Welcome one and all :D ,
Still being maintained by Mr.H despite the closure, I will be maintaining the OP with the ideas of the new thread.Last updated 15/12/2012This is Mr.H back from his long break and ready to come head to head with the upcoming CW3 by the god-like virgil! To make it easier on him I thought we could make a mega thread filled with suggestions only for CW3, I would then compile them all into the OP and virgil has an easily accesible HQ for ideas :) . It would also help us inject our various imaginations to create the ultimate experience! So put on your thinking caps and suggest anything!
If you've already made a suggestion you can provide the link to your thread and I'll compile it in, otherwise though please leave a nice reply right here and I'll link to the post and put the details in a spoiler along with a easily visible title. Please refrain from leaving any replies other then suggestions for the game unless absolutely necessary, cheers ;) .
I've allready begun compiling ideas from the comments :D .
Idea List:Unit:1. Repair Bots
Spoiler
Author: Hindos, A primitive robotic unit that is very sceptible to damage when in the open. It can openly move along the ground and can repair any structures you order it to. It can slowly repair buildings that have been under attack or give them a very slight edge during the midst of a battle. No more will your units be permanently damaged!
2. Mini-thor
Spoiler
Author:Link327
It is like the THOR in CW1, just a very weakened version. It contains maybe 2 pulse cannons a, mortar, maybe one SAM-like weapon, so Anti-Air stuff. Not a weapon just cleaning whole battlefield in a second, but a flying unit, able to fire while flying, and, more important, it takes damage when flying over Creeper.
3. Carrier
Spoiler
Author:Link327
This Unit has place for some weapons u can put on it. The Carrier will lift them up into the air, enabling them to fire at higher layers if they had such limitations before, maybe allowing them to fire further, and they can fire while the Carrier is flying. also the carrier, even if he's flying, takes dmg for flying over Creeper. The Weapons will still all need their own energy, so that energy will flow to the Carrier, which "maybe" is even able to store energy which is been used to fuel the weapons for a while when being disconnected from the network. Additional: You could possibly put a relay on it so you get a longer connection, would be nice if it could store some energy for the weapons on it.
4. Transport
Spoiler
Author: lich98,
The unit can carry any type of unit. It can move the unit to a new location. While flying it uses energy stores some on-board but when it runs out starts to take damage if over creeper. While flying with energy no damage is taken
5. Creeper Sponge
Spoiler
Author: Jackeea,
When placed, the sponge can absorb creeper, up to about 50k. Then, it bursts, spreading the creeper where it was. You can deactivate it, then it releases 5k bursts once per second until empty. Useful for delaying the creeper
6. Emitter Turner
Spoiler
Author:Lioncourt,
A building that will cap a creeper emitter and cause it to emit anti-creeper instead? Kind of like how they cap an oil rig, but the cap converts the creeper to anti-creeper.
7. Lurer
Spoiler
Author:Lioncourt,
Ever wanted to pull the creeper towards you rather then push it away. Maybe you want to weaken it's defenses by building one at the otherside of the map. Of-course it would only last for a bit, but a great way to quickly weaken the creeper or take an emitter. You can also set it to pull only anti-creeper or both. Slightly similar to CW2's repulsor only then it does the opposite.
8. Freezing Tower
Spoiler
Author: Yelik,
The freezing tower is a very unique unit that adds the concept of freezing creeper into a temporary solid state. This slightly blocks the flow of creeper for roughly 5 seconds, before the 'iced creeper' melts in a fury of blue waves. The tower has a long recharge time and 18 sub-tiles range, so it's better as last resort then and it's impractical to create a line of ice towers to stop the creeper. Certain very dense creeper are immune to freezing.
9. Repulsor Shield
Spoiler
Author: Yelik,
The repulsor shield is similar to a normal shield but instead of being an impenetrable barrier against creeper it slowly pushes creeper within range away. Unless the creeper is of sufficient density or if power falls of the shield will survive, spores can also take it out instantly. All in all a cheaper version of the shield for smaller bulkheads(i.e. units close to shield) , combine it with a normal shield for maximum ownage!
10. Shieldwall (Freya)
Spoiler
Author: Twi,
A utility-type that acts as a very strong shield with very short range. As the name suggests, it can link up into a wall of shielding, which gives it an additional benefit of sharing ammo across the entire structure. Since it uses most of its energy when Creeper tries to break through, this allows more troubled sections to use excess energy from calmer sections and make the system as a whole that much stronger.
Why?: First off, it's a different kind of shield -more or less linear rather than circular (it probably has a shield diameter of five- the three cells the unit is on plus the bordering cells). Second, it lets you build large walls out of shields. What more could you want?
11. Driver(ram)
Spoiler
Author: Twi,
A gun that fires a big, bad, hefty projectile that blows through the Creeper in its path. So basically, it does damage in a straight line. Probably has longer range than Pulse Cannons, but fires slower.
Why?: Because doing damage across a straight line: tactical!
Why not?: Aside from that, it doesn't add much, and its role could overlap with Cannons and/or Strafers depending on how you look at it.
12. Torpedo-O-AntiCreeper
Spoiler
Author:Chawe800,
This unit launches a anti creeper torpedo at the front lines of your defense against the creeper. This has a fairly short range. But it can be really powerful if used properly.
13. Leech
newSpoiler
Author:Mopa42,
A brand new concept for a weapon, this fella uses up stored energy in pods and that of nearby units to vaporize creeper within it's effective range. A great last ditch effort, if the creeper jumps out on you at the back of your base. Could also be an orbital weapon instead of a unit.
14. Snippey
ConfirmedSpoiler
Author: Hindos,
Long Version: As the name implies this is a sniper unit. Their range depends on the terrain height they are placed and are great backline units to backup your main force. At maximum terrain height they can shoot anywhere on a super large map. They can not fire over terrain levels higher then the one they are standing on. Sniper turrets can fire small Anti-Creeper Packets, and are adapt at countering enemy units and serving as a depositor of anti-creep wherever it may be necessary. Susceptible to spores, long reload time, can be countered by having a large array of them. If you have multiple ones selected you can initiate salvo fire, or constant barrage(continuity depends on amount of Snippeys)
Short Version:Sniper unit whoms range/effectiveness depends on terrain height it is based on. Cannot fire over higher terrain. Can shoot small Anti-Creeper packets, adapted at taking out units or irritating creeper. Long reload time, spore susceptible, configurable barrage, behind-the-lines unit.
15. Follicor Charger
NewSpoiler
Author: Hindos,
Long Version: I've always wondered why units are completly oblivious to any sort of damage when moving. I bring you the mini-spore launcher , unlike spores it does not hit player structures on the ground and has a poor range; however it can target any units in the air which come in range and damage them with varied spore charges. If it's a single unit it will often be able to destroy it in one hit, however in multiple units it shoots more( smaller) spores which do less damage but hit all of them. Thus a bulk force could sustain crossing it without serious damage. The mini-spore launcher is named Follicor, after the ( http://www.thefreedictionary.com/follicle ), which is a small cavity near the hair; and a synoynm of 'spore'. The 'Charger' comes from it's feature of slowly building up energy, influenced by nearby digitalis/creeper levels(without creeper/digitalis it is stagnant in production- but can still fire reserves), and takes approximatley one minute to charge to full capacity when surrounded by creeper of highest level(capable of destroying airborne unit in one hit). One does not have to worry about moving units aroudn your base and the danger it brings, this unit makes guppy usage particularily more difficult and disallows any unit movement within it's range but makes tactical movement or overwhelming a viable tactic to counter it.
Short Version: A spore launching creeper structure which can hit airborne units(ships, guppies, moving blasters, etc.) with spores. It charges up creeper levels to create these spores, using up negligible creeper around it, and at full capacity can destroy a unit in one hit. When faced with multiple units the spores split into smaller pieces and do less damage to one unit but the same net damage.
1. Variable Emitters
Spoiler
Author: sweetdude64 , A form of emitter that either progressively releases more creeper or releases less creeper over time. Can be configured in editor.
2. Fields
Spoiler
Author: Various, Fields in CW3. These control creeper to make them do all sorts of things. Whether static invaders, or giant pillars of creepers there are no limits! Perhaps a structure to detect fields would be great.
3. Conditional Fields
Spoiler
Author:Various, Often requested in CW2. Conditional fields only activate once a condition is met, whether it be the capturing of an artefact or the conquering of a certain area of the map.
4. Advanced Spore
Spoiler
Author:Link327,
Actually, the spores from CW1. But i would like to see them doing following: they follow (pursue) Flying Units, heavily damaging them if not killed. Can also attack drones, and the both Suggestions I've done before. So an Anti-Air Weapon of the Creeper. It does not need to be a spore, just some kind of Anti-Air weapon, i don't have a plan how it shall look like. The Creeper can build them on the battlefield, they build it and fire it to destroy Flying Units in range. Like the SAM we've had in CW1.
5. Meteors
Spoiler
Author: Ebonheart,
Meteors(either timed or conditional) that could destroy units and creeper/anti creeper in an area, as well as affect the terrain level and maybe even drop off new emitters. This would be perfect to change the layout of a level mid mission, leaving you to quickly have to adapt to new circumstances, or pay the price.
6. Anti-air creep
Spoiler
Author: Hindos,
The players air power is a formidabble force capable of targeting all over the map. Thus the creeper has evolved and retaliated against this by gaining the ability to shoot down planes via certain anti-air towers which shoot creep blobs at the aircraft. What will the humans come up with to counter this...
7. Dormant Emitter
Spoiler
Author: Hindos,
Dormant emitters, are exactly that. Dormant, they can be triggered by a trigger event(read special section) or if the possibility is ticked in the map editor conquered and exploited by the player or enemy. I.e. if creeper surrounds it to a certain density it activates, or if the player builds a certain building type it emits anti-creeper(or anti-creeper packets)
8. Slow Zones
Spoiler
Author: Yelik,
Slow zones slow down everything within them in a strange rift in time and space! Packets slow down, units slow down, and the creeper slows down. If used wisely this can have intresting effects.
9. The worm
Spoiler
Author:4xc, A devestating enemy unit that buries under the ground and comes up in the middle of your base. Fortunately it can't travel through shielding and when it comes up to reep devestation it is sceptible to weapon damage. This could be implmented in two ways, either as a boss or as a unit that spawn from a 'worm bay'
10. Burst Emitters
Spoiler
Author: Kharnellius,
Something that would be neat is if some (not all, and not right in the beginning necessarily) ... if some creeper emitters had a timer like the spore launchers. They would produce creeper as normal but when the timer ran out it would BURST out a large amount of extra creeper.This would force a little strategy as you may want to back off a bit until it "bursts" so you can suppress the extra creeper, mount a counter attack and nullify it before it can "burst" again. Currently, attacking emitters is very straightforward and doesn't require any really quick action on your part. This can kind of make it boring after a while. Guerrilla tactics would be an intresting new & challenging concept.
11. Spore Guardian
Spoiler
Author:Chawe800,
This is a Powerful Anti Air unit produced by Spore towers (or some other special tower) that can deploy creep bombs on your base. This ship like unit would follow a designated flying path (or the Drone pathing system) and can drop little bombs of creeper or shoot small shots of creeper at the player's weapons. This unit is designed to be a fairly troublesome unit as it can fly around and sometimes cut off parts of your base. I see beams as an excellent defense but I would expect mortars to be able to deal powerful damage to this beast. Another great utilization for this would be for it to shoot spores at you where you'd need beams to shoot down the spores it fires. This could also be implemented as solid boss idea.
12. Mobile Anti-Air
Spoiler
Author: Hindos,
Given the new air exclusion zones, I suggest we implement a mobile version of this. These units would have a shield-size air-exclusion zone and move around to protect strategic locations, like emitters. They have basic A.I. and will move away when exposed to player fire unless there is no space. Great way to counter air units even better.
13. Spore bomber
Spoiler
Author: Chawe800,
These are spore that have been improved in various aspects. I am aware that spores can have their speed, health, and payload modified but I think another aspect could be added to them to make them more dangerous. What if spores deployed mini asteroids of creeper that fell dropping creeper on it's path. Almost a creeper bomber in the sense. I think this would make spores more dangerous and apply more weight to eliminating spore cannons halfway across the map that leave a strengthened path of creeper in it's wake. I also think having Digitalis spores would be cool too.
1. Digitalis Refinery
Spoiler
Author:Chawe800,
This small Digitalis made station strengthens the Digitalis that travel through it making it a smart target for Strafers and bombers to cut off to reduce the strength of the growing Digitalis. The longer the Refinery stands the more Digitalis grow on it, the stronger it gets.
2.Digitalis Anti-Air Tower
Spoiler
Author: Chawe800,
This Digitalis weapon has a small range and it shoots creeper at strafers and bombers that come into it's range. It has an ammo supply that transfers through the Digitalis network. The strafer could absorb like 4 hits before getting destroyed and the bomber something like 6. This could work like a Digitalis air prevention field but with the ability to destroy strafers that attempt to cut off Digitalis.
