The Energon Pub

News Credits: 1 · Thu Mar 06, 2008 9:57 am

Burn wrote:Actually we were thinking that given how much help the Autobots need they could have both factions.

Except Bun-Bun. We need to make sure he doesn't take any more brilliant ideas elsewhere.

Been there done that NO THANK YOU.

News Credits: 6 · Thu Mar 06, 2008 12:47 pm

Burn wrote:Actually we were thinking that given how much help the Autobots need they could have both factions.

Drifting off-topic into the realm of hypocritical smack-talking there Burn.

Although I'll confess, it makes me wonder how much damage the Maximals and Predacons could do if they were united as a single faction.

News Credits: 7 · Thu Mar 06, 2008 12:52 pm

Huh, we wouldn't get along very well with the fuzzy-wuzzies, I can tell you that.

News Credits: 6 · Thu Mar 06, 2008 2:03 pm

Okay, here's an idea that I don't think will be very popular, and may be unwise, but I thought I'd throw it out there:

In addition to cutting out the 'small' and single-level missions and making the generator player-pushed only, how about...

Increasing the wait time for missions, and proportionately increasing xp gains from said missions?

Longer missions means fewer get generated and those that do are more likely to fill up (especially if the generator is player-pushed). Increasing xp gains is simply compensatory; this game is slow enough already...

News Credits: 7 · Thu Mar 06, 2008 2:12 pm

That sounds good if you think about it, as lond as xp gains rise around the same level as the wait time.

News Credits: 226 · Thu Mar 06, 2008 3:36 pm

Caelus wrote:Increasing the wait time for missions, and proportionately increasing xp gains from said missions?

No. Like you said, this game is slow enough already. Increased xp gains wouldn't appease me if I had to wait even longer than an hour as I sometimes do now.

And what happens during the slow times of the day? Empty missions ... hour and a half waits. Slower game = driving more people away.

News Credits: 1 · Thu Mar 06, 2008 4:23 pm

Can we cut the length of the mission itself down? I'd be okay with wait times being longer if the mission itself was shorter. Say, adding 10-15 minutes waiting, and taking 5-10 minutes off of the fighting?

Thu Mar 06, 2008 4:28 pm

Jeep! wrote:Can we cut the length of the mission itself down? I'd be okay with wait times being longer if the mission itself was shorter. Say, adding 10-15 minutes waiting, and taking 5-10 minutes off of the fighting?

Might be on to something there jp it would decrease on the times one faction retreats those are so annoying.

News Credits: 6 · Thu Mar 06, 2008 4:30 pm

slip wrote:
Jeep! wrote:Can we cut the length of the mission itself down? I'd be okay with wait times being longer if the mission itself was shorter. Say, adding 10-15 minutes waiting, and taking 5-10 minutes off of the fighting?

Might be on to something there jp it would decrease on the times one faction retreats those are so annoying.

The 20min countdown you see while waiting on your bot to finish has nothing to do with the timespan the battle-log turns out.

News Credits: 7 · Thu Mar 06, 2008 4:41 pm

Caelus wrote:
slip wrote:
Jeep! wrote:Can we cut the length of the mission itself down? I'd be okay with wait times being longer if the mission itself was shorter. Say, adding 10-15 minutes waiting, and taking 5-10 minutes off of the fighting?

Might be on to something there jp it would decrease on the times one faction retreats those are so annoying.

The 20min countdown you see while waiting on your bot to finish has nothing to do with the timespan the battle-log turns out.

then...why is there a 20 minute countdown?

News Credits: 1 · Thu Mar 06, 2008 4:43 pm

Caelus wrote:
slip wrote:
Jeep! wrote:Can we cut the length of the mission itself down? I'd be okay with wait times being longer if the mission itself was shorter. Say, adding 10-15 minutes waiting, and taking 5-10 minutes off of the fighting?

Might be on to something there jp it would decrease on the times one faction retreats those are so annoying.

The 20min countdown you see while waiting on your bot to finish has nothing to do with the timespan the battle-log turns out.

Doesn't answer whether or not it's feasible to reduce it, though. If I remember rightly Glyph was able to cut mission and arena times waaaaaay down once when he was trying to blitz through a lot of results to find a bug of some kind.

News Credits: 6 · Thu Mar 06, 2008 5:11 pm

Jeep! wrote:
Caelus wrote:
slip wrote:Might be on to something there jp it would decrease on the times one faction retreats those are so annoying.

The 20min countdown you see while waiting on your bot to finish has nothing to do with the timespan the battle-log turns out.

Doesn't answer whether or not it's feasible to reduce it, though. If I remember rightly Glyph was able to cut mission and arena times waaaaaay down once when he was trying to blitz through a lot of results to find a bug of some kind.

I was just saying that it wouldn't effect how often retreats occur.

As far as feasability, AFAIK it's not a problem, assuming Mkall knows where in the code to make the change.

