No.703[Last 50 Posts]
(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.
No.705
>>703This is why the Lunar Brotherhood of Steel is in first place in alliance production.
No.706
>>703Let's keep in mind though that most people who join and are allianceless aren't putting forth any effort to join an alliance. I mean it isn't that hard to log on, pm a leader or two, and check back every few hours or so. I mean if someone isn't even capable of doing that, who's to say they'll even try in the game and won't go inactive and just cost you resources?
No.707
>>705Quantity does not equal quality. Let see how you fare a month or so down the line before we start boasting?
No.708
>>707Silly, TyHachi! Nobody can predict anything that far into the future!
No.709
File: 1423970445079.jpg (168.79 KB, 900x1246, 450:623, homestuck___terezi_pyrope_….jpg)
>>708It isn't about predicting. I never made a single prediction, silly Sephi Xarados.
No.710
>>709But you did imply that the Brotherhood is over-extending itself.
Also, why have you started avatarring as Terezi? It's almost mildly creepy. No.711
File: 1423971277108.png (49.33 KB, 869x920, 869:920, homestuck_crossover_ponyfi….png)
>>710All I implied was that it was too soon to start boasting before we have really even gotten into the game. Though if that's your concern, feel free to air them out to everyone.
As for Terezi, why not? Would it make you better if I used a Pony?
No.712
File: 1423972423079.png (Spoiler Image, 17.96 KB, 584x599, 584:599, 57598aa2a72461ee7789cc5818….png)
>>711Nonsense! And you don't have to do that if you don't want to. I'm just more of a Nepeta kind of guy, that's all. Pic related.
No.713
>>703>alliances aren't taking on nearly as many newbies as they could behttp://youtu.be/1yw1Tgj9-VU
>"How do I get a bunch of friendless autists to start cooperating with each other?"Lets see…
- Increase Unallied Player's Satisfaction by 10
- Increase Another Alliance's Satisfaction by 10
…could use a mild cost reduction to encourage it as a more cost effective way to smear out elements even further than the alternatives.
Very mild.
Like we proposed elsewhere, there could be a pre-game lukewarm stage where alliance-less players could putter about the system, until they started contacting in game players.
There could be a push button 'apply to' system, that would even take sending messages out of the equation.
>>705>This is why the Lunar Brotherhood of Steel is in first place in alliance production.Lunar Brotherhood of Steel also has the most members of any group and an average PL of 22.33~, making it a larger soft target, and falling behind every other group outside of Progress Engine and Karakos.
I could be wrong though.
>>706>I mean it isn't that hard to log on, pm a leader or two, and check back every few hours or so.It apparently is.
I've gotten two actual requests so far.
The first used terrible text lingo to demand an invite, who I rejected and is an individual who I have on record telling me to fuck off when being questioned, who's currently a detriment to the alliance he did eventually join.
The second was a player who was more polite, and while we weren't in a solid enough position, I did recommend him to the alliance leader of the group he's currently in, and doing pretty well as far as I see.
I've sent out 10 or 11 invite messages in game, gotten back 1 rejection myself from those, posted a thread looking for more unknowns I might have missed, and all in all feel quite hopeless in the long run.
Having to spam people to get even a conversation started is possibly too much.
No.714
>>712Ah Nepeta's my Birth troll, actually.
I just really like Terezi's character.
No.715
File: 1423973350947.png (119.68 KB, 900x563, 900:563, terezi_pyrope_wallpaper_by….png)
>>713And here's the crux of what I was saying earlier. Sure you can take every player in who looks at you and asks "plz", but will they be there in the long run? If you have to actively search for people or the people who do make effort barely try, who's to say they'll stick around and actually be helpful? Already we've seen players who flat out stop playing and just waste alliance resources by doing so.
No.716
File: 1423973657732.png (524.29 KB, 1022x781, 1022:781, feferi_peixes_by_wammysgrl….png)
>>714Apparently mine is Feferi. But I was also born in a cusp.
>>713I like to think of the Lunar Brotherhood of Steel as the Russian Army.
No.717
>>716Well hopefully it's ghost girl and sea princess and not utter lower and sea princess.
I wouldn't want to be associated with that guy at all.
No.719
>>717>>718Sorry to disappoint you, but my birthday's in February. I nevver really understood wwhat that guy's deal was. I nevver got too far into homestuck in the first place, so…
No.720
>>719He's a hopeless desperate loser who tries to get in a relationship with anyone. He's desperate and never knows when to quit.
No.721
>>720Huh. So much like an actual Aquarius, he shows perseverance. Quite profound, that.
No.722
>>721He also does some other things that make me a bit upset but at least I can say is dancestor is worse.
No.723
>>722Well, I'm sure he and I are much dif–wait, what the fuck am I doing? I'm talking on a image board with a Homestuck fan who's further into the series than I'll ever be…
… About zodiac signs in-between World of Tanks matches! I'm all for intellectual discussions, but I really need something to do.
No.724
>>703
> in which one ascended player has chosen to go it aloneWell, yes, I was given to understand that the alliance leader would be taking some responsibility for the actions of his followers.
So far, I've had two people ask to join my alliance; the first sent a message reading simply "Alliance invite plz" and was promptly rejected (and has since found another alliance to join); the second was more mature and persuasive, and while I did offer him an invite (on a temporary basis), he decided to go with another alliance (which I didn't mind in the least).
I've also offered an invite to another unallied player, on the basis that he seemed like a reasonable enough person in >CLOP, but I don't think he's logged in again in the weeks since.
In general, if an unallied player were to ask to join my alliance, and they appeared reasonably mature, I'd probably first point them in the direction of those alliances more actively seeking members. But if for some reason they really wanted to join my alliance in particular - well, I wouldn't be totally opposed to letting them in.
It's just - well - it seems far too _easy_ to not invite anyone, because there's pretty much no-one _asking_ for invites. And when I look at Infinity Cauldron's unsuccessful recruiting attempts, I see that it would be futile for me to _make_ recruiting attempts, even if I wanted to.
No.725
>>723Do you really have anything to do? I mean who does when they play "Ponies and Spreadsheets".
>>719>wwhat that guy's deal was. I nevver got too far into homestuck in the first place, so…Also I did see this.
No.726
File: 1423980264733.png (91.33 KB, 500x281, 500:281, tumblr_static_tumblr_stati….png)
>>724Yeah we definitely need some sort of fix for this. I liked the ideas you guys were throwing about earlier. I just hope something can be done as of right now we're getting nowhere with these unallied players.
No.727
>>703>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.If you like.
How about; "Not banning a pair of the worst cheaters ever to return to the game, disillusioning a vast swathe of the playerbase"?
How about; "Banning a popular player for 'impersonating' *themselves* when they make a new account to keep their original in stasis, displaying an utter inability to identify players correctly without help?"
What about; "Repeatedly refusing to listen to the many and varied suggestions of the playerbase to improve your game?"
I'd be interested in talking about those maladaptive behaviours.
Or is the atrophying of your game still exclusively the fault of "Those stupid players"?
No.728
>>727>"Banning a popular player for 'impersonating' *themselves* when they make a new account to keep their original in stasis, displaying an utter inability to identify players correctly without help?"What? Who? When?
No.729
>>728Yeah, alright, maybe it is a bit of a stretch to call myself "popular".
No.730
>>729But wait, how come I never heard of this? Is that why you quit the game?
No.731
>>727>make a new accountYeah, don't do this.
I unbanned the IP because it's been a while, but seriously, don't do this.
And the whole point about maladaptive behaviors is to construct the game in such a way that the shit people pull in >CLOP is made impossible or irrelevant.
For example, I want to create a game where the only rational choice for alliances is to start inviting people, budding off new alliance leaders, etc. And to create a game where players in alliances feel valued, encouraging them to stay, and for players to attempt to get in alliances.