3.Digitalis Mortar
Spoiler
Author: Chawe800,
This works very similarly to the Normal mortar the humans have. It has a large reload time and it fires a cluster bomb of Digitalis and/or Creeper at a pre-designated area. (SImilar to Bertha auto-target).
4. Digitalis Bridge
Spoiler
Author: Chawe800,
This could be a way for Creeper to spread to different asteriods and across valleys better. This is a small bridge-like thing consturcted out of Digitalis where Creeper can travel across. The longer the bridge exists the stronger it becomes and the more creeper it ferries across it. (I just felt Digitalis should be able to carry creeper across seperate asteriods)
1. Creeper Eater(hel):
Spoiler
Author: Twi,
Creeper-Eater (Hel): A weapon that uses the Creeper it destroys to power itself up. Has a considerable start-up cost and is either slow or immobile, but once it's up and running it provides considerable protection to the area it covers at a relatively low cost in energy. Most likely operates with some sort of beam, increasing its damage output as it eats up Creeper, but it starts to lose said bonus if it stays inactive for a while. Meant more for fortifying an area than for full-on assaults, especially given that it's probably a Titan-class weapon.
Why?: Number one, coolness. Number two, it's an excellent complement to slow and defensive playstyles, since although it takes a while to set up, it's quite effective once operational. Also it's the only weapon that if charged up allready can continue to function without your network hooking up to it(ofcourse it needs sufficient creeper to power up[lots of area to defends makes it less effective], and is susceptible to spores)
Why not?: Defensive weapons can be kind of boring, can't they?
2. MIRV(katyusha)
Spoiler
Author: Twi,
Titan-class, featuring rockets of death from above! Bombards a large area with submunition-launching rocket(s). The main weakness is height- the weapon simply isn't good against deep creeper, and may be incapable of targeting Creeper that's too low compared to nearby terrain (or even simply other, higher Creeper). Useful for clearing out the high ground, not so useful for launching assaults on entrenched Creeper or in rough terrain.
Why?: Rockets are awesome. Plus, it'd be a very useful unit in conjunction with Guppies, as it's uniquely suited to clearing plateaus for landing. (Wide area damage, possibly over time but nonetheless in a relatively short burst.) High-ground-attack in general seems to suggest some interesting tactical uses and limitations.
Why not?: High-ground-attack might be a bit too specialized.
3. Space Elevator
Spoiler
Author: Shrike30,
The space elevator is a new titan structure that does not serve as an offensive weapon but rather as a support unit. It allows you to ship supplies/packets from the mothership directly to the battlefield, and rechargably move units instantanuosly in emergency situations(long cooldown). It is susceptible to creeper damage, and is a key place to defend. Upon destruction it will unleash a explosive radius that damages player structures and units depending on the distance from the space elevator. Very useful asset in larger maps.
4. AC Beetle
Spoiler
Author: 4xc,
It loads up with AC, crawls to its destination, and shoots it right in front where told to. Or it can burst it all at once (maybe taking out the beetle too in the process). When empty, it returns to its "Nest". A possibly limited number of beetles would be afiliated with each nest.
5. Disruptor Pulsar
newSpoiler
Author: Hindos,
Long Version: As a titan class weapon I believe that a weapon which sends some form of disruptive pulse which temporarily distorts the default movement of the creeper in a certain radius would be quite intresting. It would not harm the creeper or destroy any of it but throw it around(configurable via it's unit control panel) to various ends(close packing for mortars, seperate creeper masses, etc. This would certainly not be random ofcourse an a overlay UI would show the effect of the weapon. Particularily good at cutting off digitalis lines.
Short Version:
1. A-Creeper Mines
Spoiler
Author: Lurkily , The ability to lay anti-creeper mines on the battlefield, which explode on contact with creeper. These can give you a good edge on the frontal battlefield and can hold of the creeper whilst you move the bulk of your defenses. Good for postponing the destruction of portions of your defenses.
2. AntiCreeper Cannon
Spoiler
Author: Hindos, The anti creeper cannon uses up anti-creeper whilst firing. It slowly fires pellets of anti-creeper at targets similar to launchers. It can be used as artillery but this is less economical as more anti-creeper is wasted the further you fire.
3. AntiCreeper Reserves
Spoiler
Author: Giving certain units and structures anti-creeper fills up their tanks with anti-creeper, when they die it will be released giving the other units a chance to escape. Thus you could also have upgrade to increase capacity, and the ability to release it when conditions are met(e.g. auto-release upon contact with creeper instead of death)
4. Emitter Converter
Spoiler
Author: Hindos,
As a balanced but potent end-game weapon I introduce the emitter convertor. This converts dormant or controlled but live emitters into emitting anti-creeper instead(or anti-creeper packets). Inorder to do this the emitter must first be surrounded by anti-creeper of a certain density, and you must build a certain amount of resource-expensive converters depending on emitter strength. Once covnerted it can be selected like a building and configured to release raw anti-creeper, or release anti-creeper packets into your system. The emitter will however only be 1/10 of the conquered emitter strength(another option would be making it the same speed as an ore mine in emitting and effected by mining upgrades).
5. Prototypes
NewSpoiler
Author:Inspiratieloos,
As a progressive manner to unlock Titan class units instead of getting blueprints you can find prototype version on the field.
1. Shield Generator
CONFIRMED!Spoiler
Different from placeable shields, this shield generator fortifies nearby structures with shielding allowing them to resist creeper a tad bit longer. It is stationrary and once it's shields break it's instantly destroyed. Perfect to give your units that little defensive edge whilst you can fortify the next position.
2. Farm
Spoiler
Author: Tornado, farms allow you to grow a new resource; food. Food is necessary to feed your hungry troops and buildings which allows your system to keep going. Optional: It can also fight diseases.
3. Radar
Spoiler
Author: Lurkily,
With the introduction of the fog of war(similar to CW2 but then opaque) radar towers allow you to reveal parts of the map and analyze activity there. Perfect for night/dark maps. Another possible feature would be a small mini-map with blips for enemy nexi and units.
1. Progressive Costs
Spoiler
Author: Lurkily , Progressive costs are similar to the CW2 tech domes, we would like to see this integrated into CW3 as well as it makes startegic decisions more vital.
2. Low ground Energy Increase+
Spoiler
Author:Wheatmidge, It would be more interesting to have collectors on low ground give more energy. This would convince players to have a risk/benefit analysis of trying to control the low ground instead of always building on top of a hill.
3. Resource managment
Spoiler
Author: Hindos,
After playing AI wars(epic indie space game) i noticed they have a lot of fancy calculations near the resource panel to help you control and oversee your resources better. I'd love to see this in creeper world, this includes your current production, storage capacity, waste(loss), and possibly a + X to show upgrade benefits from research.
4. Formations
Spoiler
Author: Various,
Just like in CW2 the formations feature in CW3 would be awesome. To make it even more better you could add a rise of a nations feature where you can select to put them into various pre-configured formations, e.g. the arrow ^;formation, the line - ;formation, etc. Based on real militrary formations! The player can configure this on and off and by default the units are moved in their current formation if you use formation movement unless the user says otherwise.
5. Additional Resources
Spoiler
Author: Various,
Currently we have anti-creeper and energy but nothing else. Introducing one or two new resources would be intresting; some choices would be food, population, etc.
6. ToggleAble Relays
Spoiler
Author: Various, Shrike30:
Will let you toggle parts of your network on and off at a single location, rather than having to select every single structure downstream of that Relay and Disable them.
7. Limited Relays
Spoiler
Authro: Shrike30,
Will allow commanders to pick and choose how resources are shared between two otherwise discreet networks, using a landline rather than guppies.
8. Dedicated Relays
Spoiler
Author: Shrike30,
Will allow commanders to keep two discreet networks separate from each other despite passing through the same locations, should they wish to do so, without strange workarounds involving guppies.
This could be done by clicking on a relay, clicking a "make limited connection to..." button, and then clicking on the other relay involved (or, if that's a coding problem, allowing the placement of a new relay that becomes the other half of this pair). Each relay in this pair, when clicked on, would then have toggleable radio boxes which define what kind of materiel they will pass to the other relay in the pair, defaulted to "on" for all types of materiel.
9. Specialist Storage Units
Spoiler
Author: Shrike30,
Would let Storage units serve as local "batteries" for weapons and shields, allowing for a more consistent supply of packets in remote locations, without strange workarounds involving guppies.
10. Transformers
Spoiler
Author: Shrike30,
Transformers would be structures with an AOE that draw Energy from a network and produce packets specifically for reloading weapons/shields within that AOE. Transformers would NOT provide packets for construction. Weapons would preferentially draw from the transformer before requesting packets from the command node. These would primarily come into play on larger maps where a commander has already deployed all of his command nodes and the distance from the command node is becoming a major problem for maintaining pressure at the frontline (those instances where a weapon runs its magazine dry before the replacement packets for the FIRST shot arrive, and the weapon only fires in bursts because it won't continue to request packets once the replacement packet for it's LAST shot has been sent). The current means of preventing this involves either having several guppies leapfrogging packets from the rear to the front to provide a forward "capacitor" for packets, or relocating the command node further forwards (something you might not want to do, or which might not even be intended to be possible in CW3).
1. Buried Emitters
Spoiler
Author: weekengamer
Emitters embedded in the terrain, won't emit creeper until released. Would work well if the enemy had digging capabilities.
2. Creeper Mist
Recommended ReadSpoiler
Author: Hindos,
I've been toying around with a balanced way to solve the obvious dominance of the player with air units after reading a comment from Virgil about not wanting air units to sustain damage. My solution is air mist, this is a gassy see-through version of creeper created by a new creeper structure, the mister(name debatable) this converts creeper into mist creeper slowly. Mist creep does no damage to ground units and spreads slowly , it also needs a certain density to survive like creeper.
It blocks air units from flying through it but it's impossible to order your units to fly through it. Thus the creeper can create a no-fly-zone. If left untreated it may cover the entire map, if it covers you launch pads you aerial units won't be able to lift off at all. You can fight back by destroying the producer, the mister, and placing special new weaponry to fight it back(possible hybrid-air creeper and ground unit might be an idea from this.
The mist is not visually hindering of you looking at the map, by default your can only see the outer line of the mist to see it's border, you can also configure to only see it when selecting air units or anti-mist units. Otherwise you can also make it clearly visible all the time in a blueish fog over the map.
3. Targetable Sprayers
NewSpoiler
Author: Shrike30/Hindos,
In addition to the auto-targeting of creeper it is tacticly viable to force target the sprayer to accumulate a pool of anticreeper, ready to crack open the instant a wall is eaten through for example. This would help the player muster better defenses and prepare for full scale invasions in the working. Furthermore you could shoot it across spaces of void for further anti-creeper controlability.
1. Orbital Cannon
Spoiler
Author: Hindos, Fire a single projectile anywhere on the map from orbit. This takes a long time to recharge but can temporarily give you network the edge it needs. It leaves the orbital vessel vunerable though.
2. Orbital Buffs
Spoiler
Author: Hindos, Using various researched technology your orbital vessel can temporarily bolster various aspects of your ground force at a cost though. For example using the rapid fire buff temporarily increases fire rate of weapon in an area by 50% but they'll use up more energy per shot. The quantum reactor buff temporarily increases packet output from command nodes or your main base, but only affects a certain area.
3. Kamikaze Turrets
Spoiler
Author: Hindos,
Quick emergency turrets shot down from orbit in little pods. These fellas shoot a hell of a lot faster then a blaster and are great for pushing back the creeper when you're base is about to die. Unfortunately for the player they have a 5 second fuse and can only be used 1 time per map(more if researched)
4. Emergency Supplies
Spoiler
Author: Hindos,
Ration your crew and give your fighters on the ground an extra boost with a few supplies using : Emergency Supplies! Simply drop a pod filled with supplies from orbit and it'll automatically connect to the nearest network piece and deposit resources into your armada. You can choose to drop it wherever you want, great way to make your front-line weapons last a bit longer as your economy crashes and you need more time to recover.
5. Global Orders
Spoiler
Author: Hindos,
Using special communication technology aboard your ship send emergency orders to all your units to retreat(move towards command post in a hopping fashion one by one), charge(same as retreat but then towards emitter of choice), Shutdown(shuts-down all your buildings which use energy), Overmine(sets all your mines to immediately kick into overload, will eat through anti-creeper reserves though)
6. Orbital Bomb
Spoiler
Author Yelik,
This releases a giant bomb from orbit that leaves a crater in the terrain and decimates nearby creeper. Inorder to use it you must first find a uranium artefact(very rare) then research it in a tech-lab. The bomb is a one-time use only per mission, if available, and does not distinguish between friend and foe.
