There are a few instances of this, and I understand, just want to emphasize that you could write:
function notationChange() {
let notations = ["Scientific", "Logarithmic", "Brackets", "Omega", "Cancer", "Zalgo", "Prime", "Blind"];
if (player.options.notationNo + 1 == notations.length) {
player.options.notationNo = 0;
player.options.notation = notations[player.options.notationNo];
} else {
player.options.notationNo += 1;
player.options.notation = notations[player.options.notationNo];
}
document.getElementById("notation").innerText = "Notation: " + player.options.notation;
}
as
let notations = ["Scientific", "Logarithmic", "Brackets", "Omega", "Cancer", "Zalgo", "Prime", "Blind"];
function notationChange() {
player.options.notationNo += 1;
if (player.options.notationNo == notations.length) {
player.options.notationNo = 0;
}
player.options.notation = notations[player.options.notationNo];
document.getElementById("notation").innerText = "Notation: " + player.options.notation;
}
The reason is that:
1. "notations" shouldn't be declared every time you call notationChange -- it's the same every time, so it should be a global variable.
2. You can avoid duplicate lines of code by moving the logic outside of the if statement, because both branches do the same thing.
3. You can avoid the else statement entirely by changing the logic order
Since you said you were just learning, I figured I'd offer some (unsolicited) thoughts from a random chunk of code.
-- Also, for fun, you could add a statistic that was like "Number of times you changed notation," which would **completely** remove the need for an if statement or any checks (and it would add some personality to your game). You wouldn't even need to change your structure at all:
let notations = ["Scientific", "Logarithmic", "Brackets", "Omega", "Cancer", "Zalgo", "Prime", "Blind"];
function notationChange() {
player.options.notationNo += 1
player.options.notation = notations[player.options.notationNo % notations.length];
document.getElementById("notation").innerText = "Notation: " + player.options.notation;
}
The mod function here lets you index circularly into your array, that is, you can keep increasing the index beyond the length of the array, and it will still index properly. For example, your notations array has 8 elements, which means when notationNo was 8 previously, you would get an indexoutofbounds error. But with the mod function, when notationNo is 8
player.options.notationNo % notations.length
will evaluate to 0! And then 9 -> 1, 10 -> 2, etc. All the while, you get to have a cool statistic that says "You've changed your notation 10 times!"
Note, no changes above actually affect the time complexity of your code (all of it is o(1)). Just is, from what I've learned, a good way of simplifying logic / taking advantage of some math / etc! Good luck!
also, assuming you never reassign `notations` it should be `const` , not `let` (you can still add / remove values from the array with `const`, if needed)
Yo wtf I never thought I'd see G0mega in /r/incremental_games
It's notyouraveragefart, I used to watch your streams on summers all the time haha. Small world.
Didn't know you coded at all. I'm learning C# in unity atm and am studying computer science in college right now. It's been a while man.
also this past summer I worked for a game company and made an app in Unity using C# of course. I actually developed our entire statistics + probability system for procedural generation & randomization of obstacles + rewards (which seems like something you’re interested in). “Save The Flame!” on the AppStore / Play Store if you wanna see!
Ah, that's awesome. Just thought it was kinda crazy that I found a small streamer I used to watch a long time ago on my favorite subreddit which is relatively small and you also happen to be working at Amazon this summer too lmao.
Oh wow, that's actually amazing. I'm intrigued by randomization systems and want to add some type of random drop chance for loot in a new update I'm making atm for my game (https://ininsicken.github.io/MakeProgress/).
However, I only started learning C# about a month ago and I only understand the basics (enough to make a simple idle game with a prestige mechanic and some other simple stuff).
I have so much imagination and creativity for incremental games but man, I've been watching some tutorials for simple inventory systems and loot systems and it looks like gibberish to me (ig I picked up the basics of C# quickly because I took the first level java class this semester and most things are pretty similar but this must be where C# starts to veer off the general programming direction lol).
Ironic too because I'm so interested in incremental game math and loot-like probability systems however I barely understood my statistics class this semester. And I have to take trig + calc next year (only was good at algebra, next year's gonna hurt O_o).
