Topic: [ANN][HUC] Huntercoin - Worlds First Decentralized Game/World on the Blockchain - page 62. (Read 879551 times)

I can suggest these devs can combine a joint huge bounty to hunt for open source solution to feed these concerns. A lot of people will compete.

I don't think this is the case. In order to eliminate bots for a game-based blockchain you need to design a game that meets two criteria:

1) Bots can't "win" the game, or if they can earn some coins, it has to be many orders of magnitude less than a human playing the same game, otherwise someone can just run thousands of bots, right? You basically need a game version of the Turing test.

2) You need to have a game that, although bots suck at it, the results must be able to be easily and quickly verified by a computer. This is another wrinkle that makes point #1 much harder to achieve.

Afaik, a solution does not exist, and if you came up with one you'd probably be some kind of laureate or at least have a cushy CS professorship at MIT or something.

This sounds a lot like what Motocoin tried - which is a very interesting approach, but seemed to not really work out in the end (due to bots).

You mean because bots can make thousands of moves per second? Yeah, I can see how they might make a lot of coins that way, playing Pac Man a hundred times a second.

On the other hand, everybody loves a good bounty. I'm sure a solution exists. I'm more interested in using mini-games for the purpose of resolving combat between hunters, though... like, it could zoom to a rock-paper-scissors match when they get in fighting range, instead of using Destruct

This (I believe) would allow bots to easily give themselves a win (aka cheat) every time, it might even be more profitable than playing the original game. I can't think of a situation where this isn't possible.

To be fair I haven't played this game for like, a year so I don't know much about it right now.

That's actually already present - Huntercoin Core includes the Qt UI of Bitcoin Core, which is fully functional (same in Namecoin).  So you can use it to manage your coins (without playing) from there, or use the console window - this may make it straight-forward for you to rebase your gaming UI onto it.

I think your posts are a very interesting read, you shouldn't delete them.

Even an "empty" Huntercore Qt client with only a console window and nothing else would be valuable for the development of a modern Huntercoin Qt client. But there's probably a good reason why Namecore/Huntercore don't use Qt at all.

Using the RPC interface from the core blockchain daemon is moderately difficult, keeping the old client code compatible seems to be the easiest option for now.

It's feasible to rebase the non-gameplay, trading stuff on the Huntercore codebase of course.

I still think the way to do it is a "spectator mode" for hunters, this has all advantages of the standard names, plus:

You probably could upgrade the client (give hunters the choice to be suspended from killing, being killed, and harvesting coins; easy implementation)

Hunters can switch modules, and communicate with hunters from other modules.
Example: no matter what they are currently playing, they can short chronoDollars (== use this particular "module") because, as hunters, they are in the main player loop, and show up in all clients. Standard names can't do that.

Can trade loot from one module for zorkmids from another module (if the module developers allow it)

And spectator mode solves the logout problem too

I'm interested. I just can't upgrade the Huntercoin client to do that, myself. I was just going to wait for domob to eventually get around to it and/or another developer volunteers. Initiatives like this are viral, I think, such that new developers won't feel compelled to contribute until existing developers push out enough new stuff to catch their attention.

Also, someone needs to stop killing our price rallies. I assume he or she will run out of HUC, eventually. Maybe a bagholding bot from Huntercoin's early days, or something

I thought at that time, the hunters picking up 99% of those dropped coins were automated bots which automatically spawned when a disaster struck.. or people with infinite time who could wait for a disaster..

--

The only real issue huntercoin has, is lack of funds/devs - so development is progressing but not at the rate we would like it to.

If someone has a good idea and the time/skill to implement it, i say put it forward and lets open a discussion.

I'm limited in what i can do at the moment - but if any developers want to help push the project then please do and get in contact, same for investors/funders.

this would allow it, but no one seems too interested -

http://forum.huntercoin.org/index.php/topic,22249.0.html

i'm sure there are better ways, but i think this is what you are saying in the most simple way.
Crypto coins can be minted as well, they would be similar to what mastercoins are to bitcoin (like wiggi's gems).
or it can just be a p2p game engine.
All people would need to do is design their own gamestate rules, then they can have an entirely new game with whatever rules they want.

Apologies for my misunderstanding about domob's client, before. I think it is still true, however, that once his work is completed, it can and probably will be adapted to MithrilMan and wiggi's clients. It would be nice to keep the open source version more up to date, but that's another thing we need more development help for. Another would be building a web/mobile client.

Anyways, when the blockchain pruning addition is complete, domob will have time to make minor protocol changes required to allow wiggi to build his Huntercoin 2.0 (Can we call it that?) stuff on top of the base Huntercoin network. Technically, this is analogous to something like Counterparty, but practically, it may actually make the game much simpler. He can build separate play areas for people of different skill levels, which addresses one of the major points no-ice-please made.

