[ANN][HUC] Huntercoin - Worlds First Decentralized Game/World on the Blockchain

[snailbrain]

This looks fun. I am going to install it and give it a shot. I have not played a game in a while.

did you manage to get synced using the chain download?

- for those wanting to practice, you can use the testnet (send a message if you need testnet coins).

Coins are still easy to get ..

edit:
although i played quite hardcore - maybe 10 hours today - on and off with a few breaks while playing another mmorpg at the same time - i made over 11k HUCs.
I managed to dominate the person who was dominating the map - killed almost everyone of his hunters and never died once.
The unity client works perfect for controlling 20+ hunters with alarms etc.

I have made a very draft setup guide with poor formating (will fix) .. video will be coming soon > http://forum.huntercoin.org/index.php/topic,2145.msg5725.html#new

I expect it to become harder to get coins over the next few days..

[1715003888]

1715003888

[entropycoin]

well, started with ~7k down to around ~5k.  Innovative concept, but ultimately I can't devote enough consistent time for it to be a profitable endeavor as the time I would be willing to spend on this for fun would result in further losses.  I'll keep the coins i've managed to retain with the hope that the development team looks to appeal to a more causal user base with the aim of minimal profit for the vast majority of users vs the current model of a ton of profit for a few individuals at the expense of attracting newcomers and building the brand.

[snailbrain]

well, started with ~7k down to around ~5k.  Innovative concept, but ultimately I can't devote enough consistent time for it to be a profitable endeavor as the time I would be willing to spend on this for fun would result in further losses.  I'll keep the coins i've managed to retain with the hope that the development team looks to appeal to a more causal user base with the aim of minimal profit for the vast majority of users vs the current model of a ton of profit for a few individuals at the expense of attracting newcomers and building the brand.

Unlucky Unfortunately atm it does require a couple of hours of play - the next fork we may increase the amount of banks on the map to 100 and reduce carry capacity from 100 to 50. This should provide more exit points and possibly more hunters to kill.
Before the last update it did require a day or so to get any coins so we are trying to head that direction for a more casual play style.

If you have any suggestions please post on the huntercoin forum.

p.s. can i ask which client you used? if you used the QT, you would be at a serious disadvantage.

[MithrilMan]

Long post, but who cares about huntercoin should read

I'll keep the coins i've managed to retain with the hope that the development team looks to appeal to a more causal user base with the aim of minimal profit for the vast majority of users vs the current model of a ton of profit for a few individuals at the expense of attracting newcomers and building the brand.

I'm 100% with you about this, since day0 the game started to go from a "give all a chance to gain a penny" to "give few the most"
I'm not saying this was 100% wanted, but mostly because of
- raising a lot the player cost creation (from 1 HUC for 3 hunter to 205 HUC for a hunter)
- having very expensive fees (20 huc for destruct)
- giving always less importance to the "coin collector" task (even with the risk of a rumored idea even to raise simple moves tx fee)
- causing the disaster to wipe out the hunter cost completely (luckily this has been removed in the last fork)

the result is what you are saying: few winner, many losers

i said i don't think it was 100% wanted because some decision were taken to limit hunter creations or limit transactions and blockchain bloating, but i think that a technical problem shouldn't impact on the gameplay level (and more game difficulty on pvp and pruning will be the probable solutions to those 2 problems) but at some extent snailbrain idea is about having big rewards and this lead for sure to "few winners" and his way to limit transactions is always thoward "let's increase player cost, fees, etc.."
this post shows his thougths, dated March 19 (MM of course is me)

The problem is myself and MM have different views about Huntercoin - from pretty much early in it's life.
I originally wanted to increase cost to 50-100 HUCs + Disaster when it was first implimented (we would have been in the situation we are in now a  year ago - maybe that's not good or bad)..
MM wanted low cost 1-2 HUCs and to work from that direction - making it very cheap to play for all players
There were several reasons i wanted to increase costs and not just involving bots -- and probably several reasons MM didn't want to.

the whole post (worth being read, like every post in Development forum) is this: http://forum.huntercoin.org/index.php/topic,1042.0.html


I've to say I respect a lot the huntercoin daemon developer, @domob, for his work on this project and his attitude, unlucky he's not a huntercoin player so he can't have a focused view on the problems, I would have liked to know his thoughts about these problems, I've a feels that he would have been more thoward the "more fair distribution"


I've always been a sponsor of the "give all a chance to win even 0.0001$" but snailbrain actually is at the right opposite side, and forum posts we exchanged over the last year on huntercoin forum are there to be read (e.g. i wrote that a player would be happy to have a chance to win very few and will play the game, rather than risk losing a lot in few minutes.
Player investment need to be protected, and newcomers even more. BGB times ago wrote on huntercoin forum about having 3 different region on the map for different kind of players (in one region you can compete for harvest coins and can't be killed, in the inner one you compete in a kind of pvp arena and the middle zone is a mix
Unlucky it seems i was almost the one that wrote constantly on the forum, trying to set snailbrain on another route, so i think that if players don't agree about the current implementation and the direction the game is taking, then it should be a community that should say its thoughts about that

Unlucky I don't see a responsive community atm and so the decision is taken straight from snailbrain ideas.
Discussions on huntercoin forums end always in the same way, with snailbrain saying "please agree trying my proposal", and since no one object that except me, and even I giveup after spending 1 month talking on the same things with me saying A and snailbrain B, i always said "ok" to at least move something, without agreeing at all

Even if snailbrain says i'm mad for whatever reason (maybe just because my ideas are different from his ones and i talk about that writing long detailed posts) i'm not against him personally at all, I'm actually pretty calm and just objective and i'd love to see huntercoin successfull, otherwise why would i have invested so much time on that?

And when i said few days ago that my suggestion wasn't listened to, i waas refering to the simple snailbrain behaviour explained above, just take a read at the Development forum ( http://forum.huntercoin.org/index.php/board,5.0.html ) on old posts and you'll read that i always said "please don't do this change, that would be worse than now" and never been listened to, i proposed alternatives but never implemented if not on the next fork, to repair the damage.
I ensure to you that speaking to the void even giving good advices and arguments is something very depressing and i ended up not replying to the forum for a while because of this, it was really a waste of time and energies, and seeing changes being eventually added on the next fork to repair damage is the killing blow (e.g. disaster "coin steal" removed, 1x attack range are example of "too late implemented" changes)

So again, if you don't like current implementation and game direction, please talk about that and don't let me be the only voice against this, even because i'm really close to giving up again.
Let your voice be heard, and please say if you are actually a player (or have recently played) or not, because advices about people that just have bought HUCS as investment can't have a good point of view of the game itself (and i think they would be more than happy to have more player playing the game)


It would sound funny to me to know that most people would think current direction is the right one, because history and current playerbase (null) are pointing to another direction (and this should be already a significant bell that should sounds saying "hey, wrong direction, please turn back on trail")


@ snailbrain: you can think whatever you want about me but i'm 100% genuine and i've nothing vs your personally, i'm just against your ideas and some of your behaviours vs the community (e.g. don't listen who is saying something different).
I just want the best for huntercoin game, the concept is nice, the game actually isn't (and negating this wouldn't be objective) and the players decreased at every fork (and this is statistically assured.
I hope that a public post like this could change things, because every time i tried to speak with you in skype or whatever, it didn't changed anything
And don't forget all the players that said the same thing in the past and now don't follow the coin anymore because of your toxic replies to them (e.g. redbean, that was a positive player but you tagged him as a troll, or BGB that gave up playing the game, or people that sometime, like entropycoin here, say something important but isn't considered at the end, etc...)