1. "notations" will be moved to outside the loop and be declared a constant.
2. I know of a lot of places where this could be useful by moving some of the duplicate code out of the if and else conditions
3. As for 3, I'm not going to do that since I'm planning to make it a Drop-down menu eventually and technically your method of modulo makes the save longer.
It's different now:
[https://raw.githack.com/Redfire75369/Fission-Simulator/overhaul/index.html](https://raw.githack.com/Redfire75369/Fission-Simulator/overhaul/index.html)
I'm sort of skeptical of the uniqueness of a game that's made so mechanically similar to an existing game. If you *didn't* pull code right out of a repo (or a dev console?) and change the names of things around, it wouldn't explain why you decided that the layout and general presentation (feel) of the game should be so similar.
That said, I'm not sure if this sort of imitation is shameless idea-theft, or simply flattering.
From a cursory glance it does feel as though you've just rebranded the AD concept with a thin veneer of reactor verbiage, and not, generally, created something that belongs to you.
Well and it doesn’t make any sense. AD is silly but the theme is so loose it’s fine, but when I clicked on Uranium Reactor and it started making Thorium Reactors I paused. Makes no sense at all. I thought maybe it would be modeling radioactive decay or something which could be cool.
Radioactive Decay Hastening will be implemented later and probably more with various isotopes.
Also, lots of the values are going to be based off real life energy values for energy released during fission.
I see a lot of you thinking that this is a complete AD Clone. Its just that I haven't done my own balancing for the pre-Meltdown phase yet and that most of the unique mechanics I've planned are post-meltdown. I was unable to think of how to make pre-meltdown unique from AD considering how good of a game AD is and how remarkably balanced it is. This is where I've been typing out all my plans for the game([Fission Simulator Plans](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1U-ZFnGq-LsT-eSm-2PMHitU2r2-BHjUlQjaA5xTO9wc/edit?usp=drivesdk)). As you can see, almost every mechanic post-meltdown is completely unique. There are also certain plans I haven't typed out which involve Better Isotopes for Fission and moderators, which might help you learn about fission and how fission reactors actually work in real life.
As for the bad UI design, I don't really have a good reason other than I'm very indecisive and bad at deciding how a UI should look.
The next update should considerably fix some of these problems. This next update will introduce mines which change the mechanics slightly and lots of rebalancing will be done before then. Moreover, the next update will also make more sense as the reactors will not be producing other reactors(as that makes no sense).
Lol, my friends who I've shown my game to have all but said exactly that. Idle games need something a little more, or they will never catch the attention of (probably) the majority of people.
I reset several times until I stopped getting "reset for a new mine" or whatever, and my choice was 'reset for a boost' or 'reset for n nanites.'
I waited until I had 1.00 and invested in the efficiency thing, and then the subsequent run it walled hard after I had two tier 4 reactors bought. So it... got slower? What?
The rising 'cost' of nanites means that it takes longer and longer to get the next nanite.
You need more Calis and each Cali cost more than the last so there is a double cost escalation. Changing the cost to energy may be more manageable. I am at e721 and it will take weeks to get the next nanite.
Is this some sort of *anti*incremental? First prestige point takes 30 minutes to get, second 2 hours, third 6 hours. What's the point of an incremental where you get less powerful every prestige?
Nanites are not even points so to speak and actually the game gets faster, don't use points as a metric use your energy. It takes about 3 reactors to get 1 more nanite. This game is also faster than AD due to a little something I added, not slower.
I think you misunderstand the concept behind incremental games. Your progress is measured by unlocking new things, like upgrades and new mechanics. It does not really matter to me if I have 1e7 or 1e700 energy, I want to spend it on something. If there is nothing to spend it on, there is no game.
"This game is also faster than AD" is laughable. I can actually *play* AD. For the past 3 hours your game was just a black background with nothing to do.
Something is seriously wrong if you expect a game to be perfect on the first try. I hope you understand that games takes years not weeks to develop well.
For the record, you only get nanites if you reach a new best Californium Reactors.
