File: 1427501652518.png (1.85 MB, 1200x918, 200:153, feaca2f8cf2715ce9f941dbe5c….png)
No.1629[Last 50 Posts]
First off, here's a [broken] promise: All the compounds will have a use before April Fool's Day. I have some time to work on this game now.
Second, what can I do to get people to recruit? As admin, where should I go to bring people in to play Compounds? Would anyone like to make a 728x90 ad banner for Derpi, or should I advertise >CLOP again with the old one?
Don't be afraid to talk about this game.
You're already a bunch of horsey men. Admitting that you play a horsey-men game in public isn't going to cost you any friends.
Post last edited at
No.1631
>>1629>or should I advertise >CLOP again with the old one?This please, compounds a boring
No.1632
>>1631couldn't agree more.
>CLOP, or >CLOP with few minor tweaks No.1633
>>1632
>Agreeing with people on the boardI think you should advertise >Clop again, Admin.
No.1635
>>1633I will in the next week or so. Want to change a few things first. Maybe even reset it.
But I absolutely need to end the nation building or it'll just kill the game again.
No.1636
*scratches Treason off the Unused Compounds List*
No.1637
File: 1427593287894.png (527.44 KB, 900x986, 450:493, paswg_demon_sister_beach_r….png)
>>1635Just make it against the rules. Along with the buying of nations.
Attacks should only be used for war. Abusing it for nation transfers should be a punishable offense.
No.1638
>>1635Despite becoming the 6th wealthiest player in >Clop (according to my estimates, correct me if I'm wrong) and the leader of FFA, I would actually be okay with a reset. All of my nations were built by somebody else, none were won through combat. I could see how a game centered around fighting would be broken by nation building– and it doesn't seem fair. But then again, how could anybody build an empire without being familiar with the war system? Only a handful of players are. Could you even monitor for nation building? It appears impossible. People communicate outside the game, and what may appear to be a new player might just be a nation builder. You could make a rule, as anon suggested, but could you enforce it?
There's an alternative that I'm surprised nobody's brought up yet- letting players create or buy their own nations. If everybody can build an empire, nation building is gone. The game is more fair. (This is almost the same as restricting players to one nation, except you have to be on top of your transfers and be more involved).
I understand this new project is consuming most of your attention, but >Clop is the reason I'm here. It's a very solid game. I laud your creativity and the effort you've put into Compounds. I like the game, but there are fundamental problems. You have to know somebody to be able to play in any sort of competitive capacity. Your hatred of nation building, a problem manifested in >Clop, was carried over to Compounds in the worst possible way. Additionally, there are too many compounds to keep track of in my opinion. Unless you're a literal autist– then you have as unfair an advantage as nation building.
But I digress. Advertise >Clop, make changes, reset, whatever. Just get us more players, please.
No.1639
>>1638If admin restarts clop he needs to balance the game a bit first. FOr one Saddle is OP as hell. Anyone who has ever rolled saddle knows that they can easially make 4k+ oil per tick while only needing to buy 1.5k sugar and a nominal amount of coffee and vehicle parts if they set things up right.
Secondly one of the biggest problems is with empires. if you go full empire mode then it is easy to run an empire consisting of up to 13 nations or more. Those who get empires of this size are near impossible to stop in a war as they literally have so many resources that they are impossible to stop and can create armies that no one can stop.
Seriously Admin if you reset clop then fine but fix the balancing of nations before you do so at least it don't become some oil fag builds a 20 nation empire and rolls over everyone again.
No.1640
>>1639Yes, saddles and frackers are currently strong. You're talking to a player that has one saddle and four burros sustainable with profit. That's just how nations balance. It's a part of the game, and can be extrapolated to how the middle east and states support the U.S. need for oil.
If the option of building ones own empire was open, players would be forced to spend money on nations to grow. Maybe the impossibility of war would be decided by the player or alliance that could produce most efficiently. Alliances of 13 nation empires would square off against other alliances, and the wars would be spectacular.
No.1641
>>1640No, actually, the main strength of 13 nation empires is in the fact that they can support more troops at once. Sat became the limiting factor during Schatten's defense, rather than raw resources or bits. Defenders have to come from ONE nation, or else lose their all-important bonus; while attackers can come from an arbitrary number of nations.
This could be rebalanced by allowing just one nation of any given region per player to do attacks; much like how you can't send defenders and attackers to the same nation (from the same nation… that workaround really should be fixed)
Alternatively, a hardcap on empire size would be a solid option. It's possible to be self-sustaining on 2 nations, completely independent on 3, and quite respectable on 5. 12 nations is quite ridiculous.
Also, you might consider limiting the targets that players can send attacks at. Right now, as soon as you're out of noob week, you're vulnerable to ANYONE, regardless of how lopsided the fight may be. (This is basically what allows nation-building.) Limitations could take the form of increasing penalties, or a mechanic that prevents players from attacking players with 3 fewer nations than the aggressor? Once you have 4 nations, you can't gank 1 nation players, etc.
>inb4 but, exploit! You can just stay at one nation and be invincible!Nope, this won't limit war at all. Instead, it would force large empires to fund smaller players to fight their wars by proxy, thus precluding the seriously imba sat factor, and completely ending the easy nation-building. After 4 nations, you need to fight someone your own size, so getting *really* large empires just gets exponentially more bothersome, even *if* you have nation-builders. I'm not sure on the math, but it seems that *tons* of nations would be required to finally get someone up to 12-nation empire status.
Though, thinking about it, that can be worked around with a conquest relay system… Might have some kind of reconquest limitation? Like, individual nations can't be reconquered for two weeks, instead being destroyed outright? That could work. Building a nation for someone that has a mere 5 nations would take over a month from the start of the process!Also, proxy wars make Drama™, Suspicion™ and Teamwork™ happen! Nobody can be independently powerful, everyone needs to pitch in to support war efforts… though that opens the door for infiltrators >:3
Governments should also be rebalanced… right now, it's stupidly cheap to leave Oppression, and you can even switch between Free Market and State Controlled for individual transactions, since the costs are *absolute*, not *relative*. If changing government type was instead a function of an empires' total GDP and/or sat usage (total sat used per tick seems like a good way to judge how large an economy is), then it wouldn't be done so casually.
Indeed, a *LOT* of this game can be improved if more things had dynamic costs as opposed to absolute, static costs. Larger armies take proportionately more to sustain, instead of linearly more; environmental facilities, DNA, and barracks might also include increasing costs as you get them, etc.
No.1642
>>1635I can see two ways to remove nation building from >CLOP; in short, making it redundant, or making it impossible.
Making it redundant would involve some mechanism (besides war) in which players can obtain new nations (such as by spending a bunch of food and stuff on an action labelled "Colonize"). Along with that, perhaps have any nation taken by war have fairly massive Sat penalties for several turns (penalties that are avoided by Colonies, though Colonies are still of course susceptable to the ordinary multiple-nation penalties) due to the ponies being a bit upset at being taken over by an invading army. (Perhaps these penalties can be avoided or at least mitigated by somepony taking their own nation back, because at least the new face in charge is familiar). When it is cheaper to Colonise than to buy a nation and deal with the resulting Sat penalties, nation-builders will no longer be found.
Making it *impossible* would be a far bigger change to the structure of >CLOP; it would require that no player can ever hold more than one nation (and the only benefit of war is that you get to grab the victim's resources and burn his buildings).
I think that the first option would lead to a better game than the second.
No.1643
>>1642I would argue that empires should be *less* common and significantly more difficult to obtain, rather than a dime a dozen. Smaller empires are less stressful to manage, so making them workable and competitive should encourage players to join and play, even if they're not going to play at the extreme levels.
No.1644
>>1641
> I'm not sure on the math, but it seems that *tons* of nations would be required to finally get someone up to 12-nation empire status. 30 nations, 5 players, including the one who eventually hits 12 nations.
No.1645
>>1643That merely requires making the Sat penalties of conquest - and the cost of colonisation - high enough, surely? (And, of course, both exponentially increasing with empire size).
No.1646
>>1645Maybe, but would the sat penalties be applied on the attack, or upon conquest?
And there's GOT to be more strict limitations on colonization than just a price tag, if that's what happens. The *supply* of nations should really be tightly limited.
No.1647
>>1646
> Maybe, but would the sat penalties be applied on the attack, or upon conquest?Sat penalties on the target nation would need to be applied on conquest. I suppose you could have sat penalties on the attacking nations as well (because ponies don't like going to war) which would be applied on the attack, I hadn't thought of that…
> And there's GOT to be more strict limitations on colonization than just a price tag, if that's what happens. The *supply* of nations should really be tightly limited.Hmmm. I can think of ways to do that, but all of them simply make nation-building viable once again…
No.1648
>>1638>Just get us more players, please.The thing is, I, as admin, can only do so much. Banner advertising and the like only goes so far. All the big browser games spread by word of mouth; people tell their friends to come and play, who tell their friends, who.. etc, etc, etc.
The entire framework of Compounds is specifically designed to support exactly this. Too-big alliances uplift players to bud them off, inactive players eventually get dropped in favor of new, active ones, and people who never talk to anyone never get a place at the table at all (because seriously, why play a game like this if you can't even say hello?).
But it hasn't happened. The players haven't matched the framework. Everyone in Compounds is playing way, way, way too conservatively, probably as the result of some ill-chosen things I said early on. Of the ascended and uplifted players, who's actively taken steps to grow their alliances, by which I mean said something like "Join my alliance in Compounds" on some pony or gaming forum? The splitoffs simply haven't happened. Alliance leaders aren't even dropping 1-production/stasised players (CELESTIA'S CROTCHNIPPLES, CUT THE FUCKING DEAD WEIGHT ALREADY).
It just feels like everybody who's left is used to being empires unto themselves (and no, I'm not going to fucking let the game make empire creation easymode, I mean holy shit). Nobody sees any point in attempting to bring people from outside the game into their Compounds alliances. The ascended Sir_Scarf hasn't made his own alliance, CCC has one stasised guy and one 1-production guy in his alliance, and they're theorycrafting unworkables in >CLOP.
>>1641>Like, individual nations can't be reconquered for two weeks, instead being destroyed outright? That could work.No it couldn't. Player 1 would conquer a new nation and Player 2 would conquer Player 1's oldest nation.
>>1645>That merely requires making the Sat penalties of conquest - and the cost of colonisation - high enough, surely? (And, of course, both exponentially increasing with empire size).One-time sat penalties of any kind whatsoever will do nothing.
No.1649
>>1648>CCC has one stasised guy and one 1-production guy in his allianceYes, I know… I'll probably start cutting the dead weight once I have a bit of live weight to replace it with. (I was hoping that Neuros would be live weight, considering that he came to me and asked to be part of my alliance, but he seems to have gone away again, I have no idea why…)
No.1652
Since it's ideas time, maybe i'll drop few of mine.
Some of them are shamelessly ripped from >pic related game, where top players have # of nations going in hundrets and thousands.
First off, i think the core issue with nation-building is that 'the land' AKA a nation, is precious as fuck. Maybe lowering the value of a land would diminish the process a bit. But i think none of after-mentioned ideas of mine addresses this directly.
Ok, time for ideas.
First one, that i particularly like, is, to introduce a new, very fragile, linearly increasing in costs unit. Why? It'd be the only unit that would be capable of conquering a nation.
Only attacks with that unit type alongside normal troops would take over the nation. Optionally, it could have a longer travel time, and require an additional building to be able to recruit. And, the costs would increase with every recruited unit, regardless if attack with it succeedes, or not. And after succesfull nation conquest, the unit would disappear, so you have to recruit a new ones for future nations, ofc. All attacks which wouldn't contain that unit, would be simply a looting attacks, which brings us to a second idea.
