Indie game storeFree gamesFun gamesHorror games
Game developmentAssetsComics


A member registered May 20, 2020

Recent community posts

More issues:

I finally managed to get an idea of how to work with the combine parts interface, and combined some parts. So I went to give the new part a try on a corpus... Of course, changing the design meant scrapping my existing tanks and losing half my experience. Okay, I wanted to improve my army as well as better understand the game, so I went ahead with it.

So I go to back to the build screen to build some tanks... Oh, hey! I cannot build them! I am in the demo mode game, which means--no uranium! I just scrapped my army and lost my experience for something I cannot even access, without any warning?!

Put something in the UI to let us review the build requirements for a design before we commit to it. Especially if it carries some kind of penalty or loss. It wold also be useful to know which parts I can stuff in the trash bin because I cannot use them.

Maybe I'm alone in my thinking, but a demo should inspire a player to upgrade to a paid version, NOT make them 1) feel like they're being held hostage about it--I'll go play something else in that case! And 2) give a player a good idea of what they can expect from the "full" version. If I encounter these kind of issues in a demo, how can I have any confidence that the full version is worth investing in?

Some kind of tutorial or info on he design screens would be helpful. For example, what is a "compatible part?"

Other things that would be nice: A filter to quickly focus on research items available (or filter out those which cannot be further researched)--I seem to spend more and more time scrolling around to find which item I want to, and can, put a tech point in to. While I can see that info when I hover over an item, it would be much nicer and easier to see it all at a glance.

When collapsing in the resource view, a brief summary of the important details would be nice. This is not major, though, the last update already did a lot to improve the UI.

Balance is still a major issue. A lot of things need a lot of metal, yet metal is one of the more limited and scare resources to obtain because (at least the demo version) of the limit of two level 2 mines, and very low production rates overall for them. In the real world, we're surrounded by lots of recoverable metal. In a post-apocalyptic world, I would expect the same. Derelict vehicles, even tanks after battles, unused buildings and equipment/machines/furniture inside them. Being able to scavenge some like with food/water/wood/energy, instead of only being able to mine it, would be a good start--even if limited.

Overall, as it is and the issues above... Once again I have lost interest in the game, and going to go play something else.

To be brutally honest, that is one aspect of this game I do not like: Needing to research UI (User Interface) items, not related to game play. Would you want to play a game that, for example, only ran in 640x480x8 resolution, unless you researched "Higher Resolution and Color Depth" in-game? Only items that might be part of both should be an in-game research-able item (for example, being able to research build/production queues could be both a UI thing AND an in-game thing.) These are the kind of issues which caused me to stop playing the game at all. I want to come home, relax, and enjoy a game after a hard day at work--If I wanted to be stressed and frustrated, I'd stay at work, where they PAY me for it.

(2 edits)

Actually, it is an incremental game. While many incremental games are idle games, not all are.

But anyhow, I already figured out how to fix the issue you encountered: Lower the rate you are sending to the other city to about half of your average production (actual production--so if the crank is the only one producing, only calculate half of that; do not include production for power plants that are not producing due to no fuel). Once you start storing the unsold/unsent energy, it will fill your storage and kick start the selling again (make sure you have an engineer assigned to sell, though!) And then stick to that... Figure out how much energy you produce *on average since it fluctuates*, and set your "send rate" lower than that. That way, a part of your production always gets sold off to pay for buying.

Worse case scenario is if it tanked to zero while you were away--just set your send rate to zero. It will fill your storage (from the hand crank, at least) and start selling the excess. Once it starts selling, it will also start buying and bringing the other power plants back online. Then you can slowly start raising the send amount again.

Just remember not to send or store all your production--you will always want to ensure a portion is being sold off to pay for fuel buying. I've had good results with treating my main production as if it were 15% less for main power plants, and only about half for alternative power sources which can drop to zero production at times. That way, it send the remainder in to storage and sells off the excess after storage is full. (My storage levels were under 10 storage facilities for a long time to encourage hem to fill quickly and start selling. Only recently have I increased it in order to meet the end game target levels.)