No.732
>>730Ha! No, no. I left because of Admin's mounting stubborn ignorance, and his favouring of a certain group of people despite their past misdeeds and his own professed "neutrality".
I signed up to clop again as PLBH as something of a joke and experiment because I was being messaged by people still looking for my input on events, but got banned. I was pretty proud of that, considering, y'know, not even Bug and Loli ever got banned.
Might be the oldest, most honest person to ever get that treatment.
No.733
>>731It's a nice dream and all but with the current system new players leave before they even try. There's nothing to keep people coming and staying until they're invited and it shouldn't be the sole responsibility of the alliance leader to try and get people to join them.
No.734
File: 1423985199332.jpg (38.08 KB, 500x624, 125:156, -terezi-pyrope-30581534-50….jpg)
>>732Well at the very least it's nice to see you around again, PIBH. ^^
No.736
>>733>>731>>724You know what? Fuck it. I'll try recruiting people publicly for a change. I know others tried, but the Lunar Brotherhood of Steel might give it a shot. I'll see what everyone else thinks.
Oh, and I'm happy to see you around as well,
>>735 No.737
File: 1423985649684.jpg (50.19 KB, 411x512, 411:512, tumblr_mdmcfrIyb71rdfw78o4….jpg)
>>736Have fun with grueling lack of success and inactive unallied players.
Maybe you'll do better than some of us have, if not, it should just reinforce the idea that something needs to be done with the current system.
No.738
File: 1423985692786.png (223.15 KB, 1024x1447, 1024:1447, img-3069763-3-humanhead_pi….png)
>>736Well, make the most of it while i'm here, it could be anything from days to years before I check in again.
No.739
File: 1423986067296.png (262.07 KB, 792x1008, 11:14, lightning_dust_by_miss_van….png)
>>736Meh, forgot the avatar
Also, this website failed to redeem itself in being un-communist. I can't upload images above 10 MB, and I have some cool gifs that are this size.>>737We shall see.
No.740
>>724You're only responsible if other players hold you responsible. I know I said some things earlier about alliance leaders being responsible for their members' multifaggotry, but I'm not going to do this unless I'm sure the alliance leader was in on it.
>>737I'm thinking about ways to get the point across that the first task for anyone who's just joined the game is to find an alliance to join.
I could implement a special retard mode for unallied players, but I honestly don't want to do this; alliances and alliance dynamics are a central, fundamental, built-in part of the game and basically putting players in a demo mode that had none of these features would give them the wrong idea about what to expect.
No.741
>>740Have you tried making a game that isn't shit?
Trying to dictate player action too much is terrible.
Which is why sandboxy games are so popular.
Hell, the "Compounds" method of forcing people into alliances is a step down from >CLOP 1.0
No.742
>>741If people are too autistic to introduce themselves for a multiplayer game in which there aren't any entities BUT other players, then they probably shouldn't be here.
No.743
>>742Even a multiplayer game suffers from a lack of achievable single player goals.
I'll bet you bits to baked goods WoW wouldn't be so popular if you had to find a forty player raid group just to level up from the word go.
No.744
>>743>I'll bet you bits to baked goods WoW wouldn't be so popular if you had to find a forty player raid group just to level up from the word go.I think most Wildstar players would enjoy this, though.
Compounds is basically a focused version of >CLOP, with the focus being on the things that made >CLOP dramatic: alliance fights, theft, lies, backstabbing, mistrust, and accusations.
I'm trying to get away from the casual-players-quit problem of >CLOP.; the casuals get in, get way over their heads, and leave. It's best if they don't ever really join at all; they don't contribute anything, don't really play, and just sit there as an amorphous backdrop to the actual game part of the game.
In Compounds, nobody's ever really a casual; anyone who wants to play it has an alliance (hopefully) full of players willing and able to help them out, and a board full of friendly and helpful players to show them where to go and what to do when they get there.
No.745
>>744Ah, the old 'stupid players are too casual' argument.
Well, if you don't want casuals, it seems a bit counterintuitive to complain about casuals joining, finding the game isn't to their taste, and leaving.
It's also strange to hear you accuse me of being one, but that's beside the point.
No.746
>>745>It's also strange to hear you accuse me of being oneI have no idea where you got this
No.747
>>746Well you seem to be >implying that 'casual-players-quit' is the major problem killing your games.
Either that's true and i'm a casual…
… or there are more serious issues that you just don't want to talk about.
No.748
>>747How egotistical can you possibly be? I'm not talking about you, I'm talking about the couple of thousand players who have come and gone because they either got bored or had no idea what they were doing because they didn't understand the mechanics and had no one to help them.
No.749
>>748But you didn't want those players.
They were casuals.
… right?
No.750
>>749They were casuals because either they were ape-like subhumans who had no idea what they were doing, or they maybe could have had some idea what they were doing if they had gotten involved with people who do.
The first group is just background noise; it's the second group I'm concerned with.
No.751
>>750And to get people involved with other players, it helps to encourage them to stick around long enough to want to.
Right?
No.754
>>703>perma-stasised memberThat one is for me. But while I could kick him, it's not as if there was a replacement. I talked about my unsuccessful attempts to even _reach_ people before, including PonyRandom, who even posted on the board asking for an invite (I'm _still_ waiting for a response to my message, btw), so I think it's clear I have tried.
>>740As for getting the point across:
- Did you try a message immediately after registering? Worded to "maybe take a few hours, but if you post, there should be an answer soon"? Nothing, or even just getting told to send and wait acts discouraging to someone who wandered over from derpibooru to examine "that strange ad". If you want (and send me the current, if there is one) I could draft up a welcome message.
- A use of email, along with a notification if someone got a message or invite (along with maybe a way to send emails via the game)? Adding an email should be optional, ideally, and there should be an option to turn this off on the user page, obviously. (Now that I'm considering it, maybe you can't do this on the server, else you would have already…)
No.755
>>744>I think most Wildstar players would enjoy this, though.Huh, I haven't checked MMO's lately, that sounds like it could be–
>NCSOFTI call upon the power of the ten thousand flaming NOOOPE!
Muh CoH those sons of bitches… Those sons of bitches…Okay, breakdown aside, this is actually a really good point to bring up the Bartle Test. Namely, the simplified version of the types of reasons people play online games. Yes, I know there's better definitions, but 8 axis grids are messy, it's easy to sell 2D grids to executives.
I'm actually worse than a casual, being an Explorer-Achiever, which is one of the most anti-social motherfuckers in the entire MMO sphere, where I'm much more likely to wander off if I don't have a set goal in mind. Usually one not dictated by the game system. Targeting a game towards people like me isn't a great idea, we're always around more or less.
The problem is that the MMO sort of depends on the Socializers to keep the player base entertained and attracted… You effectively need about 40-60% of your player base to be suckers that sit around, and get people excited about playing the game and interacting. They need to be protected, because they are functionally the meat of most games.
The Killers are in turn, attracted by the Socializers really. They need a steady supply of victims. Preferably victims that suck at fighting back. They handle themselves for the most part so long as they can't completely kill away everyone else. Search your heart, you know it to be true.
As and explorer and a partial achiever, I love seeing little numbers rising. It's why I ascended in the first place. I got to a point, and I wanted to watch numbers get bigger till I got to see an ending.
What I'm trying to say, is that this game is pretty hardcore for certain types of players, especially in the wild west phase that we're in right now.
I mean, logically, I know I can use satisfaction in the form of Camaraderie to prevent more some members from crashing and burning because they decided to kip off for three days because they got laid up in the hospital because some drunk driver left their car sideways across the three lanes of the highway at four thirty in the morning.
True story, lost 4 hours skill training in EVE because I thought I would be home during my weekendI'm not 100% sure how I could tell when people are having real life events in advance yet, but I'm working it out.
Still, with the subnegative response I've gotten from in game messaging communication, I can say unaligned players need a shitty bobble to keep them checking in so they can see invites and communications that are waiting for them.