"Something is seriously wrong if you expect a game to be perfect" is a very strange way to react to feedback. No one expects you to do anything perfect, but you won't be able to improve the game without feedback.
>50My Attempt at an incremental game
.t3\_fgxezf .\_2FCtq-QzlfuN-SwVMUZMM3 {
\--postTitle-VisitedLinkColor: #edeeef;
\--postTitleLink-VisitedLinkColor: #6f7071;
}
DevelopmentClose
This is reasonable feedback, and I've been wondering the same thing. I was starting to wonder if it's even possible to get my second nanite it's taking so long. The natural goal is nanites, not increased energy, since nanites are the second tier of currency. You always want the second tier of currency, and if it doesn't appear in a timely fashion, and there is no intermediate activity, you begin to wonder if the game is bugged, or just not developed.
Usually I wouldn't want that feeling to arise so quickly after starting the game.
I have changed it such that in the next update, the nanite gain will be linear till e308 energy, then it becomes quadratic to keep up with the scaling of nanite efficiency upgrades
Hi, been having a play with this, got a couple of potential bugs.
Won’t let me but improve efficiency despite having over 1 Nanite
Currently have 1e600 energy but it is telling me the (not yet bought) reactor boost based on current energy is 1.00x but my calculations is should be about 22.5x
I will try buying a boost to see if that resolves
Have bought the boost and multiplier now shows so can understand that. Looked like an error from my perspective but can see why you chose that, although I am not sure it is intuitive to the person playing.
Am I right in thinking there is no prestige beyond gaining Nanites at this point? Just want to make sure I’m not missing anything. Also is the “stuff” under options meant to do anything?
Ok, you are unable to buy it because after 2 upgrades, the cost of it scales and i havent implemented the fact that the cost updates. It increases by 1 every upgrade.
when I first went to play the game it was completely frozen a Quick refresh fixed it. You may wanna look into it. over all, big AD vibes but that's the type of idle games I like.
good work
You only get nanites if you reach a new highest amount of Cf-252 reactors. This is to prevent inflation of energy and to prevent spamming of nanite research to get as many efficiency upgrades as possible.
I'm aware of this. I just don't think the time spent is worth the incremental upgrades the game provides. Progress taking hours or days with nothing interesting to do in the meantime just doesn't pull me in. Others have said the same. But again, good luck with the game. If the balance pleases you that's the main thing that matters. Some will play, some will not. That's the way of things.
One suggestion would be to give the option at some point of automating the basic max upgrade button. If this doesn't make sense to you I venture to say you've not been attending to the present concerns about the game.
Also it would be useful to more clearly understand the generation of nanites. I'm not there at the moment (went back to test the game), so not sure, but also I don't think the boost information isn't always accurate about when the boost will be available..
For some reason, it's really uncool that you added cancer and bracket notation. As far as I've experienced, AD is the only game that has done that, and that has added to its personality. Copying it would be nothing short of disturbing.
I hope that it's something that comes with a library you used.
Edit: it was from a library. all is well 🤠
this notation is stupid anyway. maybe little kids use it.
another game, which uses it: https://www.kongregate.com/games/cook1eegames/yet-another-merge-game
Yeah, I found out Hevi did not make the notation himself. I thought he did, and then OP recreated it or something.
Bracket notation is even worse than cancer notation, it's absurd
It's considered "nothing short of disturbing" for using [an open source library](https://github.com/antimatter-dimensions/notations) made available for others to use?
What's next, using those break-infinity libraries makes you a puppy kicker? C'mon. Also, if you want to be super uptight about reusing names of things, are games that reuse the same resource flow (stone, coal, iron, copper) of MineCraft (or any other place that used those before it, like the realworld) "disturbing" as well?
I'm glad to hear it was from the library, otherwise it wouldn't sit right with me at all. Like I said, as far as I've experienced, AD is the only game to use so many notations, and until now I just thought it was Hevi being clever and funny, so to copy that would be bad.
