Hah, guy in first is an old friend of mine. What record are you applying for though?

If you think about it, even if the world was left with just toddlers (under 5), humanity could potentially survive with care from other species. There's been multiple stories of feral children, who somehow ended up lost/abandoned in the woods and got picked up by wild animals (like wolves) and brought up as their own, acting like the animals that adopted the child. Of course in that scenario we abandon all hope of preserving human hulture and tradition, so it becomes arguable whether "humanity" has survived, since the remaining human population will be nothing more than an endangered species of animal, as opposed to the idea of the human race as we percieve it now.

What about the massive reserves of non-perishable food and drink in stores? As well as lighters, matches, and all kinds of survival equipment you could find in stores.

Yeah, perhaps you're right.

We're talking about kids here. Sure, a few (definitely not everyone) may have tendencies for violence, but I don't think they would be looting, murdering and starting civil wars.

Oh please - have you seen toddlers? You have to watch them 100% of the time because they just seem to constantly and actively be looking for ways to injure themselves. I prefer the 9 year old army :ph34r:

So there you have it — 228 questions and answers from a massive 3-hour livestream, compressed into a slightly more condensed and hopefully easily readable version. Some of the answers were surprising even to us, and we hope that you learned a few new things about how the game is managed and got answers to some of your own questions. Hopefully this helped many of you understand the development process and what we might expect the future of this game to bring. Remember that your feedback is important, so head on over to I&S and give me some work to do make sure to share your thoughts about new updates and changes so that together, as a community, we can change the future of this great game. Well, at this point I've run out of creativity to continue this inspiring conclusion, so don't forget to like and subscribe check out my balance topic for a more detailed explanation about that part, post ideas in I&S and follow the News and Announcements section to keep track of these changes for when they hopefully get released in the near future. Thank you for reading! Written in collaboration by @Hexed and @Maf

Obviously if you step on the lines you die! Duh!

Good question. There is (or was) a pretty good series on the History channel called "Life After People" that hypothesised this exact scenario, except in their version 100% of human beings vanished and they explored how the world would change in the coming hours, days, weeks, years. They explained how long it would take for our infrastructure to shut down when all maintenance stops, and I remember them mentioning that some nuclear power plants are able to operate for decades without any human supervision. So as long as there's electricity and some servers remain online, I think there will be internet for quite a while to some extent. I mean, this is hardly a concern since they'd be too busy trying to survive for the first few years anyway. And they won't be stuck as 10-year-olds forever — the normal maturity and aging process continues. It would be just like ancient/medieval times — healthcare is very limited and the way people survive is by having lots of children to overcome higher mortality rates. This would be easy in urban centres. Children would most likely find each other while scavenging, and communities would be set up in places where children often gather — playgrounds/parks, shopping malls, and most importantly - schools. I think a bigger issue that may affect survival is the psychological effect of this whole situation. If you are 10 years old and you're stuck all alone in the normal world, you will probably be quick to figure out a way to survive in the near future (i.e. for the first few weeks, which are most crucial) until you reunite with your parents or other adults. But if you realise that you are now the oldest person on the planet who now, for the rest of their life, has full responsibility for their own survival and survival of their species, the feeling might get a little bit overwhelming and lower your chances of being reasonable and efficient. I didn't even consider the idea of keeping the world functioning. Children under 15 comprise 26% of the world's population (which is actually WAY more than I expected), but still - having 3/4 of the population instantly vanish would be problematic even if the remainder was adults. I highly doubt there would be enough manpower to maintain our society with 1/4 of the current population. And if the population is all underage, then it's not even a question, since children would take decades to self-teach themselves the science skills necessary to maintain our technologies. P.S. Added a poll.

But "our current state" didn't exist back then, so that doesn't make sense.

Then it's basically a slightly different version of CP. This idea is as a whole is already pretty close to CP, but your take on it makes it almost identical.

Or better yet: add water PASS that runs out and you have to buy it over and over B)

Just a little pointless but interesting discussion I wanted to have after hearing the same thing being discussed in a Youtube video. If you don't get the question (I had to compress it a bit), let me explain: Imagine one day all humans of some certain age and older disappeared (for example, everyone above 10 years old). There's no disaster, no damage to our world and infrastructure - just these humans suddenly disappearing, leaving the young population behind. What do you think is the lowest age that remaining population could be in order to survive on their own, educate themselves, grow up, and continue our civilisation? If you think about it, some crazy low age like 3 is too low, since a bunch of toddlers all over the world will just get confused and succumb once they run out of readily available food and/or water. On the other hand, a lot of children in their late teens are already fully capable of supporting themselves and others, so that wouldn't even be worth discussing. But what about 14 years old? 11? 9? 6? I reckon a "borderline" age limit would be 8 years old. Of course, the vast majority of children at that age, especially in more developed communities, are unlikely to survive for long. However, in less developed countries where it's normal for children to start helping their parents with work in rural areas, some children will have just enough practical skills and knowledge to enable them to take over their parents' duties and set up a simple rudimentary means of survival based on agriculture and scavenging. Perhaps even children in more developed countries will be fine, since while they may not have the practical skills, they will have access to a much greater amount of initial resources and infrastructure, which will be able to sustain them for the initial critical period during which they need to become self-sustaining. After that it's just a question of growing up and repopulating, while at the same time re-learning all which humanity lost. I'm probably way overthinking this, but it's an interesting topic ?

36

You didn't consider the consequenses of destroying the enemy team. If the objective is to charge the laser multiple times every round, then let's say blue team charges the laser, scores a point and destroys the red team. Then, while the red team is still respawning, Blue will start to charge the laser again, giving them an initial advantage and making it hard (i.e. almost impossible) for Red to make a comeback. You need to rethink how this will work in order to be balanced.

So, the objective of the game is to charge the laser in order to make it destroy all the enemy players once? And then repeat the process? Is this basically like TDM (team with most kills wins) but with an additional mechanic of these "death lasers" as a secondary objective? If you want to make the lasers a primary objective, you could make it so that the winner is either the team with most laser activations, or most laser kills. But to be honest, a lot more factors need to be addressed in order to make this idea viable.

Topic merged No point adding something that can only be used by event helpers. Why do that, when instead devs could implement a fully usable feature that allows all players to manage their own private battles. If battles are private, the feature cannot be abused.

But wait, there's more! *yeets outta here*

Agreed. And it is indeed a minor issue. Will most likely be fixed in the interface update.

There won't be a whole new map copy added just because of that one house.

Considering how powerful the ability is, I don't think it needs any buffs. I agree that the recharge time is too long, but if it's reduced, I think either the duration or the fire rate/damage bonus should be reduced.

Yeah, didn't get to it yet.

If your idea is labelled as "Valid", then it means that the idea follows all rules and has potential to be implemented. The topic itself will never be archived, unless the status changes to "Completed" or "Declined". However, keep in mind that developers have very little room for new ideas, so what you suggested might be implemented years from now (or not at all). Or you may get lucky and it will be just a few weeks. This is from the Guide for posting ideas. I recommend you check it out :)

Perhaps you're right, but we can't predict which value would work without being game devs and having access to their analytics. But if you take into account that Thunder shoots faster, has splash damage (which is way more useful than shooting through tanks) and a few other minor advantages, I think dealing 0 damage at long range won't be much of a problem. After all, the alt is specifically made to turn Thunder into a close range turret, so you shouldn't be using it long range at all. The only issue is that dealing 0 damage would look weird since the explosion would still be there and remain the same size. People are likely to think it's a bug.