Looting attacks. I've seen it suggested a few times already too, and i think it could be a good idea. A double purposing of Resource Shelters, also. Hide resources from disasters, and hide them from other players. If those were hardcapped, only a arbitrary amount of resources could be hid, so, in early stages, the amount would be sufficient to grow, but on later game, there would be no way you could survive a disaster untouched.
if all rounds of unit fighting were fought all at once, then the remaining, if any, attacker units would simply steal up to (number of alive units)*(thier carrying capacity), but i didn't thought how to implement it with current round-war system
Eliminate Oppression. Seriously. With a game, that is oriented towards a economic cooperation, why there even is a goverment type that alows one to "go alone"? But i don't know what could be a good replacement for it. Maybe shift the 1/3 sat bonus to Autohoritarisnism, to give it some love…
More military buildings! Maybe, to possess that 0.75 defense bonus, one would have to earn it. Those buildings could be costly, or even have an upkeep. A classic cliché defense wall. With new unit type which could destroy it, of course.
Going with that idea, another unit type, which could target and destroy any of the buildings in nation.
Optionally, all units could require a building to be recruited
A rather controversial one, remove troop upkeep. But, there's a catch.
A thing that i always wanted to see in this game, namely "horsepower".
Either each nation would have fixed limit of how many ponies could live in that nation, or going with the spirit of previous ideas, a new building, to raise the demographic cap of nation
this building would be either hard- or softcapped, and could itself produce and consume a universal resource (oat!), which would serve as the softcap mechanism
And the catch i've mentioned before, is that both troops, and every building in nation would contribute to the # of ponies living in a nation. So, you'd be presented with a choice, to either have a economically, or military strong nation.
timed recruitment would also encourage to have standing armies, but i like the "instant" nature of >CLOP
Maybe conceal the attacking units, and all units in general, so you'd only have an information that an attack is coming, but not which troops are in. An opportunity for another unit - a spy.
various travle time based on "real" distance between nations
new type of nation that'd produce nothing, but would be only one cpapable of recruiting troops
the last two corssed out aren't really an ideas, just something i had a stupid idea, but i see it wouldn't be very good.
Sorry for lenghty post, theese are only a rough ideas, i post them for opinions.
tld;dr more military buildings, more units, rip off from Tribal Wars.
No.1653
>create a thread marked "Sequel Discussion"
>try to steer the conversation towards finding ways of encouraging people to grow their alliances
>instead get a series of pointless ideas for the first game, including being told to rip off another game entirely
No.1654
>>1648I like this post.
>>1653I'm less happy with this one… I mean, we're DISCUSSING things, at least~
As for the sequel, well… uh.
Make yourself attackable! Then we'd see a bunch of war in a hurry :3
Sorry, I really can't think of anything constructive to add to this discussion right now. Maybe later today… No.1655
>>1652If you gotta steal…
THEN STEAL! You don't need to have 100% original ideas, Admin. These are good ideas, especially Horsepower and hardcapping Resource Shelters. And why in gods' name did you even BOTHER with Oppression, I mean srsly.
>>1648We'd totally be having lots of drama-war-qq if Progress Engine hadn't BTFO before LBoS had even a single T5 to our name. But now we've got 3 of them… and despite lots of stasis, nearly double the production of the next largest alliance… and we're just too diplomatic to want to attack Myra. (TyHachi has all that heroism…)
I *have* been talking to ppl out of game about Compounds, but they're more interested in the games they're interested in. Hopefully the completion of Compounds will help out with that at least.
No.1656
Admin please make nations easier to get not harder, if you would like more drama do what other games do and give the npc powers a bigger roll
You could combine the SE/NLR with the war game idea and let them spawn in a few new nations at a time for the taking this would help train new players in war and give the old ones something to do
Oppression does need a nerf try making its cost increases per nation when switching and add a time limit on upgrading/advancing gov/econ types
Population/Horse power seems like a great idea, even if it is a little vague, good one Polandball
If war become the main way of getting new nations (hopefully) then make it would be important to add a way of stopping the burring of nations that are about to be taken, this could be done by putting a temporary stop to nation death in war but still letting the owner burn the buildings but not the land would leave way to still play the Russian strategy.
As for the sat of army’s in 13 nation empires why not take away army sat totally and increases the army upkeep costs?
It would also be nice to make standing armies a thing to help drain the resources of larger players you could let army’s increases their max training beyond what they can get from army barracks call it experience or something
http://www.strawpoll.me/3991564/r No.1657
No.1658
>>1653One problem with this admin…
The sequel sucks
Seriously the reason we don't want to discuss the sequel is because we don't like the sequel. We like Drama and assholery with pretend pony nations and wars.
You cant expect the clop players to just like the sequel when it isnt even the same kind of game.
This would be like making the sequel to a multiplayer semi realistic FPS like counterstrike be a turn based Tactical RPG like Disgaea and expecting all the players to migrate over to the sequel.
Now lets say that you actually made >Clop2 Lets say it was a rewrite of clop with a rewritten engine but at its core was still a game that could be recognized as Yup I'm still playing >Clop.
But you didnt and the thing with a game like compounds is you are marketing it to players of >Clop. Players of clop dont want compounds we want >Clop2.
THis is why noone wants to talk about the sequel. The sequel isn't clop it isn't even clop 2. Its the spiritual sequel to that will always be inferior to >clop.
No.1659
>>1655 Funny thing about Progress engine being btfo
We left cause compounds was so boring we decided we didnt even want to bother with it. It was like deciding between coddling a deformed baby hoping it will survive or doing what the Spartans did and throwing it off a cliff.
We chose to just set the retard baby down and walk away from it and if it dies in the wilderness it dies.
No.1660
>>1655> and we're just too diplomatic to want to attack Myra. (TyHachi has all that heroism…)That's not how diplomacy works Kemosabe.
That's kind of the opposite of diplomacy.
That's kind of open plans for offensives actually.
>>1658>Its the spiritual sequel to that will always be inferior to >clop.I disagree, but I'm pretty sure comparing Counterstrike to Disgaea, you already know on what grounds and which specific degrees of autism are at play.
No.1661
>>1658>You cant expect the clop players to just like the sequel when it isnt even the same kind of game.So much this.
No.1662
>>1660….How is "we don't want to attack Myra" equal to "open plans for offensives?" I'm just saying that hurting Myra isn't worth it if good ppl are just going to get caught in the crossfire.
>>1658The sequel isn't what you wanted, hmm? Well, maybe you could, oh I don't know, provide some kind of constructive input, rather than just "The sequel sucks".
>>1659If you'd shown that level of commitment in >CLOP, you'd have left it within a week. Compounds is much the same; it requires the players to CREATE the metagame just as much as it requires admin to create the mechanics, and since you haven't given it a chance… guess what? You're not part of the meta. Some of us are happy with helping each other grow and prosper, but I guess you're just not a team player.
No.1664
>>1662>How is "we don't want to attack Myra" equal to "open plans for offensives?"How does
>>1655>TyHachi has all that heroism…Not translate into:
We really like spying so much that the information we're finding has become boring and common place.
We thought about attacking Myra, and the scale is still undecided on the final outcome.
Which translates to:
We're thinking about it.
Which translates to:
We have plans, and we're willing to talk about said plans openly.
Which is itself an aggressive action.
No.1667
>>1664No, that should translate to:
We've thought about it, HAVE decided against it, and are willing to admit that potentially hurting Myra isn't worth almost certainly hurting you or Tyhachi.
Also, spying is an aggressive action now? (Also also, that was very old information. Even if it's changed, though, it doesn't matter. You'll protect him, which was the point. Actually, I haven't spied in weeks)
No.1669
>>1629
> including being told to rip off another game entirelyIt might actualy be worthwhile to look at other games, see what works, and adapt that to Compounds. If it works *there*, it might very well work *here*.
No.1670
>>1667>Also also, that was very old information. Even if it's changed, though, it doesn't matter. You'll protect him, which was the point. Actually, I haven't spied in weeksSpying is pretty passive.
Talking about the spying and the contingency plans related to them is the aggression. It's like how you can be charged with assault even if you never touch the target.
Aggressive behavior would include talking about the plans one has to wipe another player out.
I fully expect you to have those conversations, to not have them would be stupid. But at least try not to flaunt doing them in front of the intended targets.
That's just Treacherous.
No.1673
>>1670
>wiping another player outI never, ever said that. And the only plans I've revealed are… That we don't plan on doing any aggression at this time?
If there's a way to wipe someone out by *not* acting aggressively, I certainly don't know what it is! That's mad ninja skillz, m8.
No.1674
>>1662>Fun in Compounds?How are players going to have fun in Compounds,
it doesn't even need spreadsheets!
No.1675
>>1635Suggestions:
- Hardcap the amount of nations a player can own
- Oppression is OP
—————————————————–
- Give the NLR and SE a larger role, and make them the superpowers that they're supposed to be. Don't listen to the guy asking them to be easily killed NPCs, ugh! Make them fight each other~ Make giving one oil mean something! Of course, this is a larger thing.
———————————————-
Making nationbuilding against the rules will help tremendously anyway. At least people will try to be legit… Some people, at least.
The problem with nationbuilding is that:
A) Nations are easy to produce
B) Nations are valuable
C) There is no significant loss caused by losing a nation
The best solution I can see to this one is something similar to an old game (totally different genre, if you're worried) called 'Human Age'. Make it hard to create a new nation, hard enough that hiring someone to create nations for you just isn't worth it, also making losing your own nation that much more of a punishment.
How do you do this? Simple. Make access to >clop reliant on you winning ANOTHER game. Could be a simple but hard thing, or a longer running one. Would take work, but kill nationbuilding completely.
Could be explained as politics; You need to (gain/re-earn) the popularity that you need to create a new nation.
No.1676
>>1675>easily killed NPCswhat? No not easy, just easier than player nation building
No.1677
>>1675>Give the NLR and SE a larger role, and make them the superpowers that they're supposed to be.Actually, here's a thought - why not allow nations to petition the NLR/SE for aid? If you have enough goodwill with that nation, and you petition them for aid, then you'll lose a whole lot of goodwill but a large SE/NLR army will turn up in that nation, as defenders, at the next war tick (possibly it drops your approval rating to zero, but the size of the army depends on what your approval rating was compared to what your opponent's approval rating was). And if the SE/NLR *really* doesn't like your opponent, or perhaps only if your opponent has significantly more countries than you do, then instead of (or in addition to) defending your country, they launch a punitive strike on the attacker's country, arriving with little-if-any warning (but only in the same war tick as the attacker's troops land in the defender's country).
Of course, if the SE/NLR troops take a country, they keep it and it falls out of the game; but this gives a small player a way to defend against a large Oppression-based empire…
No.1678
>>1677>>1675>>1656>>Give the NLR and SE a larger role, and make them the superpowers that they're supposed to be.Literally what has been said already
No.1679
>>1658>it isnt even the same kind of game.The fuck are you on about? It's a planning and numbers game, same as >CLOP. It's just how the numbers interact that is different.
>>1659>we saw in advance how large, all-controlling empires don't exist in Compounds and decided it wasn't for us because the game can't be taken over in the same way>>1674If most of the posters here treated Compounds stuff like they did >CLOP stuff, they'd be on T6 already.
It's probably a good thing they haven't, because I'm a lazy fuck as usual and I'm coding the Harmony abilities right now.