As to what that bobble should be, I'm not entirely sure. Preferably not game wrecking, but something they can do with the raw components to keep them from being completely ineffective until we can get them into a group.
No.756
>>740
>I know I said some things earlier about alliance leaders being responsible for their members' multifaggotry, but I'm not going to do this unless I'm sure the alliance leader was in on it.That actually does remove a fairly major reason why I wasn't very enthusiastic about expanding my alliance.
> I'm thinking about ways to get the point across that the first task for anyone who's just joined the game is to find an alliance to join.This is just a thought, but… how about setting it up so that a new player is sent straight to a page, with a list of alliances, with each alliance accompanied by a "Request To Join" button; where the "Request To Join" button opens a page to message the alliance leader? Possibly with the alliance leader to have the option to write a generic "Recruitment Message" - a very short one that appears on the list of alliances under the alliance name (long enough to say something like "Now Recruiting") and a longer one, a paragraph or so, that appears on the messaging page when requesting to join the alliance?
No.757
>>703Wait… Wait….
Is that an Alicorn Lyra?
>considers donating No.758
Unallied players don't even see the same header menu as allied players. I actually just put a header item marked "Get an alliance to play!" with links to the alliance list and the board on it.
As for some kind of castrated baby mode, I'm not too sure. To avoid clogging the tick script with unplayed accounts, I'd have to make it so that unallied players could fall off the map entirely (like everyone does in >CLOP). If the encouragement I just put in doesn't work after everything else is done, I'll seriously consider it.
>>757If it's in the show, there is an alicorn of it, no exceptions.
No.759
>>758Yeah, but you posted a *Lyra*! Could have put in a twilight or dashie, or Fluffle puff, but you went with Lyra?
>is happy No.763
>>759I have a Dust-icorn!
No.766
Just asking: If I grant an ability to an alliance member for several ticks, and then grant the same ability once more, it just adds to the duration, right? It doesn't do silly things like resetting or giving the ability twice, redundantly, right?
No.767
>>766Yes, it just adds to the duration.
No.769
What does Banking do, exactly? From what you said in the past, I imagine it "reserves" resources for defensive actions? So the resources only get used when needed, right?
No.771
No.915
You guys were right. It's been over a day, and I've gotten no responses from *any* of the unaligned players whatsoever.
On an unrelated note, what plans do you have for Faith?
No.918
>>915Now you understand our pain.
I'm not sure as to what we will do with faith. At the very least it's a good tier three dump.
No.919
wow
I logged into compounds, figured I might as well check how it works before I bugger off for good…
…and you can literally do nothing without an alliance.
That's a flush. Sorry.
No.924
>>915Faith can currently be used to create an alliance focus, if that's any help.
>>919
> you can literally do nothing without an alliance.By design, I'm told. Several alliances are actively (not very successfully) recruiting new members, though.
No.937
>>919>one of the most well-known players in the game can't get an allianceI swear I do not understand the players half the time, I mean I really don't get it
Some elementary attack types coming soon.
>>918>not sure what to do with FaithMay I recommend creating your spreadsheets for Compounds sooner rather than later, and compare the total productive output of unfocused alliances to that of cooperating focused ones?
No.938
File: 1424171821459.jpg (114.32 KB, 823x970, 823:970, justice_freak_by_java_kat-….jpg)
>>937Haha, I don't think I'm autistic enough to make Spreadsheets yet.
I know there's a benefit to focusing, though. It's to bad you can't get a net gain though when you oppose your own alliance focus.
No.939
>>938>I don't think I'm autistic enough to make Spreadsheets yet.Why not? You can bet your left nut The Progress Engine is.
No.940
>>939>Why not? You can bet your left nut The Progress Engine is.Because whip cracking only gets you so far really.
I can bet on lots of human behaviors at play though. I'm not sure how many of them fall on the ""Fun"" side of the Venn Diagram right now.
No.941
>>939Hey I just like to play for the fun and the mechanics. I've never been a min-max OCD player. If that's there type of fun then so be it. :3
No.944
>>937>one of the most well-known players in the game can't get an alliance>can'tI've had three independent offers, but if I can't do a damn thing outside of an alliance, there is no way for me to tell whether i'd even enjoy the mechanics.
There's no way for me to learn things before agreeing to commit to a game I know nothing about by applying for membership somewhere.
As a new player, I am decidedly uncomfortable about asking alliances to invite me, because -it costs them resources to invite me- and -I don't know whether i'll play the game for even an hour once I can see 'the real game'-
No.945
>>944>three Pardon me, scratch that. Four.
No.946
>>944And that's the real crust of the issue. Getting players to stay and somehow hoping they commit so they don't hurt you. I think this game is even more closed off than clop was in this regard and I worry that things will go stale.
No.947
File: 1424182385210.png (1.3 MB, 1280x1634, 640:817, tea_time_with_diamond_tiar….png)
>>944It doesn't cost us anything to invite you. Come and check the game out.
No.948
>>947>It doesn't cost us anything to invite you.Technically it will.
Not specifically at this exact second, but over time it will. It definitely affects Progress Engine, LBoS, FFA, PI, and Karakos.
Because, unless I have the system entirely wrong here. It charges when we send out the invite, no matter what the recipient decides in the end.
No.949
>>948Well, the cost goes back down whenever the invitation is rescinded. But yeah, pretty much.
>>944>As a new player, I am decidedly uncomfortable about asking alliances to invite me, because -it costs them resources to invite me- and -I don't know whether i'll play the game for even an hour once I can see 'the real game'-It's fine, really. We can invite you to the group, and help you develop your production! And I'd suggest sticking around until war is completed. You won't regret it.
No.951
>>946>crustCrux!
Anyway, I suppose I need to put in a demo mode of some kind. Maybe just a demo mode as in a pure demo, one that can't actually affect anything. After war.
No.953
I also just decided to make lying more cost-effective by quintupling the cost to investigate things.
No.954
File: 1424193869376.jpg (10.31 KB, 236x185, 236:185, 396a7ed87b30f5eb34184b73a7….jpg)
>>951My bad. My phone hates me.
No.955
>>951(I'm definitely going to do this, but before then, maybe someone would like to post some screenshots of what the game looks like?)
No.958
I'd considered making Mercilessness costs based on the relative tiers of the attacker and defender, but then I wised up and realized that people would just get a low-tier friend to do it.
Therefore, attacking anyone T4 or below costs increasing amounts of Mercilessness.
Yes, that means that you need access to T5 resources to attack anyone currently in the game.
No.959
I'm going to begin with four types of attacks:
Burden. Sends your target unwanted resources.
Corruption. Changes your target's focus, or gives your target a focus.
Brutality. Direct damage to production.
Despair. Direct damage to satisfaction. The most cost-effective of the four. Auto-defended with banked Serenity instead of banked Security like the others.
Yes, it will be prudent to send out "feeler" attacks to see who's got Heroism.
I think I'm going to rename Reward to Shelter and permit manual defenses with hefty amounts of it.
I'm also thinking of a good, balanced way to allow stealing that can't be easy-countered by just moving the wanted stuff before the attack hits.
No.960
>>958Excellent, excellent! You're really pulling all the stops, admin.
>>959>Burden. Sends your target unwanted resources.>Corruption. Changes your target's focus, or gives your target a focus.You even added ways to rub your e-horsedick into the enemy's face! Bravo!
No.961
>>959So, attacks work on an individual level, instead of an alliance level? Or is that just for t4 battles?
Also, might want to consider things like average production in a given alliance, or highest/lowest individuals in the alliance when determining the balancing factor of mercilessness.
Bets on who rushes t5 first! Place yer bets! Race begins… NOW! No.962
>>959
> Burden. Sends your target unwanted resources.> Corruption. Changes your target's focus, or gives your target a focus.Hmmm.
