There will be no safe zone, at least not yet. Not sure what you mean, - bots will die as well. Also, the more Generals you have (at 20 hucs), the more you are going to lose. People controlling many generals will need to work out how many coins they can get, and the cost involved in getting them, and how much they could lose. Honestly, for now, with 3day minimum disaster time, this should be ok. but, if not we will tweak some more.
If there is safe zone it won't matter, bots wil have the exact same playing field, so it won't help humans more than it would help bots.
The only way to limit "stuff", is by making it more expensive and more risk to play with 1000 generals.
Humans controlling just 5 Generals or 10, or 20 isn't so bad if a disaster comes imo... but someome controlling 1000 or 2000 (20k-40k hucs) isbn't going to take the risks so much after day 3.
The first 3 days after disaster may be where a problem lies, but for now, this change is already quite big, we will/may add or change things later on. There should be up to 17 days after in which it's high risk for someone to be walking around with 1000s of Generals.
Also, we had thought there could be a small issue in the first 3 days, but nothing compared to what we see on the map now.
As for losing coins after a disaster, if you've just started playing - it might be considered a bonus if it happens
again, it might be we need to tweak some stuff later on
If there is safe zone it won't matter, bots wil have the exact same playing field, so it won't help humans more than it would help bots.
The only way to limit "stuff", is by making it more expensive and more risk to play with 1000 generals.
Humans controlling just 5 Generals or 10, or 20 isn't so bad if a disaster comes imo... but someome controlling 1000 or 2000 (20k-40k hucs) isbn't going to take the risks so much after day 3.
The first 3 days after disaster may be where a problem lies, but for now, this change is already quite big, we will/may add or change things later on. There should be up to 17 days after in which it's high risk for someone to be walking around with 1000s of Generals.
Also, we had thought there could be a small issue in the first 3 days, but nothing compared to what we see on the map now.
As for losing coins after a disaster, if you've just started playing - it might be considered a bonus if it happens
again, it might be we need to tweak some stuff later on
the more i think about such expensive hunters, the more i'm afraid, i try to explain:
While from an investor point of view, this is a moves to increase huc value and i can understand that all would be happy to see increased huc value, from a player point of view, i'm afraid this will kill the game, mainly because:
- 1 people with big money, could easily overtake the map and current bot masters already have much hucs that they can invest, and disaster won't save that because they can afford to buy many hunters to recover their money left on the ground, more than casual players anyway.
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.
- 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
- 3 if/when hucs increase in value, those 20 hucs will be far more valuable and this will discourage even more new players
- 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
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
My proposal is to increase costs by ~10, a fair compromise, and you can do that in two way:
a) - change the player creation cost to 10, preserving 3 hunters
b) - change the player creation cost to 3.5, creating just 1 hunter
imho it's funnier to have 3 hunters to move, i know that you want to fight the recycle problem, but recycling is also the only way casual players have to recover a "game session" investment (see problem 4 above)
I think that increasing huc cost will not solve bot problem but will increase game problems and if you want to increase anyway the cost, at least you should implement a safe area where player could disconnect safely, or better, instead of a safe area, you can have a new kind of transaction that get off hunters from a map after some blocks are generated
e.g. you send a "sleep" command, that will cause your player to be removed from the map after 40 blocks (20 minutes), and drop any coin he has on, but recovering player cost)
this way that command won't be used to escape from an hot zone, but will preserve casual player from loosing money when they have to disconnect
IMHO this feature is mandatory if a player cost too much