To be brutally honest, the balance on this is horrible. Everything except discard costs "action points", and many items need resources which take time to acquire--a LOT of time, since no matter how well your deck is put together, it's random chance for getting needed cards. Even though players have the advantage of seeing the cards the enemy will play, they still depend on random chance/luck that they cards will fall favorably. Less frustration just randomly rolling dice, "oops, you rolled less than a 7 on a six sider. You're dead."

A basic sword requires 2 wood. A wood resource card requires you get lucky enough to have them at the start. If you bought an axe upgrade at the start, you still have to use two action points to play the wood cards, and another four (two each) to harvest them. Again, if you get lucky, you start with the basic sword in first deal. And this is all if you get lucky-not skill or planning (unless you make a deck with only wood and basic swords, but then most levels will kill you without other support cards). But a basic sword only does two points of damage. Many enemies have armor that 2 points won't even scratch. So now you're trying to upgrade to yet a better weapon, while getting your butt beat.

More balance would give more options, such as reduced points needed to play and gather resources, or an option to start with at least a basic sword, or even make some enemies suffer the same "random luck" fate on some cards. Other possibilities are letting the player pick two or three of their starting cards, or having more to start with and a bigger hand, say starting with five (or six if they purchase the "boost" option to start) and a hand size of seven.

Perhaps even have difficulty levels: Easy might give even more, normal might be as I suggested, and hard as it is now.

As I have been teaching my nephew who I have been teaching how to program: No one wants to play a game where the programmer seems to want to just kill them outright (As Joshua said in "War Games", "A strange game; The only winning move is not to play.") or where the only "challenge" is "Skill? Forget skill! I hope I get lucky!"

I've often felt similar frustrations, due to the stock market aspect being pretty much random. What I did was make sure I had a diverse range of power generation and always expect each to be only profitably operational about half the time--and set my energy supply to about half my maximum possible output. Then just check in on it once in awhile to make any tweaks needed--sometimes the prices can stay high (or low) for a long time, while others, they fluctuate high-low-high-low almost constantly.

I also kept at least two engineers researching alternate energy sources that were not affected by the market random craziness. Unfortunately, the alternate sources are all natural sources, which means they're effected by natural random craziness instead of the market! But on the plus side, you do not need to worry about financing and buying operational supplies for them; You only have to worry about natural deficiencies. (I'd post more about that, but I don't want to give away mid-to-late game spoilers..)

Just keep in mind that you do not *always* need to be producing the maximum energy output. In fact, I suspect that it's programmed such that demand *always* outpaces supply. Focus instead on keeping your own output stable, even if it's not enough for demand--the city folks may not be happy without full power, but they'll cope.

There's quite a few algorithms out there for economic simulations like that, ranging from simple "the more you buy, the more it cost; the more you sell, the less it costs" to complex ones that modify based on any number of point-in-time history elements, with older history items having progressively less of an impact until they simply disappear. I think for a game like this, the economy portion of it is not a major game component, so a simpler approach should be suitable: If the player buys, that would drive the price up. There is no selling done of anything but energy to counter that, though.

(2 edits)

The auto-buy seems broken.. In fact, the super energize timer also seems stuck at 60 seconds. I' guessing one of the timers is broken. Also, as a suggestion, add an item under the options to "save" game state.. even if the game autosaves often, give players a little peace of mind should they need to reload/refresh.

Update: I seems it's not just the timers, but many things that need to get updated/refreshed--including gave saves. I had progressed to the point of making dysons, but the solar energy was not updating at all. Upon refreshing the game, it went back to a game state from several *hours* ago. At this point, his bug is a game breaker making the game unplayable.