No.1680
>>1679>It's a planning and numbers game, same as >CLOP>If most of the posters here treated Compounds stuff like they did >CLOP stuff, they'd be on T6 already.Then post a spreadsheet for compounds
even a basic one to show that it has enough numbers to keep it interesting
>we saw in advance how large, all-controlling empires don't exist in Compounds and decided it wasn't for us because the game can't be taken over in the same wayLarge all-controlling empires are only powerful because they have no competition if it was easier to get nations or if the smaller ones actually got a buff it would not be that way (independence)
Still oppression has needed a nerf for a long time making the cost to change apply in each nation would be a good start
No.1681
>>1679Look at history there are many times when a small coordinated nation with its stuff together has beaten a large empire
buffing the smaller nation govs would go a long way to making the game feel more interesting
No.1682
>>1680>enough numbers>enough numbers>enough fucking numbersThere's a new tab marked "Harmony". Click it.
No.1683
>>1682>6k HarmonyWhy would anyone waste 6k Harmony to change a number by 5/4 or 4/5 (instead of using it to increase their production)? And where is the ability to create disasters?
No.1684
>>1683Screencapping this post for future reference, like I should have done when people said Oppression was silly and had no purpose.
No.1685
>>1684Only the disciples of Bugfucker can use Oppression effectively. :V
No.1686
>>1684Calling it now: Harmony will generate Void, Void will generate Harmony.
No.1687
WARNING
Read the News regularly!
I'm going to use the new feature to swap two element positions, both to make sure that the mechanic works properly and to liven up the game a bit.
Assuming that nothing breaks, effects will happen at the *beginning* of the next tick after 24 hours.
No.1688
>>1679
>Based admin being Basedso awesome /)^ɛ^(\
No.1689
I hope to have an Encouragement solution tonight (a 5-production boost for.. I'll put it at 15 Encouragement per tick). Not sure whether to make it an alliance or a user action.
Tomorrow, I'll get to work on alliance deals, attacks, and defense.
No.1690
>>1689>stupid-ass numbers for EncouragementNever mind. I'm obviously huffing unknown substances. Make that a 5-production boost (30 resources total without a Focus) for 5 Encouragement (15 resources total) per tick.
No.1691
>>1688^.^
By the way, I want to be clear: that
WARNINGwas not just for effect. I want to give every
pony a taste of what this power does: it alters people's Focuses, and it alters complements. Once this goes through, Magic and Honesty will be complements, and Loyalty and Kindness will be complements.
This will be my first and last position swap; if you want positions or costs to change after this, get a nice fat alliance with plenty of production and band together to do it yourself.
No.1692
>>1679no, the reason we quit was because it was boring. all there was to do was grow the numbers of production.
What was and for the most part always will be the big thing to cause metagame in Clop.
The market.
What were the first alliances in clop forged on People wanting to fix prices in market or trade goods when trading was implemented. WHat was the first division in players, SC econ vs FM econ. What were the first threats over, You bought my stuff and resold it or Stop underpricing me by 1 bit to get the people to buy your shit. Sugar shekeling was what made >clop.
To be blunt when it costs up front to post things on the market in a game like compounds you will have less people posting stuff to the market. It was the constant shekeling and Quick posting and snipeing on the market that created the drama that resulted in the game growing in the first place Admin.
Noone started playing >clop because its a good game. We started playing clop because it was a fun drama generator. The fun thing about clop isn't the game. The fun part is when some player goes apeshit when the person who is nation farming for them gets activity checked resulting in a cuban missile crisis between Two to 5 alliances.all at once.
Hell just look at all the wars us in MTVS declared over activity checks. Almost every activity check was against a nation that ended up being absorbed by One of us within days.
Hell just a few days ago I almost started a war with Schatten ((to be honest I was tempted to keep the attack going just to start another war for the hell of it.))
Clop is more fun because its easier to generate drama in clop.
I have one final thing to say on this though. MTVS is a more effective superpower than the Alicorn princesses ever could be.
No.1693
>>1692You do realize you can lie on and even STEAL FROM the market of Compounds, right?
Using the market has always had a cost- in >CLOP, it's the percentages, and in Compounds, it's the per-Times cost. Which is still at 1 Plenty.
No.1694
>>1629>Bringing new players to the tableAdmin pls. Compounds is not only dull and impenetrable, but also convoluted and inaccessible.
There are too many resources to track that lack meaningful definition outside its arbitrary framework, and frankly the idea of 'producing' these 'concepts' doesn't make for an engaging backdrop. It's alien and unfamiliar. New players need to beg to find a place with literally no way to establish themselves solo, and though it's designed - as you say - as a 'social' game, there's no easy way to communicate with other players outside of the shoddy 'messages' system - unless you've made changes in the months of my absence. Which is possible. I'd be surprised. But it's possible.
It'd probably be infinitely improved by some kind of real time chat function, if you haven't done that yet.
But yeah, as far as i'm concerned, nobody in their right mind would join it, even if you could convince people to become flagrant pastamancers with their real life friends.
Hell, most of the people who actively played CLOP were unhinged in some way or another, and that was a better game. Even if it was utterly neglected after reaching workable beta stages of development.
PS: Anything interesting happen since I bailed? From this thread alone it looks like more of the same.
No.1695
>>1694See, folks? The conspiracy theories guy hates it, so it can't be all bad.
Encouragement is in. Encourage your alliance members to give them a +5 production boost for up to 12 ticks at a time. (Note that this only affects actual production of things; it doesn't affect tiers or complement limits)
No.1696
>>1695Does it affect autocompounding? And/or when it wears off, does it undo the autocompounding?
No.1697
>>1693>Using the market has always had a cost- in >CLOP, it's the percentages, and in Compounds, it's the per-Times cost. Which is still at 1 Plenty.In Clop you only have to pay the cost if someone buys your resources. In Compounds you have to pay when you create the offer.
You have to pay even though you don't know if someone will buy your stuff. This makes the market pretty slow and static. People are unwilling to change their offers once they posted them because they don't want to lose their Plenty.
You could make a small change to the market: When a player creates an offer, their Plenty gets 'banked'. If they remove the offer from the market, they get their Plenty back.
>>1694An in-game chat would be nice. I think this would make the game more accessible for new players. They could use it to look for an alliance and to get their questions answered.
>>1696No, it doesn't affect autocompounding.
No.1698
>>1697>When a player creates an offer, their Plenty gets 'banked'. Oh great, another reason to have to pay more complement taxes.
No.1699
File: 1427825056932.png (157.36 KB, 920x869, 920:869, Nothing I can say will eve….png)
>>1695>See, folks? The conspiracy theories guy hates it, so it can't be all bad.You know, I think this was a major problem.
I was an intelligent, determined, nurturing player who cared about your game, but you never took me seriously.
Hell, you pretty much ignored sensible feedback from all quarters.
Even now i'm making useful suggestions and you still disapprove of my posts.
And you wonder why you can't attract players.
No.1700
>>1699You are worse than Baldwin. How anyone could ever take you serious is beyond me.
No.1701
>>1700I have CriticismYou sir, are worse than HitlerCome to CLOP, meet the interesting sociological structure that's formed.
No.1702
>>1697>>1693>Using the market has always had a cost- in >CLOP, it's the percentages, and in Compounds, it's the per-Times cost. Which is still at 1 Plenty.In >CLOP, if you had enough to put something on the market, then you had enough to pay the perccentage cost. In Compunds, if I have a thousand Kindness but no Plenty or Generosity, I can put nothing on the market.
Yes, there is still a cost; but the cost has a very different form.
No.1703
>>1699
>your game sucks and you're a faggot>I have all these useful suggestionsReminds me of fatlogic
>>1701>picture>>1697>>1702Okay, guys, you convinced me; instead of putting in stuff that the playerbase won't use yet just to say I gave all the resources something to do, I'm going to make it so that removing Marketplace items gives you your Plenty back. I will not count stuff on the Marketplace as being "banked" Plenty, because that opens up a lot of worm cans I honestly don't want to deal with and that might confuse the playerbase. (What happens if you can't pay the complement? What if someone with Harmony powers increases the Plenty per Times?)
Instead, I'm just going to cap the total number of Times you can put stuff on the Marketplace. I think I'll make it 6 * your production.
No.1704
>>1703And done. Let's see if
>>1697 was right and if this can encourage more people to use the market now that they can get their Plenty back (and even use it as limited Plenty storage)
No.1705
>>1701>Criticism
>THK is Bugfucker…>THK is Bugfucker!>THK IS BUGFUCKER!!!>Hey guys, THK is Bugfucker!>GUYS!!! … guys?All he's ever done is whining and accusing other people.
>>1703>>1704Nice. Let's see how this turns out.
No.1706
>>1703Admin, pls. You've consistently ignored suggestions from your player base, current and former, for as long as we've known you - in some misguided attempt to…
… i'm not sure why, actually. Maybe brain problems.
And yet, do you see me calling you a faggot? I've done nothing of the sort. I've only described compounds as accurately as I can, and suggested a way for you to make the game less impenetrable and unwelcoming to new players.
A real-time chat would allow recruitment right off the bat, getting people involved as soon as they can access it and improving retention.
But did you even acknowledge that idea? Nope. You decided to strawman me and post facetiously about Hitler.
Good going.
>>1700>>1705>An anon [i]who cares about Baldwin[/i] leaping to the defence of Bugfucker and LolipopGee, I wonder who could be behind this post?
No.1707
>>1706>real-time chatFine, I'll do this just to see what happens.
No.1708
>>1706>Maybe brain problems.You should send him one of your tinfoil hats.
They didn't help with your problems, though.Maybe tinfoil amplifies idiocy. You should take your hat off for some time and see if you turn into a functioning human being. No.1709
>>1706>who cares about BaldwinBaldwin is my
waifu husbando.
No.1710
>>1708>They didn't help with your problems, though.You're still afraid to post with a name because you might be held accountable for things you might say in a duo of pony browser games.
I'm pretty sure you're sitting in a glass house there.
No.1711
>>1692>We started playing clop because it was a fun drama generator.I'm actually just here for the ponies.
No.1712
>>1710Don't be ridiculous. Who could possibly hold me accountable for the things I say? Except Admin if I break any rules, of course.
I'm just too lazy to put my trip into the name field every time I want to post something here.
No.1714
>>1679The jab about empires might have made sense if you'd been replying to one of us who had constructed one, but you'll find that instead Imitation Bug is an example of the more casual audience, that said though I suppose since the discussion is going on if you want some honest critique as well as the reason that most of my associates and myself dropped off I'll provide it now.
I'll start with the largest contribution to my own decision to quit; there was no enjoyable avenue to interact or compete in. There was no activity on the market because there was no incentive to use it, everyone having the ability to produce the same resources made it seem pointless to do so, and even after focusing when it became cheaper and more efficient to just partnered up with another single member of your alliance who would focus the opposite. Somewhat ironically the market was only really useful for people who decided to play the solo route. Overall though there remained no real way of gaining an advantage or vying for advancement, instead everyone completed the same actions and grew at roughly the same rate, the tempo made it felt like actually trying to play a freemium game.
