Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Please read the forum rules before posting.



Check if you are posting in the correct category.



The Off Topic section is not meant for discussing Cookie Clicker.

Jelly Miner V4

RadicalRobotRadicalRobot Posts: 16Member ✭✭
edited January 21 in Games
Jelly Miner


Jelly Miner is a basic idle game that i would like to have feedback on.

You can play it here: http://orteil.dashnet.org/igm/?g=ydXKVLts

Current Version: V4

V4: Magical Makeover Update

- Rebirth removed (and maybe discontinued but idk yet)
- Nerfed and buffed some buildings, upgrades and especially Golden Jellies.
- Added more information to buildings and upgrades (JPS and multipliers)
- New chains of upgrades including Jelly Sorcery to help you with making more jelly!
- A stat to let you know how long you've been idling/playing. Barely useful.


-This update is still in making (especially the Jelly Sorcery but that will always have new content)

Stay tuned for more updates! Feedback and suggestions are welcomed!
Stay Radical!
Post edited by RadicalRobot on

Comments

  • YosukeHanamuraYosukeHanamura Posts: 950Member, Helpful ✭✭
    So you reposted it...
    In modern physics, antimatter is defined as a material composed of the antiparticle (or "partners") to the corresponding particles of ordinary matter.

    In theory, a particle and its anti-particle have the same mass as one another, but opposite electric charge, and other differences in quantum numbers. For example, a proton has positive charge while an antiproton has negative charge. A collision between any particle and its anti-particle partner is known to lead to their mutual annihilation, giving rise to various proportions of intense photons (gamma rays), neutrinos, and sometimes less-massive particle–antiparticle pairs.

    Annihilation usually results in a release of energy that becomes available for heat or work. The amount of the released energy is usually proportional to the total mass of the collided matter and antimatter, in accord with the mass–energy equivalence equation, E = mc2.

    Antimatter particles bind with one another to form antimatter, just as ordinary particles bind to form normal matter. For example, a positron (the antiparticle of the electron) and an antiproton (the antiparticle of the proton) can form an antihydrogen atom. Physical principles indicate that complex antimatter atomic nuclei are possible, as well as anti-atoms corresponding to the known chemical elements.

    There is considerable speculation as to why the observable universe is composed almost entirely of ordinary matter, as opposed to an equal mixture of matter and antimatter. This asymmetry of matter and antimatter in the visible universe is one of the great unsolved problems in physics. The process by which this inequality between matter and antimatter particles developed is called baryogenesis.

    Antimatter in the form of anti-atoms is one of the most difficult materials to produce. Individual antimatter particles, however, are commonly produced by particle accelerators and in some types of radioactive decay. The nuclei of antihelium have been artificially produced with difficulty. These are the most complex anti-nuclei so far observed.

    Formally, antimatter particles can be defined by their negative baryon number or lepton number, while "normal" (non-antimatter) matter particles have a positive baryon or lepton number. These two classes of particles are the antiparticle partners of one another.

    The idea of negative matter appears in past theories of matter that have now been abandoned. Using the once popular vortex theory of gravity, the possibility of matter with negative gravity was discussed by William Hicks in the 1880s. Between the 1880s and the 1890s, Karl Pearson proposed the existence of "squirts" and sinks of the flow of aether. The squirts represented normal matter and the sinks represented negative matter. Pearson's theory required a fourth dimension for the aether to flow from and into.

    The term antimatter was first used by Arthur Schuster in two rather whimsical letters to Nature in 1898, in which he coined the term. He hypothesized antiatoms, as well as whole antimatter solar systems, and discussed the possibility of matter and antimatter annihilating each other. Schuster's ideas were not a serious theoretical proposal, merely speculation, and like the previous ideas, differed from the modern concept of antimatter in that it possessed negative gravity.

    The modern theory of antimatter began in 1928, with a paper by Paul Dirac. Dirac realised that his relativistic version of the Schrödinger wave equation for electrons predicted the possibility of antielectrons. These were discovered by Carl D. Anderson in 1932 and named positrons (a portmanteau of "positive electron"). Although Dirac did not himself use the term antimatter, its use follows on naturally enough from antielectrons, antiprotons, etc. A complete periodic table of antimatter was envisaged by Charles Janet in 1929.

    The Feynman–Stueckelberg interpretation states that antimatter and antiparticles are regular particles traveling backward in time.

    There are compelling theoretical reasons to believe that, aside from the fact that antiparticles have different signs on all charges (such as electric charge and spin), matter and antimatter have exactly the same properties. This means a particle and its corresponding antiparticle must have identical masses and decay lifetimes (if unstable). It also implies that, for example, a star made up of antimatter (an "antistar") will shine just like an ordinary star. This idea was tested experimentally in 2016 by the ALPHA experiment, which measured the transition between the two lowest energy states of antihydrogen. The results, which are identical to that of hydrogen, confirmed the validity of quantum mechanics for antimatter.

