As the title says.
While TacticalNexus's Discord was technically created by volunteers and we aren't the administrators—just users ourselves—a player has now achieved 20,000 Sunstone, so we're writing this commemorative news article.
Personally, considering various balance factors, we'd prefer it to cap around 50,000 to 60,000 by the game's completion... but it's probably going to exceed six figures.
(Not that we'd ever consider limiting late-game rewards for balance, because that would absolutely make the game less fun.)
----
I used “player” because I couldn't quite capture the nuance in a short translation, but what's noteworthy is that the Sunstone record on Discord is treated as a “community record,” not just a “player record.”
This game was originally designed with a balance intended to allow solo completion without any information. That said, players who finish all the game's content with each update engage in what's called “Bleeding edge” – collaborating, sharing opinions, and exchanging excellent ideas.
From Chapter 6 to Chapter 8, the game becomes quite chaotic, allowing things like “unlocking all ice blocks,” “not getting a game over once even if HP drops below zero,” “paving every wall on a floor,” or “equipping two weapons or accessories simultaneously.” It essentially transforms into a silly game.
From this point on, the time spent “reviewing the list of special effects (Legacy/Magic) you possess and agonizing over which to use before starting a stage” often exceeds the actual gameplay time. It becomes a situation where not playing TacticalNexus effectively becomes the TacticalNexus experience.
With each new stage added, the number of spells/legacy abilities increases by several types. Even if you tried every possible combination, you couldn't test or evaluate all the effects.
So, a process has been established where skilled players brainstorm ideas together: “What about this idea?” “Alright, with that idea, I'll take Route A.” “I'll take Route B with that idea.” This allows multiple people to test and validate ideas.
This is how the highest scores for nearly every stage are achieved—through ideas contributed by multiple players.
Since it's not necessarily the achievement of a single individual, we treat it not as a “player record” but as a “community record.”
As someone who used to play online games back in the day, I think this must be a really fun experience for players.
Those days spent chatting until dusk—“Who's online now?” “Hey, wanna run this dungeon?”—are pretty memorable.
That said, even as a top-tier player back then, I've never seen a group of players achieve such flawless teamwork.
(I've heard English-speaking regions have a higher average age among gamers compared to Japan. The quality of communication on Discord clearly reflects people who've done substantial work, so I wonder if that plays a role too.)
----
In terms of difficulty, this game is quite challenging. For adults, it's one thing, but for minors, for example, with the level design we originally envisioned, it would be difficult to clear unless you were the top student in your school.
(Achieving the highest-grade medals for the main package within 150 hours with a Sunstone score of 45 or below; achieving the highest-grade medals for Chapter 3 within 250 hours with a Sunstone score of 75 or below; achieving the highest-grade medals for Chapter 4 within 350 hours with a Sunstone score of 150 or below; achieving the highest-grade medals for Chapter 5 within 500 hours with a Sunstone score of 500 or below)
On the other hand, looking at player logs, around the 1000-2000 hour mark, player skill increases abnormally. Regardless of their skill level when they started the game, most players seem to become quite skilled.
If we suddenly used superpowers and erased everyone's memory of TacticalNexus stage layouts, I think a significant number of players could still achieve the above.
This phenomenon of skill improvement is quite common, and I'd often wondered, “Why is that?” or “Is it just some kind of bias?” But looking at it this way, it seems players might be absorbing tips for playing the game well through ‘communication’ – essentially learning from conversations with each other.
----
Learning communication or conversation fundamentally starts with thinking about “what you want to say,” then shifts to considering “what the other person wants to say.”
If you don't first clarify “what you want to say,” you cannot convey your feelings to the other person.
(Unlike Japanese, English almost always requires subjects like ‘I’ or “You,” and sentences are structured so the predicate—the main point—follows the subject. Perhaps because of this, people in English-speaking countries seem to have a higher proportion of individuals with clear thoughts and intentions.)
On the other hand, if you become overly focused on “what you yourself are thinking” or simply write down your own thoughts, you won't understand what the other person thinks about your actions.
Therefore, you develop the skill to judge “what kind of thoughts or intentions the other person has when speaking” based on what they say and the context.
While “avoiding sensitive topics” or “not stirring up trouble” is important when writing in public forums, this is essentially “rounded” communication.
In limited groups or settings, the key to ‘sharp’ communication is “accurately deciphering the information and intent in a conversation, then speaking concretely based on that.”
(While study methods and exam formats likely vary by country, this higher-level communication skill has a clear connection to mathematics in Japan.
Beyond “formulas” – that is, pre-existing knowledge (≈ cultural context, background, etc.) – the skill and speed of “extracting highly reliable information from limited data (spoken content, intonation, word choice, etc.)” directly translates to communication ability.
I didn't attend university myself, but I heard this from my father, who was the son of someone at the very top tier of Japan's top universities, and from my older brother who attended a top-tier university: apparently, science and engineering studies at top universities heavily involve learning this kind of content and how to distinguish information.
In Japan, a conflict structure exists between science and liberal arts fields. Out of Japan's population of 124 million, 100 trillion Japanese people annually engage in this science-liberal arts war, which is essentially a massive dark carnival of slaughter and explosions, famously causing the Tokyo Tower to blow up each time.