Lack of customization or the ability to optimize was another gripe that was shared by the majority of our cadre of reprobates. Theres two different cases here so I'll start with the first which I'll call customization on the fluff side; people missed the ability to name and give descriptions to their nations to make it feel more like something personal to them whether for some overarching theme like myself Aryan and Hirohito enjoyed or just the individualization of your nation built an attachment to your nations thats absent here outside of the alliance itself and to give an idea of how engaged customization in such a small amount could help to engage a bit it was pretty well agreed on among us that doing that was the most fun we had with the game to the point that forming the alliance was delayed while we worked to finally decide between our two finalists for our alliance, the eponymous Progress Engine or our runner up PARSEC Corporate Solutions both of which by the end we had created logos missions statements and backstories for and there was even the premise of propaganda videos in the works for. Moving on from the that avenue of personalization and into the second category that I feel falls under the umbrella term is the ability to customize is what I'd refer to as playstyle customization. While the lack of the first category didn't harm gameplay at all and instead just offered less of the chance to form an attachment this category played a much larger role in the dissatisfaction felt with the game. For many of us the challenge and appeal in the first title was largely more focused to the ability of creating your own build to fit your playstyle. For some of us that meant something along the lines of a less maintenance required build because they couldn't spare the time to log in frequently enough, but for those of us who cared more it was that it took away the challenge of working toward and finding what we believed to be the most effective build possible. Calculating the optimal build for a nation, and the optimal number of nations and then working toward them had engaged us with a challenge that we had enjoyed and gave us something to do. Equalized production of resources based on your production level killed this for us too replacing the question of 'how many of this particular building would be optimal to produce the largest cost to product rate?' to 'which of these 6 different focus options should I take?'
Springboarding off part of that other members of our alliance left because they couldn't reliably log in every several hours to offload their resources and unlike clop they couldn't stock up for the time they'd be gone and not have to worry about it (we're not talking 24 hour stasis if you can't log on, I mean asleep at a healthy time and unable to check because a combination of work and school until the night) and losing days of progress in what already felt like a shallow grind with no incentive to continue. no motivation to accumulate wealth, or resources, or power, the only value which could be increased instead was the single production value that you increase once a day or so. Instead it felt like you logged onto the game just to throw away everything you made just to keep yourself from exploding, it just wasn't engaging, and in the end there was nothing that hooked us and made it feel worthwhile or entertaining.
1/2
Post last edited at
No.1715
>>1679>>1714There was also a vastly overwhelming aura of complexity for the sake of complexity, a large number of the elements still had no purpose and a few of those that did were completely pointless, to serve as an example as you yourself said alliances actually existed largely in skype so an element whose sole purpose was to post alliance messages was in our eyes a complete waste only ever used to get rid of excess of the composing elements because there was nothing else to do with them, something that further played to our opinion that all there was to do in the game was throw away your production. Now I realise that the game was still very early in its production and needed a lot of work but for that exact reason it may have benefited to have waited to have released it to the public, to have at least had most of the early elements perform a function. As numerous modders will tell you the best answer for a release date is often it's done when it's done, rushing an unfinished product out may get people excited about the release at first but the unfinished product will leave many of them dissatisfied and from that point on dismissive.
A fatal blow for those of us who had hung on to this point holding out to see how war would function when we saw what it was, the different kinds of attacks just didn't seem to be what we'd been hoping for instead mostly focusing on making the other guys number go down 1, and the give resources to the other guy felt more like just another way of dumping your garbage and it just fell flat to us and we saw it as more useful to just use resources to keep the number going up as it would be cheaper to make it go back up then actually harming someone else. We'd enjoyed the all or nothing danger of combat in the original and it just seemed absent here. That said I'm certain there's some people who might enjoy this system, it just wasn't our taste.
The biggest problem in my own opinion that's faced is that the game was dead on arrival, it didn't have a large enough player base to draw in, the only people who knew it existed were those who already knew about the original and frequented the board or game related skype chats. A posting on a larger site (4chan, a larger 8chan board, reddit, mlpchan, adds on derpibooru take your pick) would have helped successfully given the exposure to pull an initial rush of members to populate the game and generate more of a buzz. You want a more active market? you need more players, more conflict? more players. Relying on a dwindling pool of active members to call in people won't have worked as well as you seem to believe the reason that likely they'd told anyone they knew who they believed would be interested in the games into the original already so there really isn't much space to grow from that direction. Of course it leads to another problem that would have been faced had there been an initial rush is something else that inhibits the ability to play the game and that stopped us from attempting to recruit anyone else outside of clop as we'd still need time to bring them all in. That being the requirement to have to wait to be invited after signing up to play, the average person isn't going to sign up, message alliance leaders (lets face it most people interested in these kinds of games are introverts) and check in to see if they've gotten an invite. All this being required to start massively slashes the number of people who'd be willing to give the game a try, a number of who it could be assumed would not enjoy the game enough to stick around. It also in a large influx scenario creates the possibility that alliances could reach the point that they could no longer afford to invite new members and leave people who might have otherwise shaped the course of the game instead unable to join and they'd wander off and leave.
I'll close my wall of text by saying we came in to the game ready to plot steal and manipulate to the point that we had considered branding ourselves as a corporation fluff wise, and had our members joining nearly every other alliance in anticipation to subvert, leach, and corrupt. But when the game didn't meet the expectation we'd held and with the aforementioned causes playing the decisive role we all just ended up quitting one at at time, of the eleven of us who joined I think theres two who are still left playing.
All that said my recommendation is that you take the time to make an effort to spread awareness of the game on other sites and you'll attract your players and if they're actually able to play the game then some of them are bound to stick around, but you can't just sit back and expect this to start happening on its own while blaming the players for not enjoying the game.
Regardless of what you choose to do best of luck, I'll probably check in on the game again at some point to see if it seems like something I'd consider trying it again but for now it just doesn't hold my interest.
2/2
Post last edited at
No.1716
>>1715>>1714Posted my name in the wrong field
No.1717
>>1716And posting new trip to confirm it because of that
No.1718
>>1717Actually, forget that one, I prefer this.
No.1719
*edits your misplaced trip out, maybe nobody else saw it*
>>1714>>1715>people missed the ability to name and give descriptions to their nationsAaaaaaagh, I can't believe I forgot to put in user-editable descriptions. Somebody should have mentioned this earlier. Will fix!
>rushing an unfinished product out may get people excited about the release at first but the unfinished product will leave many of them dissatisfied and from that point on dismissive.I wish I had as many people interested in this as play Besiege 0.05 (to give a random Early Access example).
>other members of our alliance left because they couldn't reliably log in every several hours to offload their resources and unlike clop they couldn't stock up for the time they'd be gone and not have to worry about itThe answer here is judicious autocompounding. Even after the change, if you have enough different elements autocompounded, you can set things up so that you don't have to worry for days at a time.
>advertise moreHere's the thing with getting a lot of players from advertising who don't have a support structure: They get smashed and leave. The vast, vast majority of >CLOP players coming into the game never got an alliance, never learned how to play it, and either imploded or got farmed. If players can't say hello to get started, they're not going to do very well in a social game.
The reason I felt obligated to get Compounds out, even if unfinished, is, well, because of *you*. At the time, MTVS was wafflestomping everyone's ass. I needed to give everyone a way out, a different game to play; I honestly believe that if I hadn't released Compounds when I did, even the last few people would be dead/perm-stasised because they got their asses handed to them. Game over.
In fact the first game pretty much is over due to wafflestomping and I think I really will reset after I make some fundamental balance changes disallowing infinite accumulation of resources. Yes, I really am going to do the "tiny percentage tax every tick" thing, and I'm probably going to nerf Oppression slightly while increasing empire sat costs. I also might do the "A nation must be in the game for a full month before you can actually take it over" thing.
How do you feel about Embezzlement, Robbery, Encouragement, and the Harmony abilities? After I get done with live chat, I'm going to move on to alliance spying, deals, and attacks, which will use up the last of the unused compounds.
No.1720
>>1719Thanks for the edit, still going to be using this new one just in case though.
Glad some of my feedback could be useful and the return of user descriptions is good to see, and sorry about the wanton destruction but facing an enemy who doesn't understand how to capitulate doesn't leave many options
plus is was funI think it's also worth that MTVS was also an example of how a support structure could be formed, our alliance of players was largely the players who joined during the influx of from the ads. By mass messaging new players I gave those interested enough in the game but unwilling to take the first step toward getting an alliance the chance to find one and though a few of them quit deciding the game wasn't for them we retained our membership for a long time, though most have left since then growing bored or making a mistake and not willing to reroll after months but were there still an influx we would have continued to have funded the development of new potential warlords and conspirators. Players without a support structure may be doomed, but using that as a reason to not advertise is a poor solution. Encouraging existing alliances to create that support structure and make the effort to bring the new members in seems far more efficient for growing the community. Those who die without a support structure in clop are most often people who try the game then after deciding they don't like it leave, people who were not likely to stick around regardless but offering more people a chance to try the game and become potential long term members and I really don't see a reason not to make use of the free advertising sources that three of the options I mentioned present. After all,
>I wish I had as many people interested in this as play Besiege 0.05How will people ever here about it if it's only known to this small community?
Embezzlement was something we were excited about the use of with our planted members in other alliances, but it would have been a long down the line operation and most of us were unwilling to wait it out. Robbery I like as a mechanic on paper, but when our primary preoccupation was still throwing away resources stealing them just wasn't something we wanted to do at the time so burdon seemed like the best choice but like I had said that still contributed to the throwing everything away mindset that disillusioned us.
Just read over the description of encouragement which seems like a good and much needed resource sink, can't seem to find a description of what harmony accomplishes though if someone wouldn't mind linking me to a post.
>>1718Noting now for others (I know board admins can see ips) that this is an imposter, message me in game if anyone wants confirmation.
No.1721
>>1707Hey, it MIGHT actually help; not everyone wants to use Skype. For some reason.
I love Skype…
>>1720You *never* gave your allies the *slightest* bit of assistance. Even *NOW*, several of your allies don't have full environmental facilities!
In contrast, the Coalition of Lunar Clients and Followers of the Apocalypse would *always* give assistance to our allies, generally at cost or even freely. That's why we ended up with a *lot* more players that were interested, dedicated, and happy, instead of just nation-farms.
Also, you were never willing to communicate much on a mass level. And you *never* intended to do anything *but* permafarm us. From day 1.
In other words, your alliance was *complete shit*.
No.1722
>>1720>can't seem to find a description of what harmony accomplishesYou really can't be bothered to unstasis just to see what's changed?
No.1723
>>1706WELL I FINALLY DID IT, ARE YOU FUCKING HAPPY NOW? IS IT EVERYTHING YOU EVER WANTED? JESUS CHRIST I RUE THE DAY I MET YOUR MOTHER, 300 FUCKING KILLS AS A NAVY SEAL AND GOD REWARDS ME WITH A LITTLE BRAT LIKE YOU.
No.1724
>the elements swap didn't happen as advertised
That's why they call it a beta. Hang on…
No.1725
No.1726
>>1722I'd hoped that it would have just been posted somewhere so I wouldn't need to. The people I enjoyed playing with have largely left that game now which honestly leaves me with little motivation to start up again and the can't renter stasis for 24 hours that I'd rightly suspected it'd have because of that is rather annoying.
But I've left it to take a look now, and while its an interesting concept there's one major factor that I can see being a problem; I don't see any instance where someone will actually make the choice to raise the costs and the cheaper abilities might all eventually just stay at 1 indefinitely. Although if thats not something that a concern and instead something you're planning for it looks fine.
I question how useful swapping the elements will be though as just changing focuses to adjust and having trading partners who do the same is cheap and makes it seem a tad well pointless at first glance.
If you wouldn't mind popping my account back into stasis I'd appreciate it as I just came out to look at that now and while I don't intend to start playing again now I may somewhere down the line.
>>1721I normally wouldn't reply to this, especially since you're responding to a post paying more attention to an example but none to the actual context
I do doubt you have the mental capacity to hold a conversation without veering of course at the smallest distraction thoughYes because having everything given to you and not having to put in effort is what makes things fun right? I bet you're a huge fan of quicktime events.