The biggest issue with this is in the presentation. The glowing, flashing, etc, is hostile to those with handicaps affected by such, as well as the intensive cpu needed to calculate all the rays and colors. Give some kind of option to tone it down--or even pause it, as it also makes my placement of objects extremely "jumpy" as it tries to keep up with all the effects. It's hard enough trying to place things visually ("Is that a 45 degree angle or a 40 degree angel?"), that when I add in the jumpiness, many times I end up with a delay between releasing the mouse button and it placing it--a half a second later and several dozen pixels from where I thought the mouse was.

(2 edits)

The math is very wonky. I clear my assignments, and then I have 2.55e20 particles unassigned. I then go to assign 1.0e20 to auto sparks, and click the [+], but it assigns 2.55e20 instead of the amount I entered. This makes it very difficult to split assignments between sparks and compressed sparks the way I want.

Also note that this is not the only place the numbers and math are wonky. Wood/Total Wood/Burnt Wood, etc, is another that is.

Suggestion: After purchasing the "auto-buy upgrades" upgrade, let us toggle it on or off. Sometimes, I want to save up to buy another upgrade sooner and not buy a lower one first.

(2 edits)

I also seem to hit the "not ticking" bug. Most often when I'm idle and switching to another window/tab. Is it possible one of the critical timers is not firing (and/or not rescheduling itself) when the page is not on top/in the foreground?

PS: Please add a button to force a save and/or export/import a save game, so if we do have to refresh, we can be more confident it has saved.

Perhaps I am doing something wrong then, as I have that turned on, but I have not seen any effect. There are still many instances where the engineers buy when they should not, and I watch as my money rapidly decrease.

Regarding the layout issue: I have the same issue in my game when not in full screen. I have to switch to full screen to see everything without overlaps. (Ever program with Tk? Even though it's layout engine works hard to avoid this kind of issue, it's not an easy problem to detect or correct..)

My main thought is not about stocking up so much, anyhow. It's about using and managing resources--not always optimally, but at least not at a consistently wasteful rate. I think you are seeing this as trying to achieve the impossible: Trying to predict the market, and waiting for the right time to act. I am not suggesting that; I am only suggesting that when buying clearly is at a loss, it doesn't buy. If it costs X to supply a generator, but the market price is currently X+100, it should not buy, as it is losing that extra 100 for nothing. That's usually what wastes my money, not oversupply. I calculated the break even point for my current game, and as long as the market price is at or below that point, I go ahead and buy, even if the market price is not at the lowest. I am not trying to "get rich" off rock bottom buying, I'm trying to avoid not spending more resourecs than necessary: Avoiding that X+100 scenario.

There's no need (and as you said, it's not just complicated, but actually impossible) to create a predictive algorithm to buy at the lowest point in the market. I.E., I am not concerned with trying to determine if there's a chance the market will be even lower the next "tick"; It might be. It might not be. That is a random probability. On the other hand, if at this point in time, the market price is that "X+100", there is no probability at all that you will buy at a loss--it is a 100% certainty that I wish to avoid.

In math terms, let's say at time T, the market is at X+5. Buying would be at a loss. So skip buying. At T+1, the market drops to X-10. If you buy a small amount, say S+1 (S for supply)--enough to supply this tick and the next, then no matter if the next tick the price goes up or down, you'll have the supply to cover it. Then at T+2, the price drops even lower to X-50. So again, buy S+1. Notice I am still only buying an extra +1? That is because I'm not trying to predict; I'm only trying to buy when it's not at a loss, which *might* end up stockpiling (in this case, it would now have +2 stockpiled; +1 from the previous, and +1 from this). But let's say the *player* decides to manually buy an extra +10, that would increase the stockpile to +12. But that is under the power of the player, not an algorithm.

Another way of putting it, is that if you are going to have any kind of auto-feature to make decisions fr the player, you can at least make it not make clearly bad decisions. You are correct that trying to make the best decision is complicated or not possible, but you can determine if a decision is certainly a bad one--and avoid it.

