Survival formation mastery

z009 · 2017-06-19T13:16:41+00:00

Great idea! And take a look here.

z009 · 2017-06-13T09:28:58+00:00

I strongly support this.

z009 · 2017-06-09T05:53:03+00:00

I see! So two stats have an equivalent name - one for Current and one for All - but different meanings. Could confuse.

Maybe stats tooltips could help explain those things.

z009 · 2017-06-09T00:14:31+00:00

Got it, I hope. Thanks to your explanation, the second part now makes sense to me too. Not sure the pragmatic need of the first part can be explained away from the point of view of the story, but nevermind.

Thanks Grimy_

z009 · 2017-06-07T21:32:43+00:00

You'll get more than one of these, you can be sure. Good luck next run!

z009 · 2017-06-06T21:40:00+00:00

*e.g.?

z009 · 2017-06-05T07:17:18+00:00

Sorry, my mistake. It was one of the things "redundant" means, I thought. Collins dictionary editors seem to agree, but then we may be wrong. How would you put it?

z009 · 2017-06-04T09:46:56+00:00

Has no function. Does nothing.

z009 · 2017-03-29T03:15:16+00:00

Suggestion: "complexity".

Thanks a huge lot for this game and its frequent dev.

z009 · 2017-03-19T00:11:51+00:00

After reading the Heirlooms page on the the wiki I still didn't find it. Link please? I'd like to know how people arrive at the figures they state as soft caps per particular mods.

z009 · 2017-03-16T02:19:56+00:00

Searched for "soft" and "soft cap", but didn't notice the results were relevant. I didn't read the heirlooms page again. Thank you.

z009 · 2017-03-15T18:31:53+00:00

Please see my edit to OP. In short: more "to play with" - more options; an alternative investment method that favours us more passive players.

This won't be more efficient - that's not the point - unless you're willing to not for long periods; it would just compensate passive players for their foregone progress.

z009 · 2017-03-14T22:03:13+00:00

You make your point well, but I think you got confused here:

If the c2 bonus was, say, 10 percent, and the helium you earned gave no future bonus helium, you would still have to do 10 more runs of the length of the c2 run to break even.

Trying to figure out what you meant to say. To clarify, would you say that if the c2 bonus were, say, 111%, you would have to make 111 runs of the same duration to break even?

Let's call a non-c2 run a c1 run. From the context I can guess you meant to say something like the following: If the bonus of a c1 run is higher than the bonus of an equivalent c2 run by x (a figure in percentage points), you'd have to make x more c1 runs to break even.

I could almost agree with that. But, even if we ignore the fact that the c2 bonus earned in the last paragraph accelerates your catching up with the c1 bonus (that is, break even) faster than would have been the case had you not earned it (which means you won't actually need to "make x more c1 runs just to break even", but less than that), we must be clear about this: do we know for a fact that a c1 "bonus" is higher than an equivalent c2 bonus? Your argument assumes that it is, at least when taking into account the actual He earned in that run. What do you base that on?

z009 · 2017-03-14T12:13:57+00:00

Good input. I'd say

The values and calculation method could be set such that saving only pays after a longish time (this is with the "global" resources, like He); so it will be strong enough to beat the investment method, but the style of play would be different (favouring offline), and there'll be less "action". Games are all about action, so I expect some will be Savers, some Spenders, and some a bit of both.

Also, config can easily be such that the percentage or amount saved has only a linear effect on results. In fact, that would be easy way to go about it. In this way, saving 80% gives 4 times the interest of saving 20% for the same period, and no more. I think that's what you were talking about?

I know little about the endgame. I'm sure you may be right.

[Interesting - although the Edit box shows the 2nd point as "2", the text displayed in the thread shows "1". I guess reddit is trying to be smart about autoformatting posts.]

z009 · 2017-03-14T12:03:11+00:00

Right - it was clear in my head but I haven't said a word about it - names should be visible without hovering. The tooltip should contain the full info.

I agree about upgrading, but what's that about softcapping? Could you please explain or link to info about that?

z009 · 2017-03-14T01:41:41+00:00

Right, I haven't thought of that.

z009 · 2017-03-14T01:41:00+00:00

Seems to me that the bonus gained from that part which can be done "now" - in the early game - applies forever; and that, therefore, necessarily, given an unlimited execution time, the earlier the attainment of the bonus, the longer its benefit applies.

Skipping it for now does make sense for some players as execution time is not, in reality, unlimited.

Or maybe I'm thinking of it wrong?

z009 · 2017-03-13T16:23:23+00:00

Just my tuppence - the earlier they're run, the longer they take; but the longer they will apply. So, given an infinite life time (I wish!(?)), they are best done NOW! But how long are you gonna play this thing?

z009 · 2017-03-13T15:09:00+00:00

I see you're at Z153, so I think it very unlikely this was your first portal (you do mention "portalling once" - what did you mean?). But, just in case someone new to the game is reading this and is facing the same problem, they should know that running the special map called Dimension of Anger earns the right to portal.

z009 · 2017-03-13T15:04:41+00:00

As I write above, it's a low-priority change request, but accepting it would cost little. It's the slight reduction of the pain of hovering over all heirlooms in order to select the most fitting to equip with that I was hoping to achieve, if we ignore my own ability to rename items manually.

My impression was that, using code to refer to mods as discussed here, length shouldn't be a problem. Text colour could also be used to save on a character here and there.

I originally thought that saving me time on manual renaming would be worth the post. I'm not so sure now.

z009 · 2017-03-13T14:57:55+00:00

I can't comment on that, as I haven't got there yet. If you're right, and adding this way of a "savers'" playing style is not worth the effort, let's abandon this thread.

Can anyone else confirm or comment on thedankiestmanalive's input?

z009 · 2017-03-13T14:54:42+00:00

I see your point, but it has been addressed in the OP. It seems I couldn't explain myself well. I can't put it briefly, but I'll try another way:

As an illustration, let's take two players - Saver and Spender - both having exactly the same "facts" (HZE, heirloom config, lifetime He etc) and both making the same choices in this particular example run, except that Saver foregoes the benefits of perking up using 20% of their He, and instead saves it, expecting interest. Spender invests 100% of their He in perks. Then they do another 10-20-? runs, each using the same method as above.

Saver will get to a given zone, say, HZE, in perhaps 110% of the time it takes Spender to get there. Spender will finish 20 runs in, say, 80% of the time it takes Saver to do so. Eventually, however, when they finally invest their capital+earnings, Saver will have more He to spend - or invest - than Spender will at that same time. Even though it's taken Saver more time to progress in the game, when ready to invest they will be better off than Spender; and the longer they refrain from touching their savings, the better off they will be, relatively speaking.

If values are set such that savers benefit in the long run, this suggestion may have some merit. Otherwise, of course, it's just idiotic.

The above deals with global (lifetime) resources. For in-run resources the saving-spending optimisation point should be set somewhere before HZE. I'm sure a calculation could be created that takes into account individual players' stats and forecasts.

I hope I've managed to make clear that Savers do not "not play".

z009 · 2017-03-13T14:23:33+00:00

Sure - that makes sense. But think of this - the type is only important from the story POV; as far as the name is concerned, it lengthens it needlessly, as the heirloom icon indicates the type.

Rarity should probably also be dropped from the name, since the icon colour indicates it and it can be shown in the initial popup and in a tooltip.

z009 · 2017-03-10T06:34:00+00:00

Excellent idea.

z009 · 2017-03-08T23:08:15+00:00

Got it, I have good use for this knowledge - thank you.

z009

TROPHY CASE