1. Campaign Between Mission Interface
Spoiler
Author: Hindos, I think it would be epic and more immersive if during playign the campaign you are smoothly moved from one mission to the next withotu returning to the menu. By this I mean you can explore the ship inbetween missions, research upgrades, chat to the crew, train, and more; it would be very immersive and awesome!
2. Unit Limitations
Spoiler
Author: Adahus , Similar to CW2 this means that due to certain in-game events you're units are limited despite having researched it before, add a extra challenge.
3. Multiplayer
Spoiler
Author: Various, Suggested many times. But this time refined, multiplayer would be the next generation aspect to CW3. Allowing two players ot cooperate in constructing and maintaining bases, or both maintaining different networks and working together that way. Other ideas include human enemies(so you fight creeper and an enemy network at the same time, and the more complicated 'human creeper' idea, which allows one player to control the creeper (through fields, gateways, etc)whilst another must build a network to fight of the fields. A simple chat system could be integrated and allowing players to host their own servers would be very useful in limiting the costs to knucklecracker.
4. Overview Merge, side-scroll+ top down view
Spoiler
Author: Sarki Larki , I goes like this: when you fight off the creeper on the surface, there are still little holes where creeper pours out of; no matter how much firepower you hit them with. When this happens you have to go DEEPER.
You break apart the earth and destroy a hidden creeper emitter...
Or you delve into the earth CW2 style and clean up the strange labyrinths of creeper that have formed under the planets crust!
So you go from CW1ish top down view to CS2ish up/down, maybe some side to side, scrolling. And have "two games in one". That could make for some really long games and epic story missions.
5. Expanded Modability And Customisation
Spoiler
Author: Hindos, to give custom maps and campaigns a nice new feel I suggest adding even more layers of customisation besides terrain painting and manipulation. Being able to customise wildlife, decoration, characters, audio-tapes and dialogue(voice-acting), and unit customisation. This functions from a public database of resources to choose from which is moderated for inappropriate content, this way all custom content and art will not be absurd or harassing but trustworthy and unique.
6. Nightmode
Spoiler
Author: Hindos, ever wanted to face your foe in the dark? Sure to scare the bravest amungst us this map option makes it pitch dark around your map. You'll need to light everything up well if you want to see your enemy and not be taken by suprise using... beacons! Beacons light-up an area around it and are essential in night-mode maps.
7. Colours
Spoiler
Author: Tornado, Being able to customize every unit and building would be awesome. This would be automatic obviously and just add a bit of variation to your armada; this way things can come in many different colours. Optionally people could pick their colour percentage chances.
8. Experimental Workshop
Spoiler
Unlike CW2 experimentals could work like this; you place your unit (garrison) into an experimental workshop which puts experimental tech on your unit. This can increase it's fighting potential on the cost of other systems, e.g. creeper resistance, spontaneous combustion. Now you can have experimentally upgraded weaponry to enter your arsenal; but mind the down-sides!
9. Modding parameter editing
Spoiler
Author:lurkily,
The possibility of making a copy of a unit and being able to edit its parameters, so that either a map might have a unique unit, or that the player would be able to construct units different from those in-game, for a different gaming experience.
10. Slopes, smooth terrain levels..
Spoiler
Author: Lurkily,
Creeper in CW2 zero-gravity maps seem to behave pretty much identically to creeper in CW1 maps. So using the CW2 code to implement gravity could be used to implement a 'slope' in a CW3 map, so that all creeper tended to flow 'downhill'.
11. Terrain Events
Spoiler
Author: Lurkily,
Scripted changes to the landscape, which operate according to certain rules instead of just setting exact values to set landscape to. For instance, rather than setting exact heights, trying to cause transformations to existing landscape, so that your terraforming isn't overwritten, but may be very damaged. If you open a rift in a map this way, your terraformed walls may be reduced to a lump of semi-random terrain at the bottom.
12. Triggers
Spoiler
Author: Cobrakill,
Triggers allow map-makers to check true for a certain event, and if it passes as true can cause an action after starting the map. For example you could have a trigger for collecting a tech relic, which activates a dormant emitter.
13. Increasing weapon load via pick-ups
Spoiler
Author: teknotiss, Having the ability to increase the number of available weapons through tech pickups would be great.
Thus if you only get "x" blasters to start you could have "parts" for "y" more set as values in the tech items.
14. Music Expansion
Spoiler
Author: Various,
One issue with previous CW2 games is the lack of variance in the background music, any player who's been on for extended amounts of time in-game will easily get bored or even irritated at it. Adding more music tracks into the game would be great, ofcourse the player could run their own music in the background; but we want music that's appropriate and immersive in the creeper world universe.
15. Bertha Control
Spoiler
Author: Various/Toboe:
Make it possible to group together Berthas (and whatever weapons this is applicable) to "firing groups"
In the Firing group one Bertha (or whatever the group consists of) is the leader (default: the first selected unit, a new leader can be selected manually)
Within that group you can set Targeting and Timing
Targeting:
as leader (obviously can only be set for the not-leader)
auto targeting (automatic targeting at the densest creeper, as shown in video)
manual targeting
Timing
Fire at will (Bertha shoots whenever it has enough ammo)
salve (all members shoot at the same time)
continaual (if there is 2 Berthas in the group, the leader fires, and when leader is half re-supplied, the second Bertha is fired. If it is 3 Berthas the second Bertha fires ones the first (leader) Bertha is resupplied 1/3, the third fires ones the first (leader) is 2/3 resupplied
16. Advanced Options
Spoiler
Author: Hindos,
The solution to the long-standing rift between casual and hardcore players. This stops new users from being flooded with plethoras of fancy buttons and sliders in network and unit control,by default it would be off. Hardcore players could go to game option and tick advanced features on, this allows them to use features like limited relays, dedicated relays, sliders, guppy limitations, etc since those would be confusing to newcomers.
17. Nature/Life
newSpoiler
Author:Hindos,
Long Version: Personally I would love to see some improvements made in asthetics and atmosphere via the addition of 'Nature'. Planets could vary, (perhaps some gas planets) and some could be in the 'goldilocks' zone. Thus a larger array of default terrain types and maybe some intresting new features. Nature would be mostly asthetical, but if that doesn't go down your alley then perhaps using it as a temporal barrier against creeper, or something to protect(like a capsule in CW2). I just feel the maps look a tad bit empty in their current state and terrain manipulation has it's limitations . Examples of Nature are trees or alien plant-life, perhaps certain simple creatures without AI.
Short Version: Asthetics & Atmosphere via introduction of planet types(terrestial, gaseous, etc) and Nature;which can be protected or used as a strategic shield against the creeper.
18. Waypoint Aircraft
newSpoiler
Author: Ronini,
Currently the player has little control over aircraft and they take wide swinging arcs around locations to get them. Being able to set multiple way points and a flight course routine for more complex maneavours(e.g. dodging some anti-air units). Would highly enhance the current air system.
1. Terrain Levels
Spoiler
Author: Hindos, It would be really amazing if we had a larger range between terrain levels. Currently we have 10, imagine mountains on GIANT maps with 20 layers?! This would add more terrain levels and thus more varied landscape.
2. Terrain Types
Spoiler
Author: Hindos, Currently there are different colours of terrain, but it would be even better if they would have an effect. Terrain could have a sponge like-effect that weakens the creeper presence, or it could be very durable making it hard to terraform, or it could allow for quicker movement whilst on it(ice), for cities things like tarmac would be great too.
3. Terrain Structures
Spoiler
Author: Hindos, sure you can make a lot of pretty things with terrain art, but what if you want to create a city? Some way to have multi-leveled structures which can be placed as deco would be amazing. Perhaps they could also be enterable on multiple levels and then you can see-through to the level of the current unit(different transparency depending on level).
4. Terrain decoration
Spoiler
Author: Hindos, thing like trees, rocks, water, lava, etc could not only offer a strategic advantage but also add more immersion. You can see how the creeper indisciminately decimates the ecology, or you can lure the creeper over a lava pool so you can use it to expand your network. Perhaps having animals as mission targets(preservation of life), or war assets(using animals to bolster your defenses).
5. Decayable Terrain
Spoiler
Author: Hindos, Decayable terrain, just like in CW2 but then only in CW3's universe. I'm talking giving the creeper some good old limited terraforming abilities. Will make you think twice where you place your defenses. Ofcourse not all terrain is decayable only weaker ground.
6. Decayable Tera-Terrain
Spoiler
Author: Various,currently Terraforming is a permanent and indestructible way of changing the map, instead it would be great if the creeper could very slowly decay the terrra-terrain layer by layer, in order to counter this simply place a terrap unit nearby and configure it to use energy to keep the terra-terrain solid. This might be configurable in map options in-case terraforming is used for a more permanent effect
7. Harmful Terrain
newSpoiler
Author: Ronini,
This terrain type does not allow unit construction on top of it and harms any units that land on it. The same idea also goes for the creeper, or the creeper just avoids it. Lore-wise this could be caused by radiation, toxicity, acidity, lava, or other such harmful materials.
1. Protection
Spoiler
Author: Hindos, Protect, you're set out to secure and then protect vital wildlife endangered by the creeper until the timer expires. This can be anything from a ancient tree to a endangered tortoise. You may also be asked to protect a bunker, research facility, etc.
2. Skirmish
Spoiler
Author: Hindos, Skirmish, you have no capability to build anything and save for a sole guppy to rearm your units that flies in every 1.5 minutes you are left with the units you have and nothing more. Thus every unit is essential, so be wise and win quickly before you lose the upper-hand.
3. Containment
Spoiler
Author: Hindos, Containment, Your mission is to trap and study creeper to better learn their weaknesses. Thus you are given no nullifies. In-order to trap an emitter you must place a line of defense around it and have a shield overlap the emitter.
4. Space Battle
Spoiler
Author: Hindos, Space Battle, In a space battle scenario you will face another mother-ship hosted by another faction , most likely the creeper's servants. In this mode you must dodge incoming creeper cannons and field effects whilst building a defensive permiter to take down the enemy ship. This is no walk in the park but the giant explosion at the end will be worth it.
You don't have to follow this format but it'll make it look more organised:
Title: (name of idea here)
Author: (your name here, optional)
Type: (unit,enemy, tech, building, economy, (Anti)creeper, orbit, special,terrain)
Desc: (description of idea here)
One thing I would like to suggest: Virgil commented on his blog that he was considering giving more energy from collectors on high ground, but I think it would be more interesting to have collectors on low ground give more energy. This would convince players to have a risk/benefit analysis of trying to control the low ground instead of always building on top of a hill.
Quote from: Wheatmidge on May 04, 2012, 02:28:52 AM
One thing I would like to suggest: Virgil commented on his blog that he was considering giving more energy from collectors on high ground, but I think it would be more interesting to have collectors on low ground give more energy. This would convince players to have a risk/benefit analysis of trying to control the low ground instead of always building on top of a hill.
Thanks added it under the economics category ;) . Also added a new 'nightmode' suggestion under special.
http://knucklecracker.com/forums/index.php?topic=9252.0
Quote from: Karsten75 on May 04, 2012, 10:18:54 AM
http://knucklecracker.com/forums/index.php?topic=9252.0
... I failed epicly D: . BUt that one only covers UI and keymapping, this covers everything :D
i agree with multiplayer...but please have a central server WITH option for ur own server
weapons:laser cannon:shoots a laser beam that penetrates the creeper,STRONG,uses ALOT of energy(like 40/second) fire by selecting it and clicking fire mode...after done click exit. AC laser:a laser that carries anti creeper in the beam..on contact with a wall or creeper it will release the anticreeper... good for a anticreeper flood after using laser. on contact it releases 10k-100k anticreeper per second. you can adjust the ac per second but need to upgrade first to allow more ac volume.both lasers speed of light so when u fire it arrives and contacts instantly!
anticreeper pipes:the pipeline virglw was making
creeper pipes:special pipeline that allows u to manipulate creeper! theres has to be a storage tank connected to work. and a emergency dumping place because storage tank can only hold creeper for 1 minutes at a time.
creeper vaccum laser: fire a beam that can hold 10k-100k creeper at a time(adjustable and upgradable just like AC laser) and inject it into creeper pipelines and into a storage tank
emergency creeper inject laser(ECIL): instead of dumping creeper to emergency dump place it fires it in a ONE TIME AIM ONLY laser that will dump it on contact with WALLS ONLY
anti creeper synth:uses 100 energy/10k anticreeper to synithise anticreeper when ore runs out - LAST RESORT OPTION WILL DRAIN ENERGY BADLY - to store in a tank.
