Um, perhas the only thing I did was make trades public in the event log. Not sure its a good idea, but wanted to test the consequences.
Public trades, that should be interesting. Maybe you could add private trades at double the cost or somethingā¦
1 Like
Minor bug:
When you rename a star, the main map does not update until you refresh.
1 Like
missed the first few I guess. but in one now.
Oh yay i thought NPās future development had kinda died when you started working on BBB! will have too try and save for premium now, stupid exchange rate is killing me atm!!
@JayKyburz I am not a fan of trade notifications. It makes it too easy to see who is working together, removes the ability to secretly support a player. Another nail in the coffin of trading in Proteus.
yep, its a controversial change, but I would like to see how my current game playes out a little before I decide if I like it myself.
From the Proteus codex:
The price of carriers grows with how many you already have, just like other infrastructure.
Is the count based on current existing carrier, or total number produced (including destroyed)?
Honestly the whole āyou cannot send tech or cash to a player who has more stars than youā thing is a game quitter for me. not being able to trade with an ally just because he has a few more stars is not a good design. it prevents smaller players that started in a bad spot from making allies and frankly it leaves them as nothing more than targets waiting to be eaten by bigger players because they have tech and you as a smaller player cannot be useful to them at all anymore. before top science could work on weapons next could work on manufacturing and a smaller ally could work on banking, scanning, range etc. making them useful to the group. now they cannot be useful so they are going to be bait. also home worlds should not have wormholes connected to them.
2 Likes
@wfmcgillicuddy current total carrier count I believe
@Golden_Ace totally understand that it will be a very different game. Thats kind of why Iām not calling it NP3 or anything like that. Itās an alternate mode.
For this new mode I hope to avoid the traditional trading block of 4 players, each working on a different tech, in a mostly unbreakable alliances.
What I hope will happen, is that big players will have to worry about the other big players, and can choose to ether ask the small players to help them (and gifting them tech) or choose to attack the smaller players, but then risk being weakened enough for another big player to make a move on them.
I hope the alliance and trade, even though less often, will be more interesting. But hey - it might not work out that way.
Just bought a premium membership to be able to play Proteus, but the account doesnāt update to premium. Why?
Cool that Proteus now is in open beta!
Sorry Axson, Paypal in mangling product descriptions right now and its causing the payment processing to fail. I have to do each one by hand untill I can upload new code tomorow morning. (I dont like to update the server late at night incase I break something.)
Thanks very much for the support. Your account should be updated after a browser refresh!
Thanks for the quick answer. And thanks for the lifetime premium! Just joined the Proteus game and now looking forward to some exciting space adventures.
The willingness of a large player to gift tech to a smaller player is seriously compromised by the trade messaging. Iām not sure what you are trying to achieve otherwise with that change.
Iām experiencing a certain lag when swiping the map on mobile play. Using Chrome on a Galaxy S5
I donāt really find the trade notifications a problem. In fact, I hardly even look at them, and donāt see how theyāll affect my gameplay in any way. It was never very hard to tell who was working together anywayā¦
As for trade restrictions though, Iām with golden aceā¦ I see what youāre getting at, Jay, but Iām not sure itās going to work out that way. The leaders are already pulling away from the others in our game, even without a large star difference, and I feel like smaller players have a better chance if they could trade more freely among themselvesā¦ No trade scanned maybe? Or a different approach altogether?
1 Like
I believe we had this discussion before about only being able to trade in one direction.
As a small player you can only now offer loyalty for tech with a bigger player in hopes with that you can grow and maybe pass them and eventually trade back? or pledge allegiance and take second?
Then would you also have a smaller nation under you that you trade tech too with for their pledge of loyalty to take third?
Many times I would be willing to pledge allegiance just to keep from dying. Placing would be a bonus.
But @Omnimal we have before discussed a federation option, where small players could ally, and trade freely. It would be a mid game concept, with maybe the top x players prevented from participating. X=25% of active players?
I like that you now produce every tick. It opens up a more free and dynamic way to play.
I feel like thatās taking giving smaller players an advantage too far. I fully understand that slowing the game down and stopping one player from running away with the game from the start is important, but at the same time, good, aggressive play deserves reward.
This kind of mechanic will just slow down the game towards the end imo.
Personally, I think the important thing is to decrease the luck factor in starting next to afks and quiters, instead of just laying handicaps on the leader.
I think the key factor in reducing the speed of leader expansion would be destroying industry on captured stars, like economy and science. That would tone down the advantage in landing next to an afk out weak player, without taking much away from good offensive play.