These could be imaginatively used to help a player as well as harm them; e.g. using Burden to send *wanted* resources to an offline player. Of course, in order to accept such help, one would need to have no Security, which would leave one open for a Brutality attack…
> I'm also thinking of a good, balanced way to allow stealing that can't be easy-countered by just moving the wanted stuff before the attack hits.How about permitting such a victim to accumulate a Debt, a negative amount of a resource, making that resource entirely unusable until the Debt is gone? And perhaps forcing auto-compounding to deal with a Debt first, before compounding what the player wants compounded?
…the idea will need a few details filled in around the edges, but I think it fulfils the necessary conditions.
No.963
>>962Oh, that 'debt' thing sounds suspiciously like…
VOID!
No.964
File: 1424200862358.jpg (71.88 KB, 1069x748, 1069:748, derpy_found_a_kv_2_by_mrlo….jpg)
>>962>How about permitting such a victim to accumulate a Debt, a negative amount of a resource, making that resource entirely unusable until the Debt is gone? And perhaps forcing auto-compounding to deal with a Debt first, before compounding what the player wants compounded?I like that.
No.965
>>959Oh, question!
Do banked defensive resources require complements? If so, from where?
No.966
>>961I'm thinking the first to hit T5 will be either me or CDR Hurricane.
Clearly, being from the pre-Unification Era gave us both an advantage… somehow…
No.967
>>963I'm still not going to talk about Void for a good, long while.
No.968
>>965Banked defensive resources require complements from the resource pool, like usual.
No.969
I know I just added it, but I think I'm going to remove Hypocrisy as a mechanic. It's extremely unlikely that it'll ever be used and people would just have one player expose and another player lie if it ever became an issue.
I'm going to rename the resource to Malice and let players use it to deflect an attack to someone who isn't a member of either the attacker's or the defender's alliance.
No.970
File: 1424207601314.png (172.95 KB, 486x660, 81:110, 210396__safe_screencap_lig….PNG)
>>969>I'm going to rename the resource to Malice and let players use it to deflect an attack to someone who isn't a member of either the attacker's or the defender's alliance.And to counter it?
No.971
>>970It's a freshly created attack from the person using Malice to the defender.
Yes, three people in three alliances can round-robin an attack indefinitely.
No.972
>>971…And is it possible to penetrate Malice defenses, or at least confirm the attacks' original owner?
No.973
>>972No and no.
The only way to penetrate any defense in Compounds is to run the defender out of the resources he needs to defend with. An attacker can attack as many times as he likes, however, and defending costs resources each time, whether manually or through banked resources.
A Malice redirection destroys the original attack and recreates it under the redirector's identity. (This means that redirecting a Burden attack temporarily burdens the person doing the redirection.)
No.1005
>>973>>959>>969>>971>>973General questions:
There will be a waiting period between sending an attack and it landing, yes? Are there specific war ticks again, or can attacks hit on any given tick?
>MaliceSo a Malice redirection is effectively both a defense and an attack, or are there other costs, too? Gotta balance that well.
Also, once those "budding alliances" are a thing, a mechanic should be in place to determine who's allied with whom, like alliance pacts. Else redirection to a "third party" could as well be the allies of the original offender. It could also be used to determine who's allied with whom for other stuff, like sat increase per Camaraderie. Then again, too much of that would kinda defeat the part where it's supposed to be actually two alliances, so maybe not.
>>962>DebtI like the idea. If you'd simply allow resources to go into negative (not by anything voluntary, of course), you'd quasi get the desired result. Exploitation could occur with dead players, so gotta have something to correct such issues.
Suggestions: Make a Lie mechanic for the market where you lie about what the other party spends, not just what they get. I'd made this sooner, but I myself saw the major problem of what to do if the deceived doesn't have the requisite resource/amount. The Debt mechanic could help out here, too.
With Banking functionality, make it possible to "reserve" Favor (or maybe another resource) to apply once a member requests an ability (he was whitelisted to)? Maybe make it more expensive than just granting the ability, so there's a drawback? I don't feel terribly strong about this, as I can see the intention behind the current system (being resource sinks when used), but it would allow users in different timezones to better coordinate. Alternatively, a way to grant abilities starting in X ticks (so I could grant "Give" for two ticks, starting in six hours)?
No.1007
>>>1005
But malice redirection trickery would be awesome! I for one approve of hot-potato as a war thing, *especially* if it requires at least three parties.
>Debt
I was thinking about this, and then I realized that it's absurdly exploitable; If there is no cap to the amount of debt one can be in, then you can just farm stuff forever, like dropping negative money.
I'm thinking that there should be a lower cap to debt, or else *tremendous* diminishing returns for overlooting.
No.1008
>>1005
>banking logisticsLBoS already solved that problem :P
No.1009
>>1007Yes, you're right… depending on the exact mechanics, maybe that resource just can't be attacked any more, if you have Debt. If attacking is not straight targeting everything, then there could be other things hit instead. So not directly a cap per se, but you'd have to loot everything at once. Again, depending on exact mechanics, like attack cost, that could maybe be enough.
>>1008Yes? How do you do it?
No.1010
>>1009I'll explain the idea privately (can't let the advantage go to waste, you understand).
No.1012
>>968>like usualDoes that mean we have to pay complements only when we are above the storage soft cap?
No.1017
>>1012Absolutely everything you have is put into a master list of Total Stuff You Have to determine if you have to pay anything.
By the way, you'll be able to spy on each other tonight, and I hope to have war working before *checks* CCC is in a position to make war.
No.1019
Redirecting an attack will cost Mercilessness only if the target is under your tier (and T4 or lower).
So if a T5 attacks a T4, the T4 can kick it to another T4.
No.1021
Doing shit. Please pardon my dust.
No.1022
>>1019So, this'll be fixed pretty quick?
Right-o
No.1023
No.1024
>>1023Just did, yes. This was some back-end stuff that let me remove some duplicated code (and after spying gets in, triplicated).
I think I'm going to keep user abilities a secret, though. Letting people spy on each other's resources and focuses is one thing, but user abilities can be used as a gauge of *how much the alliance leader trusts the user* and that ought to stay private.
No.1026
No.1032
Spying is in! View a user and click Spy. Let me know if it doesn't work.
No.1038
>>1032Are there plans to set up false information for spying? Or at least some way to intercept it?
Because this seems too wondrous and easy.
No.1041
>>703Any plan to do anything about this admin?
No.1043
>>1041Yeah this is starting to get silly.
No.1045
>>1043>>1041Admin might not take any action, but we will.
Simple reason? Got most of the DNA already.
No point in the trick beyond that, so basically just one more round of burners and then it's ogre~
Because it's so totally against the rules to do this No.1046
File: 1424378067600.jpg (52.97 KB, 250x316, 125:158, tumblr_n739asVjKy1qefzjvo1….jpg)
>>1045Are you on sure that doesn't count as an exploitation?
No.1047
>>1046It's a clever trick. There's a lot of grey area when it comes to the difference between an actual exploit and what's just a clever idea, so it comes down to opinion.
I'll write out a big wall O text with all the questionable ideas we've come up with so far, and a number of solutions that should help prevent them from being problems anymore. But later :^) No.1049
>>1047The only reason why admin didn't fix it is that he feels sorry for you.
Oh, and because he's sick of Pibb's whining.
Kinda funny that the guy who has been constantly complaining about cheaters if so fond of using exploits. Hypocrisy much? No.1051
>>1049Admin fixes exploits; this is either A. not an exploit or B. completely beneath his notice, and therefore… not an exploit!
I'm not completely sure which one it is; Admin cares not for shenanigans :P
It's not like we're exploiting a glitch; this is just a natural consequence of the system~ No.1052
>>1049It interesting, though: if what he's doing is an exploit, so is sending help to new players.
Or existing players who lose their nation and their allies want to build back up.
You're not making the argument that it's an exploit to build other players up… are you?