    Positrons were reported in November 2008 to have been generated by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in larger numbers than by any previous synthetic process. A laser drove electrons through a gold target's nuclei, which caused the incoming electrons to emit energy quanta that decayed into both matter and antimatter. Positrons were detected at a higher rate and in greater density than ever previously detected in a laboratory. Previous experiments made smaller quantities of positrons using lasers and paper-thin targets; however, new simulations showed that short, ultra-intense lasers and millimeter-thick gold are a far more effective source.

    Antimatter cannot be stored in a container made of ordinary matter because antimatter reacts with any matter it touches, annihilating itself and an equal amount of the container. Antimatter in the form of charged particles can be contained by a combination of electric and magnetic fields, in a device called a Penning trap. This device cannot, however, contain antimatter that consists of uncharged particles, for which atomic traps are used. In particular, such a trap may use the dipole moment (electric or magnetic) of the trapped particles. At high vacuum, the matter or antimatter particles can be trapped and cooled with slightly off-resonant laser radiation using a magneto-optical trap or magnetic trap. Small particles can also be suspended with optical tweezers, using a highly focused laser beam.

    In 2011, CERN scientists were able to preserve antihydrogen for approximately 17 minutes.

    Scientists claim that antimatter is the costliest material to make. In 2006, Gerald Smith estimated $250 million could produce 10 milligrams of positrons (equivalent to $25 billion per gram); in 1999, NASA gave a figure of $62.5 trillion per gram of antihydrogen. This is because production is difficult (only very few antiprotons are produced in reactions in particle accelerators), and because there is higher demand for other uses of particle accelerators. According to CERN, it has cost a few hundred million Swiss francs to produce about 1 billionth of a gram (the amount used so far for particle/antiparticle collisions). In comparison, to produce the first atomic weapon, the cost of the Manhattan Project was estimated at $23 billion with inflation during 2007.

    Several studies funded by the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts are exploring whether it might be possible to use magnetic scoops to collect the antimatter that occurs naturally in the Van Allen belt of the Earth, and ultimately, the belts of gas giants, like Jupiter, hopefully at a lower cost per gram.

    Matter–antimatter reactions have practical applications in medical imaging, such as positron emission tomography (PET). In positive beta decay, a nuclide loses surplus positive charge by emitting a positron (in the same event, a proton becomes a neutron, and a neutrino is also emitted). Nuclides with surplus positive charge are easily made in a cyclotron and are widely generated for medical use. Antiprotons have also been shown within laboratory experiments to have the potential to treat certain cancers, in a similar method currently used for ion (proton) therapy.

    Antimatter has been considered as a trigger mechanism for nuclear weapons. A major obstacle is the difficulty of producing antimatter in large enough quantities, and there is no evidence that it will ever be feasible. However, the U.S. Air Force funded studies of the physics of antimatter in the Cold War, and began considering its possible use in weapons, not just as a trigger, but as the explosive itself.
  • RadicalRobotRadicalRobot Posts: 16Member ✭✭
    edited December 2018
    I reposted it because somehow the original was deleted... Please tell me if I still have two posts of this, but with what I've seen I can't find it. Also tell me if there was a specific reason for it's removal. Thanks!
    Stay Radical!
  • YosukeHanamuraYosukeHanamura Posts: 950Member, Helpful ✭✭
    Nonono, i saw it was reposted and didn't find the first post
    In modern physics, antimatter is defined as a material composed of the antiparticle (or "partners") to the corresponding particles of ordinary matter.

    In theory, a particle and its anti-particle have the same mass as one another, but opposite electric charge, and other differences in quantum numbers. For example, a proton has positive charge while an antiproton has negative charge. A collision between any particle and its anti-particle partner is known to lead to their mutual annihilation, giving rise to various proportions of intense photons (gamma rays), neutrinos, and sometimes less-massive particle–antiparticle pairs.

    Annihilation usually results in a release of energy that becomes available for heat or work. The amount of the released energy is usually proportional to the total mass of the collided matter and antimatter, in accord with the mass–energy equivalence equation, E = mc2.

    Antimatter particles bind with one another to form antimatter, just as ordinary particles bind to form normal matter. For example, a positron (the antiparticle of the electron) and an antiproton (the antiparticle of the proton) can form an antihydrogen atom. Physical principles indicate that complex antimatter atomic nuclei are possible, as well as anti-atoms corresponding to the known chemical elements.

    There is considerable speculation as to why the observable universe is composed almost entirely of ordinary matter, as opposed to an equal mixture of matter and antimatter. This asymmetry of matter and antimatter in the visible universe is one of the great unsolved problems in physics. The process by which this inequality between matter and antimatter particles developed is called baryogenesis.