Quote from: kevinz000 on May 07, 2012, 01:04:26 AM
i agree with multiplayer...but please have a central server WITH option for ur own server
weapons:laser cannon:shoots a laser beam that penetrates the creeper,STRONG,uses ALOT of energy(like 40/second) fire by selecting it and clicking fire mode...after done click exit. AC laser:a laser that carries anti creeper in the beam..on contact with a wall or creeper it will release the anticreeper... good for a anticreeper flood after using laser. on contact it releases 10k-100k anticreeper per second. you can adjust the ac per second but need to upgrade first to allow more ac volume.both lasers speed of light so when u fire it arrives and contacts instantly!
anticreeper pipes:the pipeline virglw was making
creeper pipes:special pipeline that allows u to manipulate creeper! theres has to be a storage tank connected to work. and a emergency dumping place because storage tank can only hold creeper for 1 minutes at a time.
creeper vaccum laser: fire a beam that can hold 10k-100k creeper at a time(adjustable and upgradable just like AC laser) and inject it into creeper pipelines and into a storage tank
emergency creeper inject laser(ECIL): instead of dumping creeper to emergency dump place it fires it in a ONE TIME AIM ONLY laser that will dump it on contact with WALLS ONLY
anti creeper synth:uses 100 energy/10k anticreeper to synithise anticreeper when ore runs out - LAST RESORT OPTION WILL DRAIN ENERGY BADLY - to store in a tank.
Those lasers sound kina overpowered, like the dark beam in CW2 which pretty much unbalanced the game(unless you didn't use it ofcourse). Creeper pipes have allready been confirmed and invented by virgil ;) .
also added fields,confurable fiels, and variable emitters to enemy list.
You can remove the fields; Virgil already confirmed them.
Quote from: 2b3o4o on May 08, 2012, 10:10:26 PM
You can remove the fields; Virgil already confirmed them.
True but there are points under it not confirmed, in CW2 there was an option to see fields in-game. Maybe we can have a structure/unit that detects fields. Conditional fields also haven't been confirmed, and those would be awesome :)
sorry for writing to you like this but backspace dose not work on hot mail
my nae is isaac. i hav played your games and wold sugest that you make a game 3.
i have thought of ideas for this.
my list of ideas is simple.it gose as folows:
tecnology to create wepon that use anti creaper.such as emiters gatways and nexi
also dark beamdos ot harm anything that helps you and travels thogh micro rifts
also i can give you a new reactor desine and am thinkig of mixing dark beam and thor
pleas write back to this aderes
[Deleted address]
or send tothis email acount
i would like to dicus further but this is all i have to send
from tor nado
...... wat?
Hi Tornado,
Please don't include a physical or email address in any post you make. You want to make sure to keep your private information off public boards like this one. People will respond to your posts here, or they can send you private messages on this board.
Good news regarding Anti Creeper. I do intend to have weapons that use Anti Creeper.
The map and the command nodes symmetrical so
I can perfectly symmetrical maps.
Units are always an odd number of cells wide and tall. 3,5,7 etc. Maps can be variable width and height... So you should be able to make the map however you like.
So, I've done these suggestions before, i just wanted to make them official.
1.)
"Mini-Thor"
"Link327"
"Unit"
"It is like the THOR in CW1, just a very weakened version. It contains maybe 2 pulse cannons a, mortar, maybe one SAM-like weapon, so Anti-Air stuff. Not a weapon just cleaning whole battlefield in a second, but a flying unit, able to fire while flying, and, more important, it takes damage when flying over Creeper."
2.)
"Carrier"
"Link327"
"Unit"
"This Unit has place for some weapons u can put on it. The Carrier will lift them up into the air, enabling them to fire at higher layers if they had such limitations before, maybe allowing them to fire further, and they can fire while the Carrier is flying. also the carrier, even if he's flying, takes dmg for flying over Creeper. The Weapons will still all need their own energy, so that energy will flow to the Carrier, which "maybe" is even able to store energy which is been used to fuel the weapons for a while when being disconnected from the network."
3.)
"(Spore)"
"Link327"
"Enemy"
"Actually, the spores from CW1. But i would like to see them doing following: they follow (pursue) Flying Units, heavily damaging them if not killed. Can also attack drones, and the both Suggestions I've done before. So an Anti-Air Weapon of the Creeper. It does not need to be a spore, just some kind of Anti-Air weapon, i don't have a plan how it shall look like. The Creeper can build them on the battlefield, they build it and fire it to destroy Flying Units in range. Like the SAM we've had in CW1."
Quote from: Link327 on May 19, 2012, 04:46:07 PM
2.)
"Carrier"
"Link327"
"Unit"
"This Unit has place for some weapons u can put on it. The Carrier will lift them up into the air, enabling them to fire at higher layers if they had such limitations before, maybe allowing them to fire further, and they can fire while the Carrier is flying. also the carrier, even if he's flying, takes dmg for flying over Creeper. The Weapons will still all need their own energy, so that energy will flow to the Carrier, which "maybe" is even able to store energy which is been used to fuel the weapons for a while when being disconnected from the network."
You could possobly put a relay on it so you get a longer connection, would be nice if it could store some energy for the wepons on it.
"Transport"
"lich98"
"units"
"the unit can carry any type of unit. It can move the unit to a new location. While flying it uses energy stores some onboard but when it runs out starts to take damage if over creeper. While flying with energy no damage is taken"
"Creeper Sponge"
"Jackeea"
"Units"
When placed, the sponge can absorb creeper, up to about 50k. Then, it bursts, spreading the creeper where it was. You can deactivate it, then it releases 5k bursts once per second until empty. Useful for delaying the creeper.
dear all
i sujest that emiters on y
tornadoour side could be moved and take no damage from nulifiers
Is English your second/third language? If so, you might want to use Google translate (http://translate.google.com/) in order to make people understand you. Your post is complete gibberish, and it would be great if you could actually contribute.
It's pretty simple to understand, if you remove 'tornado' (his username):
Quote from: tornado on May 22, 2012, 03:39:49 PM
dear all
i suggest that emiters on y
tornado our side could be moved and take no damage from nulifiers
ah! makes so much more sense.
Google Translate often produce gibberish. I think I read somewhere that Tornado said he posted from an interface that made typing difficult.
I think being able to set the creeper viscosity, a bit like higher/lower gravity in cw2, would be awesome. That way you could have creeper easily flowing over a large area or have a massive mountain of creeper.
By me it would be awesome if there was an upgrade for blaster and rockets like double ammo storage 2 shots for one and such upgrades
name:tornado
idea:codes
it gose like this
say thre was a crystal on a level it could be locked until a code was enterd.
you could find the code from a previs object.
this could be aplide to anything.
but thermust be one thing on the llevel uncoded with the first code in it.
an idea
name:tornado
idea:color scehem
prospect:seting all objects with 3 color choces not just1.
i mean look at crytals ther red green and blue also itis the sam whith creeper and anti creeper in creeper wrold 2.
why not make this for ever thing.
name tornado
idea anti creeper rift
my idea is anti creeper can go through micro rifts
Quote from: tornado on June 09, 2012, 02:24:33 AM
name tornado
idea anti creeper rift
my idea is anti creeper can go through micro rifts
This
Has been proposed before, the idea of a "packet" of anti-creeper that can travel on the line is a smart one as well.
my idea of anti creeper through micro fits shoodhave an off buton as i might become a nusance
also the sidws of the map cold be worm holes
then creeper could come out on the same tearain level as the stuf o the othor side
this could be tied to my th1rd idea food suply
you could grow food for the peaple to prevent defict and use it as a 4th reasours
and by using ant creeper as water you coldus ti as a weapon aswell
i mean you cold grow new materials so it also benifits siece
it cold run of sreen for such an idea to work
thin anticreper groing food the figting creeper the switching back by going of the screen
tornado
Quote from: tornado on June 16, 2012, 02:04:56 AM
my idea of anti creeper through micro fits shoodhave an off buton as i might become a nusance
also the sidws of the map cold be worm holes
then creeper could come out on the same tearain level as the stuf o the othor side
this could be tied to my th1rd idea food suply
you could grow food for the peaple to prevent defict and use it as a 4th reasours
and by using ant creeper as water you coldus ti as a weapon aswell
i mean you cold grow new materials so it also benifits siece
it cold run of sreen for such an idea to work
thin anticreper groing food the figting creeper the switching back by going of the screen
tornado
Can someone please translate this into English?
Quote from: Link327 on June 16, 2012, 04:11:20 AM
Quote from: tornado on June 16, 2012, 02:04:56 AM
my idea of anti creeper through micro fits shoodhave an off buton as i might become a nusance
also the sidws of the map cold be worm holes
then creeper could come out on the same tearain level as the stuf o the othor side
this could be tied to my th1rd idea food suply
you could grow food for the peaple to prevent defict and use it as a 4th reasours
and by using ant creeper as water you coldus ti as a weapon aswell
i mean you cold grow new materials so it also benifits siece
it cold run of sreen for such an idea to work
thin anticreper groing food the figting creeper the switching back by going of the screen
tornado
Can someone please translate this into English?
I just think it too completcated for what I can understand
Quote from: Link327 on June 16, 2012, 04:11:20 AM
Quote from: tornado on June 16, 2012, 02:04:56 AM
My idea of anti creeper through micro rifts, they should have an off button as it might become a nuisance.
Also the sides of the map could be wormholes.
Then creeper could swap to the other side of the map if the terrain levels are the same.
My third idea; food suply:
You could grow food for the people to prevent deficit and use it as a 4th resource.
By using anti-creeper as water you could use it as a weapon as well.
I mean you could grow new materials so it also benifits science
It cold run of sreen for such an idea to work
Thin anticreper growing food the figting creeper the switching back by going of the screen
tornado
Can someone please translate this into English?
I'll try, see quote
Quote from: tornado on June 09, 2012, 02:24:33 AM
name tornado
idea anti creeper rift
my idea is anti creeper can go through micro rifts
Anti creeper can go through micro rifts. It's kinda complex though...
- Move your mouse so the icon is directly over a maker.
- Apply a small amount of pressure to the LEFT mouse button.
- Move your mouse until the icon representing the coordinates of your mouse is over the cell you want to create anti creeper in.
- Wait for the maker to arrive. Repeat step two.
- Select produce on the menu near the bottom of your screen.
- Congratulations! Anti creeper has been moved through a micro-rift!
not like that
also i am english you know
my idea of runing stuff off the map and to the other side is preety good
also the idea about farms is not bad
ther uses extend masvely
for one you could grow new materials for since that ay be reasitant to creeper
and you could grow food and medicinefor the pepole in the comand nodes
what if an ilnes brakes out in your crew
and food conters deafict from overwork
finily you could use anti crepre as liquid fertliser
torndo
ps:that was the readable verson
pas:[the a stands for also]you should run a spell chek on this
name tornado
idea stack and combine
it works like this
you stack a unit on to another then hit the combine button
you cando this 8 times with units
but you have to use the same grade of unit as in the numbr of thimsit ha been combind
another idea would be to make a rotory dark beam
name tornado
idea ds
concept a creeper world 3 based ds game
why
1 and 2 dont have multiplayer
also used in the 3 ds you could earn up to
£9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 give or take a feww peneise
note:this is thanks to my freind seb[who will join us soon]
Spoiler
also you could sell on the wii but you would need a new remote tornado[/shadow][/glow][/s][/u][/i][/b][/tt]
tornado
idea space
loc map
desc
you could fight the creeper in space for a dramatic twist
A couple ideas that haven't made it here from the blog, both mine.
Regarding modding - the possibility of making a copy of a unit and being able to edit its parameters, so that either a map might have a unique unit, or that the player would be able to construct units different from those in-game, for a different gaming experience.
Next, the idea of 'slope'. Creeper in CW2 zero-gravity maps seem to behave pretty much identically to creeper in CW1 maps. So using the CW2 code to implement gravity could be used to implement a 'slope' in a CW3 map, so that all creeper tended to flow 'downhill'.
As for the idea of food supply to avoid deficit . . . what do you think deficit is? My impression is that it's a deficit of electrical energy. That's not something you can pour food on to make it go away.
The ideas of growing upgrades don't seem to be much different from the game mechanics of researching upgrades. Tornado seemed to indicate that it would happen over time, (I think?) instead of spending points instantly, but you can do the same thing with research, allocating a percentage of your research capacity to certain tasks and having them upgraded over time, instead of instantly via points. The only real difference is a cosmetic one, in that you're calling it a farm instead of research.
Lastly . . . . Tornado, it seems like you're trying to add a lot of deep, long-term strategic concepts to CW3. Some of them fit. Some of them don't, really. But more importantly, Virgil has said that he's trying to add new strategic concepts without losing the semi-casual gameplay. Implementing a lot of these ideas would bring in critically important strategic concepts that are complex, and would very much make CW3 not a casual game at all.
Quote from: lurkily on June 25, 2012, 04:38:08 PM
Regarding modding - the possibility of making a copy of a unit and being able to edit its parameters, so that either a map might have a unique unit, or that the player would be able to construct units different from those in-game, for a different gaming experience.
