|
siremi
|
 |
« on: July 21, 2008, 06:13:49 PM » |
|
Thank you all for the great feedback on the AP system.
I've read all the 5 pages and made a some changes to the AP costs to address some balance issues raised by some of you.
- delete file does not cost AP anymore
- password breaker AP cost is now set at 15
- upload / download AP cost is now 10
- default AP cost for installing a virus set to 15
- AP for installing a virus depends on virus version and size.
-> +1 AP for each 100 Mb the virus has
-> +(virVersion-0.1)*30 AP
=> total AP to activate the virus = default 15 + above modifier
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 21, 2008, 06:15:48 PM by siremi »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Raistlin
|
|
« Reply #1 on: July 21, 2008, 06:18:03 PM » |
|
Huh. I like this; it makes low level virii more AP effective, to compensate for the fact that they are easily removed. Just out of curiosity, though, why the extra cost for Megabytes? You'd think the version would be the main thing. . .
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
siremi
|
|
« Reply #2 on: July 21, 2008, 06:18:40 PM » |
|
Huh. I like this; it makes low level virii more AP effective, to compensate for the fact that they are easily removed. Just out of curiosity, though, why the extra cost for Megabytes? You'd think the version would be the main thing. . .
the file share... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
HJ®
Guest
|
|
« Reply #3 on: July 21, 2008, 06:20:48 PM » |
|
180 AP to install a 0.5 file share virus?
Why do they even exist?
Aside from that with the size of them, it's more profitable to install more adware.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
HJ®
Guest
|
|
« Reply #4 on: July 21, 2008, 06:21:23 PM » |
|
And it's not like anyone's going to capture a measily adware when it costs 120 ap.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
siremi
|
|
« Reply #5 on: July 21, 2008, 06:22:13 PM » |
|
Aside from that with the size of them, it's more profitable to install more adware.
Adware is even more costly on AP from my calculations... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
HJ®
Guest
|
|
« Reply #6 on: July 21, 2008, 06:23:42 PM » |
|
Your AP will also regnerate faster in the time it would take to isntall a file share. Plus you only need to install an adware once.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
siremi
|
|
« Reply #7 on: July 21, 2008, 06:25:26 PM » |
|
ok, well the idea is to make their activation AP cost as even as possible...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
siremi
|
|
« Reply #8 on: July 21, 2008, 06:27:06 PM » |
|
Oh, didn't even see the second modifier, so it would cost 330 AP to Install a 0.5 FSV...
It takes 187 AP total to activate a File Share 0.5 Please don't spam with wrong calculations. Thank you. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
HJ®
Guest
|
|
« Reply #9 on: July 21, 2008, 06:28:09 PM » |
|
Okay, but the fact still remains that you can install more adware + Have your HP regenerate in the time it would take to install one file share. It would seem pointless to capture an adware in the AP system, yet VERY effective to capture File Shares.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
siremi
|
|
« Reply #10 on: July 21, 2008, 06:34:08 PM » |
|
Okay, but the fact still remains that you can install more adware + Have your HP regenerate in the time it would take to install one file share. It would seem pointless to capture an adware in the AP system, yet VERY effective to capture File Shares.
Yes that's correct, if you wait longer you catch the bigger fish. Taking HPD / hour, the File Share is the viable option when you want more HPD with less AP, it would make about 5 x more HPD for AP used to install it, but on the other hand it is more likely it will be targeted by AV / Capture. File Share is the more risky shortcut to get more HPD. Adware is the more safer way and may benefit more in the long run. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 21, 2008, 06:36:26 PM by siremi »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Noseedam
|
|
« Reply #11 on: July 21, 2008, 06:39:14 PM » |
|
since it's quicker to cap, you're more likely to get at it...........
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
sign the AP petition already!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
HJ®
Guest
|
|
« Reply #12 on: July 21, 2008, 06:48:49 PM » |
|
Well, overall, these updates have greatly improved the AP.
Thank you for YOUR input, siremi. It's still your game, so you're more than welcome to change whatever you'd like, but that doesn't mean we have to like it. The difference with this game compared to others is that you're flexible, while at the same time you don't give everyone what they want, and hell, that's probably for the better in the end. You still get your game, and with minor tweaks here and there, everyone gets an overall enjoyable experience.
Don't get me wrong, i'd still love to see AP gone, but I can deal with it now.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Noseedam
|
|
« Reply #13 on: July 21, 2008, 06:51:53 PM » |
|
yes, much MUCH better now, but still a bit of a burden on those of us who are more active..........
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
sign the AP petition already!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Raistlin
|
|
« Reply #14 on: July 21, 2008, 06:53:18 PM » |
|
Wow, hatejacket. That was a good post; much more mature than the knee jerk posts popping up all over the place saying "OMG NO APS!" (although usually in more coherent terms). I think APs detract from the immersiveness of the game, but at the same time, it's a bit of a relief to not have to be on all the time just to keep my edge. I'm basically trying to say that APs aren't such a bad thing, and I think there are others who agree. The problem is, the haters are so much more vocal. And I'm talking to you, Noseedam. Seriously, we get the idea. You don't like them, you don't have to keep posting it. Give the fix a little time, huh? :P
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