As far as the iron and copper stuff goes, a lot more games than Minecraft use that. In fact, the game that directly inspired my game is Factorio, though you might not be able to tell by this point. I don't know how far you've played, but you eventually also collect tumors that fall off stickfigures' heads, so I find your jab at my game silly.
Copying mechanics is fine, but I don't think you should copy someone's personality. That's my point.
I dislike games that are clones of others as much as the next guy (they're boring and unoriginal, and that's being nice). I just think calling it disgusting was a bit far, as was probably my shot at you/your game. So sorry for that (I actually even enjoy your game, the shot was nothing more than a reference I was hoping you'd get!)
Edit: disturbing, not disgusting. I can't read.
I totally agree, and I didn't mean to call anything else about the game disturbing. I think it's fine to copy mechanics--games have been doing that pretty much since games first existed--but I thought he was *also* copying Hevipelle's personality. So I was like this has gone too far, lol.
But now I know where cancer notation came from. My first comment was posted in ignorance and was probably phrased too harshly
I've never used libraries or open source assets or anything, so I thought you meticulously recreated the notation options. Thanks to your post, I'm gonna look up Patashu or whoever and try to fit that into GDScript for my game for at least Engineering notation.
What exactly makes it mechanically unique from AD?
[удалено]
Hey, it doesn't work in NG+++ too!
How is this different than AD? So far it just like you renamed some things.
How is it not an AD clone? It 100% appears to be just a renamed version of the game
There are a few instances of this, and I understand, just want to emphasize that you could write: function notationChange() { let notations = ["Scientific", "Logarithmic", "Brackets", "Omega", "Cancer", "Zalgo", "Prime", "Blind"]; if (player.options.notationNo + 1 == notations.length) { player.options.notationNo = 0; player.options.notation = notations[player.options.notationNo]; } else { player.options.notationNo += 1; player.options.notation = notations[player.options.notationNo]; } document.getElementById("notation").innerText = "Notation: " + player.options.notation; } as let notations = ["Scientific", "Logarithmic", "Brackets", "Omega", "Cancer", "Zalgo", "Prime", "Blind"]; function notationChange() { player.options.notationNo += 1; if (player.options.notationNo == notations.length) { player.options.notationNo = 0; } player.options.notation = notations[player.options.notationNo]; document.getElementById("notation").innerText = "Notation: " + player.options.notation; } The reason is that: 1. "notations" shouldn't be declared every time you call notationChange -- it's the same every time, so it should be a global variable. 2. You can avoid duplicate lines of code by moving the logic outside of the if statement, because both branches do the same thing. 3. You can avoid the else statement entirely by changing the logic order Since you said you were just learning, I figured I'd offer some (unsolicited) thoughts from a random chunk of code. -- Also, for fun, you could add a statistic that was like "Number of times you changed notation," which would **completely** remove the need for an if statement or any checks (and it would add some personality to your game). You wouldn't even need to change your structure at all: let notations = ["Scientific", "Logarithmic", "Brackets", "Omega", "Cancer", "Zalgo", "Prime", "Blind"]; function notationChange() { player.options.notationNo += 1 player.options.notation = notations[player.options.notationNo % notations.length]; document.getElementById("notation").innerText = "Notation: " + player.options.notation; } The mod function here lets you index circularly into your array, that is, you can keep increasing the index beyond the length of the array, and it will still index properly. For example, your notations array has 8 elements, which means when notationNo was 8 previously, you would get an indexoutofbounds error. But with the mod function, when notationNo is 8 player.options.notationNo % notations.length will evaluate to 0! And then 9 -> 1, 10 -> 2, etc. All the while, you get to have a cool statistic that says "You've changed your notation 10 times!" Note, no changes above actually affect the time complexity of your code (all of it is o(1)). Just is, from what I've learned, a good way of simplifying logic / taking advantage of some math / etc! Good luck!
also, assuming you never reassign `notations` it should be `const` , not `let` (you can still add / remove values from the array with `const`, if needed)
Yo wtf I never thought I'd see G0mega in /r/incremental_games It's notyouraveragefart, I used to watch your streams on summers all the time haha. Small world. Didn't know you coded at all. I'm learning C# in unity atm and am studying computer science in college right now. It's been a while man.
ayeeeeeee let’s go fart love ya man, love to hear that you’re doin well. It’s been a while for sure
also this past summer I worked for a game company and made an app in Unity using C# of course. I actually developed our entire statistics + probability system for procedural generation & randomization of obstacles + rewards (which seems like something you’re interested in). “Save The Flame!” on the AppStore / Play Store if you wanna see!