We provided basic support structure and enough resources for our members to get started and see if the game was for them. They grew at the rate they wanted with casuals staying small to avoid having to put in too much effort into the game and people who wanted to invest more time naturally growing larger on their own. That is to say our members do what they wanted at the rate they want and anytime one of them has asked for help its been provided or they've been told how they can achieve this easily on their own. Calling into question the method that we recruited by is pointless because theres loads of people who received our mass message who could testify such and comparing the combined membership of two alliances to one
Which was at one point in time the largest in the game is idiotic.
We planned to "permafarm you from day 1"? We remained passive beyond forming defensive pacts when we found out about the aggression your side planned when you felt we were interfering in your expansion by preying off of unaligned and likely mostly inactive players until you and your little circle decided it would be fun to lure one of ours int a war and have the vast majority of the game dogpile on him only to have your own incompetence led you to getting curb stomped again and again.
So in other words "no u"
Nobody actually cares about this now though and I'm not going to ruin this thread by replying to your shitposts any further so I suggest you find aspirin for your endless butthurt.
No.1727
>>1726Fine, presto, you're back in stasis.
>I don't see any instance where someone will actually make the choice to raise the costsI do. Someone getting ready for a war, for example, could decide that maybe it ought to require a bit more Shelter and Security to defend against their favorite attacks.
No.1728
>>1727Thanks for that.
I suppose that does seem like a possibility, but would it not serve that person better to create more attacking resources then the harmony to make that change? Though if you're planning long term enough that you expect people to just have that lying around to make the change as well then I could see that instance happening. I don't see the likes of the cost of something like the ability to give alliance members abilities ever coming up again after they reach one though but if its planned for then thats good to hear.
No.1729
>>1726>If you wouldn't mind popping my account back into stasis I'd appreciate it>>1727>Fine, presto, you're back in stasis.At this point the flagrant favouritism is not even surprising.
No.1730
>>1729>At this point the flagrant favouritism is not even surprising.Admin is quite willing to listen should you whine loudly enough.
>>1724>the elements swap didn't happen as advertisedIn other news, did everything rubber band back before the tick? I'm fine with rejiggling my auto compounding, I just need to know how long I have to do it.
No.1731
>>1724Um, the elements appear to have un-swapped again…
No.1732
>>1731>>1730Oh god damn it sorry about that I recreated the thing to test it and then I got distracted and left it in and it flipped them right back.
At least I know for sure now that it works.
No.1733
Now that even "the enemy" has said it (and not only "the conspirator", never mind some others a while back), there IS a huge initial hurdle in Compounds for new players. May I suggest once more to revisit the solo/demo mode idea? Didn't you say you would "after war"? It's really cool to get a realtime chat, though. I imagine that will help too.
>throwing away resources
That part is unfortunate, but you can collect stockpiles, you know? It costs upkeep, yes, but it's possible. All in all, the system went from a hoarding economy in >CLOP to a streaming one in Compounds, so now it's not the stockpiles that make might, it's how much you can produce (or how much faster than your enemy, if you will).
>attacks being useless
Yes and no. Depends on what you wanna do. I agree that attacks back when you quit, when there was no Robbery, didn't really have a use, since the attacker wouldn't profit, but now there is one. And I imagine robbing high-value resources could be a thing, and then the other attacks could be used to support your onslaught. Strategy, ho!
Also, you never made it that far. Except Draze, you all were T3. War and stuff is not supposed to be a major thing until T5 (say about that what you will), and by then the cost to increase production far exceeds starting (or defending against) a Brutality attack.
All in all, it would be great if you would come back. We need players who know what they're doing, and maybe there would even be more conflict. Game needs that too. ^.~
No.1734
>>1733Demo screens have been in for a week or two.
No.1735
>>1734Oh. Sorry. Nevermind then.
Are they clickable? Is there stuff to do? Or just "look at all those numbers"? (I don't think I can access them, right?)
No.1736
>>1735The latter.
I was going to do something for April Fool's day, but I'm tired. You guys with Humor to spare make up something convincing.
No.1737
>>1736"Hey guys, i've decided my criticisms were unfounded and i've come back. I'm also going to give compounds a try!"
No.1738
>>1737>gets what he specifically asked for>still acts like a little bitchWhat do we need April Fool's Day for, anyway? We've got fools every day of the year.
No.1739
>>1738>gets what he specifically asked forStrictly speaking, Admin, I didn't ask for a damn thing. I gave you a suggestion to help you grow your game.
And as for me "getting" it, don't be ridiculous. I'd have to be playing to benefit from it.
(Then fuck off) No.1740
File: 1427919663976.png (182.35 KB, 544x537, 544:537, what to do with pibbenberg….png)
>>1739You were BTFO and left the game. Why are you still wasting our time on this board?
No.1743
>>1739>>1740Leave PIBH alone he is one of few players who at least tried to play fair, even if he did it in a poor way.
No.1744
>>1738Admin, your security update's locked me outta Compounds.
No.1745
No.1746
>>1744>>1745Try again now.
(What the fuck? Why does this shit DO this? Are you both on your phones?)
No.1747
No.1748
>>1745I just tried something else, can you log in now or no?
No.1749
>>1748All right, they're in, I fucked things up before, good thing I still haven't declared this game finished. If you have problems remember to bitch about them because I might not have the same problems.
No.1750
>>1743By multifagging and exploiting. Nice way to play fair.
No.1751
>>1750When was the multifagging and exploiting?
Because if you mean the point where he was trying to get banned, that not really the same concept.
And as for which person was doing the most exploiting, there's a reason LoliBug were known for using a ton of naval units.
No.1754
>>1720>I think it's also worth that MTVS was also an example of how a support structure could be formed, our alliance of players was largely the players who joined during the influx of from the ads. By mass messaging new players I gave those interested enough in the game but unwilling to take the first step toward getting an alliance the chance to find one and though a few of them quit deciding the game wasn't for them we retained our membership for a long time, though most have left since then growing bored or making a mistake and not willing to reroll after months but were there still an influx we would have continued to have funded the development of new potential warlords and conspirators. Players without a support structure may be doomed, but using that as a reason to not advertise is a poor solution. Encouraging existing alliances to create that support structure and make the effort to bring the new members in seems far more efficient for growing the community. Those who die without a support structure in clop are most often people who try the game then after deciding they don't like it leave, people who were not likely to stick around regardless but offering more people a chance to try the game and become potential long term members and I really don't see a reason not to make use of the free advertising sources that three of the options I mentioned present.
This is so true it hurts. I was really intimidated about joining a group and only really took action after someone offered a hand to me.
>>1721>You *never* gave your allies the *slightest* bit of assistance. Even *NOW*, several of your allies don't have full environmental facilities!This isn't true. I actually got a lot of assistance from MTVS in creating and developing resources while I was there and it's the reason I was so well off for a beginner,
>Also, you were never willing to communicate much on a mass level. And you *never* intended to do anything *but* permafarm us. From day 1.Except he did once I left and sent a wake up call. The fact is that not many people actually wanted to join skype/had one.
No.1755
>>1751>When was the multifagging and exploiting?PIBH <-> PLBH, remember? Since he whined about being banned afterwards, it couldn't have been
that intentional.
About the exploiting: >pic related
Admin actually confirmed that it's exploity.
Pibb isn't any better than Bug and Loli. The only difference is that Pibb's a hypocrite.
No.1756
>>1706>An anon [i]who cares about Baldwin[/i] leaping to the defence of Bugfucker and LolipopGee, I wonder who could be behind this post?
Were you implying me? Cause no it wasn't. For once I agree with you on almost every count of your complaints about compounds.
TO BADMIN
I didnt really want to take the time to list actual reasons i had for thinking it sucked.
I am more a person who was playing it and thought
>I'm not having fun; this sucks; I quit.My reasons for why i felt it sucks was more a generic This isnt fun kind of complaint.
What THK and PIBH have said are things i wholeheartedly agree with though.
When i was playing the game I didn't know what it was about it I didn't like; I just didn't like it.
When you ask tell me more than it sucks. Fair enough request but sometimes you don't know why something isn't fun you just feel like It isn't fun.
WHat Baldwin and THK said though are looking back many of the things that i think contributed to the lack of fun i was experiencing.
Most notibly was the fact that with a job even one thats only a few hours a day, and Sleeping at night I was still having to log in before going to work of a morning and praying someone would trade me something in literally a 15 min window.
If my internet had went down for more than 8 hrs then i would literally be screwed.
Frankly there was more frustration with playing compounds than it was worth. Is that a good enough explanation for why my best expression was because it sucks.
No.1757
>>1755its his hypocrisy and THK is Bug BS that made him such a fun target to attack in >clop though.
>>1703ON another note regarding>>1703
this post from admin.
A list of the things Hitler did wrong.
He attacked the USSR.
He failed to succeed at inventing the atomic bomb before loosing the war.
He couldn't even do a genocide right.
AND HE FUCKING KILLED HITLER!!!!
Get a better role model admin. Pic related
No.1758
>>1756It is completely possible to make stable builds in compounds. In fact it is EASIER than in >clop! They may be inefficient, but if you're so concerned about your internet, then the security is worthwhile. Also, in Clop, the best you could hope for was your sat buffer remaining intact, or you'd be down a good nation.
Here, it's possible to essentially cupcake EACH OTHER, so even in an emergency, you can be saved.
>muh jobYou're unwilling to risk the uncertainty of Compounds? Despite the tons of mechanics that can let you be stable for *ever*? You can't handle the pressure of manually compounding random shit to pad your available inventory?
If you can't handle that, you would fold like laundry in a real fight. Honestly, I would like to see how you fare in a *war*. I'm not talking one-off activity checks or the usual MTVS noob rape… No, I think you don't have what it takes to fight a REAL war.
That's not when you have the advantage, no. A REAL war is when you *don't*. A real war is when you have to respond to EVERY action, *flawlessly*, or have everything come crashing down. When even an overly expensive *victory* spells doom, just as certainly as a defeat. When even surviving another day is a precious thing…
You wouldn't last a weekend.
And you didn't. I'm calling it now, your "Progress Engine" saw that it couldn't compete with the teamwork, creativity and production capacity of the LBoS, and instead of TRYING to live, through diplomacy or force of arms, you gave the fuck up. Decided to sit on your laurels in Clop, even after they'd long since dried out, all benefit and glory lost.
In contrast, even though we did not succeed, the SIDF rebellion TRIED. Against FAR worse odds, we managed to hold the line for a LONG time. Longer than you stayed in Compounds, at least.
TL;DR:
You are pathetic. No.1759
>>1756I'm going to say again, and maybe I should make this more clear in the guide and other game mechanic explanations: It is very possible to set up autocompounding so you don't have to babysit your build more than once every few days. And that's *before* you balance your complements. I'm sure the high-tier players aren't having the same kind of problems.
High-tier players, would you please like to explain how you avoid spending every waking moment worrying about Compounds? Hopefully in a form that I can show to newbies so they don't fall into this same trap.
Also, user descriptions are editable now and the Compounds chat is in >CLOP.
No.1760
>>1758>Here, it's possible to essentially cupcake EACH OTHERGah, this reminds me- I need to let alliance members know what each other's satisfaction are. Implementing now.
No.1762
(Pardon my dust, changing some basic shit again)
No.1763
>>1755>Admin actually confirmed that it's exploity.Sploity does not equal the armor exploit.
'Sploity and lame, but legal' does not equal exploity and actively crushing all who oppose you.
No.1764
>>1758Your autism level is unmatched by any other life form in the galaxy.
Do you ever stop to think for like a second about the shit you smear across your monitor?
I have neither the time nor the interest to point out all the logical fallacies in your post but…
>I think you don't have what it takes to fight a REAL war. >That's not when you have the advantage, no. A REAL war is when you *don't>Against FAR worse oddsYou do realise you started the war with more players, more nations, more support.and more resources than us?