However, to score perfect marks on Japanese modern literature tests, you tend to need the aforementioned skill: “answering based on the examiner's content, not the story's atmosphere.” (Scoring 85-90% is relatively easy, though.)
In reality, scrutinizing “what you yourself are thinking” and “what the other person is thinking” requires both humanities-based and science-based skills.
----
Being “capable” and becoming ‘proficient’ are different. To become skilled through familiarity, you must accumulate repetition.
For example, anyone can type on a keyboard, but “touch typing” is limited to a certain group of people. Those who write daily for years can type at astonishing speeds to an outsider.
Almost no one can touch type at super-high speeds on first try. Everyone needs actual practice.
(Conversely, if you possess the aptitude to “grasp the appropriate structure” and “repeat it to achieve speed,” anyone can master such skills.
This aspect will likely become much more widespread in the next 20 to 40 years.)
Whether at work or in games, the tasks of “cooperating” and “collaborating” are difficult without experience, and unless they are systematized to some degree, major mistakes can occur.
Communication, at its core, involves solving the improvised problems others present or presenting them in a way that's easier for the other person to solve. This relies heavily on improvisation and repetition for speed.
After all, facts come in two types: “subjective facts” and “objective facts.” Objective facts are the same for anyone, while subjective facts differ depending on the person.
For better or worse, perceptions and cognition vary between people. On the other hand, information often contains inherent patterns. Within subjective facts or an individual's personal biases, there can sometimes be deeply ingrained patterns.
Whether in work or responsibility-bearing situations, or even in casual conversations, one crucial aspect is identifying the speaker's character and mindset beforehand. This involves either researching them beforehand or using conversational techniques to draw information from them early on, or conversely, recognizing how to speak to make yourself understood.
Then, based on that, if you think “This person probably doesn't need detailed explanations” or “They seem interested in getting deeper beyond the surface level,” you can delve into complex topics. If you sense “Theoretical discussions might be difficult,” you adapt your approach: speaking softly to those who prefer gentle communication, and steering the conversation toward clearly conveying key points and wrapping it up with those who present challenges.
Of course, mistakes happen. After all, no one can communicate perfectly 100% of the time.
By continuing to interact with the same person, you begin to judge based on the success rate or failure rate of communication: “I can probably get along well with this person long-term,” or “Things are going well now with this person, but it will likely become difficult eventually.”
I believe this is one structure of what is generally called a “trust relationship.”
Judgments about “performance during success” or “balance in the face of failure” can be made based on emotion, but they can also be identified using logic and theory.
The subjective rules flowing within oneself, combined with the accumulated balance and biases from communication with others, shape each individual's personal concept of trust.
And, depending on the time and place, what is prioritized changes. In the workplace, there's a tendency for communication to shift from being “emotion- and enjoyment-driven” to being “stability- and efficiency-driven.”
That said, there's no need to completely abandon the former; sometimes, using that style of communication is more appropriate.
I believe that within each person exists a “science of communication,” which we build through improvisation or learn over time. This is communication viewed as a form of study.
This distinction doesn't work well if you don't understand the theory or lack sufficient practice.
On the other hand, people who interact with others often do this well, whether consciously or unconsciously. I believe anyone can improve by understanding the theory and practicing.
However, putting it into words like this makes communication seem quite academic in its structure.
(As with this game, I place tremendous importance on comfort and efficiency, and what I've just written isn't meant to be the entirety of communication—this analysis is simply skewed in that direction.)
The TacticalNexus community has many people who, even through translation software, you can tell are “probably quite skilled conversationalists.” It gives the impression that many members have accumulated experience absorbing others' thoughts and perspectives.
It makes sense that both speakers and listeners with high-level communication experience can grow rapidly. Or perhaps they're the type who physically consume brains to absorb others' thoughts.
Players who were initially unfamiliar with the game improve through interaction with others, and over time, players collaborate to propose new ideas for clearing stages.
This approach is unsuitable for a “single-player game.” However, it's incredibly enjoyable for a “game built collaboratively by multiple people.”
Challenging high scores not as “players” but as a “community” is a rare experience.
It's only possible now, while other players are already thinking the same things and the game itself isn't fully finished.
This game is fundamentally a single-player experience, and we don't have any grand ideology about wanting to make the world better or worse through our activities.
We just think it's nice if the people currently playing who seem to be having fun can keep enjoying themselves.
Well, this game has periods where you might get bored and periods where you want to play for a while. Conversely, I hope you don't develop any compulsive thoughts like “I have to play this game.”
However, future DLC will be sold for $1, and players who have already put in significant playtime should be able to continue enjoying the game without much hindrance.
In Japan, once you become an adult, it gets really hard to get everyone together to play games.
Many Tactical Nexus players seem to have stumbled upon it themselves rather than being introduced by someone. It's not uncommon for people who met as strangers to become friends who stay up all night playing together with every update, even years later.
From our perspective, that kind of experience is rare.
Honestly, I have a pretty strong feeling TacticalNexus might start spiraling out of control around Chapter-EX1, leading to a balance collapse and some serious trouble. But hey, we'll do our best to keep it from collapsing for as long as possible.