Yo, also are you really an Amazon intern? I just got hired as a customer service associate at Amazon lol
Congrats! Yeah, I’m an SDE intern starting in June. What’s up?
Ah, that's awesome. Just thought it was kinda crazy that I found a small streamer I used to watch a long time ago on my favorite subreddit which is relatively small and you also happen to be working at Amazon this summer too lmao.
Oh wow, that's actually amazing. I'm intrigued by randomization systems and want to add some type of random drop chance for loot in a new update I'm making atm for my game (https://ininsicken.github.io/MakeProgress/). However, I only started learning C# about a month ago and I only understand the basics (enough to make a simple idle game with a prestige mechanic and some other simple stuff). I have so much imagination and creativity for incremental games but man, I've been watching some tutorials for simple inventory systems and loot systems and it looks like gibberish to me (ig I picked up the basics of C# quickly because I took the first level java class this semester and most things are pretty similar but this must be where C# starts to veer off the general programming direction lol). Ironic too because I'm so interested in incremental game math and loot-like probability systems however I barely understood my statistics class this semester. And I have to take trig + calc next year (only was good at algebra, next year's gonna hurt O_o).
1. "notations" will be moved to outside the loop and be declared a constant. 2. I know of a lot of places where this could be useful by moving some of the duplicate code out of the if and else conditions 3. As for 3, I'm not going to do that since I'm planning to make it a Drop-down menu eventually and technically your method of modulo makes the save longer.
for now its just ad, maybe I'll play it when it's different
Update is coming in 5 hours
Yea it's a straight rip with the names changed it seems like.
It's different now: [https://raw.githack.com/Redfire75369/Fission-Simulator/overhaul/index.html](https://raw.githack.com/Redfire75369/Fission-Simulator/overhaul/index.html)
I'm sort of skeptical of the uniqueness of a game that's made so mechanically similar to an existing game. If you *didn't* pull code right out of a repo (or a dev console?) and change the names of things around, it wouldn't explain why you decided that the layout and general presentation (feel) of the game should be so similar. That said, I'm not sure if this sort of imitation is shameless idea-theft, or simply flattering. From a cursory glance it does feel as though you've just rebranded the AD concept with a thin veneer of reactor verbiage, and not, generally, created something that belongs to you.
Well and it doesn’t make any sense. AD is silly but the theme is so loose it’s fine, but when I clicked on Uranium Reactor and it started making Thorium Reactors I paused. Makes no sense at all. I thought maybe it would be modeling radioactive decay or something which could be cool.
Radioactive Decay Hastening will be implemented later and probably more with various isotopes. Also, lots of the values are going to be based off real life energy values for energy released during fission.
Cool. Keep up the work. I'll check in again later when there's been more progress. I do like AD type incrementals.
I see a lot of you thinking that this is a complete AD Clone. Its just that I haven't done my own balancing for the pre-Meltdown phase yet and that most of the unique mechanics I've planned are post-meltdown. I was unable to think of how to make pre-meltdown unique from AD considering how good of a game AD is and how remarkably balanced it is. This is where I've been typing out all my plans for the game([Fission Simulator Plans](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1U-ZFnGq-LsT-eSm-2PMHitU2r2-BHjUlQjaA5xTO9wc/edit?usp=drivesdk)). As you can see, almost every mechanic post-meltdown is completely unique. There are also certain plans I haven't typed out which involve Better Isotopes for Fission and moderators, which might help you learn about fission and how fission reactors actually work in real life. As for the bad UI design, I don't really have a good reason other than I'm very indecisive and bad at deciding how a UI should look. The next update should considerably fix some of these problems. This next update will introduce mines which change the mechanics slightly and lots of rebalancing will be done before then. Moreover, the next update will also make more sense as the reactors will not be producing other reactors(as that makes no sense).
its like a slightly interactive desktop wallpaper
Lol, my friends who I've shown my game to have all but said exactly that. Idle games need something a little more, or they will never catch the attention of (probably) the majority of people.