    Antimatter in the form of anti-atoms is one of the most difficult materials to produce. Individual antimatter particles, however, are commonly produced by particle accelerators and in some types of radioactive decay. The nuclei of antihelium have been artificially produced with difficulty. These are the most complex anti-nuclei so far observed.

    Formally, antimatter particles can be defined by their negative baryon number or lepton number, while "normal" (non-antimatter) matter particles have a positive baryon or lepton number. These two classes of particles are the antiparticle partners of one another.

    The idea of negative matter appears in past theories of matter that have now been abandoned. Using the once popular vortex theory of gravity, the possibility of matter with negative gravity was discussed by William Hicks in the 1880s. Between the 1880s and the 1890s, Karl Pearson proposed the existence of "squirts" and sinks of the flow of aether. The squirts represented normal matter and the sinks represented negative matter. Pearson's theory required a fourth dimension for the aether to flow from and into.

    The term antimatter was first used by Arthur Schuster in two rather whimsical letters to Nature in 1898, in which he coined the term. He hypothesized antiatoms, as well as whole antimatter solar systems, and discussed the possibility of matter and antimatter annihilating each other. Schuster's ideas were not a serious theoretical proposal, merely speculation, and like the previous ideas, differed from the modern concept of antimatter in that it possessed negative gravity.

    The modern theory of antimatter began in 1928, with a paper by Paul Dirac. Dirac realised that his relativistic version of the Schrödinger wave equation for electrons predicted the possibility of antielectrons. These were discovered by Carl D. Anderson in 1932 and named positrons (a portmanteau of "positive electron"). Although Dirac did not himself use the term antimatter, its use follows on naturally enough from antielectrons, antiprotons, etc. A complete periodic table of antimatter was envisaged by Charles Janet in 1929.

    The Feynman–Stueckelberg interpretation states that antimatter and antiparticles are regular particles traveling backward in time.

    There are compelling theoretical reasons to believe that, aside from the fact that antiparticles have different signs on all charges (such as electric charge and spin), matter and antimatter have exactly the same properties. This means a particle and its corresponding antiparticle must have identical masses and decay lifetimes (if unstable). It also implies that, for example, a star made up of antimatter (an "antistar") will shine just like an ordinary star. This idea was tested experimentally in 2016 by the ALPHA experiment, which measured the transition between the two lowest energy states of antihydrogen. The results, which are identical to that of hydrogen, confirmed the validity of quantum mechanics for antimatter.

    Positrons were reported in November 2008 to have been generated by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in larger numbers than by any previous synthetic process. A laser drove electrons through a gold target's nuclei, which caused the incoming electrons to emit energy quanta that decayed into both matter and antimatter. Positrons were detected at a higher rate and in greater density than ever previously detected in a laboratory. Previous experiments made smaller quantities of positrons using lasers and paper-thin targets; however, new simulations showed that short, ultra-intense lasers and millimeter-thick gold are a far more effective source.

    Antimatter cannot be stored in a container made of ordinary matter because antimatter reacts with any matter it touches, annihilating itself and an equal amount of the container. Antimatter in the form of charged particles can be contained by a combination of electric and magnetic fields, in a device called a Penning trap. This device cannot, however, contain antimatter that consists of uncharged particles, for which atomic traps are used. In particular, such a trap may use the dipole moment (electric or magnetic) of the trapped particles. At high vacuum, the matter or antimatter particles can be trapped and cooled with slightly off-resonant laser radiation using a magneto-optical trap or magnetic trap. Small particles can also be suspended with optical tweezers, using a highly focused laser beam.

    In 2011, CERN scientists were able to preserve antihydrogen for approximately 17 minutes.

    Scientists claim that antimatter is the costliest material to make. In 2006, Gerald Smith estimated $250 million could produce 10 milligrams of positrons (equivalent to $25 billion per gram); in 1999, NASA gave a figure of $62.5 trillion per gram of antihydrogen. This is because production is difficult (only very few antiprotons are produced in reactions in particle accelerators), and because there is higher demand for other uses of particle accelerators. According to CERN, it has cost a few hundred million Swiss francs to produce about 1 billionth of a gram (the amount used so far for particle/antiparticle collisions). In comparison, to produce the first atomic weapon, the cost of the Manhattan Project was estimated at $23 billion with inflation during 2007.

    Several studies funded by the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts are exploring whether it might be possible to use magnetic scoops to collect the antimatter that occurs naturally in the Van Allen belt of the Earth, and ultimately, the belts of gas giants, like Jupiter, hopefully at a lower cost per gram.