J-just checking, incase you missed that. I know you're prone to overlooking things like that.
No.1765
>>1759I actually can login and do a quick check every few ticks, so mostly I do manual adjustments.
That is to say, even without using autocompunding to extend the time until your stockpiles are full, if you empty your primary produced resources, by definition you will have about six ticks (seven or even eight at lower levels, because of the flat 50 in the softcap) until you start risking upkeep. That means up to a day without having to overly worry, and it's what I do when going to sleep. Even with some residual, like for the Market or Philippy, I have AT LEAST four ticks of buffer in such cases. And if you can't trade it away in time, compound it, and do the fine-tuning (and managing those compounds) when you have time.
And THEN there's what admin described. I guess I should include a major(er) section in the long Guide too.
Nice that we see sat of allies now. Like!
Btw, I think I saw the old cap (the PL*10+50 one) a few days ago on the Spy screen when I spied on intrinsic. Can you check, admin?
No.1766
>>1758>No, I think you don't have what it takes to fight a REAL war.You don't have what it takes, either. Stop talking big.
>hold the line for a LONG timeEvery nation that was attacked by the Guild collapsed instantly.
>>1763>Sploity does not equal the armor exploit.Since both sides profited from the weapon exploit, neither side is in the position to accuse the other.
Pibb knew exactly that his method of DNA farming is more than questionable. Especially after Massive Uprisings had been implemented to prevent this kind of abuse. You even stated that it was his intention to get banned, which implies that he was fully aware of the exploity nature of his practices. Therefore he is as much of an exploiter as Bugfucker.
No.1767
>>1760OH SHIT
This is the BEST THING EVER! AAAAAAAAAA
Basedmin~~~~
/)^ɛ^(\
No.1768
>>1765>Btw, I think I saw the old cap (the PL*10+50 one) a few days ago on the Spy screen when I spied on intrinsic. Can you check, admin?Fixed.
No.1769
>>1759>High-tier players, would you please like to explain how you avoid spending every waking moment worrying about Compounds?I'm actually having some trouble keeping up with my Honesty.
See, the Tier 5 growth compound is Drudgery, which is made of everything that's not Magic. Seeing as I want to grow, I' producing a whole lot of the stuff. Normally, this would leave me with a whole bunch of extra Magic; but in order to deal with that, I instead focused on Honesty, bringing my excess Magic down to manageable levels.
However, I now have whole piles of Honesty that I'm having trouble finding anything to do with - I'm trying strategies like trading it off to random people for stuff I would find more useful (mainly Loyalty and Generosity), or combining some of it with my excess Magic to make Truth (which is its own complement, so any excess burns off harmlessly). But I produce a whole lot more Honesty than Magic, and I keep feeling like I'm only just staying ahead of the inevitable collapse; I'm just hoping to keep that up until I manage to hit tier six…
Also, autocompounding doesn't really solve this issue, because I'm producing 2x production of Honesty but can't autocompound more than 1x production of it; that means I have to manually deal with the other 1x in any case. Even if I can get rid of all my Honesty (which I generally don't because I have some in the market), that would leave me only six ticks away from Trouble.
…so, yeah. The reason why I'm not worrying about my build every waking moment is because a little browser pony game isn't worth worrying that much about - it's not as if anything *important* will happen if I collapse a few levels, after all. But I am still experiencing the same sort of problems (I thought they were an intended part of the game, actually).
And yes, I *could* fairly easily set up a system whereby I can arrange to leave Compounds entirely alone for a period of weeks with no worries besides the occasional attack. It would just mean that I produce no Drudgery and let my growth stall in any case…
No.1770
>>1769>Having trouble because you're producing too much of the thing you're focused onWell, yeah, that's gonna happen…
No.1771
>>1769The intent, if I may be so bold, is actually to encourage cooperation. I have Loyalty double-focused, so… I export loyalty. Sometimes to you :P
This leaves me with very little Kindness… so I get some of that from my alliance. They therefore need Loyalty and Laughter, which I have excess of…..
Unless I'm quite mistaken, working as intended :P
No.1772
>>1770>>1769Also, you guys DO understand that Sat allows you to safely overload? At our tiers, the price of sat is minimal, so if you really need to you can just grab all the crap from the bank and BURN
~I do that on occasion, and I remember Myra saying that he does that too. It's just part of the game, quite manageable.
No.1773
>>1772>Also, you guys DO understand that Sat allows you to safely overload? 'Safe' and 'Overload' still results in 'Waste'.
And it's a pretty good waste also.
If you overload the complement to offset long term losses it's not that bad, and you don't need the Sat buffer if you plan it out that far.
Of course, if you screw up, you're set back days or weeks sometimes. Risk/Reward calculations are fun to a limited section of the population. Not fun to all beings though. I feel bad for those who want to get past PL50 without doing excessive juggling.
But that's the name of the game.
>>1770>Well, yeah, that's gonna happen…x2 is the least focus one can do while still focusing. Double focus is just plain distressing.
I wonder if there are any alliance focuses in play yet because of that.
>>1766> Pibb knew exactly that his method of DNA farming is more than questionable. > Especially after Massive Uprisings had been implemented to prevent this kind of abuse.Questionable is still not an exploit.
> You even stated that it was his intention to get banned, which implies that he was fully aware of the exploity nature of his practices. You're also ignoring time scales. PIBH had been trying to get banned multiple times weeks in advance of questionable DNA practices.
And again, Questionable is a moral stance based on judging the intent as opposed to the wording of a system quirk.
An exploit such as item duplication is explicitly only exploiting a programming bug for profit. There's no maybe, sort of, kind of wording at play. It's using a clear bug to profit beyond other players.
Dumping a bunch of cupcakes and running DNA extraction until Newb Week ends is as much a 'program flaw' as running 20 Forbidden Research Facilities by the end of turn one. It's a social game, and if you're not using your social structure, that's a choice you made, not one of the three rules.
No.1774
>>1773
>20 research facilitiesIt was actually 12, allowing Alicorn Elite in 20 ticks.
I'm still kekking over that one :D
No.1775
>>1773>PIBH had been trying to get banned multiple times weeks in advance of questionable DNA practices. He broke even more rules instead of just leaving the game? Good going.
>Dumping a bunch of cupcakes and running DNA extraction until Newb Week endsI guess you don't even know what you're talking about? That's not what Pibb did.
You should inform yourself before you defend an exploiter.
No.1776
Admin would it be possible to have a mark all posts as read button on the alliance message page?
No.1777
>>1775>I guess you don't even know what you're talking about? That's not what Pibb did.>You should inform yourself before you defend an exploiter.Running enough extractions to collapse a country in one wartick with the established intent to build a new country to repeat the process?
Again, not against the three rules.
>>1775>He broke even more rules instead of just leaving the game?He broke the core rules of the game multiple times. He wasn't banned for 'sploity behavior'.
In advance.
Multiple times.
In horrendously obvious fashion.
You're just mad because you didn't do the DNA thing first.
No.1780
>>1777>He broke the core rules of the game multiple times.That's what we wanted to hear. Thanks.
>You're just mad because you didn't do the DNA thing first.No, not really. DNA is useless for us.
Besides, I'm not so pathetic that I have to use any loopholes to avoid fundamental game mechanics like rebels and massive uprisings.
No.1781
>>1777
>You're just mad because you didn't do the DNA thing first.:3
No.1782
>>1780Allowing rebels to appear =/= avoiding rebels.
Also, as an anon, you are *very much* that pathetic.
No.1783
>>1780>>He broke the core rules of the game multiple times.>That's what we wanted to hear. Thanks.You're also an idiot.
One person, one account.PIBH created multiple accounts while trying to get banned. His attempts were so obvious, Admin didn't ban him.
No computer shenanigans.While trying to get banned, he created a series of accounts, all using variations on his already identifiable name. See above, too obvious to take seriously.
Leave real life out of it.The entire 'THK is Bug' is this.
You'll notice I'm not saying that PIBH wasn't paranoid, I'm saying he wasn't an exploiter.
If being paranoid was ban worthy, it'd be in the rules.
If creating a nation for the soul intent of extracting it's genetic splendor for your allies was bannable, it'd be in the rules. It's not, because there's an immediate expense at play from the second it starts to the moment it ends.
But pat yourself on the back, you did successfully kill a game from a position of power. So kudos on that.
No.1784
>>1783And yes, I know it's sole.
It's a terrible pun about the spiritual intention.
No.1785
>>1784
>pun-1 respect, Minty. I *hate* that pun…..
hides a chuckle No.1786
>>1782>as an anonsee
>>1712I almost posted with my trip while participating in a raid on another board. Therefore I'll stay anon unless something happens that really requires me to post with my tripcode.
>>1783>You're also an idiot.Birds of a feather flock together. That's why we get along so well, my friend.
>I'm saying he wasn't an exploiter.I'm saying he's a hypocrite for accusing THK, Loli, Bugfucker and pretty much everyone who didn't kiss his ass of breaking the rules while he did exactly the same.
>while trying to get bannedStop with this 'trying to get banned' bullshit. After Admin banned him, he cried on the board until he got unbanned. Therefore he was either not
trying to get banned or he's a fucking retard.
>you did successfully kill a game from a position of powerWe did work hard to achieve our position of power. Against all odds, we managed to become the leading faction in this game and killed everyone who dared to oppose us. Of course we can be proud.
Weltherrschaft!I'd like to get a response from Admin (he's the only person who can bring clarity to this issue): is this kind of resource farming an exploit or will it be allowed?
No.1787
>>1786It's an unintended consequence of game mechanics, but it's something I need programmatic solutions for, not rule changes.
No.1788
>>1787K, until then I'll just ask some people to create nations, build a shitload of sugar farms and send the sugar to me before each war tick.
5 Sugar/(Tick*Farm) * 5 Ticks = 25 Sugar/Farm
200000 Bits/Farm / 25 Sugar/Farm = 8000 Bits/Sugar
neat :D
No.1789
>>1788>I can convince someone to do repetitive tasks, but getting them to actually play the game? No wayThis kills the pony
No.1790
>>1789I don't think I can motivate anyone to start playing a game that gets reset soon.
Speaking of the reset: How much time do we have left?
No.1791
>>1790After I finish Compounds.
No.1792
>>1791Software is never finished, only abandoned.
No.1793
File: 1428112100296.jpg (78.49 KB, 533x800, 533:800, ^4092FC922029ACEA5FED3166E….jpg)
>>1786Did I say he wasn't a hypocrite? No, I said he was paranoid and he wasn't exploiting. But, seeing as he's banned from the board at the moment, no one else is really going to pull out dates and times to argue his defense.
> Stop with this 'trying to get banned' bullshit.On December 13. 2014, after a particularly colorful anon thread, PIBH began to attempt to get himself banned.
His exact wording was 'Suicide by Admin'.
We had to know because we were actively in the process of planning a defense against a 3k attack, when our primary defense lead suddenly has a break down and starts making accounts like PLBH over and over again, trying to get banned. You don't forget something like that easily.
Fast forward to February 14, 2015, and because CLOP is like herpes, he gets pulled back in. The two month time frame is important, because he finally gets banned once he starts getting more involved with the game more recently, which results in:
> he cried on the board until he got unbanned. Because two months is actually a long period of time as emotional states go.
Again, like I've been saying; he's broken every rule, multiple times, in blatant fashion.
IP tracing Loli is super questionable. Swearing that THK is Bug is slapping against that rule hard.