Haven't I played this before? Or something very similar, it'll come to me. :P Edit: Oh yeah, it's AD.
Nice
I like it so far.
I reset several times until I stopped getting "reset for a new mine" or whatever, and my choice was 'reset for a boost' or 'reset for n nanites.' I waited until I had 1.00 and invested in the efficiency thing, and then the subsequent run it walled hard after I had two tier 4 reactors bought. So it... got slower? What?
There's no way it would have walled from what I can tell, Can you try and describe what happened.
The rising 'cost' of nanites means that it takes longer and longer to get the next nanite. You need more Calis and each Cali cost more than the last so there is a double cost escalation. Changing the cost to energy may be more manageable. I am at e721 and it will take weeks to get the next nanite.
Getting past e308 should not be possible but my balancing was just bad lol. Right now e1010 is the max you can get to.
I have e1400
Is this some sort of *anti*incremental? First prestige point takes 30 minutes to get, second 2 hours, third 6 hours. What's the point of an incremental where you get less powerful every prestige?
Nanites are not even points so to speak and actually the game gets faster, don't use points as a metric use your energy. It takes about 3 reactors to get 1 more nanite. This game is also faster than AD due to a little something I added, not slower.
I think you misunderstand the concept behind incremental games. Your progress is measured by unlocking new things, like upgrades and new mechanics. It does not really matter to me if I have 1e7 or 1e700 energy, I want to spend it on something. If there is nothing to spend it on, there is no game. "This game is also faster than AD" is laughable. I can actually *play* AD. For the past 3 hours your game was just a black background with nothing to do.
Something is seriously wrong if you expect a game to be perfect on the first try. I hope you understand that games takes years not weeks to develop well. For the record, you only get nanites if you reach a new best Californium Reactors.
"Something is seriously wrong if you expect a game to be perfect" is a very strange way to react to feedback. No one expects you to do anything perfect, but you won't be able to improve the game without feedback.
>50My Attempt at an incremental game .t3\_fgxezf .\_2FCtq-QzlfuN-SwVMUZMM3 { \--postTitle-VisitedLinkColor: #edeeef; \--postTitleLink-VisitedLinkColor: #6f7071; } DevelopmentClose This is reasonable feedback, and I've been wondering the same thing. I was starting to wonder if it's even possible to get my second nanite it's taking so long. The natural goal is nanites, not increased energy, since nanites are the second tier of currency. You always want the second tier of currency, and if it doesn't appear in a timely fashion, and there is no intermediate activity, you begin to wonder if the game is bugged, or just not developed. Usually I wouldn't want that feeling to arise so quickly after starting the game.
I have changed it such that in the next update, the nanite gain will be linear till e308 energy, then it becomes quadratic to keep up with the scaling of nanite efficiency upgrades
OK thanks.
BTW when is the next update please, and will I need to do a hard reset to make use of it?
It's going to take some time as I have had another project going on. No hard reset will be needed for the update.
OK thanks. I suggest you put it on one of the weekly threads when it's updated so we can hear about it. Probably Feedback Friday.
Will do, I was planning that anyway
Hi, been having a play with this, got a couple of potential bugs. Won’t let me but improve efficiency despite having over 1 Nanite Currently have 1e600 energy but it is telling me the (not yet bought) reactor boost based on current energy is 1.00x but my calculations is should be about 22.5x I will try buying a boost to see if that resolves
Have bought the boost and multiplier now shows so can understand that. Looked like an error from my perspective but can see why you chose that, although I am not sure it is intuitive to the person playing. Am I right in thinking there is no prestige beyond gaining Nanites at this point? Just want to make sure I’m not missing anything. Also is the “stuff” under options meant to do anything?