[snailbrain]

I'm 100% with you about this, since day0 the game started to go from a "give all a chance to gain a penny" to "give few the most"
I'm not saying this was 100% wanted, but mostly because of
- raising a lot the player cost creation (from 1 HUC for 3 hunter to 205 HUC for a hunter)
- having very expensive fees (20 huc for destruct)
- giving always less importance to the "coin collector" task (even with the risk of a rumored idea even to raise simple moves tx fee)
- causing the disaster to wipe out the hunter cost completely (luckily this has been removed in the last fork)

There are a lot of things you are not considering mithilman -
Removing the 3 hunters and hunter costs :

1. The 3 hunters in it's previous form meant that Players could play for free by sending out none valued hunters and then recycling their "general".
2. The high destruct fee was a temporary measure of which you are well aware.. without it, any player can spam destruct none stop with no worries - common sense?
3. "giving always less importance to the "coin collector" - this is an automated task which has been overrun by bots for the last year - what the aim of the latest updates are - is to put bots in direct competition with humans, and humans vs humans via PvP. Otherwise it's not scaleable. In the past what you had was 40000 hunters stood on every coin spawn area and automated to go to and from banks.
4. When a human has the ability to control 20 to 30 hunters at a maximum, and a bot master can control 40000 Hunters as in the past - this does not work for harvesting coins without more thought.

i said i don't think it was 100% wanted because some decision were taken to limit hunter creations or limit transactions and blockchain bloating, but i think that a technical problem shouldn't impact on the gameplay level (and more game difficulty on pvp and pruning will be the probable solutions to those 2 problems) but at some extent snailbrain idea is about having big rewards and this lead for sure to "few winners" and his way to limit transactions is always thoward "let's increase player cost, fees, etc.."

exactly - what you are not mentioing is that it DOES affect gameplay and new players. What is the number 1 comment recently wth regards to the problem with huntercoin? Block Chain Size and Download.
The blockchain was 10gb 3 or 4 months after release - it's now 13gb (over 1 year later) due to the changes we have made.
Once we have a pruning solution then great.. or would you prefer the blockchain was now 40gb (estimated based on previous growth).

If you read what entropycoin said :

well, started with ~7k down to around ~5k.  Innovative concept, but ultimately I can't devote enough consistent time for it to be a profitable endeavor as the time I would be willing to spend on this for fun would result in further losses.  I'll keep the coins i've managed to retain with the hope that the development team looks to appeal to a more causal user base with the aim of minimal profit for the vast majority of users vs the current model of a ton of profit for a few individuals at the expense of attracting newcomers and building the brand.

Not having the Time :- This is what we are improving - we've cut down the time to play by order of magnitude but it is obviously not enough yet.

causal user base with the aim of minimal profit for the vast majority of users vs the current model of a ton of profit for a few individuals at the expense of attracting newcomers and building the brand

This is what can be worked on - in the previous updates 99% of the players on the map controlled by one dominator bot master and it being unable to compete with due to the sheer numbers of hunters he could control.
The purpose of the recent updates was to make it more difficult for this player, so far this has worked.

Of course there are many more improvements to make and they will come step by step. Making changes is not a simple process.

--

And don't forget all the players that said the same thing in the past and now don't follow the coin anymore because of your toxic replies to them (e.g. redbean)

Don't over exaggerate - you mean, 1 person?

--


I'm not going to argue with you mithrilman and start linking back to various other posts and threads ..


What i suggest you do right now is create a thread with your proposed ideas and lets discuss them - instead of getting mad and exploding, post your points (constructive arguments and propositions), let everyone see them and see what people think will work.

[MithrilMan]

I couldn't really expect other kind of response, but i wanted at least to try...

I'm 100% with you about this, since day0 the game started to go from a "give all a chance to gain a penny" to "give few the most"
I'm not saying this was 100% wanted, but mostly because of
- raising a lot the player cost creation (from 1 HUC for 3 hunter to 205 HUC for a hunter)
- having very expensive fees (20 huc for destruct)
- giving always less importance to the "coin collector" task (even with the risk of a rumored idea even to raise simple moves tx fee)
- causing the disaster to wipe out the hunter cost completely (luckily this has been removed in the last fork)

There are a lot of things you are not considering mithilman -
Removing the 3 hunters and hunter costs :

1. The 3 hunters in it's previous form meant that Players could play for free by sending out none valued hunters and then recycling their "general".
2. The high destruct fee was a temporary measure of which you are well aware.. without it, any player can spam destruct none stop with no worries - common sense?
3. "giving always less importance to the "coin collector" - this is an automated task which has been overrun by bots for the last year - what the aim of the latest updates are - is to put bots in direct competition with humans, and humans vs humans via PvP. Otherwise it's not scaleable. In the past what you had was 40000 hunters stood on every coin spawn area and automated to go to and from banks.
4. When a human has the ability to control 20 to 30 hunters at a maximum, and a bot master can control 40000 Hunters as in the past - this does not work for harvesting coins without more thought.

you just throw sands on eyes (are you a politician?), not focusing on the point i'm rising rather than parts of my sentences, eg:

i said:
- raising a lot the player cost creation (from 1 HUC for 3 hunter to 205 HUC for a hunter)
you replied
- The 3 hunters in it's previous form meant that Players could play for free by sending out none valued hunters and then recycling their "general".

is this a reply to the point i rised: the cost to play has been increased 600x?
you could have left a hunter cost at 1huc and just remove the other free hunters, but you decided to rise it to 200 because you thought that the map wouldn't have been crowded and so save blockchain size and you thought even that the botmaster would have discouraged botmaster/dominator from creating too much hunters, but at the end you just discouraged casual players, and rejecting this consideration is just not admitting real facts
even worse, this ended up in having the dominator using even less hunter to collect all the map, and this is why i asked to set a carry capacity limit: to prevent him soloing the map harvesting all (was just to limit that situation for a while).

Then about the disaster i said to you that because of increased cost, having the casual player lose 200 huc for random things would be a bullshit, but again you argued about saying that the botmaster/dominator again was discouraged creating more hunter, and again this ended up in even more players leaving the game because of losing that amount (and here and on forum there were complaining about that too).