I assume you don't mean changes that effect
all levels... Changing the way units work in individual levels would be awesome though!
Quote from: lurkily on June 25, 2012, 04:38:08 PM
Next, the idea of 'slope'. Creeper in CW2 zero-gravity maps seem to behave pretty much identically to creeper in CW1 maps. So using the CW2 code to implement gravity could be used to implement a 'slope' in a CW3 map, so that all creeper tended to flow 'downhill'.
If the fields system works anything at all like the cw2 one did, there isn't really any need for this at all...
Quote from: lurkily on June 25, 2012, 04:38:08 PM
Lastly . . . . Tornado, it seems like you're trying to add a lot of deep, long-term strategic concepts to CW3. Some of them fit. Some of them don't, really. But more importantly, Virgil has said that he's trying to add new strategic concepts without losing the semi-casual gameplay. Implementing a lot of these ideas would bring in critically important strategic concepts that are complex, and would very much make CW3 not a casual game at all.
^This.
Quote from: lurkily on June 25, 2012, 04:38:08 PM
Regarding modding - the possibility of making a copy of a unit and being able to edit its parameters, so that either a map might have a unique unit, or that the player would be able to construct units different from those in-game, for a different gaming experience.
I suggested an 'unit editor' before, but still, I think this is better (and easier to implement).
Quote from: 2b3o4o on June 25, 2012, 04:54:19 PM
Quote from: lurkily on June 25, 2012, 04:38:08 PM
Next, the idea of 'slope'. Creeper in CW2 zero-gravity maps seem to behave pretty much identically to creeper in CW1 maps. So using the CW2 code to implement gravity could be used to implement a 'slope' in a CW3 map, so that all creeper tended to flow 'downhill'.
If the fields system works anything at all like the cw2 one did, there isn't really any need for this at all...
There's a difference, a slope connects 2 different evelations and you can('t) build on the whole slope (instead of no buildings on one single line)
Quote from: J on June 25, 2012, 05:11:57 PM
Quote from: lurkily on June 25, 2012, 04:38:08 PM
Regarding modding - the possibility of making a copy of a unit and being able to edit its parameters, so that either a map might have a unique unit, or that the player would be able to construct units different from those in-game, for a different gaming experience.
I suggested an 'unit editor' before, but still, I think this is better (and easier to implement).
I like the idea of a unit editor. The chages on a unit would only be for that map as well.
No, a slope wouldn't really connect two elevations, it would be map-wide, and operate pretty much like a map-wide field. (Much like gravity in CW2.)
It's true that this can be replicated with a field but . . . . Long story short, I think it may be as easy as flipping a switch for Virgil to include, and it will make maps with those features available to mapmakers with less experience using fields.
And anything that is good for mapmakers, is good for the community.
And yes, my suggestion for unit alterations was intended to be per-map.
The concept of a universal force that pushes the Creeper one way or another.... that is actually already implemented. It's a relatively simple thing to put into the CA simulation so I put it in for completeness. I've played with it and it is pretty funky. At best you might think of it as 'wind' that pushed the Creeper one way or the other. I may include it so custom world authors can use it, but I don't know if I will use it in and of the standard worlds. I may change my mind, though.
idea
2 sided creeper
concept:a form of creeper that is not on your dide but harms the enemy
from tornado
This is just an idea, obviously. But what about meteors(either timed or conditional) that could destroy units and creeper/anti creeper in an area, as well as affect the terrain level and maybe even drop off new emitters. This would be perfect to change the layout of a level mid mission, leaving you to quickly have to adapt to new circumstances, or pay the price.
Quote from: tornado on June 26, 2012, 01:59:43 PM
idea
2 sided creeper
Creeper 'factions' have been suggested via the blog, and shot down. Basically, creeper and AC are both a single int(), with negative values representing AC. Therefore, more than two creeper factions (creeper and AC) would require changes to the way creeper works internally.
Also, visually contrasting creeper from terrain is a challenge, and there aren't many colors that suit the purpose.
Quote from: lurkily on June 26, 2012, 03:23:16 PM
Quote from: tornado on June 26, 2012, 01:59:43 PM
idea
2 sided creeper
Creeper 'factions' have been suggested via the blog, and shot down. Basically, creeper and AC are both a single int(), with negative values representing AC. Therefore, more than two creeper factions (creeper and AC) would require changes to the way creeper works internally.
Also, visually contrasting creeper from terrain is a challenge, and there aren't many colors that suit the purpose.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
int[]
.
@mich, it depends on the language
Quote from: thepenguin on June 26, 2012, 05:12:03 PM
@mich, it depends on the language
he has said he is writing it in c#, where it is int[]. i have yet to see an array in a language that does not use '[]' (excluding the unityscript one, that is a scripting langauge. doesn't count :D)
blaster 'overdrive' mode - fire a continual beam burning the surface creeper while energy / health lasts - doing this would also damage the blaster while active - could be usfull to be able to burn energy faster to kill faster in some battles
well they are lasers and it makes sense that they can fire in more than just short bursts
Quote from: Michionlion on June 26, 2012, 08:26:13 PM
Quote from: thepenguin on June 26, 2012, 05:12:03 PM
@mich, it depends on the language
he has said he is writing it in c#, where it is int[]. i have yet to see an array in a language that does not use '[]' (excluding the unityscript one, that is a scripting langauge. doesn't count :D)
I got the specific use of "int()" from Virgil's post on the wall describing why creeper 'factions' would require much work.
Whether you're mistaken, I'm mistaken, he was mistaken, or if he simply used a different syntax (or less care) because he wasn't posting within the strictures of code is really not a concern of mine.
Quote from: lurkily on June 27, 2012, 07:50:10 AM
Quote from: Michionlion on June 26, 2012, 08:26:13 PM
Quote from: thepenguin on June 26, 2012, 05:12:03 PM
@mich, it depends on the language
he has said he is writing it in c#, where it is int[]. i have yet to see an array in a language that does not use '[]' (excluding the unityscript one, that is a scripting langauge. doesn't count :D)
I got the specific use of "int()" from Virgil's post on the wall describing why creeper 'factions' would require much work.
Whether you're mistaken, I'm mistaken, he was mistaken, or if he simply used a different syntax (or less care) because he wasn't posting within the strictures of code is really not a concern of mine.
.... :
Quote from: Virgil's blog comment on creeper factions
There are two implementation challenges with this.
- One is like you say, it’s hard to get two types of Creeper to be visible on the map due to having to pick colors that contrast with terrain textures, much less three or four.
-Two are the data structures used to represent Creeper. Currently there’s an int[]. Negative values are AC. Works great for simulator efficiency. To add more Creeper types requires another int[] and more complex comparisons and arithmetic during the simulation evaluation.
Neither of these mean it can’t be done, just that there are implementation and performance trade offs. That said, I’m itching to try at least two alternate types of Creeper
you're right. Letting it slide :D
Quote from: Michionlion on June 27, 2012, 08:00:08 AM
Quote from: lurkily on June 27, 2012, 07:50:10 AM
Quote from: Michionlion on June 26, 2012, 08:26:13 PM
Quote from: thepenguin on June 26, 2012, 05:12:03 PM
@mich, it depends on the language
he has said he is writing it in c#, where it is int[]. i have yet to see an array in a language that does not use '[]' (excluding the unityscript one, that is a scripting langauge. doesn't count :D)
I got the specific use of "int()" from Virgil's post on the wall describing why creeper 'factions' would require much work.
Whether you're mistaken, I'm mistaken, he was mistaken, or if he simply used a different syntax (or less care) because he wasn't posting within the strictures of code is really not a concern of mine.
.... :Quote from: Virgil's blog comment on creeper factions
There are two implementation challenges with this.
- One is like you say, it's hard to get two types of Creeper to be visible on the map due to having to pick colors that contrast with terrain textures, much less three or four.
-Two are the data structures used to represent Creeper. Currently there's an int[]. Negative values are AC. Works great for simulator efficiency. To add more Creeper types requires another int[] and more complex comparisons and arithmetic during the simulation evaluation.
Neither of these mean it can't be done, just that there are implementation and performance trade offs. That said, I'm itching to try at least two alternate types of Creeper
you're right. Letting it slide :D
Ah, you had it right. Still not terribly concerned, but I'll stand corrected.
:D
Quote from: xing on June 27, 2012, 06:12:55 AM
blaster 'overdrive' mode - fire a continual beam burning the surface creeper while energy / health lasts - doing this would also damage the blaster while active - could be usfull to be able to burn energy faster to kill faster in some battles
well they are lasers and it makes sense that they can fire in more than just short bursts
They are not lasers. They are rapid fire missile launchers.
Also, the pulse cannons of cw3 use a projectile. It's very fast so it's similar to the blasters in effectiveness, theoretically, but it isn't quite a laser beam.
I do like the idea of one shot super abilities that need to be recharged slowly. Not sure it fits the game, though.
That's where the Bertha steps in.
Maybe you can add AC to your PC ammo when the "AC factory" is up and running
What I mean by one-shots is something overpowered for each particular weapon, that takes a long time to recharge. Something that can't be stocked up just by having many weapons. (Perhaps an upgrade that must be built onto a weapon, is instantly effective, but goes away in a short while.)
As I said, though, I'm not sure it fits CW.
Quote from: Ebon Heart on June 26, 2012, 02:13:16 PM
This is just an idea, obviously. But what about meteors(either timed or conditional) that could destroy units and creeper/anti creeper in an area, as well as affect the terrain level and maybe even drop off new emitters. This would be perfect to change the layout of a level mid mission, leaving you to quickly have to adapt to new circumstances, or pay the price.
I would absolutely love this, especially because of the fact that they can change terrain layouts! I can imagine making a really complex map that constantly changes it's layout, that would be so awesome...
This brings up another thought. Scripted changes to the landscape, which operate according to certain rules instead of just setting exact values to set landscape to. For instance, rather than setting exact heights, trying to cause transformations to existing landscape, so that your terraforming isn't overwritten, but may be very damaged. If you open a rift in a map this way, your terraformed walls may be reduced to a lump of semi-random terrain at the bottom.
i was thinking maby the bakround music could be picked from a list.
Intelligent Creeper
This kind of creeper knows what to do with current terrains and current structures. It can roughly predict where are you goin' to construct and where you're tryin' to attack. It can also identify produce parts and millitary parts(not precisely, but roughly), to create some fields to guide itself 'on the fly', make the battle more harder.(May also works for spore attacks.)
I could have swore I made a post here. Anyways, like I mentioned before, what about a building that will cap a creeper emitter and cause it to emit anti-creeper instead? Kind of like how they cap an oil rig, but the cap converts the creeper to anti-creeper.
Quote from: Lioncourt on July 07, 2012, 03:30:37 PM
I could have swore I made a post here. Anyways, like I mentioned before, what about a building that will cap a creeper emitter and cause it to emit anti-creeper instead? Kind of like how they cap an oil rig, but the cap converts the creeper to anti-creeper.
;D
Yeah, just like a conversion bomb in CW2 turned the nexus into an anti-creeper emitting suiciding machine.
In CW-1 you could order the drones to drop bombs at some location. Any chance we could be able to program the drones to follow a flight path, and drop bombs during that flight path?
Will the evil creeper have SAM-Sites to shoot down our drones?
Quote from: Karsten75 on July 07, 2012, 07:32:17 PM
Quote from: Lioncourt on July 07, 2012, 03:30:37 PM
I could have swore I made a post here. Anyways, like I mentioned before, what about a building that will cap a creeper emitter and cause it to emit anti-creeper instead? Kind of like how they cap an oil rig, but the cap converts the creeper to anti-creeper.
;D
Does he know how close he is? :D
No he doesn't, but was that why my first post disappeared perchance?
No answer.
By wasting a few seconds of my life, and looking at your history, I can inform you that your earlier post didn't disappear in some grand conspiracy, but can be found here:
http://knucklecracker.com/forums/index.php?topic=10228.msg71875#msg71875 (http://knucklecracker.com/forums/index.php?topic=10228.msg71875#msg71875)
Sweet, thank you for finding it :)
Would be nice if you could make the quick load keyboard shortcut work directly from the main menu. I know its simply a minor thing, but I am guessing it is also quite minor on the scale of implementation difficulty
Sorry for being inactive guys D: , I was unexpectedly sent back to the Netherlands without internet(still here though) but now I have internet :D ! I have to share the computer with 5 pips though so it'll take a while to update the OP with all your suggestions.
From what i've seen of the blog, CW3 is looking epic ; let's hope these suggestions make it even more epic.