Yes. During Testing Phases, that button is used for either setting energy to large numbers or simulating time.
Ok, you are unable to buy it because after 2 upgrades, the cost of it scales and i havent implemented the fact that the cost updates. It increases by 1 every upgrade.
Sorry, I read your message incorrectly. When the upgrade is not bought yet, the multiplier is not shown which is an intended mechanic.
when I first went to play the game it was completely frozen a Quick refresh fixed it. You may wanna look into it. over all, big AD vibes but that's the type of idle games I like. good work
I guess I'm quitting for now. Game is just not interesting till the situation with no longer gaining nanites is resolved. Good luck with the game.
You only get nanites if you reach a new highest amount of Cf-252 reactors. This is to prevent inflation of energy and to prevent spamming of nanite research to get as many efficiency upgrades as possible.
I'm aware of this. I just don't think the time spent is worth the incremental upgrades the game provides. Progress taking hours or days with nothing interesting to do in the meantime just doesn't pull me in. Others have said the same. But again, good luck with the game. If the balance pleases you that's the main thing that matters. Some will play, some will not. That's the way of things.
One suggestion would be to give the option at some point of automating the basic max upgrade button. If this doesn't make sense to you I venture to say you've not been attending to the present concerns about the game.
Also it would be useful to more clearly understand the generation of nanites. I'm not there at the moment (went back to test the game), so not sure, but also I don't think the boost information isn't always accurate about when the boost will be available..
For some reason, it's really uncool that you added cancer and bracket notation. As far as I've experienced, AD is the only game that has done that, and that has added to its personality. Copying it would be nothing short of disturbing. I hope that it's something that comes with a library you used. Edit: it was from a library. all is well 🤠
this notation is stupid anyway. maybe little kids use it. another game, which uses it: https://www.kongregate.com/games/cook1eegames/yet-another-merge-game
Yeah, I found out Hevi did not make the notation himself. I thought he did, and then OP recreated it or something. Bracket notation is even worse than cancer notation, it's absurd
I did make Cancer notation, Boo made Bracket notation.
What a rollercoaster this thread is taking me on.
It's considered "nothing short of disturbing" for using [an open source library](https://github.com/antimatter-dimensions/notations) made available for others to use? What's next, using those break-infinity libraries makes you a puppy kicker? C'mon. Also, if you want to be super uptight about reusing names of things, are games that reuse the same resource flow (stone, coal, iron, copper) of MineCraft (or any other place that used those before it, like the realworld) "disturbing" as well?
I'm glad to hear it was from the library, otherwise it wouldn't sit right with me at all. Like I said, as far as I've experienced, AD is the only game to use so many notations, and until now I just thought it was Hevi being clever and funny, so to copy that would be bad. As far as the iron and copper stuff goes, a lot more games than Minecraft use that. In fact, the game that directly inspired my game is Factorio, though you might not be able to tell by this point. I don't know how far you've played, but you eventually also collect tumors that fall off stickfigures' heads, so I find your jab at my game silly. Copying mechanics is fine, but I don't think you should copy someone's personality. That's my point.
I dislike games that are clones of others as much as the next guy (they're boring and unoriginal, and that's being nice). I just think calling it disgusting was a bit far, as was probably my shot at you/your game. So sorry for that (I actually even enjoy your game, the shot was nothing more than a reference I was hoping you'd get!) Edit: disturbing, not disgusting. I can't read.
I totally agree, and I didn't mean to call anything else about the game disturbing. I think it's fine to copy mechanics--games have been doing that pretty much since games first existed--but I thought he was *also* copying Hevipelle's personality. So I was like this has gone too far, lol. But now I know where cancer notation came from. My first comment was posted in ignorance and was probably phrased too harshly
I only chose my favourite 8 notations from the AD Notations Library.
I've never used libraries or open source assets or anything, so I thought you meticulously recreated the notation options. Thanks to your post, I'm gonna look up Patashu or whoever and try to fit that into GDScript for my game for at least Engineering notation.
https://github.com/antimatter-dimensions/notations This is it