No.703[View All]
(Old thread is autosaging, and no, I don't control thread limits)
Let's talk about maladaptive behaviors: behaviors that make sense to the people doing them, but have long-term ill effects on the entire game.
For example, nation building in the first game, which turns some players' activities into a weekly grind and entirely removes the need for new players at all. These unneeded new players never find an alliance, never realize that they'd do better with one, and never really take part in the politics which make the actual game.
Or the current disturbing trend in Compounds, in which one ascended player has chosen to go it alone, another ascended player has hit perma-stasis, and most other alliances aren't taking on nearly as many newbies as they could be, with some choosing to keep on perma-stasis'd members instead. Various flavors of paranoia are cited as reasons (this kind of thing is why I put in controls for who is allowed to do what).
I guess a better question would be "How do I get a bunch of friendless autists to start cooperating with each other?"
Banked resources today and war shortly afterwards.
287 posts and 87 image replies omitted. Click reply to view. No.1537
>>1533Apart from making the game even more troublesome, nothing really changed so far.
We are still trying to avoid paying complements. We just have to log in even more often.
No.1538
>>1537But… but it's only 2.5% with max sat/alliance sat…
No.1539
>>1537>>1538Point stands: Paying nothing is better than paying 2.5%. And sat is kinda expensive to keep at/over max. (From a players standpoint; from a designers, it's fine. And it actually is desirable now, imho.)
Admin, before I drop ideas, what do you exactly want to accomplish?
Players not sitting on their stockpiles? As I said before, the system worked fine for that, even before the change. People used their stuff, not store it. Since this came from people in >CLOP just hoarding, well, that game hit endgame long ago, and people had hit the limits on growth (more or less), so all left was to gather more stuff. I assume it wasn't so at first there either? People would invest and grow, and not hoard? Compounds is in its first stages, too, so the upkeep system isn't needed yet; it
will be, later. So going by that, the system
was fine, and still is.
Or do you want to get more resource-sinks? Dunno if we need those, but if that's your issue, the system needs to be a bit refined, more than just tweaking numbers like softcap and sat multipliers. I can drop some (very rough) ideas if you want; most of them probably don't work (yet), but maybe it'll help.
Tell me what the parameters are, and I'll help you. If you want me to, that is.
No.1540
>>1539Well, I think I accomplished what I really wanted to with this change. It's harder to store things now, and people were just able to store enough stuff to increase production without having to really worry about complements.
I honestly want an environment in which people do things like double-double focuses even knowing the dangers. This will encourage active alliances to break up and specialize, providing a foundation for new players to join in.
No.1541
Don't you find it unwise that the new soft cap is dangerously close to the amount of resources needed to increase one's production? Perhaps 6 should instead be changed to 8?
Also, file name.
No.1542
>>1541Oh wow. You just noticed this?
No.1543
No.1545
>>1541It's only an issue if you're PL is around 50.
I'm pretty sure it was admin's plan though.
It would have happened at 110 with the last system, and way earlier with the production cost linked to tiers.
No.1546
>>1543Or, I mean, there's this.
Admin is still a shit.
No.1547
>>1541The amount of resources needed to increase production grows faster than the softcap. The problem will get worse the higher your level gets.
I'm very sure Admin already knew about this.
No.1548
>>1541For 'fun'
some variable that can be used in the place of actual funI dug up the old algorithm for production increases.
With the oldest calculations, the second you hit T4 @ 41, you would need 587 Narcissism to improve, and you'd have a cap of 460.
With pre-ides calculation, with the fixed ^1.5 you'd have till 110 when you'd need 1154 with a cap of 1150.
Currently, post-ides you start seeing the problem consistently at 50, when you need 354 with a cap of 350.
This of course assumes you hover every day, constantly waiting for the exact second you could level up.
It's probably safer to stockpile some complements just in case you oversleep.
No.1549
>>1540Oh. Good. Then I don't have to dump half-baked ideas. Phew. ^^
I was spectip at first (and against the changes had anyone asked), but I think it turned out really well. The changes were a good thing, after all. We now have to think about stuff, instead of just collecting production increaser, which makes it more interesting, overall. 50 is a very good level for this to start to take effect; before, you're kinda small/new.
Btw, is alliance sat really supposed to go down only [members] a tick? Seems like a small number, compared to the decay of personal sat. Or did you just envision larger alliances?
Speaking of which, Compounds could need some new blood soon. With the changes done, new players can start with the new system (thus can't complain about having to adjust :P ), and I heard some people express wanting to quit, because of boredom and annoyance about the changes combined. Isn't the game fleshed out enough now to start advertising?