Doesn't stop him from being paranoid, and it doesn't stop it from being true, but it does take the game and place it in the real world. And he was breaking it really early on.
Making multiple accounts under slightly different names is against Rule 1 & 2. Admin has shown leniency in most cases regarding those rules, but they are bannable. Not every time, which he did do pretty often.
>That's why we get along so well, my friend.Pony browser game. One with extra numbers. Who really needs to know what X*6+50 is anyways?
We're all weeaboo here.
> Against all odds,Against very little odds.
It's not like AMEP was hurt badly, if at all in the LoliBug War. It's was actually a good offensive and defensive platform for any future plans.
Myra was the main offense in the war on THK.
The NASA war came to an end for the most part of PIBH wanting the fighting to stop, which spoiled FotA's plan to use the conflict to boost their own importance.
The Extermination War ended once the parties involved failed miserably in their own defense thanks to internal strife and distrust.
And FFA funded various sides the entire time.
You were never against any odds, only against people in an online pony game.
One so sparsely populated, the Admin is currently one of the top 15 players.
>>1789>I can convince someone to do repetitive tasks, but getting them to actually play the game?This guy gets it.
No.1797
I'll put spying in later tonight and might have alliance attacks in testing tomorrow.
Once that's done, I'm going to alter >CLOP.
Then I'm going to start advertising again.
Anypony want to make a banner ad?
No.1800
And done. You can now bank resources as an alliance and spy on alliances.
The cost of spying comes out of personal storage, while the cost of defense comes out of alliance banked resources.
No.1801
>>1793>talking about ponies>weeaboonewfag pls go
also
>admin is currently one of the top 15 players hasnt he always been one of the top 15 players?
No.1802
>>1800Does that mean you're done? Reset now?
No.1803
>>1802Not until alliance attacks go in. Soon.
No.1805
>>1801>newfag pls goOh no! My feels!
I'm kidding, you have to say it three times in a mirror for that to work.
>hasnt he always been one of the top 15 players?No, not generally.
No.1808
>>1805>No, not generallypls explain what merit you rank the players on?
No.1813
File: 1428279997908.png (54.02 KB, 1099x821, 1099:821, Empire Ranking as of 4-05-….PNG)
No.1814
>>1813ok now lets go back to the original point.
>>1793You were never against any odds, only against people in an online pony game.
One so sparsely populated, the Admin is currently one of the top 15 players.
I don't understand how admin being tied in 9 for having the least number of nation in the game is relevant with the number of players in the game.
No.1816
>>1814No admin is in the top 15 best preforming plays via empire size and income in bits.
It should be stressed before the war every nation on the first page of emprires had 2-3 nations and the second page continued this, running only then into 1 nation empires that still had GDP's that beat admin out. But now he is in the top 15.
Which means most of those players who where on the front page and the second page either lost everything, stasised and left, or ascended.
No.1820
>>1816I still don't get where you guys are getting that the admins position in the game is showing how low the number of players are in the game. I mean the admin can honestly just spawn himself in shit and become number one, if that was the case would that mean that the game is dead or that admin is just having fun?
No.1825
>>1820Oh I see what you mean.
Except in this case admin has basically been almost static in terms of his income and empire size. So when we are using this as a reference now, it means he was essentially the same before and after and this serves to indicate the dwindling player base and prosperity as a stable and unchanging player drastically rose in the rankings.
Ie a player(who happens to be admin) who hasn't improved or changed has risen up the ranks via players dropping out or dying
No.1843
>>1825ok I get that. Thank you.
No.1854
I'm considering making complements less of an all-or-nothing proposition.
Right now, if you have 150 Honesty as a player with 20 production, you need to pay complements on all of it.
I'm considering reducing the threshold to something like 4 * production + 25, but making it so that you only have to pay complements on the part above the threshold; the 20-production player would pay complements on 45 Honesty, not 150.
Yea or neigh?
No.1855
>>1854>Lowering the compliment threshold even furtherI really want to object, but… only rarely do you recognize my opinion as valid and worth your time.
No.1857
>>1855>>1854Same lowering the compliment even more is a bad idea
the thing about only paying the compliments over the threshold is a great idea one that should have been there from the start
No.1858
>>1854As I said in the chat, I think that's not the right solution to the problem. Lowering complement thresholds and softcap isn't going to cause more interdependence, nor is it going to limit stockpiles; it'll only make stockpiles an expensive hassle to manage. Which isn't fun.
What does encourage interdependence is better logistics between players, as well as… more players. And what limits stockpiling is the existence of the threshold *at all*, not where the threshold actually *is*. If someone can get a day or so of stockpiled stuff, and not worry about complements, is that really such a bad thing?
No.1859
>>1854While I naturally don't want the complements threshold any lower, the all or nothing cost of complements was a big part of the reason I strongly avoided paying unwanted complement costs.
In the long run, your proposed system makes larger stockpiles (the ones that would have been over the limit anyway) less expensive to maintain, with the drawback of potentially increased difficulty for lower tier players.
I think making players pay complements is not necessary for them to serve a purpose in the game though. Complements are already very effective at restricting the size of player stockpiles (compared to >CLOP) even for those who don't pay complements.
No.1860
>>1854
> reducing the threshold to something like 4 * production + 25That would mean that I would need to either log in more than once every four ticks, or have enough Magic set aside to pay my complements. I can't log in that often, due to other calls on my time, and I am unlikely to be able to guarantee enough Magic on hand to pay my complements.
I do not think that making the limits lower would be much, if any, help. To be fair, I'm also not quite sure what you're trying to accomplish by doing so, so I don't know whether it will be accomplished.
> but making it so that you only have to pay complements on the part above the thresholdThis part, I do like. It would make passing the thresholds a lot more manageable.
No.1861
>>1859
>Complements are already very effective at restricting the size of player stockpilesThis.
No.1862
>>1685>>1697Been meaning to ask, what is this new avatar of yours from, Myra?
No.1863
>>1862It's from Panty and Stocking with Garterbelt.
This shouldn't have been hard to figure out. Just look at the file names.http://www.animenova.tv/category/panty-and-stocking-with-garterbelt No.1864
>>1854>I'm considering reducing the threshold to something like 4 * production + 25In my opinion stockpiles aren't a problem in Compounds.
You wanted to promote teamwork in Compounds, but there are way too little game mechanics that encourage this. I think more stuff like Encouragement would be interesting. There should be more ways to buff other alliance members.
You could reduce the threshold to 4 * production and give us the ability to increase the threshold of an alliance member to 8 * production. That would even discourage players from creating single-player alliances.
No.1865
>>1854You know, I already had this idea once too. And I, too, came to the conclusion that it would go with a decrease in softcap, so I was wary of suggesting it (and because I'm lurky :P). But I'm with the other in saying that yes, only paying for the part that's actually above the cap is good, but decreasing the softcap further is pushing it with the "hardcore game"-stuff you're going for. So if the choice is for both or neither, I'd vote for neither (that is, no change).
In fact, the proposed system (with high(er) caps) would actually cause me to go over the cap with some things on its own, mainly with production increasers.
>>1864Being able to increase softcaps would also be a thing I'd like to see (and spend resources on).
No.1869
>>1863Ah, okay. I did look at the file names, but I had thought those were just the names of the characters, not of the cartoon itself.
No.1870
When an alliance is hit by a Theft attack, whoever has the most of the targeted resource in the alliance gets it stolen; it can be a user or the alliance bank.
No.1876
After some thought, I decided to make Robbery (and defending against Robbery) cheaper.
No.1880
Is there any well-balanced mechanic that would cause alliances to desire more active players beyond 6 or 7?
No.1886
>>1880Just brainstorming here…
Maybe provide a slightly larger bonus to the alliance storage cap per member? Ie each member provides a slightly larger boost to the cap rather then them all contributing 100+. It could be slight as to reduce the effect but could provide a small boon. We could also have the bonus effect maybe stop working past a month of inactivity as well to maybe encourage cutting players who stop playing?
No.1891
Still three elements I can't find in place yet. Honor, Perfidy, and Backstabbing.
Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places.
>>1880>Is there any well-balanced mechanic that would cause alliances to desire more active players beyond 6 or 7?Management is frustrating. That said, production bonuses throw off the storage cap. While more cap would be good, I can't help but think it would only result in a lower cap over all.
What if there's an individual satisfaction cost reduction based on the number of non-stasis players that are successfully paying for resources?
When the alliance is doing well, everything stays a little more stable over time.
No.1898
>>1891They're not in yet. I'll get to them today/tonight if possible.
No.1899
>>1898Admin the reset is at midnight or what?
No.1900
No.1902
>>1900When whats done compounds? That could be forever!
No.1934
I'm going to start disintegrating permanently inactive alliances in Compounds.
No.1936
I *think* alliance vs. alliance warfare is working properly; as usual, let me know if it's not.
I'm going to finish with alliance deals and associated peace treaties today. Alliance deals will require Honor.
Breaking them will require use of Perfidy (for individual-on-individual attacks) or Backstabbing (for alliance-on-alliance).
Then I'm going to pave the way for the >CLOP reset, which, as promised, will happen tomorrow. Hopefully early, possibly late.
Donations are appreciated.
No.1937
Also, the maximum amount of time any peace treaty can last is 56 ticks (= a week).
No.1940
>>1936*sets timers, starts stopwatch*
No.1964
For an alliance member to violate a peace treaty with a player-vs-player attack will cost Perfidy but will not destroy the treaty's existence.
If an alliance pays Backstabbing to attack another alliance, however, the treaty between them will be annihilated.
No.1979
FIRS–
*Pause*
…Oh.
No.1980
>>1979in b4 "YOU TOLD HIM WHEN YOU WERE GOING TO DO IT" (I seriously didn't)
No.1981
File: 1428753809883.png (275.65 KB, 1600x578, 800:289, rarity_pout_by_regolithx-d….png)
>>1980Why must you constantly deny our relationship admin? Everyone knows already.
A-are you ashamed of me? No.1984
>>1981>>1980I personally welcome our new oldfag overlords
It'll be fun to compete with lolibug No.1986
>>1984>competepls
>Of course I'm ashamed of you, you cheating fuck, maybe you'll actually report exploits this time you shit garglerI already told you admin…
scat will cost you extra No.1987
>>1986Welcome back Empress!
Dis gun b gud
No.1988
>>1987Thank you, thank you. It's good to be back.
No.1989
Admin what the fuck is this shit?
No.1990
>>1989That would appear to be the competition ma'am
No.1991
>>1990How does one build a factory on the first tick prey tell?
No.1992
>>1991If you'll check the actions page you'll notice prze can build their first factory for like 100k. It's a seperate action
No.1993
No.1994
>>1991>>1992It's called factory aid. You'll notice 2 people have done this :P
No.1995
So many prezzies and so few productions. Hopefully it goes well.
No.1996
>>1994This game used to be cool, now they be givin aid to errybody up in here
No.1997
>>1996If it displeases you you may of course avoid using it :P
No.1999
>>1997I would prefer nobody be gettin aid, but not using it would not be in the best interest of competition, now would it?
Also fuck 8chan not letting me avitarfag No.2000
>>1993>>1989Pffff…. Kek!
Kek, indeed kek and kek again.
Did I mention kek?
Kek!
No.2001
>>2000D-do you have a problem, are you okay. Should I call a doctor?
No.2004
File: 1428758996766.jpg (69.83 KB, 688x914, 344:457, male__terezi_x_reader___fl….jpg)
>>2001Don't worry about him.
He has a few screws loose. :P
No.2005
wrong thread, faggits
No.2006
>>2004He appears to have a horrible speech impediment, poor guy. We should just put him out of his misery
No.2007
>>2001>>2004Kek… Kek. Kekkkkk~
>stops coughingSorry, allergies have been intense for the past week…
Kek No.2010
>>2006That might be for the best. He does seem rather ill.