    Matter–antimatter reactions have practical applications in medical imaging, such as positron emission tomography (PET). In positive beta decay, a nuclide loses surplus positive charge by emitting a positron (in the same event, a proton becomes a neutron, and a neutrino is also emitted). Nuclides with surplus positive charge are easily made in a cyclotron and are widely generated for medical use. Antiprotons have also been shown within laboratory experiments to have the potential to treat certain cancers, in a similar method currently used for ion (proton) therapy.

    Antimatter has been considered as a trigger mechanism for nuclear weapons. A major obstacle is the difficulty of producing antimatter in large enough quantities, and there is no evidence that it will ever be feasible. However, the U.S. Air Force funded studies of the physics of antimatter in the Cold War, and began considering its possible use in weapons, not just as a trigger, but as the explosive itself.
  • firefliesfireflies Posts: 56Member ✭✭
    You may want to limit the pay-out of the golden jelly - especially with the searchers, this easily becomes end game (a few resets and you end up getting inf. cash and no longer able to reset)

    you may also want to consider making the godly jelly progressively harder to achieve - having a flat cap transfer rate doesn't make it difficult to progress further.

    I would like to see more reason to click the pickaxe - maybe throw in some upgrades that improve the click rate based on a % of the jelly production. The buildings also become usless very quickly as nothing beats getting 1/3rd of your cash or more per golden jelly...

    1/3rd is quickly overpowering if you get golden jellies frequently enough... 1 billion cash becomes 1.3, then 1.69, 2.19, 2.85, 3.71, 4.82, 6.27.... so you're more than doubling the cash every 3 golden jellies.

    even if the cash is doubled every 3 jellies, that has the effect of turning 1 million into 2,4,8,16,32,64,128,256,512,1024,2048,4096,8192,16284...

    Then you throw in even one searcher and you increase the frequency of cash doubling.... cash in high enough and you get larger numbers of searchers and even though the cash increase doesn't scale so much with more golden jellies turned to cash at once, it still has a significant impact.

    Essentially buildings are useful early game, but they quickly become pointless... even with a thousand of each building, it doesn't have a significant income compared to the golden jelly effect.

    My suggestion would be: Nerf the golden jelly and develop the buildings so they scale up more with more powerful upgrades at higher levels making them more useful.
  • RadicalRobotRadicalRobot Posts: 16Member ✭✭
    Thanks, Fireflies! I am planning on changing the later game majorly, as this game is far from done. I am going to make it much more challenging later on, but most late-game things are experimental and lots of things will be changed to make gameplay more fair and rewarding.
    Stay Radical!
  • NoresaltoNoresalto Posts: 43Member ✭✭

    for the moment I love your game
    No hablo ingles , solo español por ahora
    Uso google translator
  • SkrubbySkrubby Posts: 16Member ✭✭
    I love it! The game is very well made! The only criticism I have is that most of the upgrades never tell you how much they ACTUALLY affect your Jelly income for each building. So I have a hard time figuring out how they actually help me get more jelly.
  • SkrubbySkrubby Posts: 16Member ✭✭
    I like the new update. I’d like to see a fifth version soon.
  • RadicalRobotRadicalRobot Posts: 16Member ✭✭
    @Skrubby Thanks! I will be continuing this version still for a bit but I will try to get the next update out as soon as I can :)
    Stay Radical!
  • petetheman23petetheman23 Posts: 6Member
    good game, but my miner nitpick is that the mineral tabs are too big for the space its in. You should make it smaller than what its currently.
  • petetheman23petetheman23 Posts: 6Member
    haha "miner" nitpick
  • petetheman23petetheman23 Posts: 6Member
    also there isnt actually any rarity to the slime, its just a constant all slime types upon clicking
  • RadicalRobotRadicalRobot Posts: 16Member ✭✭
    @petetheman23 Thanks for feedback! For my monitor, the mineral tabs are perfect size. I'm sorry if it's not for you, but I wouldn't know how to adjust it for all sizes.
    I don't believe there is any 'rarity' for the Jellies, (if I said that anywhere than please correct me) but the more valuable Jellies are more expensive to get and are only obtainable from digging deeper or getting certain upgrades.
    Thanks for playing Jelly Miner though! More updates coming soon.
    Stay Radical!
  • IronDizasterIronDizaster Posts: 11Member
    Hey, could you please tell me how you made it so you can sell jellies for money?

    I'm trying to make something similiar, and your game is really cool btw, loving it so far
    Insert original signature here
  • RadicalRobotRadicalRobot Posts: 16Member ✭✭
    I'm not sure if I'm continuing this game but I'll see what I feel like.

    But for @IronDizaster you can look at the pastebin if you want to know how. I just pulled together some things I found from other games and some knowledge from the handbook to see what worked.

    https://pastebin.com/ydXKVLts
    Stay Radical!
  • IronDizasterIronDizaster Posts: 11Member
    Thanks a ton!
    Insert original signature here
Sign In or Register to comment.