New minor build is up!

Home Forums Archived (Inactive) Forums Leap Day LD – General Discussion New minor build is up!

This topic contains 17 replies, has 7 voices, and was last updated by  claudekennilol 6 years, 2 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 18 total)
  • Author
  • #13759


    New Games (started after today) will have:

    – New Shop Rule: You can deliver to the output corner.
    – New Junk Rule: Junk shops will *not* allow you to drop on the factory the item it makes. This should prevent a class of accidental junk. Let us know if it is too easy.
    – New Altar Rule: Anyone who gets a trade bonus for a good at an Altar will get buffs that affect ‘your territory’. So if you both deliver goods to a territory altar that you harvested or crafted, you’ll both get the territory bonus (ex: +40% value of wood). This has no impact on global altar from which everyone benefits automatically.

    You also may have noticed
    – Mentoring gives you guaranteed track and train plans.
    – Adjusted Trade bonus: Bonuses for trading are increased.
    – Trade bonuses are also reported on the individual goods when you mouse over your castle.
    – When shipping unlimited plans to your inventory, we no longer ask ‘are you sure?’
    – Instead of showing “Last action: 07/30/2013 12:24″ we show “Last action 36 hours ago”
    – When you upgrade a recipe, you no longer need to manually reset existing shoppes on the map to get the bonus.
    – Locked shoppes are sorted to the bottom of the list in the shopkeeper tab.

    Appreciate all the feedback on this build! Keep testing and we’ll keep tweaking. :-)

    • This topic was modified 6 years, 2 months ago by  Daniel.



    Could you please clarify some of the trade bonus mechanics for us? Flannigan and I were just having a discussion on it, and it seems a bit confusing. The values seem…quite large and rewarding for something as simple as rings.

    In our current game, (Observer Link), Flannigan is passing me 3x Jade for 3 rings. The value of a ring is 200 gold for each of us (unupgraded), and we are seeing the following income:

    3x Ring: 600
    3x Ring (Trade Bonus): 483

    3x Ring (Trade Bonus): 603

    For our benefit, could you run us through the calculations on these numbers? They seem a bit odd / out of whack, and we can’t quite figure out what is contributing to each of them. They also seem to _heavily_ incentivize trading, which may or may not be the design intent.

    Other than that, I’ll play some more with the changes and give some feedback. Thanks for the updates!



    Oh sweet, all of those changes are exciting!



    Math for trade goods:
    – Value of goods you personally crafted or harvested + Trade bonus
    – Trade bonus = 80% value of final selling price.

    With a quick glance, I’m not completely sure where the extra 3 gold is coming from. Perhaps a valuable gem or a rounding issue?

    The 80% bonus is likely to change…it used to be 20% and I wanted to see what a big boost does to the incentives. There’s always the chance we went too far. Also there are other trade equations we could use that even out the awards between players. Some players will be happy that everyone benefits from a trade. Others will focus on the relative values that each player in the trade earns and feel competitive and perhaps selfish. I’m not sure which behavior will end up being dominant. :-)




    Thanks! Alright, so to make sure I understand:

    For myself, I make 600 (3x Ring Sale) + 480 (80% of 600), which matches what we see. The extra 3 really doesn’t make sense here – both gems being used are value 40 gems – nothing special (Jade and Onyx).

    For Flannigan, he makes 480 (80% of 600) + 120. The 120 is the unmultiplied value of 3x Jade? Is that correct? So in other words, it’s a big deviation from the previous system where you gained partial credit based on the materials you contributed + later multipliers applied via crafting. This would seem to allow a TON of value to be extracted from trading, and also to favor some abuse.

    For example, if we have a fictional good that requires 10 wood to produce and rewards 1000 gold, any player could contribute 1 solitary wood to the construction for an 800g boost. The total value extractable from this single item would approach 10*800 + 1000, or 9000g, a 900% increase from the original value.

    Under the old system, with this item multiplier of 6.667, players contributing a single wood would have received 15 (Cost of Wood) * 6.667 = 100g each. In this case, 9 players would received 100g and one player the final 1000g, for a total of 1900g, or only a 90% increase. I realize these numbers are super inflated and fictional, but I think it highlights the big difference between the two systems. Some of this could be ameliorated with changes to the 80% figure (and obviously that is going to change), but the core problem of being able to contribute a SINGLE item to the construction of a product and then receiving a bonus based on TOTAL product sale price remains.

    My personal opinion is that a system which rewards trading more proportionately is more effective (and intuitive). The older trading system had its abuses, but I think it better served balance. Just my two cents!



    One of my imagined joys of the game is encouraging people to get together and communicate about how they’d accomplish something complex and awkward. In that spirit, I’m attempting to balance for participating. Eventually I’d like to see systems where 4 people contributing small amounts to a crafting chain is more valuable than 1 person doing everything on their own or even two people helping out equally.

    So big boosts for small contributions don’t bother me too much. Often those seem needed in order to make any interaction even mildly as attractive as the default behavior of “Oh, I’ll just play by myself” :-)

    Having said all that, it is something I’ll be watching closely since I’m not yet convinced this is the ideal solution.




