@mithrilman
Thanks mate.. always like your contributions..
note: the rise in cost of general has nothing (really) to do with value of hucs/btc (not my intention).. in fact, i'm not sure it would make a big difference tbh, if any (coins are not lost, there will be the same flow of hucs). (of course by fixing issues it should hopefully). If it was 10000 hucs per general - it may? . It's more to do with quantity of coins on the map and what you can collect, and risk.
My priority is making the game more fair and playable, and a success.. also remembering that this is new, and in all honesty, no one can really predict what will happen, so, there is some guess work of course.
Obviously, everyone wants the value of HUC to increase, this is what every crypto currency wants (maybe not namecoin, except for the investors).
People with big money can over take map:
? they can now and have
There is more to it than that though... it is to do with upkeep costs.
1 1440 8640 432
2 2880 17280 864
3 4320 25920 1296
4 5760 34560 1728
5 7200 43200 2160
6 8640 51840 2592
7 10080 60480 3024
8 11520 69120 3456
9 12960 77760 3888
10 14400 86400 4320
11 15840 95040 4752
12 17280 103680 5184
13 18720 112320 5616
14 20160 120960 6048
15 21600 129600 6480
16 23040 138240 6912
this just a basic table... days, blocks, and amount of coins you can get from game assuming you can collect on the map
7 6 hucs/block.. last column is coins/general cost (assuming 20). If there are more generals on the map than the last column, then someone somewhere is losing money , unless they are actually hunting/fighting. (note, there is a more to it than that, but keeping it simple - i created this table when contemplating expiry and wondering what a generals life expectancy should be.. so when thinking about disaster and randomness, it's more complex - so the table is flawed to some degree)
The basics are:
If the cost per general is too low, the risk is too low, so the map will be packed (probably by a bot master)
by limiting the amount of people on the map, it should be more about intelligence/strat/skill than pure numbers.
If cost of general is 3.5 HUCs, a bot master can control up to 6x more generals before still being in profit (if dominating the map).
assuming they want guaranteed profit due to general costs, they would have to dominate the map with less than the numbers on the last column for that duration (assuming expiry and not disaster - but basic idea still there).
By limiting the maximum amount of generals which is profitable (and increasing to 20hucs), the game will be more fighting (people killing other generals).
It may be that the bots turn into killer bots (like bgb, of which your client is quite good at "winning".. i think would at least change the game and be more fun.
looking at the current stats, i'd say the bot master is controlling 20k-25k+ hunters - maybe 10k generals.
also we cannot put Generals + Hunters on creation, because we go back to the problem in which you can create 1000 teams, send only the hunters out, then when hunters dead, destruct generals and recover 96% of the cost.. or, when disaster comes, recycle them quick before they are poisoned. Unless, as someone else suggested, the generals don't drop the value - but i'm not sure about this atm - needs another month of simulating
- i like a bit about the idea that maybe even the general cost is actually destroyed (that method probably would increase huc value, but that would need considerable discussion imo).
1. moreover, now someone could invest in hucs since its value is so low, then use bought hucs to overtake the map when hucs value will increase, causing a game over.
They can do this now, exactly the same except with no risk at all. Disaster adds random risk, increasing cost increases risk more.
also, You are thinking that someone taking over the map together with higher general cost will increase the value of huc, this is not the case. If the map is dominated by one person (like now) this decreases the price - because 1. They will dump at least half the coins none stop (like now), and 2. people will just think huntercoin is useless... may as well just create a PoS, 100% premined, and sell them on an exchange. The coins need to be distributed properly like when huntercoin first started.
- 2 with high prices to create a team, casual player will have very few hunters to move, and playing with very few hunters is very annoying because the game is slow and you'll face very high idle time and all know that a bored player is a player that will stop to play
20 Genenrals is 400 HUCs.. 20 is quite a lot for 1 human player imo. It's not a big amount when it's more about making money not mostly for fun. For a bot master to control 2k hunters is 40k HUCs. Yes it will by more expensive for humans . but, an even higher risk for bot masters controlling thousands. +, hearts should be more available (and more wanted).
- 3 if/when hucs increase in value, those 20 hucs will be far more valuable and this will discourage even more new players
is possible, and we can change the fee later on.. but, personally, if the game was fair but cost 1 btc yet you could make 1000s of bitcoin, i think this is still playable and probably make huntercoin even more popular... but that's just my opinion.
- 4 if an hunter costs so much and without a safe area, a casual player will easily lost it's hunters when he log off, while bots could survive easily
?? if there isn't a safe area, bots will die as well, whether playing or not.
with current propsed prices and mechanics (20 hucs for 1 player that has just 1 hunter), this mean that a team costs 60 times current value (previously 1 player = 1 huc/3hunter = 0.33333..) and it's really too much imho.
Please don't try to artificially increase hucs value now this way, because this would end in loosing players and so, as a consequence, huc value in long term, don't think in a pump & dump way Cheesy
it's nothing at all to do with "artificially" increasing the value of HUC in this way... also, i'm a little bit insulted with that comment..
The goal is to increase the value of HUC- but not in the way you are saying there, i don't think you understand tbh.
If the value of huc was 1 BTC, i think Huntercoin would be extremely popular.
but don't' accuse me of pump and dump
-- otherwise i'd have premined 10%+ like every other alt or done IPO.
Drastic times
changes require drastic measures. The game has changed. no one is increasing the value of huc in pump and dump fashion, and i don't even understand completely what you mean to be fair.
I don't think you have thought about it enough.. honestly.. originally, it was still going to be 1 huc with disaster.
as i said at the top of this post.. increasing huc value has nothing to do with price of general, and i don't think it would because of that.. hopefully the value of huc would increase because it would be more playable and less controllable by 1 bot master.
sleep
If someone wants to stop playing, all they need to do is go to bank area, self destruct and bank the coins (not as good as sleep though). sleep command is too much atm.. but maybe in the future once everything else is stable it can be done. but.. that's the risk. if you stop playing, you are going to be dead. Remember, Huntecoin is supposed to be a human mineable crypto currency, not just any game, otherwise why would we build it in a blockchain?
I think sleep could maybe be exlpoited anyway.
Still, things can be changed.. but comparing to the current costs should not be a deciding factor.. Think of it more as a complete rehash.
please feel free to comment.. but remembering that no one can say what would be best except Chronos
I do think this change is a step in the right direction, even if it's not perfect.. a big change is needed, and this is a big change... if it doesn't work as expected then we'll rehash again using all the knowledge we have gained from how the game is now and how it will be with the changes.
What would be good is if the bots weren't so selfish and contributed now that they have a few coins... but, it is good what they are doing in a sense, so we can learn and fix it.
Huntercoin was made for this purpose.