Afterall, as you pointed out, the times have been altered before.

Edit:
Also, reducing the mission time 10min and increasing the wait time 10min won't do anything to reduce the number of battle-logs generated, except by giving people an additional ten minutes to join.

I must also point out that, if mission times are reduced to 10min, players who are able to come out of missions unscathed and are good at 'vulturing' can manage to get their bot in at least five missions in an hour. Would that present a potential problem?

News Credits: 226 · Thu Mar 06, 2008 5:28 pm

I don't see it as a problem.

If people are dedicated, I don't see why they shouldn't have quick turn around.

Of course I fail to see the sense in making mission times even longer. You already have to wait up to an hour at times now.

If you REALLY want to slow things down, then don't increase mission times, just increase the minimum number of slots per mission. Glyph implemented it, each slot = 5 mins. Therefore 4 a side would be open for 20 mins (essentially it's two slots as the factions are combined) plus 20 mins processing = 40 mins. 10 a side would be 50 mins + another 20 mins.

Make it a minimum of 10 per side and a player pushed generator and you shouldn't have too many missions generating. Just don't make the game even slower.

News Credits: 3648 · Thu Mar 06, 2008 5:37 pm

Donations aren't necessary to save HMW. I just have to figure out what to do with the resources we have currently available. The more pressing concern is finding someone who can help me with the programming for HMW. I am not interested in taking over the programming for HMW. If we don't find someone who can really kick ass and take this game in a new direction, HMW might see it's doom simply because no one is available to maintain it and give it the TLC that it really desperately needs.

If you guys want to be really helpful ... help us find someone who can program HMW like it's never been programmed before. I'll put the financial resources into HMW if it's not a hassle to me, generates the pageviews I need it to generate and gets the TLC the HMW game and community deserves.

News Credits: 1 · Thu Mar 06, 2008 5:40 pm

Seibertron wrote:For the record, 99% of what I see you guys debating about in this thread is completely 100% pointless.

And what's the 1% that's good?

News Credits: 226 · Thu Mar 06, 2008 5:47 pm

I don't see how stream lining missions to encourage mission participation is pointless ...

News Credits: 1 · Thu Mar 06, 2008 5:52 pm

Or Blendtrons. Need moar Blendtrons.

News Credits: 3648 · Thu Mar 06, 2008 5:53 pm

Jeep! wrote:
Seibertron wrote:For the record, 99% of what I see you guys debating about in this thread is completely 100% pointless.

And what's the 1% that's good?

I edited my post above because that wasn't really a fair statement for me to make. It didn't come across the way I meant it. Either way, I just wanted to say that I thought we could all be more productive not debating about something that will ultimately be out of our control. But then there's the nature of the Internet where people will debate everything until they're blue in the face.

News Credits: 1 · Thu Mar 06, 2008 5:56 pm

Seibertron wrote:
Jeep! wrote:
Seibertron wrote:For the record, 99% of what I see you guys debating about in this thread is completely 100% pointless.

And what's the 1% that's good?

I edited my post above because that wasn't really a fair statement for me to make. It didn't come across the way I meant it. Either way, I just wanted to say that I thought we could all be more productive not debating about something that will ultimately be out of our control. But then there's the nature of the Internet where people will debate everything until they're blue in the face.

What I meant was to find out the 1% that was worth running with so we could run with it.
I think the best way to get HMW fixed is to open to code up to all and sundry to view, so anyone with coding skills who wants to try to fix it can help to figure out what needs done where.

Thu Mar 06, 2008 6:04 pm

Psychout and badwolf are the only programmery people that spring to mind, though i cant give any measure of there skills in comparison to Mkall or shadow. Though i quite like the game, aside from a few gameplay things

News Credits: 1 · Thu Mar 06, 2008 6:08 pm

Nem, too.

Thu Mar 06, 2008 6:12 pm

I have no knowledge of programing but I will say that even a stream lined hmw is better than no hmw. To me at least then when a programing team can be compiled we could advance at that point.

News Credits: 226 · Thu Mar 06, 2008 6:27 pm

Jeep! wrote:Nem, too.

He did say badwolf. Keep up with the name changes Jesus Prime!

News Credits: 1 · Thu Mar 06, 2008 6:28 pm

Man, I should have known that. Silly Peroni!

News Credits: 42 · Thu Mar 06, 2008 6:59 pm

Tammuz wrote:Psychout and badwolf are the only programmery people that spring to mind, though i cant give any measure of there skills in comparison to Mkall or shadow.

Cant speak for Wolf, but im not sure i'd be able to help, my skills were learnt by updating and editing forum rpg's, im no programmer. Id be willing to help everywhere I can but doubt i'd be able to do much.

The other problem is the scale of the job. A permenent solution simply isnt possible by relying on one person who has a life outside the game, it clearly needs more care than one person can give.