I do not see the need for (much) logic, only math. Total power generated multiplied by selling price of power for the total revenues. Divide that by the resources consumed in producing that power, and you have the "break even" point (no profit or loss) for the resource price. If you subtract the current market price from that, you will get net profit (a positive result) or loss (a negative result). You already have the the capability (I think?) there in the button for engineers to only buy when profitable... The only logic needed may be how *much* to buy. But you could work that in to the game: Start with buying exactly one second worth of full production. Then you can add upgrades and research to buy more at a time. It will not "stock up" at the base rate since production is using it right away, but as you upgrade/research increasing the buy amount, the overall effect will be that it will buy extra when the price is profitable--Effectively "stocking up". And giving players incentives and reasons to pursue those upgrades/research paths.

A little more information on what the numbers mean would be helpful. I assume the production rates next to power plants are per power plant? What about storage: What does storage levels affect? Since auto-sell does not start unless storage is at full capacity, I do not see any reason to have much storage nor reason to invest in storage enhancing techs as it only means it takes that much longer to fill up and start auto-selling. What about auto-buy: It seems to only buy when stock is zero, and only buy enough for one "tick" of production. So it's not as useful either; I am better off stocking up when prices are low instead of letting auto-buy use up all my capital buying when prices are high.

From a design perspective, having such things in the game only make sense if they provide some kind of need, worth, and/or value--otherwise there is no incentive for people to play the game or utilize the ... "feature" ... while playing.

(1 edit)

Oops! Seems I may have found a bug or three! But since I was well along n the game, I do no want to post any potential spoilers here. Is there some other place I can post?

The big bug is keeping me from being able to play at all anymore, however. It's leaving me with a mostly empty screen, and no options anywhere to do anything at all. Not even reset/reload/restart. If I refresh or reload the page, it goes right back to the mostly blank screen.

Everything is working fine that I can tell.. Might work on the UI a bit (for example, an option to "cancel" when changing your mind about showing something from the log). Maybe something to keep additional notes, as well (for example, if I've already asked someone about someone else and nothing has changed since). The story line is definitely well laid out, even sometimes to the point of being almost frustratingly difficult to figure out how to proceed or what to do next.. But that's a good thing, a challenge to work to overcome and feel like you accomplished something when you do.

Yes, that is understood.. But hopefully, viewers (whether gamers or other developers) learn from such issues: Bugs (not just coding bugs, but logic bugs and such as well) to look out for; Planning and execution/implementation/interface issues; And other such mistakes and issues. Humans are a silly creature--They learn more from failure than from success.

I've been using this site to help my nephews learn to do more than just write program code, but to actually develop programs from initial concept through to a completed and "polished" program. It's too bad so little software here is "source available", as I can see a lot of potential for others to contribute issue fixes. (I do the same thing with my nephews and Github projects ...)

One pattern that seems consistent: Trying to craft consecutively locks up. Doing some other action in between crafting seems to avoid locking up.

Gave it another try. The only thing I am seeing right now are a lot of CORS cross-site scripting errors in the console log with

How is his game played? I cannot figure out how to do much of anything; Except placing mines and moving resources to the rocket. But then the enemies take it all. How do I operate defenses? And which is which?

(1 edit)

It locks up. I do not know more than that. Often, it happens right after clicking an action. Sometimes it will do the action before locking up, sometimes it will even update things like inventory before locking up, and other times it won't do anything apparent at all--it just stops responding to anything. I may try to play some more and see if there is any pattern to it (I did finally complete a game and escape the island). I also encountered the bug reported by UnitVector in he comments.

(1 edit)

Nice concept, but he bugs make it not playable for more than a few minutes before it locks up. :-( Also, it's difficult to play with lower resolution screens (I only have 1024x768).


It appears the resource production and storage items are aligned in a full grid, rather than columns and then rows. Since I only have two farm production types, but four water production types plus water sources/quality information, this pushes the section for wood way down so the bar for wood aligns with the bottom for water, instead of food. It's as if the layout engine is coded to align by row than column instead. Also, you might want to integrate the water sources/quality section in to the header bar, much like the way mining information is done. This way, players can keep an eye out for problems even when the water section is collapsed from view.