No.1054
>a thread marked "sequel discussion"
>people whinging about a ghetto ascension attempt that's obviously being promoted by someone with enough money to fund it
This is why "and the numbers just keep going up forever" sucks
No.1056
>>1049It's a clever trick, not an exploit. You should know better. I mean, giving inactives nations to avoid sat penalties while another person picks it up it faaar more exploity.
Retard logic No.1057
>>1056That particular trick let you have an empire of indefinite size (as large as there are inactive players). All you have to do is conquer, give back, and reconquer to grab the resources, over and over again.
And don't tell me you don't have plans to attack PIBH once he gets out of noob week, alicorns or not. (And no, it is mathematically impossible to ascend during noob week.)
No.1058
>>1057…PIBH will never come out of noob week…that's the point…
No.1059
>>1058Then he can't ever ascend, so what's the point of this exercise?
No.1060
>>1059PIBH isn't trying to ascend, Scarf is. And while it might not be possible to ascend during noob week, getting alicorn is.
>That particular trick let you have an empire of indefinite size (as large as there are inactive players). All you have to do is conquer, give back, and reconquer to grab the resources, over and over again.Point to an instance this was done then. Every time a nation was given to an inactive it was to be picked up by an MTV's member. You know, growing the alliance.
No.1061
>>1060Admin hates nation transfers; that's the problem. He stopped me from using stasis as a shield, and then he stopped you from dodging empire sat penalties, both for no other reason than to stop us from transferring nations around easily.
Get mad if you will; but this is quite objectively fair of Admin.
No.1062
>>1061Point is we conquered the nations we gave away. You hid behind noob week.
No.1063
>>1061I mean I don't care either way. I'm not upset I can't do it anymore. I rarely, if ever did. Just pointing to the stupidity of your "it's a clever trick" argument.
No.1064
In unrelated sequel related conversation, are there any plans on how CLOP Reboot could be handled to reduce… lets call it rampant faggotry when attacks are still on a scale to cripple players instead of just hinder?
By the way, Infinity is still recruiting…
No.1065
>>1060Then why don't you just kill Scarf?
I'm not saying this isn't lame (it is), but all I'm hearing is "fix this" and not "Here's what you should implement". There is no easy fix here that doesn't involve dramatically revamping the way the game works.
Also, I don't fix things based on whether or not something is currently being done, I fix them based on whether or not they can be done at all (because sooner or later somebody is going to do them).
I sure wish I was being paid for my time.
>>1064At some point, it becomes less resource-intensive for the attack-ee to build back up than for the attacker to keep going.
Also, you can't develop the kind of massive empire you can in >CLOP unless you have actual players to do it with.
No.1066
>>1051Except that he admitted that it's an exploit, but
>>1049>The only reason why admin didn't fix it is that he feels sorry for you.>>1056This never happened and it's not even possible anymore you moron.
>>1065>but all I'm hearing is "fix this" and not "Here's what you should implement"Well, I told you about my idea. Make it impossible to build forbidden research facilities while players are in noob protection.
If Compounds hasn't enough alliances, you could make uplifting cheaper instead of allowing people to use exploits in Clop.
No.1067
>>1065>unless you have actual players to do it with.Yeah. those people get in my way all the time.
Bust as for the actual sequel in question, Taxation is still listed as Burden in the drop down listings.
No.1068
>>1066Squeezing DNA out of nations through deliberate rebels… *that* is questionable.
Denying DNA facilities to noob week?
There is literally no purpose to that besides letting you have a better shot at me. Admin has never directly taken a side like that, and I sincerely hope he doesn't decide that your idea is anything but a bald-faced attempt to screw me over personally.
Noob week is *not* an exploit.
No.1069
>>1068*research facilities
No.1070
>>1067I changed it to Burden some time ago, as I'm going to change a couple of other names. If you still see "Taxation" anywhere in the game, let me know; it's outdated.
No.1071
>>1066>This never happened and it's not even possible anymore you moron.I know, I was being sarcastic…I guess you didn't pick up on that…
>>1065>Then why don't you just kill Scarf?We fully intend to, and I don't much care that he's doing this. I'm merely likening what he's doing now to something he has complained about in the past, and the hypocrisy involved in differentiating the two.
Scarf is an idiot and he likes to define things to suit himself. Either they're both exploits, or neither of them are.
No.1072
>>1071Your impotent rage is hilarious, just saying.
No.1073
>>1070Okay, reverse the statement then.
Burden appears as Taxation when transferring elements to the alliance pool, transferring from the alliance pool, in the user stockpiles, and when manually compounding.
It actually shows up in more places as Taxation from what I can see.
>>1071>the hypocrisyDouble standards don't work in relationships. If you don't want them doing something, you shouldn't be doing it either. No.1074
>>1038I'm considering banked Unity to block this.
Should I?
No.1075
>>1074Instead of unity blocking spying, perhaps have it increase the cost to spy?
No.1076
>>1074Yes, there should be something to balance the usefulness of spying. The best way is probably to implement a defense mechanism.
A much cooler, but SIGNIFICANTLY more difficult to implement would be that you would get information from spying, but some (or all) of it would be false if the attempt was defended.
>inb4 never gonna happenI know, I know. Let me dream.
>>1075Flat out increasing the cost would work too, but a blocking mechanic allows easy spying against unprepared targets instead of still costing much, while against a block, you can hit the button some more, thus costing you more resources anyway.
No.1077
Sorry for doublepost.
Shelter is still listed as Reward in all (I think) dropdown menus.
No.1080
>tfw admin doesn't know jack shit about his own game.
No.1081
>>1080Welcome to the show~ :3
No.1082
Something that's supposed to be an endgame achievement accomplished within noob week. gg
No.1083
>>1082
>implying not complete endgame, ascension or not No.1084
>>1083Gratz finding a way to successfully do nothing and feel accomplished.
No.1086
>>1080Ah, fuck, I got my math wrong, didn't I?
30 ticks for Transponyism, 34 ticks for ascension, that's only 128 hours.
It's still batshit insane.
what have I wrought
No.1092
>>1089As much as I approve of this post, I *did* make a specific thread for all things related to my ascent:
http://8ch.net/compounds/res/1085.htmlLet's move it there, people~
No.1095
Attacks will arrive generally more quickly than in >CLOP (maximum 8 ticks, some 4 ticks). I might change this, and I might allow spending a certain resource to make attacks arrive more quickly.
I think I'm just going to implement straight-up spy blocking for a price of banked Unity that starts out equal to the price of spying.
No.1096
No.1097
>>1095Four ticks seems like a good minimum time to me. That's twelve hours; if it gets down to three or fewer ticks, then it becomes possible to launch an attack about when someone logs off to go to sleep and have it land before they log in again and can react, which just seems like a bad idea.
No.1098
>>1097>>1095I'm *really* opposed to the idea of faster landing attacks. Sure, it might be 'expected' to log in every 12 hours, and I know I log in a lot more often than that, but apparently some people have lives.
Forcing activity this way would only serve to increase the personal stress from war without providing much in terms of benefits, and scare off potential players that don't want to invest themselves completely.
24 hour minimum pls, unless there's another *significant* limiting factor, like a cap on the number of attacks that can be sent in a certain timeframe (which would be a terrible idea). Just 24 hours for attacks to land is what I would favor, possibly with an expensive option that gives an exception for sat attacks.
Banked security can only go so far, after all.
No.1099
>>1095>>1097>>1098I also would say 12 hours is the absolute minimum. Even I have streaks as long as this where I don't check, and I'm online too much as it is . ^^"
Better make it 24 hours, or even 36, depending on how expensive the option for faster landing is.
I know Ialready asked that question, but will there be war ticks, or will attacks simply land n ticks after sending?
No.1100
>>1098>>1097>>1095>>1099I personally would like the ability for <24hr attacks. But maybe give it a cost. A reasonably prohibitive one.
I am also curious as to whether war ticks will be a thing?
