|
Post by succat on Mar 31, 2013 15:40:11 GMT -5
Server got suspended for good this time, iPage finally got sick of all the hits for a shared hosting plan, but of course they're fine with it every other day - just not today for no apparent reason other than that their terms-of-service team just re-discovered the problem. So, only thing to do is to move everything over to my other dedicated server. Not sure when that will happen, was planning on doing other stuff this week - not dealing with this. If you guys need a place to hang out on til then you can use The Old Grid 1.0: www.celtruler.com/games/thegrid/ - thinking maybe I could reset it as well, at least it'll be something to fool around on until I have time to move the current Grid 2.0 over to the dedicated server. For those of you holding out to play until Grid 3.0, keep in mind that it's going to be a while, perhaps a year or more. We're still in the very beginning planning stages of this and only have very little time to code this thing. Only thing coded so far is some very limited stuff like some basic Login functionality and Squares object methods... so don't be under the impression that Grid 3.0 is coming out next month or soon after - because it's not, it's still pretty far off. There is a TON of stuff still to figure out, and also if we're making this portable for tablets and mobile devices, you might see even more delays. Just wanted to put that out there.
|
|
shogouki
Ronin Warlock
NOTHING'S UNPOSSIBLE!
Posts: 8
|
Post by shogouki on Mar 31, 2013 16:04:02 GMT -5
Well, that's a pity. I was hoping it wasn't that big of an issue, but it seems it is.
|
|
Philoten
Ronin Warlock
I am un-biased in certain matters.
Posts: 34
|
Post by Philoten on Mar 31, 2013 20:45:20 GMT -5
Well I can make the wait.. will stop in everyday. Succat could you create a thread to keep people in on the progress of 3.0? Would make the wait easier as we can see whats going on.
|
|
|
Post by succat on Apr 3, 2013 12:02:55 GMT -5
Grid 2.0 is finally up on the new server. I was able to point the new server to the same domain name, codeelf.com, but I did tweak the url slightly so the game is now at: codeelf.com/games/the-grid-2/grid/Expect bugs! This new server is still untested, but right now everything should be about twice as fast as old server (which is now shut off for good), and could make things even a little bit faster, but I want to see how this new server reacts first - it's with a different hosting company. Whisper me bug reports, I'm sure you'll see a few popup as I had over 100 files to edit. Also, I'm turning Headbands back on. I feel like they didn't get a chance to run their course, so they're switched on again - would like to see the potential they can offer, so bare with me.
|
|
|
Post by psykosis on Apr 3, 2013 16:05:47 GMT -5
My thoughts on Headbands along with a couple of thoughts as to how to make them less of a 'problem' (IMHO). There are two effects of HBs - and both of these effects are problematic: - Unit Spawning: It was apparent that HB's needed to be capped, especially after Io's Wizard-blood fueled looping of headbands. At that time, this cut off was set to 100k, which worked for the situation on the grid at the time more or less. But the real issue is the proportion of the total units that is the issue - how it can rapidly approach the sum of all units on a smaller grid. Thus, some form of scaling cap is needed.
- Silly rules on what can take what: The issue here is without switch, pretty much headbands become mock-perms. For example, on the current grid, my Sq 63 is HB-1 and Jes's sq 1 is HB-2 - they are not touching and cannot be touched, yet only Jes' square can take mine. This causes a near-impossibility for things like wiping. Furthermore, these squares are 'first come, first server', which puts a large perk to anyone who logs in and makes one sooner.
Suggested Fixes- Remove the rules for what a HB can be taken by. Simply, these silly rules are not compatible with a grid that does not have switch turned on.
- Cap the units the HB can produce based upon a dynamic (to the current grid) scale. Perhaps making it so HB's won't produce units unless they have less units currently than the largest, non-HB square. This will still allow for decent growth for new folks and 'single square warriors', but won't allow for the crazy over-powering number of units that HB's currently can produce.
|
|
|
Post by succat on Apr 3, 2013 18:06:46 GMT -5
I'm going to try a compromise here and see what happens.
Energy upped to 50% instead of 30% for powering a headband.
Headbands can be taken over by any square with enough units now, but odds of successful takeover are pretty bad if not attacking from a headband square next to it that is in range. Switch is off at the moment, true, but whoever is getting close to a wipe when the time comes should have the votes to turn it back on and can capture any HB squares at that time.
Headbands are supposed to bring in a lot of units for players with a low square count - that was part of their design in order to help them take down big multi-square players. I know the units gained are a lot, but other players can rebel the HB squares if they see a HB square growing out of control, or gather around it and attack it (now that any square with enough units can potentially take it).