While working in another program and letting this run idle, I came back to a "new company emerging" event filling the screen--but no matter how many times I clicked the button to continue, it was not doing anything visible (i.e., it was no dismissing the even notification screen). It did seem to continue to save my game, however, and upon fully reloading the page, I only had to go back to a save point from 53 seconds prior.

However, I was letting it idle to build up some iron to build more research centres, but it did seem to "freeze time" while the event notice was on screen as I did not see much of an increase in my iron stores from idling (about an hour's worth). Note that this IS the preferred behaviour, as I wold rather have time frozen at the event than to come back to my empire in flames because I was not siting here to deal with he event! Also note that some events do not seem to do this; Some events will post an "event over" screen which is "on top" of the "event begins" screen, so when I click to continue, it shows the event begins after I dismissed the event over... A little disorientating until I realized what was happening.

I am using Debian Linux v10.3+ (64-bit), Firefox 78.3.0esr (64-bit), which also has NoScript running (but currently disabled as many Steam apps seem to consider NoScript an "ad blocker" and refuse to run).

I cannot provide more information than this as the reload reset my current page load state.

Seedship community · Created a new topic Critique
(1 edit)

Although the indication is the game is "final", there's still some critique that I hope will improve future games.

The game design seems to imply that your final score will be based on your skill and/or making effective decisions to deal with situations that arise. However, this does not seem to be the case: Most of the score is based on factors that are random and beyond the players control, regardless of skill or choices made. It's more a game of random chance and often choosing the "lesser of multiple evils," but still penalizing the player for the random chance to begin with. If the goal was indeed to evaluate skill and decisions made, you'd need to change how the score is computed--most likely a sliding scale.

For example, the black hole scenario: Calculate the worst and best possible outcomes, have the player make their choice, calculate the results of the choice (which may still include random factors, i.e., "luck"), and then compare it to worst and best. A result closer to the "worst case" suggests the player made a poor decision, while closer to "best case" means a good decision. Accumulate (or average) these values to use as a modifier to the final score. Thus, if a player had really bad luck and comets smashed the seedship around, damaged everything to below 50%, yet they still managed to guide the ship to a paradise planet and start a successful colony, they could still score high to reflect their "skill" at managing and guiding the ship through random disasters.

It's still not a perfect way to score, but it's better than just "throwing the dice" to determine score.

For myself, my highest score to date is 10042. Yet, that run didn't leave me feeling like I actually accomplished anything--I just got lucky and quickly found a suitable planet. Another run only scored about 4000-something points, yet I felt much more like I accomplished something because I was able to manage crisis after crisis that left the ship barely limping along, and still find a suitable planet and start a colony that could survive. In between these two, I had many runs where I just gave up, and colonized the next planet I came to just to end the game and start a new one--yet most of those still scored more than the 4000-something game.

Recipe for a failed game: The UI is very awkward, and does not line up well with mouse position. Sprinkle in a mere pinch of very limited starting resources. Stir rapidly with disasters and bad events almost every other turn.

I would not play this game again unless I was paid a lot of money to compensate for damages. At least reduce the frequency of bad events, and/or add in some good ones, and it might make for an amusing "killing time waiting for my conference call" game.

(3 edits)

[note: my keyboard is acting up, especially the 'T' key. If something makes no sense, mentally add a T to see if i makes sense.]

Nice concept, great potential. There are some major and minor issues...

1) Path finding will sometimes skip nearby items and go to a farther one, sometimes even going up/down levels. Likewise, I can tag a block to be mined that is next to an idle miner, and yet it gets assigned to a miner that is ... in a galaxy far, far away.

2) The "job" system is still ineffective. For example, I just had a game where service bot A was trying to service bot B... Which was trying to service bot C... which was trying o service bot D... which was trying to service bot A! They'd just keep going in circles chasing each other around the system of corridors and "rooms" I had (I was mining out in a grid-like fashion).