No.1551
Got around to putting in next-tick complement display.
>>1549I might change the alliance sat decrease.
I'd like a 728x90 banner ad if anyone can create one. Where'd Slit go? However, and this is most critical: this game is heavily alliance-focused. Alliances have to recruit more members, and I don't know what I can do to force them to do that. I'm still seeing a terrible number of non-players because alliances didn't bring them in.
No.1552
>>1551Well, I would like to recruit more people. And while I could send more messages, I have yet to get a response from a single player (who I have now all came to me for an invite). The list you're speaking of are all players who don't login any more, and any amount of forcing alliances to recruit won't help there. Futher, according to the news, the last person joining was a week ago, so that doesn't help either.
Since I can't talk to those people, I can only assume, but I guess many people, if they see they have to wait for potentilly a day, don't bother to come back. So you might revisit "demo mode" again?
And lastly, even if a reasonable number of those unallied players got recruited (which would still be <40%, I'd guess, realistically), I don't think there would be enough active people playing at all, so an influx of new wouldn't hurt in either case, don't you agree?
No.1554
>>1552
> So you might revisit "demo mode" again?I still think that this is the best way to get new players into the game long enough to join an alliance.
No.1555
>>1552>>1554I'll make some nonfunctional dummy screens for unallied players, see how that works.
No.1556
>>1555Hey Jackass, are you going to fix your game or ignore a major complaint like you've always been with >CLOP?
>>1541 No.1557
>>1556Didn't you read the other four fucking replies?
You're not supposed to be able to upgrade your production so easily without paying complements.
No.1558
>>1557But have you perhaps thought that some people don't see producing embezzlement as a priority? They're already too busy making happiness in order for them not to be hit too hard by a lack of compliments by the time they even get up in the morning *and* they're producing their respective growth compounds in order to compensate for the dramatic change you've made to a system that was just fine the way it was.
No.1559
>>1558>he still saves up all of his target compound instead of its precursors>look at him and laugh No.1560
>>1559Well, since you won't listen, then I guess I'll make camp next to Baldwin's tent.
No.1561
>>1560For fuck's sake, Sephi, why not ask literally everyone else in this thread how THEY'RE dealing with it?
No.1562
>>1561Because A.) You redirecting the problem isn't going to fix what's going on, and B.) I'm not even the only person who finds these changes to be utter bullshit.
You may laugh, but this isn't going to look good for newer players trying to play the game. All that I'm asking is that you fucking meet everyone half way by setting the softcap multiplier to 8 instead of 6.
No.1563
>>1562>>1561This WOULD definitely make the change less jarring. I know you want ppl to pay out the nose to get anywhere, and have to autocompound the complements of whatever they wanted to store, but why not just compromise?
No.1564
>>1555I still think that "functional, but not allowed to grow beyond (say) level 10" would be best (and perhaps heavily trade-restricted as well) - then joining an alliance becomes less a matter of joining a completely unknown game and more a matter of just getting past level 11.
…just a suggestion. If the nonfunctional dummy screens work (and they might!) then all's well.
No.1565
>>1562
>newer playersGenuinely new players won't even notice. In fact, this change is meant to increase the need for new players, as alliance specialization offsets the requirement for paying complements.
Can you not deal with it? Can you and your alliance not get together and figure out a way to advance in the current system? It's not supposed to be easy, because it's supposed to require cooperation.
>>1563>change less jarringThis game is still not done. Until I finish uses for every element (should be by the end of this month), I honestly do not care about how jarring the changes are or aren't.
I should never have made it easy to begin with.
No.1566
>>1564CCC, can you please describe to the thread how *you*, in an alliance of one, are dealing with the Ides changes?
No.1568
>>1566With forethought, careful consideration, occasional trading, and as much Laughter and Generosity as I can get hold of.
…though perhaps you're referring to my automated compounding? That's really the major thing that's changed since the ides changes.
* Drudgery (my growth compound): +7 per tick
* Backstabbing (Drudgery-Loyalty): +9 per tick
* Despair (Drudgery-Laughter): +9 per tick
*Bullshit (Drudgery-Honesty): +9 per tick
…and a few more along similar lines.
When I have enough, between the Drudgery and the other piles, I do a whole pile of manual compounding (Bullshit+Honesty, Backstabbing+Loyalty, etc.) and throw together enough Drudgery to advance a level, then promptly advance without paying complements on it.
No.1569
>>1568Thank you.
By the way, Sephi, Scarf: there is a
FUCKING TRIVIALway for members of a large alliance to increase production, even at T5 levels, with these changes.