HB squares can also be spawned on and taken that way, and they can be graffitied, which (Graffiti) has been tweaked to allow for a little easier target hits and slightly lower energy cost.
Will see if this helps to balance it a little more - it may take some more time to see.
|
|
|
Post by popopop on Apr 4, 2013 3:24:20 GMT -5
Headbands are supposed to bring in a lot of units for players with a low square count - that was part of their design in order to help them take down big multi-square players. Just an example, not sure if you had taken note of it, but I brought XDBillyXD down to one square from 6 squares or so in the past using a headband, coupled with several hours of rebelling. (I had only one square I think) So it is great for smaller players. I think the current calculation of units per power-up is fine as it is. Not really too keen on Psy's calculation since it limits how many squares a small player can take at one go. Nor am I too keen on the higher energy required now. Might as well mine silver which is so much more valuable and appreciates over time. Imagine 2 scenarios with the current method and Psy's dynamic calculation method. [/b] I'll just keep powering up, and when I have enough to conquer all 5 squares, I've succeeded. Takes a shorter time. 2. Dynamic methodI'll have to power up, but I'll hit the dynamic cap, so I'll have to take perhaps 2 squares first to lower my unit count, and start powering up again. However, since I have more squares (assuming that squares are still part of the equation), I need to power up even more times than before to reach the same level of units. This isn't ideal since it gives the opponent more time to retaliate and the one-square headband warrior probably can't defend against the opponent's [/ul] Then again, it all boils down to what the player is using the units for. If the player is planning to attack others: Yes headbands are great. If the player is just seeking defense: Yes headbands are great too, but too powerful such that the square can't be taken away easily (Probably need several hours of rebelling; not so much of the "spur of the moment" type of attack) And to psy, rebels exist for a reason. Suggestions:
|
|
|
Post by succat on Apr 4, 2013 23:03:00 GMT -5
Not too long ago Headbands worked where any square could attack a headband square, but could only conquer the square if the square doing the attacking was a headband square itself and was in range (had a headband number that was close). But, two things made me decide to change this. First of all, I guess it was too confusing for players to realize that, for example, in order to take headband-2, they had to be attacking from either headband-1, headband-3, or headband-4. So now, any headband square can be attacked by any other square regardless what it is, but the odds of successful takeover are low (not talking about the odds of winning an attack, but capturing the square) - see Rules page for the details on that.
The second thing was that I hadn't realized with Switch off it was going to be impossible for headband squares to get next to each other with the correct headband numbers to take each other over. So, that's why it just seemed easier to make it so any square can attack a headband square and potentially take it if there are enough units to take it with, although the odds of it happening are against it.
Main issue right now seems to be as you guys had already pointed out that the unit production is way overpowered. I still want to let this play out maybe for another round or so because I was thinking that eventually things across The Grid might balance out. Maybe not, if the top ranked headband players keep doing what they're doing and don't get spawned on or lose their headband to graffiti. But, I was thinking that with only a single square, as time went on, although single-square headband wearers would keep rising in units, they might lose the race in farms and cities and silver and squares, and over time, other players could overtake them if we're talking about worth in total resources.
Maybe, before this can happen, the headband wearer will use all their units and go for a wipe - I don't know. On one hand, the longer they wait, the higher the chance that they get spawned on and lose a ton of units. So not quite sure how it's going to play out. And also, wiping will take longer now having to conquer each headband square, but every headband square you take, the harder it will be for someone else to grab from you so that might even out. I'm a little baffled why I haven't seen any rebels thrown on the top headband squares... not sure if players are afraid of being wiped... because it seem unlikely they would be attacked by the top headband players if those players are concentrating on staying with a low square count and not gaining other squares at the moment. Or, maybe rebels can just be removed too easily nowadays for them to have much effect. Anyway, guess we'll see how things play out...