No.1101
>>1098>I'm *really* opposed to the idea of faster landing attacks.I agree. 12 hour attacks is unreasonable for a browser game that is neither my life nor my job.
No.1103
You guys seem to be forgetting that getting hit isn't as big of a deal as it was in clop. Some similar games have /instant/ attacks just with delays between them.
No.1106
>>1103True. What's the point of having an auto defense system, based on careful preplanning if you never get around to using the autodefense system because you have plenty of time to see things coming?
I'm fine with a 6 hour/2 tick minimum myself, even though I know it'll get abused.
Exponential costs of course.
No.1108
War ticks will not exist.
It's Burden attacks that I plan on making 12 hours. They're difficult to use as is, and every tick that a Burden attack still hasn't hit, the attacker still has those resources to pay complements on.
No.1109
Of course, some attacks cost more than others, and a more expensive attack costs more to repel.
No.1110
>>1109Hey admin. Something I've never understood. What the heck does 'Spend Resources' do?
No.1112
>>1110The ability Spend Resources lets you spend resources in the service of the alliance. Right now, this extends to increasing satisfaction, increasing alliance satisfaction, and purchasing alliance abilities.
No.1113
>>1112Wait… You're supposed to need 'spend resources' to spend the alliances resources, for example favour on abilities? I mean that makes perfect sense but that's not actually the case.
No.1114
>>1113>>1112Oh or do you mean the Benefience based abilities?
No.1115
>>1114I mean the Benevolence abilities, yes.
No.1116
>>1112("increasing alliance satisfaction" should be "increasing other alliances' satisfaction")
No.1117
>>1113>but that's not actually the case.I'm pretty sure the owner doesn't have to give themselves abilities to take most alliance actions.
It would cause a problem if you couldn't use Grant Ability really.
As for if anyone else can do them at whim, I think we need additional input to find out.
No.1118
>>1117The owner doesn't need to (and can't, it's an error condition) give himself any alliance abilities to do anything.
No one else can do anything on the Alliance screen without permission.
No.1119
>>1117I was not referring to myself. It's pretty obvious alliance leaders inherently have all the abilities.
No.1120
>>1118Have you discarded the suggestion of a way to see all the currently offered trades? It's so tedious to check all the compounds you might have an interest in buying via the drop down menus. It would almost certainly make the market suck less.
No.1122
>>1120I don't know how annoying it would be to code in, but I really like the reminder of what exactly you have in clop's marketplace and deal dropdown menus. "You have (blah) (resource)" would make several things easier, in particular the alliance bank. I don't like jumping between my overview and what I'm doing…
No.1123
>>1120>>1122I suppose I'll get to both of these. Let me finish up war first.
No.1124
No.1132
Do you guys agree with the costs on the Make War screen?
War should be completely finished sometime tonight. Without T5 Mercilessness, though, no one will be able to make war as of yet.
No.1133
>>1132Hard to say, without knowing what impact (in terms of numbers) each attack has. Definitely seems like you're going for big chunks instead of smaller "sliding" numbers.
Is "Repulsion" getting the attack back at it's creator? Is that why it's so expensive? I thought Shelter was supposed to negate the attack?
No.1134
>>1133Re-asking the question after making some changes.
No.1135
>>1134Okay, do these numbers look good to start with or should I change them?
No.1136
>>1132So, what's this 'cancellation', and why is it half the cost of Shelter?
Also, Heroism?
No.1137
>>1135They're a *lot* higher than I expected… I was thinking that it would work on an individual resource by resource basis, or at least in smaller chunks, so that you didn't need to blow your entire softcap on one shot or so. Maybe divide everything by 10, and compensate damage roughly equally? Just so that there's more flexibility in battle options?
No.1138
>>1136Cancellation refers to recalling your own attack and getting half of what you spent back.
Yeah, I suppose I should make Heroism cost different amounts depending on the type of attack it's attracting, shouldn't I?
No.1139
>>1138Recalling your own….
Okay, I guess that's a thing. Malice being what it is and all.
No.1141
>>1139Oh, no. Something redirected with Malice, or even attracted with Heroism, can't be cancelled at all.
No.1142
>>1137I thought it was going to be this, too. But I'm fine with the system as it is now, too.
>>1138Both Shelter and Serenity/Security do the same thing, right? Why is Shelter-ing so expensive, then? Not having defenders bonus is one thing, but double the atack cost?
No.1143
>>1141What, not even the redirector can cancel a malice bounce?
No.1145
>>1142Shelter is a Tier 2 compound. It actually costs the same total number of elements to shelter as to attack. And it's more expensive because after-the-fact protection is supposed to be harder than simple shielding.
>>1143Nope. This is intentional. Once you use Malice, there's no going back. To let people cancel redirected things would be an exploit.
No.1146
>>1145Hmm…yeah, alright.
When does come defense into play? I was under the impression that Se* was spent when the attack lands? Spending Shelter half a minute before does the same thing, so there wouldn't be a difference between the two (except from their Tier; didn't think enough)
Or does it work differently?
No.1148
>>1137Also, "But my softcaps!" is not an argument, I'm considering both reducing the softcaps (to maybe 8 times instead of 10 times, and maybe +40 instead of +50) and increasing the power of Satisfaction. People so easily dodging the fundamental mechanic of the game is really a design flaw.
>>1146Se* is spent on the *attempt* to attack. Blocking happens immediately.
No.1150
Oh boy, the tick script broke when I put war in! Let's see what I fucked up.
No.1152
>>1148>CLOP for losersking immediatelyThat explains it, then.
>softcapsWell, I could've told you that beforehand. Dodging upkeep IS better than reducing it, as Minty once put it. But I thought the system was put in place to negate hoarding? It does that quite well, with everyone being "forced" into a streaming economy. Reducing softcaps won't change that much, just let resource sinks kick in
a bit earlier.
No.1153
>>1152*groan* time to remove that wordfilter
No.1154
>impact of attacks
>400 Brutality for 1 production
I guess that explains the high prices then. Can't divide that up more.
Seems a bit high for the current economy, but I can see those prices working out fine for players in the position to actually attack, i.e. T5.
No.1155
>>1154Yeah, I learned my lesson about "the current economy" from >CLOP. NEVER balance anything on the way things are; balance them on how they're going to be when the playerbase gets serious about navigating the system.
Otherwise you have people doing things like speedrunning ascension.
No.1158
>>1155To be fair, power creep is a thing that GETS out of hand without rebalancing, regardless of how high the bar gets set at first. Remember that >CLOP exists for more than a year of growing. "Navigating the system" is only one part, actually having the resources to implement ideas is another. On the other hand, certain things
are too expensive, difficult, etc. for a starter economy if you balance them for an established one. If those things are necessities (in contrast to war, which in this case isn't inherent in growing/not dying) you'd have a problem.
For what it's worth, Compounds will probably be fine for the time being. We didn't even hit midgame yet, according to what I read between the lines, and exponential cost (including upkeep) does its own to dampen growth a bit. Never be afraid to review and rebalance though.
No.1167
I might do some more testing, but I think war is where I want it.
I'll get started on drop-downs and, yes, "all items on the Marketplace".
No.1169
>>1122Just got this done.
>>1120I suppose I'll get to this now.
No.1170
>>1169Based Admin is Based.
No.1171
Huh, easier than I thought. Done.
No.1175
>>1171Thanks! That should make the market much more useful.
No.1228
Okay, I'm confused.
I woke up to find:
__The alliance did not have enough Generosity, so it lost 301 Laughter.
The alliance lost all its satisfaction from not being able to pay for its resources.
Everyone in the alliance lost 1 production and all of their autocompounding because the alliance could not pay for its resources.__
Which is my fault for sleeping in 30 minutes, and trying to save money, because my understanding of the system was that satisfaction would be attacked before production.
Which is STILL fine, because it notes that the alliance lost all it's satisfaction right there in the report.