There's no reason MithrilMan couldn't incorporate all of those features in his easy-to-play client with the tutorial. Sure, his is proprietary, but there are plenty of proprietary services on the Bitcoin network, and just look at the market cap, there. Huntercoin needs to be an ecosystem; snailbrain and domob are rather like managers, but not micromanagers, as its healthy for the community and its economy to evolve naturally. We just have to help it along and provide some guidance

So, I really think the right pieces are all here for Huntercoin to be successful, but I am sensing no-ice-please has more of a philosophical disagreement. I think human mining is very important to Huntercoin, but that it isn't necessarily the primary focus. If we go that route, there would be no reason to care if it's a video game, at all--other tasks might be more suitable. Huntercoin, however, is revolutionary in that it is the first autonomous MMO--to the extent that it is self-regulating, we could even call this game world somewhat "alive." Years from now, Huntercoin or its successor will obsolete Blizzard's central server system.

That is not quite correct - the client is not graphical at all (also not Windows-based if you mean that) and does not use Qt.  It is just like the Bitcoin Core daemon client (bitcoind) and like the old huntercoind.


To be honest, I personally don't have any plans to keep updating the old client code and I don't think snailbrain has, either - that's just not a good use of scarce development time.  But I hear you on proprietary clients, and am with you there - I'm myself a big believer in free software and have actually never used any of the proprietary clients myself.  But I don't play, either, so that does not really count.

Do you think it would be feasible for your client to either rebase on the new codebase or switch to using the RPC interface for the core blockchain daemon?

Any person can play because the game is so simple, or any person can play because no coins required to play?

What are other examples, would you say a game like the original Rogue (the gameplay, not the old-school interface) is also so simple that anyone can play? (if you don't need coins to start playing)

I was under the impression that Huntercore can be built as a windowed, Qt- based executable only in principle, but without functionality for gameplay.
To play, you must plug another client into it. The advantage is, players on Windows get a stable system (using MithrilMan's client) and a smaller initial download.

This would be fine and dandy if Snail would vow, in case of a game rule change or other hard fork, to update the old Qt-client so it remains compatible. Otherwise it's a plan to burn bridges and force everyone to play the game using proprietary software, at least for some time.

Yes, exactly.  I've been running the client (just syncing the chain and keeping a wallet, not doing any playing) for some time now, without any issues.  There seems to be a bug related to name_list which is keeping the Unity client from correctly functioning with the new client, but we're working on that.  Apart from this, I'm not aware of any issues - so feel free to test with other clients.

Also, miners, feel free to try using the new client - maybe a little careful in the beginning (I'm not aware of any miner yet using the new client in production), but I am not aware of any issues that prevent mining from taking place with the new client.

Yes, it will use blockchain pruning to keep the file size small. There will just a .exe you can click and play. Then it can be adapted to the other clients, like MithrilMan's, which comes with a tutorial for new players.

From what I understand, testing has been a huge bottleneck for us--SnailBrain was doing it, himself. I believe the client is currently "done," but the bugs aren't all fixed, yet.

I think it's unfair to liken what domob is doing to whacking a tree with a bat. He is developing a click-and-play client under 1 GB in size. That will decrease the technical requirements of the game, which you have acknowledged as being one of the obstacles to mainstream adoption. It's just going slowly because he and SnailBrain both have "real" jobs

Once done, we can all focus more on improving the gameplay to make things less confusing. Wiggi has been doing a great job coming up with ideas for that, but we can't implement them quite yet, which is a shame. That's why I've been asking if anybody wants to help speed things along... I was trying to be sincere and not snarky or anything 

Agreed.

Simple game...Huntercoin had a "newbie area" in the past. Remember the rush out of the gates after disasters? It was possible to get loot from dead hunters, with some luck 100 coins from dead guys who wanted to carry loot from center to the bank strip in the corners.

This wasn't trivial, and bots usually lost the first tempo while going through the gate. For 250 blocks, until different colored armies met, no one was killed, and players could stop playing at any time (i.e. all hunters nearer to own base than the enemy) I usually got >1000 coins on such a day (if by chance was aware and could play in this moment)

The removal of name_new would have made this even more practical, but something bad happened. A hardfork removed all dropping of loot on disaster death, essentially handing over all spawning coins to the dominator (who camped the center and was unattackable by anyone without infinite time, and could now bank without risk) and the Dark Ages began. That was a long time ago.

The real problem is the question how to decide such things and what is better for Huntercoin, absolute monarchy, or some kind of shareholder democracy (+ constitutional monarchy of course).


Or something else? The simple game will not get made if there is no chance to get it into Huntercoin mainnet. That's why I made a voting system (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14541434) and everyone can call for votes.

e.g hunter Bob on his way to bank sends chat msg like this: (max length is ~1000 chars)

and immediately after that, the last tx this wallet should send until block 1339975 (it's a bit late for 1329975, and perhaps using sendtoname for big numbers is like asking for a nasty typo)

Try it out, you'll have my vote!