What about making some sort of scary map type, with darkness(night maybe) and you can't see the map until you explore it(and if there is no units or buildings there you can't see any updates to the terrain) couple that with scary music and creeper jumping up behind you and you're sure to get the hibba-jibas
What about an anti-creeper magnet? Say it lasts a specific amount of time when sitting in creeper, can be fired by the cannon, wherever it lands in the creeper (or not in creeper), the anti-creeper will use that as a "lets head there" signal, kinda like a magnet drawing the anti-creeper to it, or perhaps having a setting to "tell" the creeper which way to "crawl"...
Quote from: Lioncourt on July 22, 2012, 01:48:27 AM
What about an anti-creeper magnet? Say it lasts a specific amount of time when sitting in creeper, can be fired by the cannon, wherever it lands in the creeper (or in creeper), the anti-creeper will use that as a "lets head there" signal, kinda like a magnet drawing the anti-creeper to it, or perhaps having a setting to "tell" the creeper which way to "crawl"...
Added your idea :)
Also those guppies are looking awesome similar to the carrier someone suggested, so I'm guessing either virgil follows the same line of thought or he reads this :) .
Did he mention lightning in the video? Maybe weather will be implemented.
New ideas:
1. Decayable terrain, just like in CW2 but then only in CW3's universe. I'm talking giving the creeper some good old limited terraforming abilities. Will make you think twice where you place your defenses.
2. Mission type: Protect, you're set out to secure and then protect vital wildlife endangered by the creeper until the timer expires. This can be anything from a ancient tree to a endangered tortoise. You may also be asked to protect a bunker, research facility, etc.
3. Currency: Credits/Vigils(no harm in naming a currency after yourself :P )/CreepDollars, use this to buy new upgrades between missions in the campaign or custom campaigns only. In one on missions the creator can decide what is available and what is not.
4. Mission Type: Skirmish, you have no capability to build anything and save for a sole guppy to rearm your units that flies in every 1.5 minutes you are left with the units you have and nothing more. Thus every unit is essential, so be wise and win quickly before you lose the upper-hand.
5. Mission Type: Containment, Your mission is to trap and study creeper to better learn their weaknesses. Thus you are given no nullifies. In-order to trap an emitter you must place a line of defense around it and have a shield overlap the emitter.
Quote from: Mr.H on July 23, 2012, 01:54:45 AM
1. Decayable terrain, just like in CW2 but then only in CW3's universe. I'm talking giving the creeper some good old limited terraforming abilities. Will make you think twice where you place your defenses.
I think this would be brilliant, having creeper slowly gnawing away at your solid ground could be really fun.
Quote from: Wheatmidge on July 23, 2012, 12:35:16 PM
Quote from: Mr.H on July 23, 2012, 01:54:45 AM
1. Decayable terrain, just like in CW2 but then only in CW3's universe. I'm talking giving the creeper some good old limited terraforming abilities. Will make you think twice where you place your defenses.
I think this would be brilliant, having creeper slowly gnawing away at your solid ground could be really fun.
I agree, having some limited terraforming capacity for the creeper would make CW3 a lot more interesting. I can see two ways this would basically work:
The first would be that all terrain is decayable, which would punish players who take too long to hold the creeper back. It would have to be quite slow, but you could end up with every map being a long slog through bottom-level-of-map-to-top full of creeper, which wouldn't be very good.
The second would be to make certain areas of the map decayable, which would allow you to make mountain ranges blocking the creeper that will decay away, and areas of the map that will turn into pools, keeping the creeper away for a while longer. He could make it so the speeds of decay can be different, like CW2.
On the side, it would be interesting if terrain the player terraformed was decayable, but takes a while to waste away, so you have to reinforce walls, etc. that you make. Another interesting mechanic would be that if the terraformed land has not been touched by the creeper for an extended period of time, it recovers, eventually becoming undecayable, just like normal land. I think that this would add some depth to the terraforming mechanics.
Another thought would be that you could have power zones on the map that haven't been touched by the creeper, but if too much pools there it makes a new emitter, which would make an incentive for taking power zones quickly, and keeping them.
I like the idea of all terrain raised by terraforming being decayable. (Doesn't applied to lowered by terraforming, of course.) I would suggest that land terraformed to 'x' level retains the numbers while a Terrap is nearby, though. This way you can keep a terrap nearby and have it actively such energy to maintain your fortifications.
Terrap repairs would have to be able to actually PREVENT the damage, because I suspect damaging terrain that had a unit on it would destroy the unit.
Quote from: lurkily on August 08, 2012, 05:30:00 PM
I like the idea of all terrain raised by terraforming being decayable. (Doesn't applied to lowered by terraforming, of course.) I would suggest that land terraformed to 'x' level retains the numbers while a Terrap is nearby, though. This way you can keep a terrap nearby and have it actively such energy to maintain your fortifications.
Terrap repairs would have to be able to actually PREVENT the damage, because I suspect damaging terrain that had a unit on it would destroy the unit.
Agreed adding it to the list :)
If terraformers were only able to lay down decayable ground, but this ground could regenerate over time, would it balance things out.
I do like the idea of terraformers repairing ground, and of ground eventually becoming undecayable, however.
As for the farm/food ideas, I always thought that there were 10-20 people on the liberation ship in CW2, and everything else was robotic or automated. That could well change in CW3, but it doesn't seem to fit in my mind.
Good luck with the idea engine you've got here.
Quote from: hoodwink on August 13, 2012, 11:22:24 AM
If terraformers were only able to lay down decayable ground, but this ground could regenerate over time, would it balance things out.
I do like the idea of terraformers repairing ground, and of ground eventually becoming undecayable, however.
As for the farm/food ideas, I always thought that there were 10-20 people on the liberation ship in CW2, and everything else was robotic or automated. That could well change in CW3, but it doesn't seem to fit in my mind.
Good luck with the idea engine you've got here.
Doesn't each turret have a crew manning it. I feel a wee bit of guilt whenever I lose a blaster because of a tactical blunder on my part, all those innocent people wiped out because of me...
The game's lore seems to suggest that the weapons are unmanned, and in particular the fact that only Odin City/the Liberation Ship rifts out at the end of each mission supports the idea that the only humans on the map are in the city/ship.
yeah, unmanned.
even now, we've got unmanned weaponry.
Like supreme commander :-)
Good, no reason to feel bad if I lose turrets now :D .
Any more suggestions anyone? I'm not sure if virgil added lightning, but that shield that randomly exploded could either be related to an overload feature, or a lightning strike :D .
1. What about being able to convert a emitter using advanced tech and tactics into an anti-creeper emitter. More an end-game tactic, and the emitter is at minimal power but it's still a steady supply and can be useful in delaying the creeper for a bit.
2. I'd also love to have earthquakes or some-such. This wouldn't be random(since that's non-strategical), but detectable and has a warning timer(they're advanced humans remember?). This could create cavities(cracks), push land up and down, and decimate your forces. The command posts and such are immune to this effect.
3. Creeper tsunamis, a devastating event with a warning timer, this grabs a large portion of the creeper and collects it together progressively into one tall wave. Unless you have a strong line of defense this can decimate your forces, shields are the best defense against this menace. This can occur due to an emitter overload, volcanic explosion(has to be covered in creeper), or maybe a special kamikaze creeper building.
4. Underground lava flows can also heat up the creeper creating a steamy creeper version that is aerial like spores but attacks like spreading clouds(aerial units can't fly through steam creeper, but you won't lose any aerial units since they won't rise or fly through it ever. You can use special new weaponry to fight this new threat. If the lava doesn't make sense, a some sort of creeper atrocity that spews out creeper steam would suffice as well. Visually creeper steam is see-through, but you can have the option to either not see it(disable); unadviced though, or make only the outlines visible.
I find the fact that aerial units have no enemies currently a bit strange the above option is a good way to not kill them but still hinder them, and even completely block their efforts until cleared.
6. Another idea is a creeper sub- this is a bit like a drone from CW2 that travels through the creeper but only through creeper. It can fire a single spore(long cooldown) and automatically targets anything that falls into the creeper. On the same level it has a small range outside of the creeper, so if you land a single blaster to create a bulkhead the creeper sub(definetly need a different name) would target it. Now you have a creeper-only enemy unit that can only travel in creeper.
Tell me if you like these ideas and i'll add em.
1. Yes please, as one more option for what to do with a power zone.
2. Random terrain movements could get frustrating for the player, since they have no control over or ways to predict what will be destroyed and what won't.
If you've ever played Total Annihilation's Rougpelt worlds, the ones where the planet suffered from heavy and random meteor bombardment, you'd understand the feeling.
3. I'm going to reclassify this one as: Do interesting things with fields, please!
4. I agree that the Creeper needs some form of AA, and an exclusion zone that units will not go in would be one way of doing that. The option to show either the mist or the outline is a good idea, too.
6. Not really needed, since the Creeper already damages everything that lands inside it.
Quote from: Nemoricus on August 16, 2012, 09:34:38 AM
1. Yes please, as one more option for what to do with a power zone.
2. Random terrain movements could get frustrating for the player, since they have no control over or ways to predict what will be destroyed and what won't.
If you've ever played Total Annihilation's Rougpelt worlds, the ones where the planet suffered from heavy and random meteor bombardment, you'd understand the feeling.
3. I'm going to reclassify this one as: Do interesting things with fields, please!
4. I agree that the Creeper needs some form of AA, and an exclusion zone that units will not go in would be one way of doing that. The option to show either the mist or the outline is a good idea, too.
6. Not really needed, since the Creeper already damages everything that lands inside it.
1. I hope i'm fearing it'll become like the CW2 dark laser, so that's why i nerfed it to not make it overpowered.
2. The text says it won't be random...? We could even have little red lines a bit before it happens to show where everything splits if that is what people want. Nonetheless it would be epic and destructive, also a great way for a map maker to controllably change their map in the middle of gameplay. Essentialy two maps in one, all in one earthquake! Imagine a perfectly timed creeper flood, that scares the player into submission. Then the lines appear and a canyon is torn into the landscape, halting the creeper moments before it envelops your base. A lot of opportunites there, and it won't be random at all; these guys are far out into the future, they can probably detect earthquakes accurately by then.
3. Pretty sure you could do that with fields but it would be hard and complicated, having a simple time setting and click-and-drag thing would be epic.
6. True, I'll try tweaking it, maybe it shoots creeper bolts or something. Or it's just a drone limited to only moving within the creeper and then kamikazes to for lots of damage instead.
I hope virgil reads this thread often, and anyone reading this please rake your head towards this issue :D
Mr. H, whatever happened to 5) ?
Quote from: hoodwink on August 17, 2012, 06:12:39 AM
Mr. H, whatever happened to 5) ?
I never went to kindergarden :P
i like the earthquake idea.... a third party (nature) that can hinder or help the player...... i wonder how hard that would be to implement....
I'd like to see triggers. When player builds unit in location wait 1500 frames, then start.
I'm thinking of a map where you start in the middle with light creeper from both sides. You'll be forces to fight left to a castle. 5 minutes after you reach the castle, the emitters on the oppisite (right) side, go crazy and almost kill you, it does the same when you reach the middle. When you reach the emmitors on the right side, they make one last attempt at killing you.
This map is meant to be very hard, it'd be really good if I could have triggers to start and stop emmitors and launch spores and messages. All sorts of things.
Quote from: CobraKill on August 17, 2012, 10:00:46 AM
I'd like to see triggers. When player builds unit in location wait 1500 frames, then start.
I'm thinking of a map where you start in the middle with light creeper from both sides. You'll be forces to fight left to a castle. 5 minutes after you reach the castle, the emitters on the oppisite (right) side, go crazy and almost kill you, it does the same when you reach the middle. When you reach the emmitors on the right side, they make one last attempt at killing you.
This map is meant to be very hard, it'd be really good if I could have triggers to start and stop emmitors and launch spores and messages. All sorts of things.
Great idea, added :) .
Quote from: Mr.H on August 16, 2012, 03:17:58 AM
Any more suggestions anyone? I'm not sure if virgil added lightning, but that shield that randomly exploded could either be related to an overload feature, or a lightning strike :D .
I think that the shield was destroyed because a spore hit a building in the area of the shield. Not sure, but I remember a discussion about it in the comments.
The lightning was a thunderclap outside of the game, as a storm blew through as he was recording - just good timing by Virgil.
Quote from: hoodwink on August 17, 2012, 05:52:31 PM
Quote from: Mr.H on August 16, 2012, 03:17:58 AM
Any more suggestions anyone? I'm not sure if virgil added lightning, but that shield that randomly exploded could either be related to an overload feature, or a lightning strike :D .
I think that the shield was destroyed because a spore hit a building in the area of the shield. Not sure, but I remember a discussion about it in the comments.
The lightning was a thunderclap outside of the game, as a storm blew through as he was recording - just good timing by Virgil.
Oh lol, well hopefully that was a message from god that asked him to add lightning to the game :P
Edit: The steam creeper no-fly zone idea of mine was sort-of implemented into CW3 :D !
