You're focusing on single player so sharing scores for a leadership board's useful to keep players excited. It's your game you'll make it how you imagine ppl playing. There's so many games we've got access to on phones & online I don't know how ppl share their time between playing games. Quote from: askii on April 16, 2025, 1254 PM Yeah for sure, but I do think there is genuine depth to be found in the concept, enough that it goes beyond being a simple "novelty" or throwaway. Like I mentioned earlier, multiplayer just makes things very tricky. In singleplayer, every run is fresh and immersive, and the experience can be tailored to be educational and fun. On the other hand, when the game is multiplayer (if it's global multiplayer at least) competition can potentially become pretty intense, and it would potentially be discouraging for players who end up joining later and find it difficult to catch up. Also, it's very hard to tailor the experience (especially the educational aspect, though I guess it's possible). Things would have to be a lot slower and stretched out to ensure the survival of the game - block times would need to be longer, halving intervals would have to be longer, to make sure the game doesn't end up having a short lifespan (there's not really much to do once the last sat has been mined). Perhaps there is merit to having both a singleplayer and multiplayer mode, and multiplayer definitely sounds like it could be fun, but for now my attention and focus will primarily be on singleplayer.
You're focusing on single player so sharing scores for a leadership board's useful to keep players excited. It's your game you'll make it how you imagine ppl playing. There's so many games we've got access to on phones & online I don't know how ppl share their time between playing games. Quote from: askii on April 16, 2025, 1254 PM Yeah for sure, but I do think there is genuine depth to be found in the concept, enough that it goes beyond being a simple "novelty" or throwaway. Like I mentioned earlier, multiplayer just makes things very tricky. In singleplayer, every run is fresh and immersive, and the experience can be tailored to be educational and fun. On the other hand, when the game is multiplayer (if it's global multiplayer at least) competition can potentially become pretty intense, and it would potentially be discouraging for players who end up joining later and find it difficult to catch up. Also, it's very hard to tailor the experience (especially the educational aspect, though I guess it's possible). Things would have to be a lot slower and stretched out to ensure the survival of the game - block times would need to be longer, halving intervals would have to be longer, to make sure the game doesn't end up having a short lifespan (there's not really much to do once the last sat has been mined). Perhaps there is merit to having both a singleplayer and multiplayer mode, and multiplayer definitely sounds like it could be fun, but for now my attention and focus will primarily be on singleplayer.

You're focusing on single player so sharing scores for a leadership board's useful to keep players excited. It's your game you'll make it how you imagine ppl playing. There's so many games we've got access to on phones & online I don't know how ppl share their time between playing games. Quote from: askii on April 16, 2025, 1254 PM Yeah for sure, but I do think there is genuine depth to be found in the concept, enough that it goes beyond being a simple "novelty" or throwaway. Like I mentioned earlier, multiplayer just makes things very tricky. In singleplayer, every run is fresh and immersive, and the experience can be tailored to be educational and fun. On the other hand, when the game is multiplayer (if it's global multiplayer at least) competition can potentially become pretty intense, and it would potentially be discouraging for players who end up joining later and find it difficult to catch up. Also, it's very hard to tailor the experience (especially the educational aspect, though I guess it's possible). Things would have to be a lot slower and stretched out to ensure the survival of the game - block times would need to be longer, halving intervals would have to be longer, to make sure the game doesn't end up having a short lifespan (there's not really much to do once the last sat has been mined). Perhaps there is merit to having both a singleplayer and multiplayer mode, and multiplayer definitely sounds like it could be fun, but for now my attention and focus will primarily be on singleplayer.

You're focusing on single player so sharing scores for a leadership board's useful to keep players excited. It's your game you'll make it how you imagine ppl playing. There's so many games we've got access to on phones & online I don't know how ppl share their time between playing games. Quote from: askii on April 16, 2025, 1254 PM Yeah for sure, but I do think there is genuine depth to be found in the concept, enough that it goes beyond being a simple "novelty" or throwaway. Like I mentioned earlier, multiplayer just makes things very tricky. In singleplayer, every run is fresh and immersive, and the experience can be tailored to be educational and fun. On the other hand, when the game is multiplayer (if it's global multiplayer at least) competition can potentially become pretty intense, and it would potentially be discouraging for players who end up joining later and find it difficult to catch up. Also, it's very hard to tailor the experience (especially the educational aspect, though I guess it's possible). Things would have to be a lot slower and stretched out to ensure the survival of the game - block times would need to be longer, halving intervals would have to be longer, to make sure the game doesn't end up having a short lifespan (there's not really much to do once the last sat has been mined). Perhaps there is merit to having both a singleplayer and multiplayer mode, and multiplayer definitely sounds like it could be fun, but for now my attention and focus will primarily be on singleplayer.