|
|
|
Post by psykosis on Apr 5, 2013 9:56:39 GMT -5
1) Graffiti is a temporary issue. Assuming one is on, it is simply carving and re-headbanding. Since it is more noticeable in one's log, chances are they will notice it before others and be able to reclaim their headband. 2) I am not too surprised no one has rebelled Jes or myself. For one, yes, it is easily remedied (especially considering our banks are no super-impressive, so worse off, we 'r p'). Secondly, our unit counts are pretty intimidating (sq 63 already exceeds the sum of all other squares), so no one wants to draw attention to the ticking timebombs they are. 3) A lot of my issue with HB's are the exclusivity of the low numbers. It provides the 'first person' to spawn/headband a severe lead. With switch off, instead of the mad dash to monk and Seer 42, everyone will simply be dashing for the lowest HB needed. With a low HB, farms and cities are pretty irrelevant. My income, even via exchanging at the rotten 1:1 rate still exceeds most (if not all) other players. If I play 'arms dealer' and sell units for 5g/unit or something, my income would be pretty staggering for this stage. 4) HB's (like Discovery and theoretically Silver mining - my own experience removed) scale by time online. While auto-banking helped bring the 'online all the time' folks in line with the rest, these commands push these folks severely into the lead again. 5) The current cap of 100k per powering was put in, to balance to the scale of the grid at that time. If the logic was it needed capping then, the same logic would imply it would need to be capped when the scale of the grid's economy is lower. 6) The spawn risk, while existent, is fairly small - due to being a single square holder and the possible 'skipping' due to it causing a spawn wipe. 7) The additional 'against conquering' odds will make it very painful to actually pull off a wipe. Just looking at the grid ATM, there are 10 isolated HB's to take (and more, but they will have other hb's within range, so I didn't include them). Assuming perfect odds (e.g. it will take 50 attacks to win a 1:50), this in of itself is another 4 hours to wipe just these headbands, with a 25 energy regain (e.g. no wizards). With wizards, this will even be slower. I question whether wiping is probable now - at least it is much, much more difficult than it has in the past. I want to make sure you fully weighed this into the equation. Now, with switch, of course that speeds things up significantly, assuming you start with a decent HB.
|
|
|
Post by succat on Apr 6, 2013 10:25:30 GMT -5
I take it you don't care for headbands much, eh? I understand the points you're making, but I haven't yet seen HBs actually run their course. I'm not saying they can't be refined some more, too, but I want to see how things actually play out with them in the game for a while. Just speculating about how they will play out and watching them play out are two different things. I think you're right that as of right now it will take longer to wipe the Grid with HBs in the game, and I realized that too when I was setting the 'odds' for them, but I also feel like if someone is going for a wipe, they should be able to take the key squares they need to have a large vote count in order to get switch turned back on so that they can make headband-hunting easier for them. If they can't get switch turned back on, then yes, it's going to be a slower process to wipe (now these odds could probably be tweaked some more, they are pretty high right now). However, once you begin the wipe process and start securing HB squares, it's going to take just as long for another player to grab those hard-fought HB squares back from you, unless they spawn on them, which is always a possibility. So, yes, as of right now, we're looking at a slower wipe, but maybe with that slower wipe process, we'll see more fighting and action from the people getting wiped as they'll have more time to struggle against it - rather than getting wiped in an hour while they sleep or something. Originally, the 'wipe process' was meant to be a gradual thing where a player increasingly gained more and more control of the board day by day until they owned it all completely... and then they would just stay in power forever fighting off little insurgencies that would popup and deal with a barrage of havocs - but those mechanics have changed into havocs getting voted off, big players building and building resources up until the time is right when they finally just go for a quick wipe, firing wizards to replace energy as needed, and then the round starts over after a wipe back to 42 squares again. Not sure I'm 100% crazy about the new wipes compared to the old wipes, but that's how it is at the moment. So, headbands may slow that down by a few more hours at least. Now on a massive Grid, this probably won't be feasible, which is why something will need to be tweaked at some point. The other point about being 'first to get to the headband' - yes, this is true. Whoever is first gets the reward there. But, this has been the case for a while in a lot of matters. Not saying it's 'fair' exactly, but it's true that if you're first to the HB, or first to the Seer, or first to take an undefended square with good resources, or first to abandon before an attacker can grab your square - there are a lot of advantages by just being online more so that you can be 'first' in a lot of things. Not sure how to deal with that yet because in a way, a person that is on more, should have some advantages just by them 'being there'. Someone who is away from the game shouldn't necessarily have those same advantages. But, this brings in the whole problem of those that are online more and get so much further ahead than those who are not - which, I think, is why you've seen so many random features in the game - to try to make it so that potentially anyone could come on The Grid and have a chance to be a force to be reckoned with - with a little effort, good diplomacy, and some luck. Anyway, headbands kind of bring this whole issue to light again more clearly, and hopefully in Grid 3.0 (or even in 2.0) we'll find better solutions to deal with it. It seems like the HBs capping at generating 100,000 units would actually allow other players to catch up again eventually. If they didn't ever cap, the HB player would probably always be in the lead. Maybe the number of units generated could be tweaked some more still. I don't want to de-power HBs too much though. The number 1 headband is supposed to be really powerful, as it is, and the next couple of other headbands also pretty strong as well. The number 2 headband was made to offset the number 1 headband with its own not-too-shabby-unit-generation, and etc etc, which is probably why it's still going to be tough to wipe even with the number 1 headband and all those units as an advantage, there are a couple of other headbands out there that are also piling on some units. And, if you start wiping people, they may increase graffiti, spawn-on-hb, and rebel-incite attempts... which, I'm curious to see how all of that plays out before I just say, "OK, that's it, headbands are off - they're too unbalanced!".