This instead caused that for a long period (until disaster cost was removed, finally) we saw players playing only during first safe day, and then just very few hunter around that were risking to die, and most of them were from the "dominator", so we just ended up removing at all competition leaving him to do everything he wanted.

If you look things at things in chronological order, you can see that every attempt you made to contrast dominator, actually you just strengthened him, discouraging newcomers and casual players
Of course no one have a crystal ball to stare the future, but not learning from mistakes is another matter

Instad of trying to hunt this famigerate botmaster/dominator, wouldn't be better to focus on casual players and make the game funnier and attractive, rather than trying to hunt witches? With more competition, i'm pretty sure that any "dominator" will have trouble... moreover if you add some technical aspects to the pvp mix, like my proposals (see bottom)
If actions requires more thoughts, it would cause less hunter to be controlled by 1 person and the game would be more tactical that just looping "feint => attack+changepath" loop


about point 2 I said:
- having very expensive fees (20 huc for destruct)
you replied :
- the high destruct fee was a temporary measure of which you are well aware.. without it, any player can spam destruct none stop with no worries - common sense?

no! it's not common sense!
Common sense would have said that it's going to aggravate (if possible) the situation because of the pvp cost, as already stated multiple times and with lot of examples, and don't say it has been done with my approval or that it has been done because a change was needed at that time, because we wasted time talking for months about teleports, etc... (and you even said that you were going to add what i suggested, but of course you turned back on your idea) and at that time i already said about spell cooldown was mandatory in my opinion, and that rising cost was the worst choice, (i even rised the problem of some players being more responsive and could send faster then other the destruct tx then others), then i lost hopes and left the forum for a while, because you keep saying it was hard, or had no time nor will to do that and wanted to try your proposals, and now here we are... now you just ended up transfering coins from dominator to you that have time and know game rules more than casual players do, so of course you are fine with that.
And don't say that adding a spell cooldown is hard because it isn't at all
Btw i even remind that you recently proposed to rise the destruct cost to 50!!! so it's not a temporary fix in your mind

This would be a very easy update but solve some of the issues above, but i agree probably not a lot of improvement for fun.
NO Spell Timer (less complex)
Destruct costs @ 50 HUCs
Refund of Destruct if "cancelled out"
Destruct Pattern.

taken from http://forum.huntercoin.org/index.php/topic,1981.msg5517.html#msg5517

I could agree that implementing the teleport was more time consuming than random spawn+banks, i'm fine with that and i like the random spawn+banks addition (even if teleport was thought more to have some tower defense concept), but the spell timer was trivial, technically speaking, to implement and i'm sure domob can confirm this and it was mandatory for a successfull change, not rising costs!


on point 3, you are ignoring the fact that random spawn+bank already fixed lot of bots problem, because humans can compete a lot more vs them... but the fact that you rised so much the cost for everything, while on the map the generated coins are always the same, unbalanced a lot the game and makes "collecting" a waste of time (except now that with so few hunters, collecting still have some value, but this is just a collateral effect of not having a player base)

on point 4 you again focused on bots rather than casual players, because you think that bots are the cause of lack of player...

i said i don't think it was 100% wanted because some decision were taken to limit hunter creations or limit transactions and blockchain bloating, but i think that a technical problem shouldn't impact on the gameplay level (and more game difficulty on pvp and pruning will be the probable solutions to those 2 problems) but at some extent snailbrain idea is about having big rewards and this lead for sure to "few winners" and his way to limit transactions is always thoward "let's increase player cost, fees, etc.."

exactly - what you are not mentioing is that it DOES effect gameplay and new players. What is the number 1 comment recently wth regards to the problem with huntercoin? Block Chain Size and Download.
The blockchain was 10gb 3 or 4 months after release - it's now 13gb (over 1 year later) due to the changes we have made.
Once we have a pruning solution then great.. or would you prefer the blockchain was now 40gb (estimated based on previous growth).

maybe this is why i said that pruning was the 1st thing to focus on? and then focusing on gameplay issues?
I remember at first days there were a lot of players around and most were happy (me too) with that, chasing each one, ambushing, etc... even after bots come in, people still played it and enjoy it and if a player was killed, he were just loosing 1 HUC!!!
If pruning was set as first goal to reach, than maybe now we were already talking about other things rather than the blockchain size
No one says pruning is a trivial thing, but as long as it isn't done, any changes will suffer from technical difficulty
Having said that, this doesn't mean that to not having a bloated blockchain means you have to destroy the game...at this point would be better to just stop mining huntercoin until pruning has been implemented...

hint:
A nice way to achieve pruning would just be having fixed disaster as a snapshot block, where each unspent utxo are stored in blockchain
having fixed disaster would mean that the block coulnd't be avoided (must be mined) and this allow us to wipe out previous game transactions from the blockchain, of course the physical pruning should be done after a number of confirmations (120 like now?)
this way we could have a nice game wallet to be shipped with latest snapshot, so a client with an embedded

If you read what entropycoin said :

well, started with ~7k down to around ~5k.  Innovative concept, but ultimately I can't devote enough consistent time for it to be a profitable endeavor as the time I would be willing to spend on this for fun would result in further losses.  I'll keep the coins i've managed to retain with the hope that the development team looks to appeal to a more causal user base with the aim of minimal profit for the vast majority of users vs the current model of a ton of profit for a few individuals at the expense of attracting newcomers and building the brand.

Not having the Time :- This is what we are improving - we've cut down the time to play by order of magnitude but it is obviously not enough yet.

causal user base with the aim of minimal profit for the vast majority of users vs the current model of a ton of profit for a few individuals at the expense of attracting newcomers and building the brand

This is what can be worked on - in the previous updates 99% of the players on the map controlled by one dominator bot master and it being unable to compete with due to the sheer numbers of hunters he could control.
The purpose of the recent updates was to make it more difficult for this player, so far this has worked.