Check it out: http://knucklecracker.com/blog/index.php/2012/08/roma-victor/
What do you guys think of adding a little bit of an intellectual puzzle to the game, a code to crack, a door to unlock, that sort of thing? Maybe have missions where you have to hack into ancient consoles to help aid you by closing a bulkhead and stopping the creeper?
For example you could have an ancient facility on a hill with a rogue emitter in the middle, you come from the outside and must quickly respond to stop it. A few ancient consoles control various mechanics, bulkheads, pitfalls(lower terrain), etc. You can place the same structure as you do for crystal collection on it to access the console and it will slowly show a meter in hacking it. After that you can control all connected bulkheads etc. Thus you're using ancient leftover tech from humanity to your advantage!
Slow Zone, everything (building attack rate, plane flight speed, creeper flow rate, is slower in an area the map maker can set
larger weapons cause damage to the terrain, like nukes leave a large hole
Electric Gun, fires electricity that spreads through creeper and anti-creeper, converting a limited amount
Creeper EMP, creeper somehow can disable all units in a range of a certain creeper thing that would disable all the units and buildings temporally
Ramps, allow collectors to work over hills
Line/fill drawing when terraforming
Ability to aim turrets
Units get a small store of anti-creeper that they release when they touch creeper
Solar energy, good source of energy from space
Ice Gun, freezes creeper, temporarily turning it into a wall
Laser Turret, similar range and ability to as a repulser, slowly damages creeper in the beam
Hope I didn't suggest anything already said, I tried not to
Quote from: Yelik on August 21, 2012, 01:32:06 PM
Slow Zone, everything (building attack rate, plane flight speed, creeper flow rate, is slower in an area the map maker can set
larger weapons cause damage to the terrain, like nukes leave a large hole
Electric Gun, fires electricity that spreads through creeper and anti-creeper, converting a limited amount
Creeper EMP, creeper somehow can disable all units in a range of a certain creeper thing that would disable all the units and buildings temporally
Ramps, allow collectors to work over hills
Line/fill drawing when terraforming
Ability to aim turrets
Units get a small store of anti-creeper that they release when they touch creeper
Solar energy, good source of energy from space
Ice Gun, freezes creeper, temporarily turning it into a wall
Laser Turret, similar range and ability to as a repulser, slowly damages creeper in the beam
Hope I didn't suggest anything already said, I tried not to
Woaw, ideas fiesta! Now this is what I like to see ;)
1.Sounds cool, like a field but then it only makes everything(including packets, etc) go slower.
2. Sounds a bit OP, but maybe if you can unlock it once e.g. by picking up a uranium artifact you can fire it from orbit. Then it's a one time thing but still epic.
3. Sounds like a conversion bomb, this would definitely be too OP. Unless you got rid of the conversion part?
4. Suggested before, but that's fine ;)
5. That would be awesome!
6. Don't see how this is tactically necessary since their current auto-target modes are the most devastating. Perhaps if you can configure if they attack the nearest creeper or not, then this may be an idea.
7. Suggested before, maybe.
8. I'm guessing reactor's allready have inbuilt geothermal devices, solar panels, etc to create energy.
9. That's an interesting concept
10. I'm not sure how repulsor-like weapons would function in CW3 without being too OP, but if the creeper push is limited that would work.
Quote from: Mr.H on August 21, 2012, 03:30:37 AM
What do you guys think of adding a little bit of an intellectual puzzle to the game, a code to crack, a door to unlock, that sort of thing? Maybe have missions where you have to hack into ancient consoles to help aid you by closing a bulkhead and stopping the creeper?
For example you could have an ancient facility on a hill with a rogue emitter in the middle, you come from the outside and must quickly respond to stop it. A few ancient consoles control various mechanics, bulkheads, pitfalls(lower terrain), etc. You can place the same structure as you do for crystal collection on it to access the console and it will slowly show a meter in hacking it. After that you can control all connected bulkheads etc. Thus you're using ancient leftover tech from humanity to your advantage!
Sounds like a bit of a stretch.. Think most of us are TD players who just wana blow stuff up. Hence the OP bomb and unit suggestions i've seen. Yes we like strategy but if you make a puzzle to hard think it might turn some people off. Now must maintain control of nodes sounds a bit like the nodes from CW1 that you had to get before you could complete a world. Be interesting to have a mix some Obliterate all creeper and some CTF or node levels.
Quote from: Cohiba on August 23, 2012, 02:56:23 PM
Quote from: Mr.H on August 21, 2012, 03:30:37 AM
What do you guys think of adding a little bit of an intellectual puzzle to the game, a code to crack, a door to unlock, that sort of thing? Maybe have missions where you have to hack into ancient consoles to help aid you by closing a bulkhead and stopping the creeper?
For example you could have an ancient facility on a hill with a rogue emitter in the middle, you come from the outside and must quickly respond to stop it. A few ancient consoles control various mechanics, bulkheads, pitfalls(lower terrain), etc. You can place the same structure as you do for crystal collection on it to access the console and it will slowly show a meter in hacking it. After that you can control all connected bulkheads etc. Thus you're using ancient leftover tech from humanity to your advantage!
Sounds like a bit of a stretch.. Think most of us are TD players who just wana blow stuff up. Hence the OP bomb and unit suggestions i've seen. Yes we like strategy but if you make a puzzle to hard think it might turn some people off. Now must maintain control of nodes sounds a bit like the nodes from CW1 that you had to get before you could complete a world. Be interesting to have a mix some Obliterate all creeper and some CTF or node levels.
I'm suggesteing more of placing a structure on a 'console' in-game which automaticly 'hacks' the system and allows you to control mechanics. Good for tactics and buildings, and still just as strategical as you can switch it on and off and it isn't insurmountable by the creeper.
Quote from: Mr.H on August 24, 2012, 11:48:56 AM
Quote from: Cohiba on August 23, 2012, 02:56:23 PM
Quote from: Mr.H on August 21, 2012, 03:30:37 AM
What do you guys think of adding a little bit of an intellectual puzzle to the game, a code to crack, a door to unlock, that sort of thing? Maybe have missions where you have to hack into ancient consoles to help aid you by closing a bulkhead and stopping the creeper?
For example you could have an ancient facility on a hill with a rogue emitter in the middle, you come from the outside and must quickly respond to stop it. A few ancient consoles control various mechanics, bulkheads, pitfalls(lower terrain), etc. You can place the same structure as you do for crystal collection on it to access the console and it will slowly show a meter in hacking it. After that you can control all connected bulkheads etc. Thus you're using ancient leftover tech from humanity to your advantage!
Sounds like a bit of a stretch.. Think most of us are TD players who just wana blow stuff up. Hence the OP bomb and unit suggestions i've seen. Yes we like strategy but if you make a puzzle to hard think it might turn some people off. Now must maintain control of nodes sounds a bit like the nodes from CW1 that you had to get before you could complete a world. Be interesting to have a mix some Obliterate all creeper and some CTF or node levels.
I'm suggesteing more of placing a structure on a 'console' in-game which automaticly 'hacks' the system and allows you to control mechanics. Good for tactics and buildings, and still just as strategical as you can switch it on and off and it isn't insurmountable by the creeper.
my biggest problem with this is that CW just isn't a puzzle game, it's a tactical game with defense aspects. If this is really needed, you can implement the connection and the power draw, and leave the puzzle out. By making the power draw very heavy, it can remain a tactical choice, with potential gains and losses both from engaging that aspect of the game, and from ignoring it.
Don't get me wrong, what you're describing sounds like a fun game, it just doesn't sound like this game.
Quote from: lurkily on August 24, 2012, 04:09:04 PM
my biggest problem with this is that CW just isn't a puzzle game, it's a tactical game with defense aspects. If this is really needed, you can implement the connection and the power draw, and leave the puzzle out. By making the power draw very heavy, it can remain a tactical choice, with potential gains and losses both from engaging that aspect of the game, and from ignoring it.
Don't get me wrong, what you're describing sounds like a fun game, it just doesn't sound like this game.
That's what I meant in my last post , you simply place a tactical structure on the device which activates a door or something. This way we could have facilities , as in buildings, and consoles which you can spend energy on to control certain movements on the map.
Quote from: Mr.H on August 26, 2012, 08:46:26 AM
Quote from: lurkily on August 24, 2012, 04:09:04 PM
my biggest problem with this is that CW just isn't a puzzle game, it's a tactical game with defense aspects. If this is really needed, you can implement the connection and the power draw, and leave the puzzle out. By making the power draw very heavy, it can remain a tactical choice, with potential gains and losses both from engaging that aspect of the game, and from ignoring it.
Don't get me wrong, what you're describing sounds like a fun game, it just doesn't sound like this game.
That's what I meant in my last post , you simply place a tactical structure on the device which activates a door or something. This way we could have facilities , as in buildings, and consoles which you can spend energy on to control certain movements on the map.
As per CW1, you just connect them to your network, power them, and they're yours.
EDIT: By which I mean, that's how it worked then, perhaps it'll work that way again.
my previous idea of 2 sided creeper is posible
if creeper is + and anti creeper is- then could you have my creper as *.
imean it makes sencse right
Quote from: tornado on August 30, 2012, 02:13:07 AM
my previous idea of 2 sided creeper is posible
if creeper is + and anti creeper is- then could you have my creper as *.
imean it makes sencse right
no... creeper is on the positive side, anticreeper is on the negative side.
It doesn't have just different 'signs'...
Quote from: tornado on August 30, 2012, 02:13:07 AM
my previous idea of 2 sided creeper is posible
if creeper is + and anti creeper is- then could you have my creper as *.
imean it makes sencse right
The reason + and - is relevant is because the AC and creeper are the same thing in the code. AC is just a negative value of creeper. There isn't a third value in negative and positive.
The reason this is doable, but difficult, is because it requires each kind of creeper to be initiated as a separate value, rather than positive and negative of a single value.
Think of it this way. When the glass is half full, it's creeper. When it's half empty, it's AC. In order to have a third type, you need to put it in three cups and recode how they interact.
ther is a third value in the positive and negative values,the point in the mile
Quote from: tornado on August 30, 2012, 10:44:03 AM
ther is a third value in the positive and negative values,the point in the mile
zero, seriously? unless you want to go into imaginary numbers...
I think going into i values is going too far. We should stick with creeper and anticreeper for now.
To elaborate, c and ac need a meaningful value to function. Right now it's anywhere from 1 (or -1) to 2 billion. (Or -2billion.) Zero can't be used as a basis for a creeper type because it would be produced everywhere c and ac touch, and a number that can only ever be a single value is meaningless in this context.
Edit: not to mention the entire map that didn't have c or ac on it would be totally flooded with it.
don't explain,
i no about i.
and no just zero.
it makes perfect sense,
to someone with aspergers syndrome.
oh yeah and my mum threw in the idea of getting bits of weapons and having tho assemble them
that could be interesting for the titan class only.... because they are so big....
New feature suggestion: Growing emitters.
Simply it means that you could set 2 new values for emitters in editor. These 2 would be:
1)Increase in strength. It would simply determine how much emitters strength would increase.
2)Interval between strenght increases. It would determine how often emitters strenght would increase.
Almost same can be done with multiple emitters, but for example emitter thats strength would slowly increase trought entire game would take 100 emitters needed( or more). I think it would make things easier and possibly open new things to be done aswell. I'd like to hear what you have to say about this.
Quote from: allu on September 01, 2012, 01:35:10 PM
New feature suggestion: Growing emitters.
Simply it means that you could set 2 new values for emitters in editor. These 2 would be:
1)Increase in strength. It would simply determine how much emitters strength would increase.
2)Interval between strenght increases. It would determine how often emitters strenght would increase.
Almost same can be done with multiple emitters, but for example emitter thats strength would slowly increase trought entire game would take 100 emitters needed( or more). I think it would make things easier and possibly open new things to be done aswell. I'd like to hear what you have to say about this.
Does this therefore mean that an emitter could be made to decrease in strength over time? As to start off incredibly powerful and pretty much stop when the player gets to it...
Could be done. Btw it seems this was suggested already.
tornado
there is a 3rd creeper type
its value is 0
its every where there is not c or ac
it cant hurt c or ac
its NOTHING!
it made no sense to me how there could be a creeper with a value of 0, it just wouldnt work
I assume there is a hard/complex way to manage it (creeper = a, ac = b, new one = c ect) but I know next to nothing about coding
Quote from: cooltv27 on September 01, 2012, 02:30:00 PM
tornado
there is a 3rd creeper type
its value is 0
its every where there is not c or ac
it cant hurt c or ac
its NOTHING!
it made no sense to me how there could be a creeper with a value of 0, it just wouldnt work
I assume there is a hard/complex way to manage it (creeper = a, ac = b, new one = c ect) but I know next to nothing about coding
I think we've already closed this discussion, including many of the same points, but thank you for your eloquent summary.
having the ability to increase the number of available weapons through tech pickups would be cool.
so if you only get "x" blasters to start you could have "parts" for "y" more set as values in the tech items.
also forward energy stores would be cool, so you can set up situation where the player can leave a defence running for a while, whilst the LS runs away to set up elsewhere. also would be good for large maps where events breakup power flows
Quote from: teknotiss on September 01, 2012, 04:32:48 PM
having the ability to increase the number of available weapons through tech pickups would be cool.
so if you only get "x" blasters to start you could have "parts" for "y" more set as values in the tech items.
also forward energy stores would be cool, so you can set up situation where the player can leave a defence running for a while, whilst the LS runs away to set up elsewhere. also would be good for large maps where events breakup power flows
Somehow, I suspect that hard limits on the total number of a unit type that you can build (even if you can expand that capacity) will be terribly popular.