|
|
|
Post by psykosis on Apr 6, 2013 11:38:11 GMT -5
Current Thoughts My proposed fix to some of the issues: 1) Nuke HB-1 and HB-2: Those seem to be the core issue with unit production 2) HB's take over odds are too severe. They completely override the use of Walls and Monks. I would recommend changing the 1:100-[HB #] to 1:50-[HB #] or even 1:25-[HB #].
Edits for Monday Morning As I mentioned, the 'action' has increased, however I don't believe any of it really is leading towards a wipe. In fact, due to the 'battle to get HB-1', half the grid seems to be ab'd. Not sure this really is 'ideal'.
|
|
|
Post by succat on Apr 11, 2013 23:37:15 GMT -5
I nerfed Headbands even more by 75% less unit regeneration and only up to 40 max odds for takeover of a HB square if attacking from a square not in range. Also, it's back on the Voting page if you guys all decide to vote them off again. I had to see what it was like with them in the game for a bit. Have mixed feelings about them - they do seem to add more action, but did seem to give a little lopsided advantage that could quickly go from player to player as they passed around the headband by graffiti luck. Anyway, it's nerfed a lot, which should help some, but can vote it off again, too.
|
|
|
Post by popopop on Apr 12, 2013 12:39:13 GMT -5
Hi all! Was having a discussion with philo on fb about switch. Thought this might be of interest to the nay-sayers of switch.
Pop: I have mixed feelings about switch turned off. On one hand, it can be done be spiring squares, so there's no real need to turn off switch, and I really like wildcards. The ability to attack squares far away, and to protect those new discoveries, wildcards are great!
Phi: yeah but wildcard you can WC right next to the best square attack and then WC away and not have threat of being attacked as you are so far away not very strategy promoting
Pop: But why do square positioning _have_ to be part of the strategy? Is it really necessary? Why not just grab-and-go? Similarly, if others want your hard-to-reach squares, just wc over!
Phi: position has to be part as it is important makes the game harder as you have to fight your way your target instead of making it easy
Pop: but if it's impossible to do so, how should one do it? imagine a situation where person A has all the squares in domain 1. and person B wanted to grab A's square. However, B has only squares in domain 5. Without relying on others, it can be said that it is impossible for B to fight all the way up to A.
On the other hand, with switch (even without WC), B could grab A's squares with greater ease by himself and expand from there. A is now more vulnerable and less protected in the north, if switch was turned ON!!!!
Phi: But anyway if someone controled all squares in domain 1 then it would be up to the people to raise a fight against the giant. Srpout a rebellion
Pop: no, but you can't assume that A is a giant. there might be others who hold more than 42 squares/more domains
Phi: yes but if person B is a friend to other he more than likely has allies which could ab'd a square for him... if you see a square switching you know something is up and will take action immediatly like my first round when con switched I knew okay I have to take that square cause he's heading for my good squares with no switch it adds an element of surprise as you dont know what they are doing or planning
Pop: but the basis for my argument is that B doesn't have anyone to rely on. for example, a noob, or those annoying players.
Phi: exactly so why make it easier have them have to fight for their respect and squares as player A had to
Pop: but then again, we want the gameplay to be free from this accumulation of good karma in order to succeed. idealistically, i think it would be fairer to noobs that way, who doesn't have any respect to begin with.
|
|
Philoten
Ronin Warlock
I am un-biased in certain matters.