If you read what entropycoin said, he stated clearly that actually casual player aren't favoured at all, and that changes made aren't effective (with a cheaper hunter cost and with spell timer, i'm sure it would have been a lot better)
about "Not having the Time" i truly thing few things can be done, because respect in the past, it has improved. we could change how random bank spawn in order to distribuite them better, along with improving their number, but the fight time probably will be even more (and funnier) so a fight could least 20/30 minute

Of course there are many more improvements to make and they will come step by step. Making changes is not a simple process.

here i agree, of course, but learning from mistake should be something to ponder about

I'm not going to argue with you mithrilman and start linking back to various other posts and threads ..

you should, if that makes sense. i spent time finding posts to show i'm not saying bullshits and because reading back stuffs is always useful (again, learn from mistakes)

What i suggest you do right now is create a thread with your proposed ideas and lets discuss them - instead of getting mad and exploding, post your points (constructive arguments and propositions), let everyone see them and see what people think will work.

don't say to me to write anything more because it's all already available, last example could be this: http://forum.huntercoin.org/index.php/topic,1981.0.html
again, i spent lot of times today to write this 2 posts, i think i had to because we need a shake to the ground up, but if i don't see reactions, i'll give up, that's for sure this time

[snailbrain]

it's a step by step process - it's not a simple mmorpg you can just modify. Changes take time.

your replies to each "point" - they were overall points for your comments, not individual replies to each one..

regarding the teleport - i let you go ahead with that so as to produce a teleporter map which would require more faster play, but you produced a map which would require 12 hours or something to get to a bank.
and a map of which could be simply dominated by blocking 4 entrances - of course with lifesteal this wouldn't be the case now.

regarding the proposed changes you suggested (linked) - the problem i see is that when bots come back - it wont add much of a difference for gameplay because all they need to do is press destruct at the exact same time as the attacker, so in all, you are just making it more complex for the human (great for human vs human) but no detriment to the automated hunter bot. Also - atm it's possible to play with 1 hunter. With proposed changes those with more will mostly always win - but this could be unavoidable with spell timers.
in any case - i never said it shouldn't be implemented (armour and ammo) - i said it would be better if there were more additions - such as :

FFA (free for all) - no need for colours being "friendly" - which you agreed on in your post.

Each Colour has a different ability - ones which are more difficult for prediction - example, a bot that can just use name_pending and know when to "destruct"

examples i gave are :
Invisibility - Yellow hunters can use this ability to go invisible for 15 blocks.. it has a 60 block recast.. if the hunter does not reveal himself then coins are dropped on the map near to where he went invisible.. of course needs more thought.
Traps - Red can place traps on the ground and trigger them or prove a trap was there at a later time.. needs more thought.
Armour - Blue have armour based on your proporsal.
All have ammo - but it regenerates, otherwise as i stated in your thread - people will use their ammo then just camp out and make another toon.
Destruct Patterns - each colour has a different destruct pattern (maybe with either a small amount of randomness or a selectable pattern) - think of it as a dice roll in DnD. As i said, i'm not convinced about this idea myself.

You don't give chance for discussions to take place .. you posted that thread last week and then get worked up about any little objections.
if i think someone else's idea IS actually worth doing of which i previously thought was not, i have no problem pushing to get it implemented.

about pruning - the idea you posted has already been discussed ..
i also made bounty/donation thread to try to boost it somewhat - in feb - http://forum.huntercoin.org/index.php/topic,732.0.html
although i don't think we mentioned about pruning at every disaster in that thread, this was discussed in the past.
not many pledges though? Myself only..

[MithrilMan]

You don't give chance for discussions to take place .. you posted that thread last week and then get worked up about any little objections.

ok I don't want to keep having this kind of pointless discussions, but since you said what i quoted, you know it's not the thruth, i replied at every post there, and said already several times my objections, what's the point of repeating them over and over?
if i say A you say no, let's do Z, so what's the point of discussing this way?

My proposal is clear, and you replied with totally different concepts that changed my proposal at its core, so how can i go on if you are talking about other things?
you replied on my proposal this way:

Liking ideas so far - we need to think about it some more and keep discussion going imo

This would be a very easy update but solve some of the issues above, but i agree probably not a lot of improvement for fun.
NO Spell Timer (less complex)
Destruct costs @ 50 HUCs
Refund of Destruct if "cancelled out"
Destruct Pattern.

so you removed spell timer, that was a core component of the proposal, increased destruct cost, applied destruct pattern (not stated here on the forum but that's another awkward aspect that could be found here http://forum.huntercoin.org/index.php/topic,1982.0.html, isn't this talking about a total different thing?

And let me recap here about your proposals:
your proposal will create an awkward gameplay where actions are affected by the past and can screw up the present, so you are moving a hunter that is already dead but you don't know, until the nexts blocks the system says an invisible hunter has killed you or you stepped over a trap, wtf?
and to be able to be invisible, a player has to set a password to encrypt his moves, then everytime he reveal his moves has to create another one, wtf^2?
or you can place a trap and then, after some blocks that a hunter has stepped over, you reveal the trap key and the hunter (that could have killed the next block someone else) found itself already killed, so what, you rewind back the time!?

imagine than that a hunter died killed by an invisible enemy, and you have a hunter that's facing him and obviously you don't know he died, and you attack him (so you wast an ammo and your hunter spell counter starts to count), then the next block the system says you killed him and give you coins, then the next block a transaction unlock an invisible hunter or a trap and says that the hunter you attacked, was already dead and so the system what have to do? of course removing your coins that you took from the enemy hunter and transfer it to the invisible killer! and in the meantime you have spent money to destruct, one less ammo and the attack spell in cooldown... and even if you try to set things differently, there will be always some chained action that's screwed up...

doesn't it sounds to you sooo complicated to handle for an average player and didn't you see here logic flaws?
moreover, this is open to exploit just by not process the tx in time, the invisible hunter drop coins

we have to face game limits: hiding transaction is very hard, and any attempt at doing it will cause delay actions, so the problem of a "dead man walking" where you have been killed but you don't know and the next block you can even kill someone or being killed by someone else, and then you have to "rollback" the game status, etc... is a big no, sorry

what we can do is improve the tactical aspects, adding several parameters that could change a fight, and causing a bot to be difficult to be coded, but anyway focusing on the aspect that the player should be considered first, and not the bot.
And you know i've already posted some suggestions here http://forum.huntercoin.org/index.php/topic,1983.msg5549.html#msg5549

If a player have fun, he will play, if not, then no chance to have a good game

[snailbrain]

You don't give chance for discussions to take place .. you posted that thread last week and then get worked up about any little objections.

ok I don't want to keep having this kind of pointless discussions, but since you said what i quoted, you know it's not the thruth, i replied at every post there, and said already several times my objections, what's the point of repeating them over and over?
if i say A you say no, let's do Z, so what's the point of discussing this way?