But… image related.
No.1232
>>1228Yeah, this was a fuckup. Fixed, and your alliance's production restored.
No.1290
Question: On the Market, if I inspect an offer, does it reveal which user it put up, if it is a different one than listed (if he used Libel)? Because I just tried inspecting an offer from anonymous, and all it said was that it was what it claimed to be; no info as to who put it up. Oversight or working as intended?
No.1292
>>1290Woah, massive oversight. In fact, the inspection might have been wrong. Fixing.
No.1294
Wow, fixed. In fact, inspection wasn't even working at all.
No.1298
>>1290If you'd like to test this again, I've just put an anonymous offer on the market…
No.1300
>>1298Thanks. I already did test it with the original one (it turned out to be Minty's). Seems to work now.
No.1306
are we getting a log for the alliance storage?
No.1307
>>1306I'll make this an ability.
No.1309
>>1307Done. 7 Benevolence a tick and the alliance can see withdrawals and deposits.
No.1321
File: 1425193697340.png (950.37 KB, 4377x5000, 4377:5000, cloud_kicker_vector_by_koo….png)
How does one disband an alliance?
No.1322
>>1321Not implemented. Try asking admin.
No.1326
>>1321I was hoping not to have to put this in, but I suppose I should.
No.1386
Okay, time to get back to work.
I think I'm going to get started on Philippy, although I'm not sure who's going to use it, at least at first.
Then I'll start making mechanics for stealing stuff.
Alliances, consider recruiting >CLOPpers instead of just people currently in Compounds.
No.1406
>>1386Yes! The unique error messages are back!
No.1410
Here's how Philippy and Bullshit will work.
Philippy puts an amount of an item available in a special not-marketplace for free. A limit can be set for how much stuff can be grabbed by any newbie (up to Tier 3) in any one tick.
However, if the offer is Bullshit, the poor sucker trying to accept charity of the fake item will find himself forced to have all of the real item instead.
No.1421
Philippy tonight at the latest.
Remember, guys, Compounds isn't >CLOP. Consider advertising your Compounds alliances in places where >CLOP wouldn't be acceptable.
No.1423
Midway through debugging Philippy now.
No.1424
It's in. As usual, point out where I've fucked up.
No.1429
>>1424Yeah, you made a sequel to >Clop.
No.1431
>>1430THE NAME GREMLIN STRIKES AGAIN
ARGH
No.1434
No.1441
No.1442
>>703Something odd I've noticed; I have a certain amount of banked Lies and Treachery, in case of, well, I'm not quite sure what, but surely better protected than not.
Lately, I noticed my Lies going down. Clearly, I concluded, someone was attacking me in some way, and my banked Lies were acting as a defense. I didn't have "see attack attempts" or "see spy attempts" turned on at the time, so I didn't know any more.
I turned both abilities on, in the hope of seeing what was going on. Now, just recently, my banked Lies have dropped yet again; but there is nothing in my reports.
Is this what's supposed to happen? What do Lies do, anyway?
No.1444
>>1442It blocks inspection attempts on the markets.
Which is kind of unfair, seeing as a T5 element has a pretty limited number of sources, and it's blocking a T2 element.
No.1445
>>1444
> It blocks inspection attempts on the markets.Oh, that makes sense! I should probably have had "log marketplace" on, then, in order to see it in my reports.
> Which is kind of unfair, seeing as a T5 element has a pretty limited number of sources, and it's blocking a T2 element.I can assure you that absolutely all of my Optimism on the market is perfectly genuine. Please ignore the fact that I am currently restocking my banked Lies and feel free to purchase as much Optimism as you want.
No.1446
>>1441>daylight enslaving time fucked things upWill fix.
Also going to do some more on banked resources today/tonight.
No.1447
(Although people effectively using undocumented features is plenty of fun, such fun needs to eventually end.)
No.1452
I just realized that I never put in something vitally important.
A user without an alliance can make a new one.
A user WITH an alliance can't (and losing your alliance destroys your production).
Rectifying this.
Also, the banked resources thing is done.
No.1460
>>1452So, does that function have a confirmation dialog? Or a price? I'd rather not accidentally a new alliance before I wanted to.
Though I admit that would be pretty funny XD No.1462
also, lel at this
No.1471
>>1461Your resolution is terrible :\
(ty for the answer though)
No.1472
>>1471what do you mean "resolution is terrible"?
You do realise this it is only a partial cutout, not screenshot of full screen?
and the text is perfectly readable, nonetheless No.1473
I really did expect theft to be a much bigger part of the game in general.
With the entire list of T4 elements being backhanded and sneaky, I kind of expected there to be more options to be backhanded and sneaky to other players.
There doesn't seem to be a way to use wit or libel to attack under false identities, and the entire purpose of attacking right now is simply to cause injury to the target party. It's blowing resources to hurt someone. Which is really a transaction that ends in both parties being injured.
The fact that T5 is the only class capable of open aggression is going to be extremely limiting, in that most casual players will probably end up sticking around T4 once the March changes come into play. The first month of play seems to be pretty firmly in T4 at the moment anyways.
No.1474
I figured out what was bugging me about the attacks. I was updating my personal list of element abilities, and:
Low-Tier Target Costs
Tier 4 - 20 Mercilessness
Tier 3 - 80 Mercilessness
Tier 2 - 180 Mercilessness
Tier 1 - 320 Mercilessness
And this is just wrong.
Tier 4 produces all the attack types, it's not Merciless to attack someone who's ready to counter attack.
If you remove the prereq on attacking T4's, T4 can attack T4, and still require T5 to attack people that can't defend themselves.
I'm saying just drop the cost for attacking T4 entirely, and the game should spice up entirely.
Add in Looting and Robbery and Embezzlement and all that shit that makes piracy so fun, and people will break into that line of play in the drop of a hat.
No.1475
>>1473Like I said, stealing this week.
>>1474Anyone can attack anyone, as T5s can *sell* Mercilessness.
No.1477
>>1474I've had an offer for Mercilessness on the market for quite some time now, for anyone to take. And when it is taken, it will be replaced. It's even been unmasked as genuine.
Yes, the price is steep, but it's *there*. Any T4 can take it, at any point, and use it immediately (there need be no warning to a potential target). If you want to attack somepony, the means are there.
No.1479
>>1473>There doesn't seem to be a way to use wit or libel to attack under false identities, and the entire purpose of attacking right now is simply to cause injury to the target party. It's blowing resources to hurt someone. Which is really a transaction that ends in both parties being injured. >>1477> Any T4 can take it, at any point,Any T4 can pay an exorbitant fee to gain the ability to attack another T4 at normal rate, which will only hurt the target party.
You're still lazily gazing over the part where the aggressive party is injured just picking up the pittance of Mercilessness to achieve nothing of real value.
No.1480
>>1479
> Any T4 can pay an exorbitant fee to gain the ability to attack another T4 at normal rate, which will only hurt the target party.Yes, attacking has no real value right now. Removing the Mercilessness limitation on T4-vs-T4 attacks won't really fix that, which is (I think) the major point against attacking at the moment.
Allowing attacks that benefit the attacker, or attacks whose source can be disguised, or better yet both, would probably cause the amount of people wanting to start wars to go up quite sharply…
No.1481
>>1479You're probably right; I put in the ability to hurt each other (without regard to gain) first because of all the bad blood emanating from >CLOP. I figured you'd make more use of it than you did.
Fuck it, stealing (from marketplace items) in TONIGHT. Grander thefts later.
Ya'll mofos are going to *love* the T6 shit (altering game constants and element complements).
No.1484
>>1481>altering game constantsWhen I get to T6 I will alter the compliments to be required after infinite resources.
No.1485
>>1484That won't be alterable, sorry. Nor will the amount required to increase production.
You know all the stuff involving "costs X Nobility" and "costs X Heroism"? Yeah, that's the stuff that will be changeable.