Posts: 34
|
Post by Philoten on Apr 12, 2013 12:59:59 GMT -5
My main goal with switch being off is it makes position important. We witnessed the importance of Position in the fall off LittleAngel. I don't entirely miss monks or wall either but I do miss seers. The voting odd did get people fighting for power. If there was a way to have seers again would be great or maybe just every mulitple of 42 square automatically has increased voting odds. Would create more strife and rush for power. If switch was to be turned on again I would take it upon myself to block the monking highway again. Not for any real reason though I love the strife it caused and I have to say that round was the most interesting one yet. My thought on HB, I dont like them. Ive never liked them but I will buy units off those who use them then Ill turn around and turn them off. Succat I didnt like how you made it so we couldnt vote off lol though if you want to vote block something make it so we cant vote switch on At pop i still say NO SWITCH. To expand you must hit people around you instead of whereever you ... please. More battling is happening without switch on. Raze... I would like to have raze back on but thats not happening as long as spawn razing is a possiblity.. maybe if there was a way to put a delay on after spawning before you can raze..... Razing i see is a good tactical move as long as switch is off. If you can just switch to someones best square and raze it down.. not very tactical whoever has the bigger bank comes in to player there. But with no switch its who can defend better and who has better strategy. @pop again Green is my favorite color xD so glad you used it or my name
|
|
|
Post by psykosis on Apr 12, 2013 13:16:38 GMT -5
Hi all! Was having a discussion with philo on fb about switch. Thought this might be of interest to the nay-sayers of switch. Pop: I have mixed feelings about switch turned off. On one hand, it can be done be spiring squares, so there's no real need to turn off switch, and I really like wildcards. The ability to attack squares far away, and to protect those new discoveries, wildcards are great!
I don't follow how Spires relate to switch... The ability you state to be able to 'wildcard anywhere to have a blanket protection' is the paramount example of why I opposed switch. A strong player should not be able to simply WC anywhere on the grid to attack anybody at any time. The fact discoveries appear on the bottom, where the weaker/newer folks tend to be is a _good_ thing, and does allow them easier access to snag these away. The giant doesn't need their life made easier.
Phi: yeah but wildcard you can WC right next to the best square attack and then WC away and not have threat of being attacked as you are so far away not very strategy promoting Pop: But why do square positioning _have_ to be part of the strategy? Is it really necessary? Why not just grab-and-go? Similarly, if others want your hard-to-reach squares, just wc over! Why have squares at all if position doesn't matter? Why have a grid? We could just have all our units/farms/etc. at one spot. Phi: position has to be part as it is important makes the game harder as you have to fight your way your target instead of making it easy Bingo. Pop: but if it's impossible to do so, how should one do it? imagine a situation where person A has all the squares in domain 1. and person B wanted to grab A's square. However, B has only squares in domain 5. Without relying on others, it can be said that it is impossible for B to fight all the way up to A. And this is where alliances and other items come in - if you want to get next to someone, you need to find someone willing to ab an adjacent square. This _adds_ to the social aspect of the game and makes alliances more than just simply 'clout'.
Why _should_ person B always be able to fight person A anyways?
On the other hand, with switch (even without WC), B could grab A's squares with greater ease by himself and expand from there. A is now more vulnerable and less protected in the north, if switch was turned ON!!!!
Exactly my point why switch shouldn't be on. Why _should_ person B be able to attack A from anywhere, at anytime? [/blue] Phi: But anyway if someone controled all squares in domain 1 then it would be up to the people to raise a fight against the giant. Srpout a rebellion
Pop: no, but you can't assume that A is a giant. there might be others who hold more than 42 squares/more domains
Really Pop? What round was 42 squares not considered a giant?
Phi: yes but if person B is a friend to other he more than likely has allies which could ab'd a square for him... if you see a square switching you know something is up and will take action immediatly like my first round when con switched I knew okay I have to take that square cause he's heading for my good squares with no switch it adds an element of surprise as you dont know what they are doing or planning
Pop: but the basis for my argument is that B doesn't have anyone to rely on. for example, a noob, or those annoying players.
This is a multi-player game. Why are we arguing about turning it into single player, where one person can do everything themselves? The point of a multi-player game is to interact (both via combat and alliances) with others...
Phi: exactly so why make it easier have them have to fight for their respect and squares as player A had to
Pop: but then again, we want the gameplay to be free from this accumulation of good karma in order to succeed. idealistically, i think it would be fairer to noobs that way, who doesn't have any respect to begin with.
See, this is where I have issues - you flipped on this even in the same discussion, Pop. You indicated originally you wanted switch to 'be able to pop down to noob land at will to defend your discoveries' (which is NOT a noob friendly power) but yet end trying to claim it is for the noobs. Noobs, regardless of ability to attack, will have difficulty attacking due to resources regardless of switch being on/off. By being to effectively defend (via a blanket defense of a beefed up WC), you are removing the feasibility for noobs to gain these resources.
Furthermore, WC's make it so the giants don't have to think about defense. They can leave all their squares more or less unprotected, and rely on their ability to zap on in via WC to defend/retake/etc.
And back again - I strongly believe the grid, as a multi-player online game, _should_ have reputation/real clout outside of the system, being a large driver.
|
|