My proposal is clear, and you replied about your that changed it at its core, so how can i go on if you are talking about other things?
And let me recap here about your proposals:
your proposal will create an awkward gameplay where actions are affected by the past and can screw up the present, so you are moving a hunter that is already dead but you don't know, until the nexts blocks the system says an invisible hunter has killed you or you stepped over a trap, wtf?
and to be able to be invisible, a player has to set a password to encrypt his moves, then everytime he reveal his moves has to create another one, wtf^2?
or you can place a trap and then, after some blocks that a hunter has stepped over, you reveal the trap key and the hunter (that could have killed the next block someone else) found itself already killed, so what, you rewind back the time!?

imagine than that a hunter died, and you have a hunter that's facing him and obviously you don't know he died, and you attack him (so you wast an ammo and your hunter spell counter start to count), then the next block the system says you killed him and give you coins, then the next block a transaction unlock an invisible hunter or a trap and says that the hunter you attacked, was already dead and so the system what have to do? of course removing your coins that you took from the enemy hunter and transfer it to the invisible killer! and in the meantime you have spent money to destruct, one less ammo and the attack spell in cooldown... and even if you try to set things differently, there will be always some chained action that's screwed up...

doesn't it sounds to you sooo complicated to handle for an average player and didn't you see here logic flaws?
moreover, this is open to exploit just by not process the tx in time, the invisible hunter drop coins

we have to face game limits: hiding transaction is very hard, and any attempt at doing it will cause delay actions, so the problem of a "dead man walking" where you have been killed but you don't know and the next block you can even kill someone or being killed by someone else, and then you have to "rollback" the game status, etc... is a big no, sorry

what we can do is improve the tactical aspects, adding several parameters that could change a fight, and causing a bot to be difficult to be coded, but anyway focusing on the aspect that the player should be considered first, and not the bot.
And you know i've already posted some suggestions here http://forum.huntercoin.org/index.php/topic,1983.msg5549.html#msg5549

If a player have fun, he will play, if not, then no chance to have a good game

the user wouldn't enter a password for invisibility.. this would be automated - same as name_new/name_firstupdate (it would be invisible to the user - no pun intended)
you would know if you died by an invisible hunter on that block - if, like my proposal - you destruct upon decloaking and also revealing your position
you would know if you've died at the same time you know you've died now with the current destruct rules.
same with traps

p.s. lets keep the discussion going.. (regarding armour /ammo - as i said i think it would be a good addition, but my concern is it won't help vs bots)

edit: that proposal you posted of mine above (multiple times? in your new edit)

This would be a very easy update but solve some of the issues above, but i agree probably not a lot of improvement for fun.
NO Spell Timer (less complex)
Destruct costs @ 50 HUCs
Refund of Destruct if "cancelled out"
Destruct Pattern.

- wasn't serious - i was just showing that you can solve listed issues by doing other stuff - and it wasn't something i'd push to be implemented at all

[MithrilMan]

the user wouldn't enter a password for invisibility.. this would be automated - same as name_new/name_firstupdate (it would be invisible to the user - no pun intended)
you would know if you died by an invisible hunter on that block - if, like my proposal - you destruct upon decloaking and also revealing your position
you would know if you've died at the same time you know you've died now with the current destruct rules.
same with traps

p.s. lets keep the discussion going..

but if you destruct revealing your position, is the same as now, and the other player can respond with a destruct as soon as your pending move arrives, to defend, so what's the point of being invisible that way?
the problem is the same, as soon as you reveal, everyone know your hidden action, and so can react according (so this can't even be considered something that help vs bots)

and what about the trap, if you don't reveal it it doesn't trigger?
but if you reveal it, you have to reveal 1 block ahead, and again a hunter can use some skill to evade

and since you are worried about blockchain bloating, this implementation requires at least two transaction per action

Anyway if i have to chose between traps and invisibility to be implemented, i'd go to traps, invisibility would even be too strong as ability, moreover if can be used to harm, maybe having it only be able to pass through units unnoticed could be a compromise, but must have a very high cooldown and maybe even a "preparation cost", even because you could loot crown and evate every attempt to kill you, or you can move your "ninjas" in position to create blockades to others, etc...

All this without considering that miners could skip transaction if they harm them, but well, this is already possible now (this is why the game should be mined by many pools, not saying current pool is fraudolent at all, just stating a theorical problem)



So if you ask me, if you guarantee that a player doesn't have to handle passwords, passphrases etc... to do game actions, traps sounds good, invisibility not so much

about FFA (free for all) as you said i agreed
and about colour differency, i wrote my considerations on this post:  http://forum.huntercoin.org/index.php/topic,1983.msg5549.html#msg5549
(different kind of attacks, that maybe you can chose at every attack action)

a variant of my post, could be having different kind of ammo based on the different kind of attack you can do, so if you have:
1 "X shape" ammo and 2 normal ammo, the enemy knows that you can either use 2 of the 3 different attacks, because you don't have a "+ shape" ammo
this could be interesting and not so easy to fights again, so not so predictable...

So this gameplay would work this way:
if you attack, you can't attack with any other kind of attacks for XXX blocks (to prevent spamming your destruct, but if we have a limited ammo this global counter could be avoided, or limited at the minimum of 2 blocks to give everyone the chance to react and prevent the people connected to good nodes respect others to have too much advantage)

Then every kind of attack have another cooldown based on the shape, so "X shape" have YY additional cooldown blocks, and "Y shape" have ZZ additional cooldown blocks

example:
"X Shape" cooldown: 7 block
"+ Shape" cooldown: 5 block
normal attack cooldown: 3 block
global attack cooldown: 2 block

case 1: you attack with a normal attack, you must wait at least 2 block before being able to use X attack or + attack and 3 blocks to being able to reuse a normal attack (if you have ammo)
case 2: you attack with a X attack, you must wait at least 2 block before being able to use + attack or normal attack and at least 7 block to being able to reuse X (if you have ammo)
case 2: you attack with a + attack, you must wait at least 2 block before being able to use + attack or normal attack and at least 5 block to being able to reuse X (if you have ammo)


this way a fight would be interesting and not so easily predictable, but we have to balance attack powers with cooldowns, etc...

anyway i again say in bold: focus first on players having fun than on bot problem, bot could be considered at the end like a good player, with those variables ins't easy to code a god bot and anyway with ammo/armor hunters aren't equal powered at a specific block, so even a bot can lose

--
as per user interface, a player has just to see his available ammo/cooldowns and can pick one kind of attack from availables one based on his actual cooldown and ammo in inventory, so this isn't hard to play with, is just "hard" to play well

[snailbrain]

exactly this is the sort of discussion needed.

Revealing your invisibility and position on that block would mean the enemy would know where you are - and could as you state use destruct at the same time.
So it would need more thought - a different destruct pattern or whatever (so that the enemies destruct wouldn't make a difference - and only the invisible player would know).

about trap - if don't reveal it doesn't trigger - i made a post yesterday to create a discussion > http://forum.huntercoin.org/index.php/topic,2144.0.html

-

agree - i think the problem/concern is making it less predictable - in a way that we can make it more fun and not about who can automatically press destruct at the same time based on name_pending use

this was my reason for creating the thread > Not Showing your Hand until it's too Late CONCEPT for Combat http://forum.huntercoin.org/index.php/topic,1982.msg5518.html#msg5518

[BGB_HUC]

Hi, been a while since I have been in the discussion, but thought I would post something related to the latest game changes.

The first week after the fork, I played 3 or 4 days but have not since then due to lack of time mostly. I share most of the feelings that have already been stated by others.