3) The particles are "glitchey", they would sometimes show up while viewing higher or lower levels. Likewise, I've seen bots suddenly appear in the middle of solid ground. However, they happily moved to the nearest corridor/machine and then went on their way.

4) Once here's a few material reactors, the material count sometimes goes negative. this does not seem to affect operations, so it may only be a display bug (or possibly an integer under-/over-flow).


1) Don't show all territory; Give bots a "sensor range" to uncover what's where. This gives players an incentive to go mine out areas and explore them, rather than simply dig straight to the high value ores.

2) Make maintenance cost money as well--Keep the player moving and mining! After having a sizable workforce, machinery base, and all research is done, the game just becomes an infinite money tree. Give players an incentive to go make more money to pay for maintenance, and keep bots moving and working.

3) Give jobs/tasks a time limit. If a bot cannot complete it's assigned job before the time limit expires, abort the job (and most likely put i back in he job queue for another bot to attempt). Also, if a bot "calls" for maintenance, have it STOP and WAIT for maintenance to be complete. Don't make maint bots keep trying to hit a moving target.

4) Add "elevator up", not just down. As the game grows, this could allow things like harder materials that require special miner bots, but in the meantime, players could route corridors under/over the area towards easier to mine areas.

5) Add the ability to sell bots and machines which are in the way or no longer needed (or even simply misplaced). You could even add a "operational lifetime" counter to reduce the sell cost--Immediately selling a misplaced item would recover full cost, while selling a generator after an hour (real-time) of use might only get back 10% of it's cost (scrap metal).

6) It seems idle bots still consume power, but make sure all bots continuously consume power (and possibly water), and have regular maint cost material and/or money as well. Working/moving bots drain it all faster, of course. This is another way to prevent maint bots from running endlessly chasing others--the maint bot will eventually break down and need maint on itself.

7) Let maint bots try to self-maintain; As long as they can get to he right machines to do so, they can replenish themselves--again, this helps avoid circular chasing and if main costs money, gives players incentive to keep moving and mining.

8) Add doors/gates. Give some control over sections of the mine and prevent bots from entering them until I want them to.

Other ideas (long term goals?):

1) Planning mode; Pause the game and let the player "plan" where to mine, and what machines to place where (including possibly mining out space needed for the machine). This can include adding notes/markers ("Found high value ores here! Check around for veins of more!"), or possibly "idle bot storage" and/or "maint areas".

2) Ability to move machines; Constructors can disassemble a machine one place and reassemble it another.

3) Specialized miners; Normal miners can dig out dirt, but other ores (and stone) not only take longer to mine, but give a decreased yield when mined. Specialized ore miners are the opposite--they can mine out high value ores more efficiently, but decreased efficiency for others.

4) Runs/veins of high value ore; I already do this mentally--When I mine out a high value ore, I pretend I cannot see the other ores around it, so I have to mine out he surrounding blocks to "expose" the valuable ores for mining. (In effect, veins are not always continuous, but may "skip" one block, thus the need to mine out the surrounding blocks in order to expose possible veins for "chasing", much as I'd do it in "real life".)

5) Job/task management; Be able to look at the tasks/job, both global and per-bot/machine, in order to cancel/reorder/reassign them.

6) Percentage based improvement research; Instead of just a dozen or so static researches, have something where each percentage improvement costs increasingly more (like how a typical "incremental" game does it). Thus, research is only limited by the computer's numerical limits.

7) Path finding; Use graph theory and nodes/edges to pre-calculate many paths. For example, if I mine out a "room" area connected to the start area by a corridor, there is no need to constantly path find between them; the path exiting the room area to the start area will always be the same so you can pre-calculate and save it for re-use.  Thus a bot only needs to the nearest edge to connect to the desired area, then use the saved path, and on arrival, find the path to the specific target location. You still have to calculate two paths--the start and end paths--but since these are usually very short and quick, they don't use as much CPU as trying to calculate a full path every time. You can determine the edges and nodes using traffic and destination tracking: if 14 bots route along points (10, 17) to (8, 4) every "tick", those are high traffic points and the route between them is a candidate for pre-calculation. You can even track other metadata--"Where is the nearest collector from point (10,17)? Ah-ha! Near point (8,4)!" and so on.