It's called sharing (your resources when necessary) and taking turns (increasing production). By piling on the necessary growth resource to a single member when it's his turn to raise production, you can cycle through everybody without anyone having to pay complements, even at high levels, even with this new system. I'm actually considering making things harder because of it.
No.1570
File: 1426541827819.png (71.39 KB, 294x799, 294:799, shadow_dust_by_punzil504-d….png)
>>1569>I'm actually considering making things harder because of it.And give people more reason to leave? Even better! I can't wait to see this!
No.1571
>>1569Even for us, that idea is not so easy. We have members literally all over the planet; they tend to go to sleep sometimes!
But I think we can adapt, as we have before.
No.1572
>>707Also, I would like to address this part. It's been over a month, and the LBoS is doing just fine.
No.1573
>>1558What do you mean producing Embezzlement isn't a priority? Barring alternative ways to get what you want (which are obviously more efficient), you
need to produce it, and thus should
make it priority. If you're not doing this, it's not admins fault.
Because of this I actually approve of the change, as said previously. It requires more than to sit and wait for Narcissism (or whatever) to pile up; you have to either work inefficiently (b paying upkeep) or find other ways.
>>1569>I'm actually considering making things harder because of it.If you mean a further cap reduction, I would advise against that. I get this game is supposed to be "hard", but the checking needed is enough. Making the cap 8xPL-based would at least allow people to check in the evening every day. Could (maybe) lead to more people actually staying in the long run. If you think about other stuff, that could be fine, depending.
>>1571Even with that, six ticks is three fourths of a day as a buffer. Enough time (for non-casuals, at least) to logistic around.
Hey. By responding, I just had a good idea to draw need for complement out, to accomodate over a day of production… telling my members…
Anyway, I deal with the cap by producing drudgery up to the limit, and then switching autocompounding to something like Brutality, to upgrade to Drudgery when I have enough.
No.1574
>>1573
>non-casuals……some people are casual. I need to make sure their needs are considered.
No.1575
>>1574I thought that was why focusing is optional?
This is a game of math and admin is the dragon… I think I lost my analogy there…
The point is, people will have different play styles what ever you do.
I could focus on crying about the new cap,
which I have mathematically if people didn't auto filter me out or I can focus on running my ship. I need to make sure my people have satisfaction, capacity to operate, and like three hundred different needs and wants between them.
And I still lack some way of checking their current abilities without waiting for them to respond to requests outside the game as well.
I have to consider the different types of players, and I'm only working with six people at the moment. Most likely, it'd be easiest for casual play to shift at certain tiers to focus on other aspects of the game.
Not everyone is going to power grind up to super high levels because not everyone will need to.
To push to level 100, would require going 350 over the cap.
160 would require twice the cap.
At some point, only the non-casuals are going to be making the push past T5.
No.1576
>>1573Actually, you can check in every day, or even every couple of days, without reaching the cap now; you just autocompound different things and diversify your production. You don't need to autocompound only one thing.
No.1577
>>1575>checking up on allies without having to spy on themI'll implement this.
No.1578
>>1535Hey, is this ever going to happen?
No.1581
>>1578As soon as I have time for it.
No.1584
>>1527>Maybe you could switch the elements around, so Lau/Hon and Gen/Kin are not next to each other?done
>>1535done
The red glow could be confused with laughter and honesty.
No.1585
>>1584Numbers 1, 2 and 5 are distinct enough, so it should be fine. General consensus?
No.1586
>>1584Looks much better than the current ones to me. Far easier to see what's there and what's not.
No.1589
>>1586Cool, please put them into 16x16 .pngs and I'll put them up.
I've been kind of inactive recently due to my "real" job eating most of my time, but I'll do Embezzlement tonight at least.
No.1591
>>1589And done. It took me a while to decide whether to put it in User Actions or Alliance Actions, but since it uses a user resource I decided to put it there.
If your alliance logs bank activity, it will tell you that someone has embezzled, just not who.
No.1610
Okay, I've had way too many other things eating my time. Alliance vs. alliance attacks in this week. I'm going to clip the images from that .png myself now, and try to get some more people into Compounds.
I'm also increasing the usefulness of Burden attacks by not informing the defender of what's being sent.
No.1611
>>1610Never mind, I can't do transparencies worth a shit. Myra, can you get these?
No.1612
>>1611Yep. Currently, I don't have access to the PC on which they are saved, though.
I should have the icons by tomorrow.
No.1622
>>1612*chirp*
I know this is the most vague promise ever but I promise I'll get more stuff done soon.
Before then, get more people in your alliances.