I like the random generation of the player and the effects it has on making human domination harder. There is a certain feeling of gambling and uniqueness at that moment when creating a player. I found myself creating players just to hope they would generate in a favorable spot for PVP or coin gathering. If they generated in a poor spot,t I would send them to gather 5+ HUC and bank/die.

Alarms are necessary and the only way to be able to play without having to watch every block making sure nobody spawned on top of me.

The random bank locations are nice also. I think a parameter of not having them generate within 50 blocks of each other would be nice. I noticed sometimes you might get 5-10 banks pretty much in the same spot. If you had some rules for minimum space, you might not need to increase the number of banks.

Regarding PVP, I think the idea of tokens/life steal does work. However, I did not have nearly the success with PVP as Snail said he has had. Maybe it is a timezone issue based on my opponents. I never found anybody that was AFK. So this meant I traded a lot of destructs burning 20HUC multiple times. I never killed a single opponent during any PVP attempts. I found myself at the end just turning away when the opponent was clearly there as to not waste HUC or time. I think everybody I tried to attack was watching name_pending also (just a note since it is more fair since I watch it.)

If my motivation was higher, I would probably start running bots again since the current environment I think turns the advantage back to 24/7 bots. I could see running 1000 bots easily again since there really isn't any risk, especially if you can get them paired up. Unless some really unfortunate network badluck occurred, you could not kill a bot, and you would lose with 2 on 1.

The chatter around armor, attack, destruct patterns, etc... are all great and added gameplay features. The trapping and invisibility doesn't do much for me, and I think would be even more problematic to the novice player.

I only skimmed the posts since I was so far behind, but there seemed to be posts from new players struggling with PVP. After pruning, I think providing a way for the novice/gatherer to get introduced into the game is important so they can grow some experience and fun with the game instead of throwing them into the fire with wira, mithral, snail, myself, etc... to get defeated, lose the HUC they just purchased, and have a poor taste in their mouth.

[snailbrain]

Hi, been a while since I have been in the discussion, but thought I would post something related to the latest game changes.

The first week after the fork, I played 3 or 4 days but have not since then due to lack of time mostly. I share most of the feelings that have already been stated by others.

I like the random generation of the player and the effects it has on making human domination harder. There is a certain feeling of gambling and uniqueness at that moment when creating a player. I found myself creating players just to hope they would generate in a favorable spot for PVP or coin gathering. If they generated in a poor spot,t I would send them to gather 5+ HUC and bank/die.

Alarms are necessary and the only way to be able to play without having to watch every block making sure nobody spawned on top of me.

The random bank locations are nice also. I think a parameter of not having them generate within 50 blocks of each other would be nice. I noticed sometimes you might get 5-10 banks pretty much in the same spot. If you had some rules for minimum space, you might not need to increase the number of banks.

Regarding PVP, I think the idea of tokens/life steal does work. However, I did not have nearly the success with PVP as Snail said he has had. Maybe it is a timezone issue based on my opponents. I never found anybody that was AFK. So this meant I traded a lot of destructs burning 20HUC multiple times. I never killed a single opponent during any PVP attempts. I found myself at the end just turning away when the opponent was clearly there as to not waste HUC or time. I think everybody I tried to attack was watching name_pending also (just a note since it is more fair since I watch it.)

If my motivation was higher, I would probably start running bots again since the current environment I think turns the advantage back to 24/7 bots. I could see running 1000 bots easily again since there really isn't any risk, especially if you can get them paired up. Unless some really unfortunate network badluck occurred, you could not kill a bot, and you would lose with 2 on 1.

The chatter around armor, attack, destruct patterns, etc... are all great and added gameplay features. The trapping and invisibility doesn't do much for me, and I think would be even more problematic to the novice player.

I only skimmed the posts since I was so far behind, but there seemed to be posts from new players struggling with PVP. After pruning, I think providing a way for the novice/gatherer to get introduced into the game is important so they can grow some experience and fun with the game instead of throwing them into the fire with wira, mithral, snail, myself, etc... to get defeated, lose the HUC they just purchased, and have a poor taste in their mouth.

thanks for the post and your thoughts, and good to hear you like most of the changes so far.

Hopefully we can try to work away from being easily bot-able now that we have removed the disaster risk - or at least make them more easier targets for humans.

I'm not sure why no one has had much luck with the pvp - atm it seems there is one major dominator, but all his hunters are very easy targets. Each time i play for a couple of hours a day i'd say, i easily take the centre and most hunters i come in contact with.
one of my players today was new3 - I took the centre from several hunters, solo. Made 1k-ish from very little playtime with that one hunter (on and off for a couple of hours). and a few hundred from harvesting in safer areas.

Hopefully we won't see an influx of bots before the next fork.

p.s. Thanks for keeping huntercoin.info up to date.

[snailbrain]

Huntercoin Unity3d Client Update -

v1.1

draft guide for basic setup - http://forum.huntercoin.org/index.php/topic,2145.0.html

I recommend you enable the audible alarms for when an enemy is within 7 squares, or more for email alerts if you don't have immediate access to your PC..

Windows
https://mega.nz/#!AUsHgKoT!Nc2RmLylN0rUtD-LRLs6hfmNBAIE-zv0SkD09YKt9a8

Linux
https://mega.nz/#!NYUn3CYQ!QZYhcOZReGObZknFdak_I8qFLKOZUkX9QtTsQIzWyFQ

Mac
https://mega.nz/#!sM1lQbAb!6TR12cdRq8qqvk7x5gMQvxwApe0cssr9-f1xFHBB6d4

Android
https://mega.nz/#!kRdyxArI!YEC2W8_2YhUwLH6E5Lcs_M5uEICEsGRhf2bHtCsatlk

-

This update fixes several bugs, the most major being missing hunters when one of your own hunters dies.
Features and functionality remain the same - version number added and to avoid confusion with previous versions bumped to 1.1

[Buy]

The last few comments have been interesting and probably useful but I wanted to bump this up.

Having installed and intermittently played this game over the past day, I'd thought I'd provide a couple initial impressions from a newcomer.

Firstly, excellent work.  From what I could discern, no egregious bugs and worked as intended and while I could not see myself spending a large portion of my day immersed in this, it was certainly enjoyable in short bursts. 

I would however describe this experience as more akin to gambling than human mining.  The risk/reward element of having 200 hucs tied to a character necessitates constant monitoring, which is a prohibitive factor that will ultimately prevent a substantial number of people from playing.

My suggestion would be to have a secondary character class immune to attacks that is itself unable to attack, that just walks around collecting coins.  This would allow people like myself the ability to play for a few minutes a day without the threat of losses exceeding gains.  Call them gatherers and maybe tie 1500 coins to each individual character to limit their footprint on the map.  Not only would this generate new user interest, but would likely drive the price up considerably.     

There are a lot of possibilities for sure, different types of 'games'.

