|
Post by nawglan on Apr 12, 2011 21:58:13 GMT -5
I'm using IceWeasel 3.5.16 (it's a fork off of firefox by the debian team). The reduction in unit displayed in the grid is immediate if I gamble and lose all my cash immediately after the refresh.
|
|
|
Post by succat on Apr 12, 2011 22:11:59 GMT -5
Nawglan, the database was out of sync. I fixed the problem, though. I don't think this was a browser issue after all, but let me know if you're still having problems.
|
|
|
Post by succat on Apr 13, 2011 1:10:25 GMT -5
Nawglan, MikeEB, Ellipsis - you guys now have 'Advisor' status for your helpful contributions in feedback and bug-catching. Thank you )
p.s. Don't ask me what 'Advisor' status does yet )
|
|
|
Post by ellipsis on Apr 13, 2011 2:30:17 GMT -5
What does Advisor status do?
|
|
|
Post by mikeEB on Apr 13, 2011 9:18:51 GMT -5
After some thought, I think the best solution to 'large players get no reinforcements' problem is to make their reinforcements increasingly random after 32 instead of further decreasing the population cap.
|
|
|
Post by nawglan on Apr 14, 2011 17:51:28 GMT -5
Another idea from the troops: Cash award for capturing a square. There's already one for taking over a player entirely, but would be nice to have something for just taking over a single square... (mebby a percentage of the cash that the player they took over has, with a min of say 10g)...
|
|
|
Post by deleted on Apr 15, 2011 20:43:47 GMT -5
gold seems to function as measure of time. A huge advantage goes to the players who are online because they are able to keep milking the happy hour while to offline player don't gain any gold.
|
|
|
Post by succat on Apr 15, 2011 22:03:02 GMT -5
After a player gets so many squares, they just stop getting units. They'll still get gold, which in turn they can use to buy units, but the chances of getting a lot of gold per update goes down. This is to keep a player from increasing their territory too fast. Ellipsis, at the time of this writing, has managed to increase his territory, but gradually enough (and in a favorable enough location because he only has enemies on one front) so that now all he has to do is focus on keeping his southern border strong. There is a kind of limit to how large a player can grow, but even that limit has limits. It works based on a ratio of units and squares. No one on the board is really close to hitting that right now, but when they do, units will actually start to subtract from squares that are overpopulated until the square population goes back under that mark. Now, a player could try to override this and they could succeed if they could raise the money fast enough, or if they're good at just having a lot of money around all the time to purchase more units at a faster rate than the units are being subtracted, which is quite possible I imagine. And I'm adding a new feature that should help in that regard as well. Probably not going to award cash just on taking over a square, you have to get the whole player wiped off the board to get the loot. I am working on other features, though, that should more than make up for this. The problem of a player being online all the time and having an advantage of milking the happy hour every update is an interesting point, and I haven't decided how to deal with this yet. In one sense, they have to spend the time buying units and / or gambling, and putting in the effort to build themselves up every happy hour -- and so in that sense they should be rewarded for their work. If an offline player were to start generating money... 100 gold... turns into 200 gold... turns into 1000 gold, and that offline player hasn't made a move in a while, they could become an even likelier target to get attacked because now they're sitting on a golden egg. Should their number of units also continue to generate past 20 units per square as well...? That makes it extremely hard for brand new players to take over anything if all the squares around them have much more accumulated units than they do simply by taking up space on the board. I'm just throwing these problems out there... I haven't decided what to do about it yet. I'm trying to make everything as fair as possible, but that's difficult to do, and for the moment, the player that's online more does have the advantage. If other players could alliance themselves together to fight against happy-hour-milkers then maybe it could balance out the situation, but then again the game is still new and players are still figuring out strategies, and I'm still figuring out how to keep up with the different scenarios like this that come up
|
|
|
Post by nawglan on Apr 15, 2011 23:59:24 GMT -5
a request regarding the swear word filter. It doesn't work. So, could it be applied on the sending side of the transmission of the text and then give the player the option to turn it off? Then only apply the filter if the person receiving has the filter turned on...
Things like "wish it" and "push it" etc. cause the text to be stripped of white space and the "sh it" part removed from the line. Makes "I wish it would let me win more!" into "Iwiwouldletmewinmore!".
Also, my countdown timer seems busted. It sticks at 420 seconds for a long time, then jumps to 281 or so when the refresh happens.
|
|
|
Post by succat on Apr 16, 2011 17:34:06 GMT -5
I'm still working on implementing a smarter chat filter and making my AJAX more efficient for smoother transactions and less Javascript glitches. A side note: I'm working on cleaning up some of the visuals in the game, as well as trying to implement new features. There might be a few rule changes, too, but only good ones that should make the game better and less restrictive
|
|
|
Post by deleted on Apr 18, 2011 15:36:39 GMT -5
I don't feel that I should be rewarded for time spent because I'm not making any interesting decisions I'm just mechanically clicking and typing.
If you have enough new players coming in then you don't have to worry about the old players being overpowered because distance will insulate the old from the new.
The filter isn't going to work no matter how strict the filter people can communicate offensive things, like talk about grass-mud horses (who's favorite food is crab). Right now you are prohibiting people from saying perfectly innocent things.
|
|
|
Post by deleted on Apr 19, 2011 13:15:14 GMT -5
what dirty word is YED? both deployed and carcass got censored
|
|
|
Post by ourjake on Apr 19, 2011 13:46:23 GMT -5
www.lmgtfy.com/?q=what+dirty+word+is+YEDsecond link. BF2S forums...apparently it's thai for f**k also "ai sad" apparently means horrible things as well, but that's not caught by the filter and now for something completely different: i like the subtlety of the units going onto the highest number square. for instance, wristwrath has taken one of ellipsis' bottom corners. now, where before his units cost $10 to make and went straight to that square, to defend that flank, he has to spend $15 a man (or $5 to deploy, which reduces overall units) also, did we have odd captions by our name yesterday?
|
|
|
Post by mikeEB on Apr 19, 2011 17:28:27 GMT -5
As a subtle point, in a diagonal engagement the player in the lower-right has a significant advantage over the player in the upper-left in that he can attack from all his border squares while his opponent can only attack from half of them. The other diagonal is fair.
|
|
|
Post by ourjake on Apr 20, 2011 10:20:04 GMT -5
more filter fun: pula (as in population) is apparently romanian slang for d**k i have learned more profanity from the filter than from public school also more foreign language than 3 years of german another edit to avoid double posting: i'm not sure if this scales up to larger territories or not, but i've been deploying the units from all of my weak squares down to a couple of my bottom squares. if you keep the weak squares below the max for the free reinforcements at update, you end up getting extra men for the cost of deploying instead of buying, you just have to wait for the update.
|
|