    I definitely see the need to drive people to participate. An asynchronous game like this definitely needs pushes for people to play together. I was perhaps just reacting to the currently HUGE bonus that even a simple trade gave. I’ll gladly trade away if it’s something that’s likely to stay in the game :)

    I just had a totally unrelated minor-feature request – could you make player names in chat clickable? When clicked you could center the view on the player’s palace. I don’t think it would be intrusive, and I definitely just tried to use it before realizing I couldn’t do it. Edit to clarify: I don’t mean parsing out people’s messages – I just mean the actual names that show up when people put messages in chat.


    • This reply was modified 6 years, 2 months ago by  Zerack.


    Thanks for the update (er, the <i>update</i> of you telling us about the version update). I noted about trading earlier today in the previous update thread before this one was posted, so you may be interested in looking over that post, too (it was also posted before I realized the bonus being so large was definitely intentional). I’m looking forward to seeing how this effects cooperation. I’m definitely liking the other posted changes, too, specially the UI improvements. I know this is still technically a beta, but it’s nice to see devs going over completed parts of the game and improving them.



    I like how the game has evolved, but in some ways, it’s gotten a bit boring for me. The way most of the shops work in that they only accept certain goods takes a bit of the strategy out of it, and i find myself just grabbing everything and running it through. But because shops are 3×3 now, it would be way too hard to make them all junk shops.

    The earlier versions with the 2×2 and 3×3 “accept anything” factories required a lot more strategy, and i generally felt more accomplished when i made something work. To be specific, the version of the game that was available right after the ‘Flans must move’ change is the one I’m referring to. Overall, one thing that I really like about SpryFox games is that they are ‘simple rules, deep emergent game play.’ Triple Town, Panda Poet, and early Leap Day all hit this philosophy perfectly. However, recent versions of Leap Day have strayed from that philosophy. I can’t say i like either system of Leap Day better than the other, but the early system really had that charm to it.

    With this said, I wonder, would it be possible to allow ‘Legacy Games.’ Possibly, games that offer no rewards, as to not conflict with the current system. I imagine the answer is that it’s either not possible, or not worth the effort on the dev staff, but I do find that I’d like to play the old system for that extra challenge. They play uniquely different from each other. Also, it’d be sort of fun to be able to compare both systems side by side.

    Criticism aside, I really do enjoy the game.

    • This reply was modified 6 years, 2 months ago by  garmichael.


    The extra 3 gold in the ring trade definitely seem to be related to the number of rings made – 1 extra gold is awarded for each ring made.
    Zerack and I crafted 2 for a little bit to test this out, and indeed the extra gold went down to 2. We also have someone involved in 6 rings on the map, and he is getting an extra 6 gold.
    Weird stuff.

    Allover, it appears the game is finally fun again for me as well ;_; thankyou.
    (Though my favourite incarnation of it remains the one garmichael mentioned above.)



    @garmichael, if I got your idea right, you want to have a game mode, where you play the older game version(s). I’m very aware older players don’t like the new system as the old one, because they got used to the 3in and 5in factories, but I think that this “Legacy games” are a bad idea. Once you have taken a course, you shouldn’t turn around, because in most cases it is the wrong way. Imagine game development was a highway… If you missed an exit, you can’t turn around and go back….



    One thing that bothers me a lot is some of the receipts. For example, one of the altars on my current game requires a Desk to be made. now, to make a desk, you need following raw goods: 6 Water(30g), 1 Food (10g), 2 Wood (30g) and 1 Stone (18g). In total these raw materials are worth 88 gold. And how much gold do i get for a Desk? 55!! Fifty five. Yes you read it right, I get less gold from a combined item(NOTE: I need to use 9 factories to get it!) than I would get from selling those materials as raw. Of course this is not the it! One of ingredients you need to make a Desk is a Jewelry Box. You get it by combining Chair(125g) and Polished Gems(35g). And how much you get for the Jewelry Box? Well it would be too mainstream to get more than the value of items you combined, so you get only 80 gold.

    Now if you do some simple math, you can clearly see I should be getting around 265 gold just for the Jewelry Box, and probably around 487 gold for the Desk. That is, I should get almost 9 times more for the Desk than I’m currently getting…

    I have noticed many mistakes like these around, and can someone explain me, is this intentional, and if not, please fix asap.



    It is intentional: for these items we produce them at a loss until we have the Golden Goods to level them up to productive. On Zerack’s Recipedia, try looking at how the value of a Desk changes as you increase the level of Desk or Jewelry Box.



    Ok, I have a suggestion: Make it so you can set recipe after you selected certain good directly from the info about the good you have selected, instead of having to select a lesser good and than search for desired good on the new list.

    The red arrow is indicating the “Set Recipe” button. This position is not a must, just an idea where to place the button!

    • This reply was modified 6 years, 2 months ago by  fichom.


    You can do this. The link for the current item is at the bottom left of the whole window. I can’t see your picture for whatever reason, but I believe a great place for this button to be, instead, would be the under the image in the top left, so it’s still in the large header. I agree that the current placement isn’t ideal (as proven by you not even being aware of it, and it took me a while to find it, too).

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 18 total)

The forum ‘LD – General Discussion’ is closed to new topics and replies.