Icon responded to entropy by saying

Lol but its called huntercoin for a reason..

Besides they already got a game out like that called Hello Kitty Adventure isle.. Where instead of "killing" someone you simply put them to "sleep" and loot them

Icon

A little different

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hello_Kitty_Online

http://www.hellokittyonline.com/

That project may have gone tits up as there is no news after 2012.

The forum is still active http://forum.sanriotown.com/ but the wiki has not been updated since 2011 http://wiki.hellokittyonline.com/index.php/Main_Page

[sorji]

- raising a lot the player cost creation (from 1 HUC for 3 hunter to 205 HUC for a hunter)

Agree with MM
After take a few try I finally chose to keep watching the game
For those who don't like PVP (Gathering Only) like me might chose AFK also, cos Play game means lost Coin/Money/Time
It's not easy to collect 200 coins (0.5coin/Cell*400Block =200Coins) but might lost hunter never even noticed.
No funny now without user base.

[snailbrain]

- raising a lot the player cost creation (from 1 HUC for 3 hunter to 205 HUC for a hunter)

Agree with MM
After take a few try I finally chose to keep watching the game
For those who don't like PVP (Gathering Only) like me might chose AFK also, cos Play game means lost Coin/Money/Time
It's not easy to collect 200 coins (0.5coin/Cell*400Block =200Coins) but might lost hunter never even noticed.
No funny now without user base.

Atm - you only need to make 5 coins to get your money back since the last update refunds all your coins.

It might be worth thinking about the Tier system that BGB mentioned in the past.
I'd probably prefer it as just 2 Tiers though. The entire outside area is how you'd like it, and the entire inside is how it is now.

Now that we have lifesteal and if we add FFA (no colour factions) - it should prevent the main issues as in the past - a Bot controlling 40k hunters all stood on every coin spawn location (and an exponentially expanding blockchain)
Combat mechanics need changing to make it harder for bots of course.

[MithrilMan]

ok spent some time (argh too much) on a post to recap proposed changes, you can find it here, community is welcome to reply, we need to work togheter to improve this coin!

this is the post I wrote: http://forum.huntercoin.org/index.php/topic,2148.0.html

I'll past here the post too, to have broader audiance in case you don't want to post on huntercoin forum but want to say your thoughts, but updated info would be wrote on the linked tread

[MithrilMan]

This "poem" could be scay to read, but actually it's just a list of features and some numbers, but it's needed to understand the implication.
But I think that the most important thing is to agree about the features to add, because numbers should be chosen after the changes are implemented and so tweaked on the field (testnet) before applying fork

I'm pretty sure those changes, that except (maybe) traps doesn't require big changes, could be implemented in few time and so we can use that forked version of the daemon to test things on testnet ourself and with players who want to help, anyway here the details!! (please say what you think about the idea, details can change, i'm more interested in the core idea)

[UNCHANGED THINGS]

- when a player spawn, he spawn randomly like now
- banks spawn randomly, maybe with a finished alghoritm to prevent having banks too close (don't spawn a bank closer to a 10x10 cell respect another maybe?)


[CHANGED THINGS]
- there are no more colors, or anyway colors are just cosmetic, everyone can hit everyone else (we could use color to bind them to build templates but we would be limited by 4 templates then, so i think would be better to just consider color as cosmetic, or add as more new "colors" (better talk about sprites) as the available templates

- when a player create a hunter, he can chose his starting equip/skills [*1 for details about templates and skills]

- decrease the hunter cost to 50 + 5.
People argue about the general cost of the game so it should be taken into consideration and 50 sounds fair to me, even because without the attack fee, a fight winner will still earn more than what he earn with current fork (in an even match of course).
Cost was set so high even to limit population i know, but since population has sunk to 0 I think we should learn that high cost is self-defeating, moreover with the added complexity, controlling many hunters would be proibitive and ineffective, even because of FFA.
If in the next fork we create zones for pvp and zones for collectors, the collectours would cost e.g. 1500 just to lock coins, like someone suggested on bitcointalkforum (those coins are always refunded, is just a way to limit player creation without affecting the final player balance).

- Locking coins (but refund them on death) could even be a way to prevent too much players on the map, so we could even say that a hunter costs you 50 (your actual life, like current 200) + 5 (creation fee, lost) + 1000 (locked coins, refunded upon player dead).
Of course someone with a big wallet could still create 50 hunters, but he have to invest 1055 for each hunter and anyway not easy to command that amount of hunter and not effective as stated above


- implementing the ammo/armor concept, during player creation, the build a player chose impact on the available stats of the hunter and the starting equip [*1 again to read about details]
- ammo and armor regenerate over time, depending on the point spents on their respective skills [*1]
- remove lifesteal concept
- when a player has no armor and get hit, he lose everything he have (if he won 4 fights and have 200 on him, if he die he doesn't lose just 50 per hit but whole 200)

- add different kind of attacks, that have different cooldown and require different amount of ammo per attack [*2]

- add a generic attack cooldown, so everytime you attack (any kind of attack), you have to wait a specific number of block before being able to attack again.
This prevent spamming destruct, mitigate good connection vs poor connection problems and add the needed complexity, along with armor/ammo, to plan well your actions

- every attack type has another exclusive cooldown, that's exclusive to the type of attack. Consider each attack as an ability, like in normal RPG/Action game, you can't repeat the same action without waiting its cooldown to end. This way we can add even powerful attacks that have a bigger cooldown respect other attacks [*2]

- i suggested an ability called "evade" that act as Neo in matrix, for X blocks (5?) after activation you dodge every attack, but this have a very big cooldown, like 120 (1 hour) or more and during evade you can't attack (it could be useful to just escape all attacks if you are on a bank and wait destruct, or if you want to go through lot of enemies)
It could work well with the snailbrain idea of traps, see below, so you can evade and bring players on a trap (does trap have a radius?) because even if an evading player can't attack, he could activate other abilities and "trigger trap" could be an ability available.