No.1486
Okay, I think it works, have fun looting each other's shit
No.1487
>>1486You sure? I don't see anything…
No.1488
>>1487Go to Search Market, and you can opt to Loot stuff from any offer (by spending Looting, of course).
…people other than me need to put stuff on the market.
No.1491
>>1488To be fair a lot of us are in somewhat large alliances and to that extent we can just trade between each other and cover any gaps in production via focusing.
No.1492
>>1491That does make a difference, yes.
…incidentally, I would like to point out that my Mercilessness is no longer on the market. I'll put another batch up in a few hours.
No.1498
>>1481
>figured we'd ignore the lessons learned from the warAdmin, can you not into strategy? Attacking to hurt is one thing, but execution of a WAR is *very* different from that. The /logistics/ of war are paramount; it hardly matters if you have a strong attack if you can't *sustain* it. And if you end up costing yourself as much or more as you've cost your enemy, then you dun goofed.
Even if you're bigger and have a stronger economy.Hell, Brutality is more expensive than the average production boost, even if it lands unopposed! Burdening can be utterly countered with minimal happiness, so…. why bother?
If the Engine wasn't complete shit, then things might be different, but why waste possible production improvements or security resources on nutstomping? That's just not the LBoS style.Daily reminder that that is *EXACTLY* the Guild's style. No.1501
>>1498>the average production boost>in an environment with mostly T4 players>when there's a ^1.5 in the algorithmYou know better than this, Scarf.
No.1502
>>1501
>checks mathOkay, yes, I exaggerated the cost of Brutality. But the point remains that it is *expensive*, and easily blocked.
No.1503
>>1502>easily blockedHere's the fun part about Security blocks. Security applies to three things now, and Serenity applies to two. If you're pissed off at somebody, you and your friends (get more of those) can whittle his limited banked Security down with multiple types of your own attack resources and then hit him with the things you actually want to hit him with. Like Robbery, which is coming soon.
No.1504
>>1503Nuuuuuu, don't reveal that! It was supposed to be secret, like the
CENSORED overload strike, the
support, or the
REDACTED retaliation gambit…
UH I MEAN interesting idea right there hadn't thought of it that way nope not at all
No.1505
I should have a good Robbery solution tomorrow.
By the way, here's the State of the Elements that have no direct use yet:
Void: No comment.
Generosity, Honesty, Loyalty, Laughter, Kindness: I'm not sure if I'll put direct uses for any of these in. Heck, even Magic doesn't do a whole lot by itself (get to T2, big whoop).
Honor: Alliance relations. Will develop more by the end of the month.
Zeal: Relates to alliance attacks.
Robbery: Next on the list.
Embezzlement: Will do shortly after Robbery.
Theft: An alliance attack. This one might take the longest. I need to have a good think about how to implement the kind of thing I intend to do here.
Treason: I'll get to this.
Perfidy: The counterpart to Honor. Will develop more in relation to alliance deals/non-aggression pacts.
Sadness, Backstabbing: More alliance attack stuff.
Harmony: Before anyone gets to T6.
Oh, and make some more friends…
No.1506
>>1505I humbly suggest that any mention of Void be automatically filtered to the string
VOID. With spoiler tags, and capitalized. This will make it quite a bit more menacing, will it not?
Also, how are autists supposed to into friendship? That would be magic! No.1507
>>1505Wait, Encouragement does something?
What am I overlooking?
No.1508
>>1507Whoops, the overlooking was mine!
Players are encouraged to offer suggestions here.
No.1509
>>1508How about temporarily increase OTHER player's production. That would encourage more cooperation.
No.1510
Seriously? This is *surely* a maladaptive behavior, or at least it isn't healthy for the game! Where's the drama going to come from? What about the conflict? There can't be a story without conflict! This is Compounds, not >Hugbox!
Come back, Draze… we just want to play… >:3
No.1511
>>1510> This is Compounds, not >Hugbox!This is unintentionally hilarious I believe. The answer is that people will generate conflict.
No.1512
>>1511I assure you that the hilarity was completely intentional and furthermore intended to be open to interpretation. Also the questions were uniformly rhetorical~
I had thought you of all trips would notice that :P
No.1513
Admin, those t5 pictures are terrible… surely you can go with the other version, where it's just the missing element glowing red? Please? Before it drives us all out of our minds~??
No.1514
>>1513Any concurring opinions?
Anyway, Robbery is in. It's simple: you pick a resource, and if it hits, you get ALL of your target's resource. The target is not told what the resource you want is.
No.1515
And to make things fun and prevent people from easily cobbling together resource hiding tricks, I've decided to make it hit in 4 ticks.
No.1516
>>1514Actually, yes. When glancing over it, I see a mostly red blob. Can't remember what the "alternate version" looked like, but for the existing symbols, the outer ring of colors could be wider (i.e., the middle red portion be smaller), so you could better see which elements are in.
No.1517
>>1514I, too, concur. For most lower-level elements, it's not hard to tell which parts make it up by looking at the picture. For the T5 elements, I have to go and look at the list of elements.
I think it doesn't really help that they've all got a great big lump of red in the middle…
No.1518
>>1516>>1517I sent Myrami a message, he's the one who did these.
No.1519
I'll change them if anyone has an idea of how to improve those icons.
No.1520
>>1519As CCC and I said, maybe try to make the red midsection less prominent?
No.1521
>>1520I was playing around with this, but then the colors washed out really easily still.
Also, the "Need complements" on the overview page should be updated a bit. It's missleading with the new improved level caps.
No.1522
The "Need complements at" display has not yet been updated to match the new formula.
No.1523
>>1521>>1522>"need complements"Since we're at it, and since production happens before upkeep, could you include the tick's production into the number? Makes it easier to see how much you actually have to pay.
No.1524
No.1525
No.1526
>>1525Those look very good, particularly the second batch; very clear and easy to read. However, do bear in mind that some of us have white backgrounds; that gap might be easily mistaken for Generosity on a white background.
(Unless it's actually a black slice, not a transparent slice, of course).
No.1527
>>1525Looks good. Although I didn't mean to get rid of the red middle altogether, just making it smaller. No critique though; you tried and found it didn't look good, for all I know.
Maybe you could switch the elements around, so Lau/Hon and Gen/Kin are not next to each other? Since the upper and lower portion of the hexagons (I like those more than the circles) are somewhat small, it would help to distinguish them a bit more, I think? You could also try altering the proportions a bit, so these portions are bigger, thus better to make out…?
No.1528
>>1522Whoops, overlooked. Done.
>>1523>>1524This is one of those "it might be confusing both ways" things, but I suppose I'll do it.
No.1529
>>1528>This is one of those "it might be confusing both ways" things, but I suppose I'll do it.That would be especially confusing for anyone with focus because then their production is not actually their production.
No.1530
>>1529What I meant wasn't the "Need Complements at" section in top middle under "Status", but the "Complement required" column in the resource table. There, it's possible to take the "Per-tick generated" column into account, for each resource individually (useful for both foci and autocompounding). Yes, that would require specialized code and everything, so sorry admin for asking, but as it is, the table isn't reliable without recalculating yourself (regardless of if I need upkeep at all or the actual amount). The column header could just say "Complement required (incl. generated)" or some such, to make it clear.
No.1531
>>1528you also forgot to update guide.php No.1532
>>1525Ooo, I like both. Especially the second row, but maybe the first would be better so as to retain the angled theme.
Unless maybe you could just make the second row more hexagonal…? Harden up the outer edges? Tiny change, I'm just being picky right now :P
No.1533
>>1530Yeah, I'll do it this way.
Have the Ides changes really fucked anyone over? Are they encouraging more interdependence among alliances?
No.1534
>>1533….I'm going to go with "too early to tell".
No.1535
>>1525Also, here's an idea: Use the top row, but implement the glowing-red effect in the empty holes.
No.1536
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.