8) Add overlays to show distributor range, and possibly collection zones for collectors. Maybe even service ranges of generators and pumps, and so on.

9) The game suggests you need to pay off your initial debt... Maybe keep track of that debt (plus accumulating interest), so players can pay it off... Or else! ;-)

After playing another game, here's some more notes and observations:

1) The z-order stacking seems to confuse the path finder even more, especially when the same machine is built at the same (x,y), but a different z.

2) It seems that as long as I tag a block to be mined on each level that *cannot* be reached at all, miner bots have less (but not entirely eliminated!) problems when it comes to finding jobs to do at different levels.

3) Possibly related, logistics bots in  one game had a problem with elevators and collectors; In the game, I had collectors on each level in the same place, but the logistics bots would not use them--they tried to go up the elevators to the "home machine" to use. Once up top, however, they seemed to change their mind and go back down to one of the lower level collectors. But they'd just change their mind again and go back up top. They'd just bounce back and forth like that in an infinite loop.

4) I encountered the bug someone else mentioned where I'd place one machine, but it would build a different machine. In my case, it would sometimes build collectors in places I placed to build distributors.

Poor camera controls; Poor interface; Poor screen resolution adaption; Poor controls. Just overall a poor game implementation--I was hoping for more from the description. :-(

Overall, a sound game. I am eager to see where this goes... Like what is planned for the rocket pods, etc.

Only things I disliked:

1) Figuring out the game initially--How to do things (even the basics of putting down a drill then routing it to storage took me awhile); What equipment does what (some info on what each good/equipment does or is for); what resource patches are what. (I cannot tell the difference as I'm partially colour blind--A text when hovering over a patch would be nice!)

2) It's too easy to over-produce one thing while not producing another. (My suggestion is to "round robin" inputs and outputs so that all inputs and outputs get "serviced" equally.)

3) It's very hard to tell what each building is; So many look alike. An icon of some sort would be helpful (maybe even show what is being produced for those which can select more than one.)

That's only 3 out of dozens of things I did like very much, however.

Minor suggestions:

1) Give buildings an on/off power switch. While they do stop automatically in most cases, sometimes I want to drain some routes of queued up goods--especially when I want to avoid a long chain that might exceed my 999 inventory limit. It has happened to me several times.

2) If a building cannot do anything with an item, forward it to it's output. Iron and Copper look almost the same to me, so there have been times a misrouted item locks up production for no immediately apparent reason.

I like the limited starting equipment--It makes it a fun challenge to overcome and get your economy started. Perhaps do prestige resets like so many idle games, where you can get a few extra starting resources to build other equipment.

(1 edit)

When you click a button to build, but change your mind and try to click another button, it builds the previous selected building under the button clicked. You should give buttons higher priority (ask if you are not sure how to do this), otherwise players end up wasting resources and placing buildings in ways that block others. Also, try to make sure it is not a "misclick"; Trying to clear some trees and stumps near the bottom buttons resulted in building and placing unwanted buildings on the bottom. :-(

(1 edit)

What are the algorithms/formulas in use? Each prestige reset seems to reduce how high I can set the price before it starts turning demand red. I.E., with the first factory at 100% prestige, I could set quality and speed to level 10 and charge 65 per unit sold with full demand (no red). But with the 120% prestige level, setting quality and speed to level 10 again, I could only charge 55 per unit; Trying to set it higher resulted in demand starting to turn red. So I could not set price to 65 as I did a 100% prestige.

What am I missing here?

The user interface is not very intuitive, and not very forgiving--Often resulting in buildings being placed in the spot under the toolbar instead of selecting the building to be built. It is not very clear how production chains work, or how workers do the work. Workers also seem to decide to stop working and walk around the screen in circles doing nothing else (I assume they are unhappy and protesting, but I cannot figure out how to keep them happy and busy enough).

