Author Topic: Gameplay change (hard fork) wish list  (Read 8395 times)

sirwagginston

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 48
    • View Profile
Re: Gameplay change (hard fork) wish list
« Reply #30 on: September 21, 2016, 10:36:33 AM »
Hey guys. I've been reading through this thread. I don't have a strong programming background, but with my (limited) understanding I think I've picked up the following:

1. The blockchain can be made versatile by mimicking the namecoin system by bootstrapping nametx's to hunter creation (which are essentially the same thing in the first place). This would allow alternate rule sets (on the same game world layout?) accompanied by corresponding virtual rewards (not HUC).

2. There has been some discussion of fee changes to avoid bloat but nothing certain yet.

3. An important technical challenge preventing usability by the average user is how to functionally prune the blockchain.

Because I don't properly understand the code changes being discussed, I can't really comment on that. However, I do have some thoughts regarding the economics of Huntercoin. I might be off base with a lot of the following, partly because I can't find any up-to-date rules anywhere (in which case please just let me know that I have no idea what I'm saying).

I think that even if you were to solve the pruning problem right now, adoptability won't increase that much. The barrier to entry isn't that the blockchain is too big to run a full node, imo. At least for myself, I don't like downloading wallets and keeping coins in them. I have a greater chance of mishandling those as opposed to keeping them on an exchange. Think of me as your average, inexperienced, dumb user. I'd much rather sacrifice some security for ease of use. Something that would get me jumping in immediately would be a web client for the game hosted by one of you devs. Then setup time is only however long HUC transfer and confirmation takes. I'd definitely be willing to donate a bit to help make that happen.

Next, I'm not sure if it costs 200 HUC every time you summon a hunter, or if more cost less, but right now I see that as too high. For something that you can lose in one pop to an enemy destruct, I can't justify risking that much HUC just to try to learn the game. There has to be an accessible learning curve. Having the 5 HUC creation fee isn't as much of a problem as being able to lose 20 full blocks worth of coins at once. However, if the hunter cost were to be reduced to 20, then it might be too easy to dominate the board. Could this be balanced by reducing the max number of hunters at once? I'm thinking no since running other wallets is trivially easy. I'm not sure what the solution is, but I just can't see this scaling.

For more people to play, there needs to be a reasonably good chance of 'breaking even' per play session (there's a reason dice is so popular). This doesn't necessarily mean reducing the skill cap of the game, but rather modifying distribution somehow. Unfortunately, without being an expert at this game, I can't begin to suggest how that could be done.

From a game theory perspective, if the dominant strategy is to collude rather than to defect, then the game state will always stabilize as some sort of cartel sooner or later. Controlling this comes down to how incentives are set up.

Just want to say that I think you guys are definitely on the right track. Investing in a coin based on its idea is death. But I don't mind investing based on the devs. Right now this coin seems very much worth investing in on those grounds alone. Please continue to keep your dialogue this open. You have at least one fan haha. ;D

I love our devs, too; that's why I'm trying to spread the word. :D Also, I speak fluent and concise layman, brief recap:

  • We are working on blockchain pruning, but it is separate from the fork being discussed, which will occur after its launch. Pruning does not require a hard fork.
  • You're correct that we need to decrease the fees. I think everybody agrees with that, but we haven't formed an official consensus on by how much. Your input is welcome, because we really need to decide, but other topics are currently dominating the conversation.
  • Primary among those is the issue of standard names, yes, which derives from Namecoin. Implementing it would allow developers to build alternative worlds on top of Huntercoin, possibly even rudimentary RPGs. Think of them somewhat like the player-created UMS maps in Starcraft/Warcraft, which have been enormously influential (that's where DotA and its progenitors came from).
  • We agree that Huntercoin would greatly benefit from a web and/or mobile version. Enough other people also concur that one of them made us set up a bounty fund address for it so he could donate. You're free to donate, as well... I'm holding it, letting it grow until somebody is enticed to build and then I'll turn it over.

