:54 PM »
I also think after its banked it should reset to the middle or something, so you dont get the whole thing where it stays in one spawn areas as in previous times.

It is built into the game already that when the crown is banked, it is randomly placed on one of several pre-determined places. I would have to refer to the code to see what those are. I thought there was an image around somewhere that showed the locations. Back before the disaster, the crown was stored in the base areas, but was brought out to an empty tile to split, then brought back into the base. This gave the appearance of the crown always being in the base and not moving. Near disaster time I wrote some bots that followed the crown holder around in a large grid so they would really have to work to try and destruct to pass the crown onto themselves.

EDIT: When you say "splitting" what do you mean?

The crown holder can not destruct himself which of course is a good plan. But what happens today is the crown holder builds up lets say 1000 coins and is of yellow color. So he brings up 10 of his own reds onto the same tile. Destruct one of your reds and now you split the 1000 coins between 9 of your own red players, and one of your red players now holds the crown. You take your 8 reds back to spawn to bank the coins from the crown. Rinse and repeat...
« Last Edit: November 04, 2014, 04:53:27 PM by BGB »

redbeans2012

  • Guest
Re: Gameplay Changes Discussion with Future Hard Fork
« Reply #11 on: November 04, 2014, 04:56:24 PM »
I also think after its banked it should reset to the middle or something, so you dont get the whole thing where it stays in one spawn areas as in previous times.

It is built into the game already that when the crown is banked, it is randomly placed on one of several pre-determined places. I would have to refer to the code to see what those are. I thought there was an image around somewhere that showed the locations. Back before the disaster, the crown was stored in the base areas, but was brought out to an empty tile to split, then brought back into the base. This gave the appearance of the crown always being in the base and not moving. Near disaster time I wrote some bots that followed the crown holder around in a large grid so they would really have to work to try and destruct to pass the crown onto themselves.

EDIT: When you say "splitting" what do you mean?

The crown holder can not destruct himself which of course is a good plan. But what happens today is the crown holder builds up lets say 1000 coins and is of yellow color. So he brings up 10 of his own reds onto the same tile. Destruct one of your reds and now you split the 1000 coins between 9 of your own red players, and one of your red players now holds the crown. You take your 8 reds back to spawn to bank the coins from the crown. Rinse and repeat...

If the coins are contained "inside" the crown, would it even matter if the holder destructed himself or not?

I like the fact that the crown respawns after banking

I did not know about the "splitting" thing.  Makes sense that people would do that though.

BGB

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 226
    • View Profile
Re: Gameplay Changes Discussion with Future Hard Fork
« Reply #12 on: November 04, 2014, 05:19:09 PM »
If the coins are contained "inside" the crown, would it even matter if the holder destructed himself or not?

If by "inside" that means they can only be obtained via bank and not dropped, then that is better.

Mithril Man

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 589
    • View Profile
    • Mithril Man Web!
Re: Gameplay Changes Discussion with Future Hard Fork
« Reply #13 on: November 04, 2014, 05:52:04 PM »
If the coins are contained "inside" the crown, would it even matter if the holder destructed himself or not?

If by "inside" that means they can only be obtained via bank and not dropped, then that is better.

yes i think this is what snailbrain was thinking and i think it's a good idea
Alternative GUI client for Huntercoin http://www.mithrilman.com
HUC donation: HMSCYGYJ5wo9FiniVU4pXWGUu8E8PSmoHE
BTC donation: 1DKLf1QKAZ5njucq37pZhMRG67qXDP3vPC

domob

  • Developer
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 284
    • View Profile
Re: Gameplay Changes Discussion with Future Hard Fork
« Reply #14 on: November 05, 2014, 06:23:32 AM »
I also like the idea of putting the coins "inside" the crown and only releasing them when really banked.  We could work on that.
Use your Namecoin-ID as OpenID: https://nameid.org/
Donations: 1domobKsPZ5cWk2kXssD8p8ES1qffGUCm | HBkxA5QmYSATFoPN1wFk8eBkgwPpY97Mfu