Worker assignments are also very narrow in structure. For example. you need a logger to create logs, which then assign a worker to carry he logs either to storage OR to a saw. But a carrier cannot take a log from storage to the saw--it *must* come from a logger. But then the carrier gets stuck waiting for the sawyer to accept the log. This forces the logger to wait for the carrier to remove more logs, and if it takes too long, the logger stops working and goes on protest. Then the carrier has no logs from the logger to take to the saw. Eventually, the carrier and sawyer stop waiting and go on protest as well.

The longer the production chain, the more likely one worker in the chain will cause a chain reaction like this. For example. the Wheat->Mill->Bakery->Storage chain. One worker anywhere in the chain that stops working causes the entire chain to break down and stop working.

This happens even after first placing the building. You have to place a wheat field, then a wheat farmer. Then place a mill and assign a carrier to take wheat from the field to the mill, If you assign a miller to the mill before a carrier puts wheat in the mill, the miller will immediately go on protest. The same for the baker. Until you have a carrier deliver flour from the miller/mill, the baker will protest. And then he flour carrier will stop waiting and go on protest. Then the miller will. Then he wheat carrier will.

Then you will--and just delete the game in frustration.

Unfortunately, this game is more frustrating than fun. The game rules are too absolute:

1) Planets continue to consume resources even when they produce nothing from them.

2) Trade ships/routes are "all or nothing" (not to mention too hard to figure out how to set them up properly), stripping a planet bare of one or more resources. This results in problem #1, above.

3) There is no pause feature, further compounding problems #1 and #2.

4) The above problems result in a need to micromanage every planet and ship in the game with millisecond timing (that is, once per second, loop through every planet and ship in the game to decide it's next objective). A computer might find that fun; A human less likely.

To illustrate, in one game, by the time I figured out parts of the interface, several planets had consumed all their resources. I did find a pair that had some left which complemented each other--One producing Water from Ore, Credits, and Labour, and one producing Ore, Credits, and Labour from Water. Both had ample Credits and Ore, but one had 8 Water, and the other had 6 Labour.

So I paired them up with routes hoping to build them back up. The trade ships grabbed a full load of Ore and Credits, and from their respective planets, the 6 and 8 Water and Labour. While ships were en route, the planets continued to consume Ore and Credits, but since the Labour and Water were in transport, they produced nothing while consuming. The end result was eventually, the same 6 and 8 resources amounts just switched back and forth between the two planets until even Credits and Ore whittled down to 6 and 8 as well. Then they just kept switching back and forth.

I could not infuse additional resources without also taking away the 6 or 8, resulting in either or both planets becoming completely barren.

A pause feature would have let me notice the problem a lot sooner so I could do something about it. Being able to configure the routes would have allowed me to send in additional resources without also stripping away everything else.

In the end, I did not run out of space--I ended up with nothing but empty space.

Completed with a 6.21 FPS... And that was building groups of farms/houses far enough away from each other to avoid excessive screen rewrites and sprite updates. (Having too many villagers on screen brought down my frame rate to about 1.5 to 2.5 FPS.)

It is very unlikely that it is even possible (not coded in to the game).

1) The behaviour of the numbers at certain points (becoming negative or zero) would indicate that "signed int" types are being used in the code, which cannot represent the cost given. Even a 64-bit int can only hold a number up to 9,223,372,036,854,775,808 (signed) or 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 (unsigned).

2) A "float/double/etc" type with 128-bits might be doable, but the observed behaviour of the game does no seem to indicate that the developers used floating point types large enough for the cost shown.

3) While there are arbitrary large number libraries/packages, again the indicators suggest no such library is in use.

4) I count twenty-nine 9 digits, which even if you were generating 310,000,000,000 per second, would take 10,228,965,156 years to complete--that is 10 billion years. I'll check back with you around that time... 8-D