- add what snailbrain suggested, traps. this need maybe more thinking and would require more development effort that other proposal, but the idea is that a player can use a hunter to deploy a trap on its current cell, in a encrypted transaction (but it shouldn't impact game interface, it should be automatically handled) and this way you have a new object, called "Trap", that's listed in your GUI (i'd say it shouldn't be bounded to a specific hunter rather than being available at a Wallet level, so you can trigger it whenever you want and even if the hunter you used to deploy it died)
Traps last for a fixed amount of blocks (let say 60, 30 minutes approx) and then they are removed from the map. To trigger an explosion then, a player has to activate it using a special transaction that shows it to all and prove you had placed the trap there, at this point whoever is in a range of 2x2 (?) take lot of damage (we need to test and see, i'd say to start from 5, so a hunter with less than 5 armor die and money are sent to the address of the hunter who deployed the trap).
- Traps can be deployed only if, when you create a hunter, you spend build points on the trap skill (and i'd say that a trap is so powerfull that such hunter shouldn't have armor/ammo or just 1/1)
- a hunter can carry max 1 trap and it have no cooldown but it's unique, this way we prevent the map being filled by traps, that would break the gameplay at all


- we process move before than destruct, it would allow to close the gap and attack at the same time, now it's not possible and if you want to attack someone that's 2 blocks from you, you can't just close the gap, then wait, then attack because he would attack you before, looking at pending tx (now you'd have to take a larger route and attack later). even with the inverted pending the enemy could of course try to evade, but with increased range of new kind of attacks, it would still be possible to hit him. (btw this point is the less important maybe, but worth trying, it costs nothing to invert the computation and see how game behave, we could even change it again before the fork if we notice some problem during testing on testnet)




I tried to detail a lot, now let me clarify some aspects

[*1]
when you create your hunter, you can chose how to equip him and which abilities he have
the important work would be to balance the cost of each skill so that you can't create a god hunter.

An example of a build system could be this:

you have 20 points to spend, and you can chose between:

- defense skill
1 armor costs 1
2 armor costs 3 (1 + 2)
3 armor costs 6 (1 + 2 + 3)
4 armor costs 10 (1 + 2 + 3 + 4)

same for attack but every attack level means 3 available ammo
- attack skill
1 attack costs 1 and give you 3 ammo
2 attack costs 3 and give you 6 ammo
3 attack costs 6 and give you 9 ammo
4 attack costs 10 and give you 12 ammo

you can pick your regeneration rate, spending point on them too

- armor regen (how fast your armor regenerate over time)
armor regeneration lvl 1 costs 1 and regenerate an armor every 30 blocks
armor regeneration lvl 2 costs 3 and regenerate an armor every 20 blocks
armor regeneration lvl 3 costs 6 and regenerate an armor every 15 blocks
armor regeneration lvl 4 costs 10 and regenerate an armor every 12 blocks

- ammo regen (how fast your ammo regenerate over time)
ammo regeneration lvl 1 costs 1 and regenerate an attack every 20 blocks
ammo regeneration lvl 2 costs 3 and regenerate an attack every 15 blocks
ammo regeneration lvl 3 costs 6 and regenerate an attack every 10 blocks
ammo regeneration lvl 4 costs 10 and regenerate an attack every 5 blocks

you can chose the trap skill
- trap skill (allow you to deploy 1 trap on the map)
trap lvl 1 costs 16

having a trap still allow you to set 1 point on other skills, so that you can have 1 attack/defense and 1 regeneration on both or you could be more defensive and buy 2 armor and 1 armor regen, etc...
it's up to you, you could use a hunter with trap to taunt others and bring them over the trap zone, etc... could be funny

Note: to keep this simple for players, the GUI should allow the selection of a preconfigured template that already assigned this levels, so a player can just pickup a builtin template (maybe bound to a specific color/sprite) or create his own and save for later reuse, anyway this is a GUI problem, not a daemon problem, at daemon side it has just to validate that the total cost of skills is <= 20 (or anyway the maximum spendible points)



[*2]
now about the different kind of attacks, this is how the proposed system works:
every hunter can chose between different kind of attacks, that costs different amount of ammo and have different specific cooldowns, here some examples:


X X X
X O X
X X X

name: normal attack
cost: 1 ammo
cooldown: 3 blocks



    X
    X
X X O X X
    X
    X

name: plus attack
cost: 2 ammo
cooldown: 5 blocks


X       X
  X  X
    O
  X  X
X       X

name: cross attack
cost: 2 ammo
cooldown: 5 blocks



    X
  X X
O X X
  X X
    X

name: right cone attack (and left/top/bottom variant)
cost: 3 ammo
cooldown: 7 blocks


you can't use the same attack if its cooldown aren't over, but you can use another attack as soon as the "generic attack cooldown" of 2 blocks has passed
to use attacks of course you must have the needed ammo (so if you have just 2 ammo left, you can't use the "cone attack"

of course cost/cooldown numbers are example and need to be tested on testnet to chose balanced values

when you are facing an enemy, things get then complicated because everyone can chose its own strategy to attack.
Watching enemy equip, you should know that he can either use 2 of the 3 different attacks, because he doesn't have ammo for the cone attack, but you can't be sure about which attack he would use and then you have even to take into consideration his armor/ammo regeneration... this could be interesting and not so easy to fights again, so not so predictable...

example of what happen after an attack:
case 1: you attack with a normal attack:
   - it costs you 1 ammo
   - you must wait at least 2 block before being able to use any attack other attack except the normal attack
   - you must wait at least 3 blocks before being able to use normal attack again

case 2: you attack with a X attack:
   - it costs you 2 ammo
   - you must wait at least 2 block before being able to use any attack other attack except the X attack
   - you must wait at least 5 blocks before being able to use X attack again

case 3: you attack with a Cone attack:
   - it costs you 3 ammo
   - you must wait at least 2 block before being able to use any attack other attack except the Cone attack
   - you must wait at least 7 blocks before being able to use X attack again

fight case:
you attack with a Cone attack
   - it costs you 3 ammo
   - after you wait 2 blocks, you then use normal attack (cone attack is still in cooldown for 5 blocks (7-2 passed block)
   - it costs you 1 ammo
   - after you wait 2 blocks, you then use + attack (cone attack is still in cooldown for 3 blocks (7-4 passed block)
   - it costs you 2 ammo
   etc...

as you can see, fight are more challenging and i haven't put into the examples the regen rate and maximum available ammo!


this way a fight would be interesting and not so easily predictable, but we have to balance attack powers with cooldowns, etc...

anyway i again say in bold: focus first on players having fun than on bot problem, bot could be considered at the end like a good player, with those variables ins't easy to code a god bot and anyway with ammo/armor hunters aren't equal powered at a specific block, so even a bot can lose


repetita iuvant:
I'm pretty sure those changes, that except (maybe) traps doesn't require big changes, could be implemented in few time and so we can use that forked version of the daemon to test things on testnet ourself and with players who want to help

[snailbrain]

sounds ok on the face of it as a test, and traps could be left out - although i'm not sure that adding traps is more development than all the other stuff.

it does seem like a lot of work for both testnet, qt client, mithrilman client and unity client for in 1 go?

are you not able to create a sandbox test using your client and some simple server? this would be the best sort of testing environment which would require less work on our dev as you'd still need to modify your client anyway?

where does the coins go when you "eventually" kill someone if there is no life steal? p.s. i think that's the best part of the game added so far btw..

how will you prevent 1 hunter being dominated by multiple hunters? as in the past - e.g. dominators blocking an area and being unable to get past as they have too many hunters and no to little risk for doing so..

what happens when 2 people destruct at the same time? lose ammo, armour, nothing?