No.2017
Fear my power!
The power of communism
No.2019
>>2017"In a primitive communist society, all able bodied persons would have engaged in obtaining food, and everyone would share in what was produced by hunting and gathering. There would be no private property other than articles of clothing and similar personal items, because primitive society produced no surplus; what was produced was quickly consumed."
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_communism No.2087
Back on 'topic', it would still be really really nice to see which abilities people have on them? It would make using Grant Ability way less of a blind stab in the dark, especially when internet weirdness starts to get in the way.
No.2088
>>2087Ah, right, that's what was asked, not just seeing satisfaction. I'll get to this.
No.2090
I would also like to make a request. Adminwould it be possible to organize elements on the alliance page similar to how they are on ones own page?
Also could you implement a read all or bulk read button for alliance chat in Compounds? if you have a member who makes an error and you get constant blarings of not enough resources, it gets annoying when you can't do anything about it.
No.2094
File: 1428957587982.gif (612.72 KB, 293x267, 293:267, 175088__UNOPT__animated_di….gif)
>>2088How about a 'last online XX hours ago' feature for alliance members (or for people you have on your
friend list, another feature, lel)? You could make it optional.
Since Compounds is all about communication and team play, you could make it a little more facebooky. :P
No.2097
>>2094>How about a 'last online XX hours ago' feature for alliance members (or for people you have on your friend list, another feature, lel)? You could make it optional.>Since Compounds is all about communication and team play, you could make it a little more facebooky. :PAbsolutely disgusting, keep your cancer to yourself.
No.2098
>>2097The only disgusting things are the photos your two hermaphroditic fathers keep sending me.
No.2135
>>2087>>2088I'll implement a show/hide button if this winds up being too crowded.
No.2136
>>2135OMG, thank you Admin.
Tiny issue going off what I know though, it doesn't seem to be showing information for Encouraged at all.
No.2137
>>2136I was only going to show abilities that can be affected through alliance powers, but I think I'll add Encouraged to that.
No.2139
Thank you based admin.
No.2176
This is what I was talking about admin. It seems the top menu bar freaks out when I deposit elemtents. I thought it was compounding but I was remembered wrong. ^^"
No.2242
Any plans on adding auto stasis to Compounds?
Or a way to force people into it…
No.2245
>>2242I really should do it for Compounds too, shouldn't I?
It's a simple one-line script, I'll just stick it in now.
Just remember, kids; stasis is for players, not alliances. If one guy goes stasis and the rest of his alliance is there to keep the flame going, all well and good. If a whole alliance stasises, the alliance is vulnerable dogmeat and I'm going to eventually clear fully stasised alliances out of the game.
No.2279
Any plans on adding:
- Ways to spy on reports (Alliance or Personal)
- Anonymous Attacks
- Libel Attacks
I'm sure there's more candy that could spark a nice sized war, but I'm not sure what would be the most fun at the moment.
No.2280
>>2279Oh, and I just remembered false/anonymous communications like we were promised.
Posting on other people alliance boards. Stealing satisfaction. Siphoning off production over time like leeches.
No.2283
>>2279>>2280Considering all this. Fucking with communications is generally a no-go as people just go to out-of-game channels.
No.2301
>>2283If admin implements false communications then any message you receive from me in-game is officially not me.
No.2307
Hey, we had a minor transaction just after the noon tick in the war system targeted at Myra.
Multiple people being charged for Attack attraction, redirection, and defense where mathmatically people lost banked elements in just weird places, like multiple users drawing a single attack and both being charged for it.
You might want to review it in the logs.
No.2312
>>2307
Also, a redirected attack bypassed my banked Serenity, and another failed to be redirected by heroism. I'm actually thankful that it bypassed my Serenity, corruption attacks are cheap as heck to repair
No.2316
No.2319
>>2312
Well, the reason for this one was because I'd totally neglected to put the relevant code in the redirection. D'oh! Testing now.
>like multiple users drawing a single attack and both being charged for it.
Are you sure this is what happened, that there was only one attack and not several attempts?
No.2322
>>2319
>Are you sure this is what happened, that there was only one attack and not several attempts?
There were several confirmed attack attempts, but due to costs, monitoring failed attacks isn't as useful at the user level.
Because of that no one knows, has access to, or is willing to fess up to about how many attacks were actually launched and failed.
But, if you think multiple attacks were launched, redirected, and defended, I'll take your word on it.
No.2323
>>2322
That's almost certainly what happened. The code doesn't support multiple users getting hit from one user attack, at all; it's just not a possible scenario.
No.2518
So, with the Clop reset, and 'everything' in Compounds being mostly finished…
Can you give at least a hint about void actually?
No.2520
>>2518
I still have plans for introducing it, but I really want to wait until more things happen before I do.
Has anypony fucked with game constants through Harmony yet?
No.2750
No.2763
>>2750
Void now. For the few people left playing Compounds, I handed out some free Void and made it easier than ever to murder each other. Have fun.
There's an extra fun mechanic with Void, but I won't spoil it.
No.2764
>>2763
Can Void attacks be logged by enabling 'See Attack Attempts'?
>I handed out some free Void
I still have only 30 Void. ;_;
No.2765
W00000t! Void!
No new mechanics, sadly (I had some guesses what Void would do), but I guess better attacks is cool.^^
>>2764
Seems fine to me, then? I got 10. IIRC, you had 20 before?
No.2766
>>2765
>I got 10. IIRC, you had 20 before?
I had 30 before.
No.2767
>>2764
There are no attack attempts with this. Void actions happen instantly. There is no defense.
And Myra, you have the most Void out of everyone.
So, if you want, you can do much more to everyone else than they can do to you.
…right?
No.2768
>>2767
>There are no attack attempts with this. Void actions happen instantly. There is no defense.
Is there any way to find out who was sending the attack?
>And Myra, you have the most Void out of everyone.
I'm a greedy fuck. ^.^
>…right?
I'm pretty sure there's a catch. We'll find out soon~
No.2769
>>2768
Void attacks show up in the target's Reports.
No.2770
By the way, as usual, let me know if anything weird happens regarding Void. Myra already helped me find one bug relating to it. Void is very special, even on a code level.
Or better yet, don't use it. Ever. That'd probably be the wisest choice. (No, nothing happens to you when you use it. There's no hidden destruction, no satisfaction loss, nothing like that.)
No.2771
>>2767
>And Myra, you have the most Void out of everyone.
Admin confirmed for biased!
No.2772
>>2771
I suppose so, eh? Myra can make more enemies than anyone.
No.2773
>>2772
How could anyone hate a cutie like me?
No.2774
No.2775
>>2774
That image is clearly a fake.
>Pibb never played Compounds actively
>There isn't any player called Vinz in this game
>a resource called DNA doesn't even exist
>NASA never attacked me. It only had one member and he switched to LBoS before he was even able to attack anyone
>wtf is ascension?
>unless I'm missing something it's not possible to have some sort of empire in Compounds
>no one cares about /mlp/ anymore. the cool kids switched to /pone/
Before you try to badmouth anyone you should get your facts straight. Maybe you should give Compounds a try so you know what you are even talking about.
Better luck next time, sweetie. :^)
No.2776
I was talking about >CLOP you dumb mother fucker
No.2777
>>2776
You're in the wrong thread my little hothead~
I still don't know what you are talking about, though.
Pibb blew up his nation before his protection ended, there isn't any alliance called NASA and Vinz is nationless since the game started.
You're making things up, dude.
No.2778
>>2777
So the Soothsayer is trying to disprove the anons of all people? Gg no re
No.2779
No.2780
>>2779
>Prove your point
>Shut the fuck up
Please pick one ^_^
No.2781
>>2780
Forgot my name, unlike some I'm not a pussy :D
No.2782
>>2780
We do have evidence. Sceenshots, IPs and stuff.
Obviously we won't post it here. This would be against the rules. Besides, there isn't even a reason to post any proof because we know that Sephi's a multifag and you know it, too. One half of the playerbase knows it because they were investigating and the the other half knows it because they are his allies.
The fact that you deny it just shows us that you are a bunch of liars.
No.2783
>>2782
Not to mention as soon as it was mentioned on the board he came out of stasis after who knows how long and quickly and quietly ran back to his allies, seems like quite the coincidence
>>2781
Nope, just a self important prat right?
No.2784
>>2782
I'm gonna level with you here, the first I heard of this was that anon the other day, if you do have proof, PM it to me and I will recant, otherwise GTFO
>>2783
Hold on, are you saying Sephi was someone else while his account was in stasis? because that's completely allowed.
As to the self-important prat claim, the worst player in the game is still more important than an anon :3.
No.2785
>>2782
So you're admitting to yourself or someone else comitting the act of doing IP traces? Why, isn't that bannable under rule 3?
No.2786
>>2785
It should be but player beforehand have done it and have not been banned.
No.2787
>>2785
Yes, somebody did do that and much more, then showed the results to everyone else. Who that person was is up for debate and I don't know myself, but what I do know is that multifagging is against the rules.
Admin delete your account then re-rolled with a new one so you can skate by on a technicality, you might not be banable because of that but it does make you tremendous faggot and proves all the shit people say about you being an underhanded sniveling cowardly cunt.
No.2788
File: 1431800285284.png (Spoiler Image, 1.17 MB, 2500x1300, 25:13, 0e0ab9c916554f1d1518283624….png)
>>2785
>Why, isn't that bannable under rule 3?
Maybe the reason is that what we do outside of the game is no one's fucking business?
No evidence of your multifagging has been posted on the board or ingame.
No.2789
>>2787
>an underhanded sniveling cowardly cunt.
You're doing a fantastic job of showing everyone why I had my old account deleted in the first place!
No.2791
>>2789
>gets accused of being an underhanded sniveling cowardly cunt
>has his profile deleted then rerolls and lies about who he is and tries to spy on the other alliances
You're doing a fantastic job of proving it to be true.
No.2792
>>2789
>>2502
Why are you even playing? Did you lose your job already? You are as incompetent IRL as you are in Clop.
>>2791
>>gets accused of being an underhanded sniveling cowardly cunt
The perfect member for CoLC.
At least now that he has revealed his identity, Scarf and TKoE can stop trying to protect his new identity. Their lies and constant demanding of proof as soon as the subject came up became a little annoying.
Nobody would ever believe that even his closest allies didn't know about his new account.
No.2793
>>2792
>Why are you even playing?
Because Scarf had me convinced the Clients are doing well enough that I should place my faith into them. That, and I got bored of GTA5 and Cities: Skylines.
>Did you lose your job already?
My boss is actually pretty flaky.
>You are as incompetent IRL as you are in Clop.
To make that sort of assumption would mean getting to know me in real life. And frankly, I play >CLOP for fun. Not for its spreadsheets and meticulous micromanaging which you, The Horned King, and Aryan apparently have more than enough interest in doing.
>At least now that he has revealed his identity, Scarf and TKoE can stop trying to protect his new identity.
Isn't that sweet of them?
>Nobody would ever believe that even his closest allies didn't know about his new account.
I actually left them in the dark until I joined the Clients.
No.2795
>>2787
Need some aspirin for that butthurt?
>>2792
I don't believe I ever lied, nor did I ask for any form of proof…
In fact, I don't believe either of us actually acknowledged the subject at all, so….
No.2797
No.2798
>>2797
Well, teasing anons really isn't a statement, any more than they're people. Still, point.
No.3779
>>3777
>someone finally found this message
GJ. There's a similar one for when something's too high.