Murch

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: Gameplay change (hard fork) wish list
« Reply #31 on: September 22, 2016, 05:23:23 AM »
I love our devs, too; that's why I'm trying to spread the word. :D Also, I speak fluent and concise layman, brief recap:

  • We are working on blockchain pruning, but it is separate from the fork being discussed, which will occur after its launch. Pruning does not require a hard fork.
  • You're correct that we need to decrease the fees. I think everybody agrees with that, but we haven't formed an official consensus on by how much. Your input is welcome, because we really need to decide, but other topics are currently dominating the conversation.
  • Primary among those is the issue of standard names, yes, which derives from Namecoin. Implementing it would allow developers to build alternative worlds on top of Huntercoin, possibly even rudimentary RPGs. Think of them somewhat like the player-created UMS maps in Starcraft/Warcraft, which have been enormously influential (that's where DotA and its progenitors came from).
  • We agree that Huntercoin would greatly benefit from a web and/or mobile version. Enough other people also concur that one of them made us set up a bounty fund address for it so he could donate. You're free to donate, as well... I'm holding it, letting it grow until somebody is enticed to build and then I'll turn it over.

Thank you sir, I appreciate the explanations. So standard names are more powerful than I expected if they're world editor level. It had seemed like only existing variables could be modified from the discussion, but I guess I don't fully get it.

Could you post the address please? How much is in there right now? I'm assuming you'd only hand over the bounty after it's fully functional and then one of the devs would host it?

sirwagginston

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 48
    • View Profile
Re: Gameplay change (hard fork) wish list
« Reply #32 on: September 22, 2016, 07:35:36 AM »
Could you post the address please? How much is in there right now? I'm assuming you'd only hand over the bounty after it's fully functional and then one of the devs would host it?

Here's an address: HHtjGBUtxriDHmoHuoNDdLHwyNWVWkW8oS

There's no where near enough to properly incentivize someone to do it. We'd probably be OK with them monetizing it independently via small fees, or something. It does need to work, yeah

Murch

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: Gameplay change (hard fork) wish list
« Reply #33 on: September 22, 2016, 08:10:25 AM »
Could you post the address please? How much is in there right now? I'm assuming you'd only hand over the bounty after it's fully functional and then one of the devs would host it?

Here's an address: HHtjGBUtxriDHmoHuoNDdLHwyNWVWkW8oS

There's no where near enough to properly incentivize someone to do it. We'd probably be OK with them monetizing it independently via small fees, or something. It does need to work, yeah

Thanks, just sent a little bit. I might be willing to send some more if someone expresses interest in making it. Or perhaps a price rise could make it a better deal. ;)

wiggi

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 150
    • View Profile
Re: Gameplay change (hard fork) wish list
« Reply #34 on: September 24, 2016, 01:18:09 PM »
I think that even if you were to solve the pruning problem right now, adoptability won't increase that much. The barrier to entry isn't that the blockchain is too big to run a full node, imo.

I remember the time when I played WoW (on a free nostalgia server). It was a 40GB download (over several days) but then the game dumped me in a totally save place (most games would do that) and of cause you can log in and out at your leisure. Thats basic playability.


 At least for myself, I don't like downloading wallets and keeping coins in them. I have a greater chance of mishandling those as opposed to keeping them on an exchange. Think of me as your average, inexperienced, dumb user. I'd much rather sacrifice some security for ease of use. Something that would get me jumping in immediately would be a web client for the game hosted by one of you devs. Then setup time is only however long HUC transfer and confirmation takes. I'd definitely be willing to donate a bit to help make that happen.


But have you *played* Huntercoin, or do you just assume the game itself is sane and therefore a web client would make it easy to play?


wiggi

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 150
    • View Profile
Re: Gameplay change (hard fork) wish list
« Reply #35 on: September 24, 2016, 01:24:34 PM »
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


sirwagginston

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 48
    • View Profile
Re: Gameplay change (hard fork) wish list
« Reply #36 on: September 27, 2016, 12:48:37 AM »
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.

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, but it also presents some cool ones in its current form.

I also feel that implementing reinforcements will lessen the need for some of these spawn/bank changes. I kind of like the idea of spawning near coins, but not if it spawns me near coins where lots of other Hunters are already farming. When spawning is more random, you can pick and choose to go to the coins that are less crowded. Or, if you enjoy PVP, you can do the opposite--choice is good.

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

Murch

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: Gameplay change (hard fork) wish list
« Reply #37 on: September 27, 2016, 01:57:30 AM »
I think that even if you were to solve the pruning problem right now, adoptability won't increase that much. The barrier to entry isn't that the blockchain is too big to run a full node, imo.

