4 ms·

I pretty much gave up on real-time interaction with dynamic structures as I have no idea what it'll do. It would much more practical if the game gave a glimpse

by cben 12y ago

I pretty much gave up on real-time interaction with dynamic structures as I have no idea what it'll do. It would much more practical if the game gave a glimpse into the future, including effects of cells I marked for placement but didn't commit yet. Something in the spirit of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xg0PKAvL01Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xg0PKAvL01Y only looking into the future rather then past.

drewblaisdell 12y ago
That is another good idea. I may implement that as well. The problem I'm focusing on at the moment is that the game is both less challenging and less fun when fewer players are online (if you have any ideas to increase player retention/engagement or make the game seem more "active" when fewer players are online).
- cben 12y ago
  Frequently I was out of cells to place and waiting for a sufficient number to do something interesting is boringly slow. I found myself wasting 1-2 cells on mostly ineffective gambits because I was too impatient to wait for 3+... Or I could switch away, and at some point come back later with 12 cells - but that could be half a hour later. 1. show number of cells-to-place in tab title / favicon. Helps with switching away but coming back when I have something to do. 2. consider having several "rooms" so an active player can always have something to do without entirely switching away. Or instead of independent rooms have a larger map with distant areas of it having independent supply of cells. Wilder idea: the game runs so slow to let you carefully place many cells, and give _some_ hope of reacting events in real time, right? What if it run faster but you could enter "bullet time" when you're placing cells? Moreover, what if you could unwind time back a few steps?! The latter sounds especially cool, because it gives limited foresight (and ability to experiment) within the same interface. This can be allowed without inconsistency due to speed-of-light delay, under baddox's idea where each player can only place cells in a separate area. Maybe even possible in some adaptive way with unrestricted gameplay, but much harder.

by cben 12y ago

drewblaisdell 12y ago

That is another good idea. I may implement that as well. The problem I'm focusing on at the moment is that the game is both less challenging and less fun when fewer players are online (if you have any ideas to increase player retention/engagement or make the game seem more "active" when fewer players are online).

cben 12y ago
Frequently I was out of cells to place and waiting for a sufficient number to do something interesting is boringly slow. I found myself wasting 1-2 cells on mostly ineffective gambits because I was too impatient to wait for 3+... Or I could switch away, and at some point come back later with 12 cells - but that could be half a hour later. 1. show number of cells-to-place in tab title / favicon. Helps with switching away but coming back when I have something to do. 2. consider having several "rooms" so an active player can always have something to do without entirely switching away. Or instead of independent rooms have a larger map with distant areas of it having independent supply of cells. Wilder idea: the game runs so slow to let you carefully place many cells, and give _some_ hope of reacting events in real time, right? What if it run faster but you could enter "bullet time" when you're placing cells? Moreover, what if you could unwind time back a few steps?! The latter sounds especially cool, because it gives limited foresight (and ability to experiment) within the same interface. This can be allowed without inconsistency due to speed-of-light delay, under baddox's idea where each player can only place cells in a separate area. Maybe even possible in some adaptive way with unrestricted gameplay, but much harder.