I remember the time when I played WoW (on a free nostalgia server). It was a 40GB download (over several days) but then the game dumped me in a totally save place (most games would do that) and of cause you can log in and out at your leisure. Thats basic playability.


 At least for myself, I don't like downloading wallets and keeping coins in them. I have a greater chance of mishandling those as opposed to keeping them on an exchange. Think of me as your average, inexperienced, dumb user. I'd much rather sacrifice some security for ease of use. Something that would get me jumping in immediately would be a web client for the game hosted by one of you devs. Then setup time is only however long HUC transfer and confirmation takes. I'd definitely be willing to donate a bit to help make that happen.


But have you *played* Huntercoin, or do you just assume the game itself is sane and therefore a web client would make it easy to play?

My point isn't that a full node that's too large doesn't prevent people from playing. Rather, I'm saying that having to set up the game is one of the reasons that I haven't jumped in. Who knows how many other potential users feel the same way? So by having a web client, that kills two birds with one stone. Now I don't need to set up anything and I don't need to care how large a full node is.

So no, I haven't played it. And like I said, I can't find an up to date set of rules so as to study how it works in detail. I have no delusions that it would be easy to pick up and understand the game immediately. From my experience, no matter how simple or complex a game is, when money is involved, it's competitive, and skill based, new players will get destroyed. If it's also too much of a pain in the ass to set up, nobody is going to give it a chance. I would never ask you to dumb down the game itself, but please make it as trivially easy as possible to start playing.

In that vein, I would support any changes which lower the barrier to entry (including learning) for new players. From your list, lower fees and spectator mode are great. Like sirwagginston said, lowering the hunter creation cost could be important too. Normal names seem worth implementing based on what you guys have mentioned. I can't really say anything about the rest.

sirwagginston

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 48
    • View Profile
Re: Gameplay change (hard fork) wish list
« Reply #38 on: September 27, 2016, 12:04:23 PM »
We need someone to be a trusted third party with a server for a web/mobile version, though. Nothing we include in the fork can make that appear. We may do it ourselves if we get sufficient funding, but for now we can just try to entice someone to step up with the bounty. Not that impressive, yet, though

wiggi

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 150
    • View Profile
Re: Gameplay change (hard fork) wish list
« Reply #39 on: September 28, 2016, 03:19:28 PM »
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.


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?

but it also presents some cool ones in its current form.

I also feel that implementing reinforcements will lessen the need for some of these spawn/bank changes. I kind of like the idea of spawning near coins, but not if it spawns me near coins where lots of other Hunters are already farming. When spawning is more random, you can pick and choose to go to the coins that are less crowded. Or, if you enjoy PVP, you can do the opposite--choice is good.

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)


sirwagginston

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 48
    • View Profile
Re: Gameplay change (hard fork) wish list
« Reply #40 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

Mithril Man

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 589
    • View Profile
    • Mithril Man Web!
Re: Gameplay change (hard fork) wish list
« Reply #41 on: September 30, 2016, 08:46:10 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

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
Alternative GUI client for Huntercoin http://www.mithrilman.com
HUC donation: HMSCYGYJ5wo9FiniVU4pXWGUu8E8PSmoHE
BTC donation: 1DKLf1QKAZ5njucq37pZhMRG67qXDP3vPC

wiggi

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 150
    • View Profile
Re: Gameplay change (hard fork) wish list
« Reply #42 on: September 30, 2016, 06:49:47 PM »

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.

If a hunter needs to actually walk the distance (in a pvp zone), then the longish play time is forced on the players, and the game exclude all casual or mobile players. Too high price for "not broken into a series of battlegrounds", which I would see as mostly neutral.



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.


sirwagginston

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 48
    • View Profile
Re: Gameplay change (hard fork) wish list
« Reply #43 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.

Mithril Man

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 589
    • View Profile
    • Mithril Man Web!
Re: Gameplay change (hard fork) wish list
« Reply #44 on: October 03, 2016, 10:48:17 AM »
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)
Alternative GUI client for Huntercoin http://www.mithrilman.com
HUC donation: HMSCYGYJ5wo9FiniVU4pXWGUu8E8PSmoHE
BTC donation: 1DKLf1QKAZ5njucq37pZhMRG67qXDP3vPC