I made a similar suggestion for limiting the Titan class, but it appears that the community doesn't like the idea of hard limits lie that in the core game, but only as an option to custom mappers.
Quote from: lurkily on September 01, 2012, 04:38:26 PM
Quote from: teknotiss on September 01, 2012, 04:32:48 PM
having the ability to increase the number of available weapons through tech pickups would be cool.
so if you only get "x" blasters to start you could have "parts" for "y" more set as values in the tech items.
also forward energy stores would be cool, so you can set up situation where the player can leave a defence running for a while, whilst the LS runs away to set up elsewhere. also would be good for large maps where events breakup power flows
Somehow, I suspect that hard limits on the total number of a unit type that you can build (even if you can expand that capacity) will be terribly popular.
I made a similar suggestion for limiting the Titan class, but it appears that the community doesn't like the idea of hard limits lie that in the core game, but only as an option to custom mappers.
i was only really thinking of custom mappers, the idea occured as i was working on a CW2 map ;)
Quote from: teknotiss on September 01, 2012, 05:09:11 PM
Quote from: lurkily on September 01, 2012, 04:38:26 PM
Quote from: teknotiss on September 01, 2012, 04:32:48 PM
having the ability to increase the number of available weapons through tech pickups would be cool.
so if you only get "x" blasters to start you could have "parts" for "y" more set as values in the tech items.
also forward energy stores would be cool, so you can set up situation where the player can leave a defence running for a while, whilst the LS runs away to set up elsewhere. also would be good for large maps where events breakup power flows
Somehow, I suspect that hard limits on the total number of a unit type that you can build (even if you can expand that capacity) will be terribly popular.
I made a similar suggestion for limiting the Titan class, but it appears that the community doesn't like the idea of hard limits lie that in the core game, but only as an option to custom mappers.
i was only really thinking of custom mappers, the idea occured as i was working on a CW2 map ;)
So this is a per-map concept, not like finding stuff on many maps to take to later maps q on the sector map?
well i thought it would be a bit late in the process for main game changes, and was really only thinking about custom maps. i just wanted a way of limiting unit numbers at different amounts thoughout a map, allowing more as the map gets harder.
i never thought about anything more than per map, although it could be useful in campaign maps i have no idea if it would be feasible to track unit limits between campaign maps.
I've been on a CW2 kick lately, going back and finding customs that I haven't finished and playing them, etc, and I was thinking about what I would like to see either as an update or for CW3. I have no idea what the state of CW3 is, how close to finished it is, etc, or if these ideas have already been suggested, but here goes:
Upgrades:
Either a special game mode, or just natively move to this method, but algebraic/exponential cost increases buy infinite levels. Level 5 energy improvement costs 35 research, well, keep going. After level 5 it should start to get very very expensive, but I've played some long maps where farming a few thousand research wasn't out of the question. That obviously is not at all normal, but I've played MANY maps where I had the option of letting my research facilities keep going even after I had bought everything, so further refinements would have been possible, even if they were minor. Obviously research improving tech should be incredibly stupid expensive after level 3 or so, and improvements like weapon range/damage and energy store should offer only marginal, small improvements (1% per level beyond 5?) for the higher levels. This would have virtually no impact on quick maps, but add a new level of refinement for larger, longer slogs.
Packet Delivery Unit: Costs a high amount of energy to build, say, 100 energy, and then has a 200ish energy capacity. Is armored like conversion bombs to stand a not-insignificant trip through a creeper buildup. Then when it reaches a clear spot that is in range of a beacon, it can be armed, and it will serve as an energy packet source. You could then build makers or a wormhole there, whatever. Bring it back to within range of the regular network to recharge it.
Enemies - This is more of a CW3/4 idea, but I think it would be interesting to fight computer controlled splinter groups of humanity with their own custom creeper. This would also allow for multiplayer, if that's a goal. Each 'player' or 'faction' has a unique creeper variant that is hostile to all other creeper variants and units. Blasters, launchers, and buildings/motherships would be treated as drones for targeting. Events could cause an enemy splinter group to warp in after you've spent a considerable amount of time clearing a map, and suddenly you're faced with a two or three front war.
Quote from: bla3 on September 02, 2012, 03:07:25 PM
Packet Delivery Unit:
http://knucklecracker.com/blog/index.php/2012/08/mule/
Quote from: Grauniad on September 02, 2012, 03:14:28 PM
Quote from: bla3 on September 02, 2012, 03:07:25 PM
Packet Delivery Unit:
http://knucklecracker.com/blog/index.php/2012/08/mule/
Wow I am behind, that looks great. And cool! It was already though of, but I was thinking along the lines of CW2's vertical maps with a side view, not CW1's horizontal maps with a top view. I didn't know he was going back to the top down view for CW3. I like the new look, very cool.
edit - the only concern I have is the packet system - that's a big part of the cpu overhead for the first two games, and adding ore packets to it makes sense logistically and realistically (having ore magically appear where you need it was nice, but not realistic at all) but I worry about my little abused laptop with the T4200 or whatever crummy cpu. =P
Quote from: bla3 on September 02, 2012, 04:04:07 PM
edit - the only concern I have is the packet system - that's a big part of the cpu overhead for the first two games, and adding ore packets to it makes sense logistically and realistically (having ore magically appear where you need it was nice, but not realistic at all) but I worry about my little abused laptop with the T4200 or whatever crummy cpu. =P
This will be countered mainly by the fact that the new game has a C# core, which is *a lot* faster than the old AIR.
Yes the Unity is being used instead of Adobe AIR on CW3. Unity blows AIR away in terms of performance.
you over looked something
multilayer
mode has the concept of using 2 networks and creeper all against each other
my idea is a necessity for anti creeper usage
also my machine was designed for adobe air on the windows side and unity ruins this
plus the ubuntu sides despise wine
also that no wine install thing doesn't work as kbuntu auto installs wine and doesn't tell you.
case closed
Quote from: tornado on September 03, 2012, 02:25:24 PM
you over looked something
multilayer
mode has the concept of using 2 networks and creeper all against each other
my idea is a necessity for anti creeper usage
also my machine was designed for adobe air on the windows side and unity ruins this
plus the ubuntu sides despise wine
also that no wine install thing doesn't work as kbuntu auto installs wine and doesn't tell you.
case closed
there is no such thing as being "designed for adobe air". If it is a computer, C++ (unity's main language) will run faster. Linux will be getting native support as soon as unity 4 makes a stable release (or so i think).
Think about it mathematically. There are negative numbers, and positive numbers. There are no * numbers.
Quote from: Ebon Heart on September 04, 2012, 04:48:29 PM
Think about it mathematically. There are negative numbers, and positive numbers. There are no * numbers.
Actually, I think I understand what Tornado is driving at.
He perceives "layers" of negative and positive numbers.
The current implementation does not support that, but if anyone could adequately conceive and code it, then you could have any number of creeper types, each with an opposite type as well. Interaction between the different layers may have to be codified as well, again, an exercise best left to our brethren in the far future of Creeper World. We have enough trouble with just two types.
Then we'd need someone to come up with a Unifying Theory of Creeper. :)
One thing I know, Adobe Air does not have the computational capabilities for such a complex model. Not if you want it to be usable.
Quote from: Grauniad on September 04, 2012, 05:05:54 PM
Quote from: Ebon Heart on September 04, 2012, 04:48:29 PM
Think about it mathematically. There are negative numbers, and positive numbers. There are no * numbers.
Actually, I think I understand what Tornado is driving at.
He perceives "layers" of negative and positive numbers.
The current implementation does not support that, but if anyone could adequately conceive and code it, then you could have any number of creeper types, each with an opposite type as well. Interaction between the different layers may have to be codified as well, again, an exercise best left to our brethren in the far future of Creeper World. We have enough trouble with just two types.
Then we'd need someone to come up with a Unifying Theory of Creeper. :)
One thing I know, Adobe Air does not have the computational capabilities for such a complex model. Not if you want it to be usable.
I think it would be far more organized to re-build each creeper as a separate number, so that you could have one unified model for handling all possible interactions.
With multiple positives and negatives, you'd have one model for negative/positive creeper, one model for negative and positive fluid #2 and 3, and then a third model for how those new fluids interact when they meet ac/creeper.
Quote from: lurkily on September 04, 2012, 05:33:08 PM
I think it would be far ...
Not every problem needs a solution...
Quote from: Grauniad on September 04, 2012, 05:36:47 PM
Quote from: lurkily on September 04, 2012, 05:33:08 PM
I think it would be far ...
Not every problem needs a solution...
For a coder, having code organized and as simple as possible streamlines future work by orders of magnitude. That, and V has stated that if more creeper types are needed, that he'd have to follow the process I repeated here earlier.
Quote from: lurkily on September 04, 2012, 05:59:24 PM
For a coder, having code organized and as simple as possible streamlines future work by orders of magnitude. That, and V has stated that if more creeper types are needed, that he'd have to follow the process I repeated here earlier.
and seeing how you are completely determined to drive the code into a tangled mess, I'm not sure what to think.
Quote from: thepenguin on September 05, 2012, 08:47:42 AM
Quote from: lurkily on September 04, 2012, 05:59:24 PM
For a coder, having code organized and as simple as possible streamlines future work by orders of magnitude. That, and V has stated that if more creeper types are needed, that he'd have to follow the process I repeated here earlier.
and seeing how you are completely determined to drive the code into a tangled mess, I'm not sure what to think.
Since nobody posting in this thread actually knows much about the code, I suggest this sub-thread endeth here. This is at least one post more than what was needed. and it is becoming personal.
actually a take numbers not for face value but for what they are.
frankly there is 3 values + - 0.
the 0 value concept is almost frightening.
im not a very good programmer but i can theorize incomprehensible ideas,and hope that they work.
so i came her hoping to help as a tester or at least giving good ideas.
but when i met with bad revues i gave up.
i came back because i had nothing left.
it seamed like mu only choice,but it met with good fortune and i found myself here posting once more.
and so here i am.
the end.
Quote from: Grauniad on September 05, 2012, 10:53:05 AM
Quote from: thepenguin on September 05, 2012, 08:47:42 AM
Quote from: lurkily on September 04, 2012, 05:59:24 PM
For a coder, having code organized and as simple as possible streamlines future work by orders of magnitude. That, and V has stated that if more creeper types are needed, that he'd have to follow the process I repeated here earlier.
and seeing how you are completely determined to drive the code into a tangled mess, I'm not sure what to think.
Since nobody posting in this thread actually knows much about the code, I suggest this sub-thread endeth here. This is at least one post more than what was needed. and it is becoming personal.
We may not know the actual source intricately, but any decent programmer can look at a concept and think "here is how I would do it."
Changing creeper from a "this integer holds creeper (if positive) and anticreeper (if negative)" to "this map cell now holds several instantiations or one instantiation or none of class "Creeper
Type" which was extended from class "Creeper" wouldn't be difficult, just time-consuming.
I.E., totally possible. And a pain in the butt! =P
Quote from: bla3 on September 09, 2012, 06:13:38 PM
Quote from: Grauniad on September 05, 2012, 10:53:05 AM
Quote from: thepenguin on September 05, 2012, 08:47:42 AM
Quote from: lurkily on September 04, 2012, 05:59:24 PM
For a coder, having code organized and as simple as possible streamlines future work by orders of magnitude. That, and V has stated that if more creeper types are needed, that he'd have to follow the process I repeated here earlier.
and seeing how you are completely determined to drive the code into a tangled mess, I'm not sure what to think.
Since nobody posting in this thread actually knows much about the code, I suggest this sub-thread endeth here. This is at least one post more than what was needed. and it is becoming personal.
We may not know the actual source intricately, but any decent programmer can look at a concept and think "here is how I would do it."
Changing creeper from a "this integer holds creeper (if positive) and anticreeper (if negative)" to "this map cell now holds several instantiations or one instantiation or none of class "CreeperType" which was extended from class "Creeper" wouldn't be difficult, just time-consuming.
I.E., totally possible. And a pain in the butt! =P
Yes, of course, it is all just a Small Matter of Programming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_matter_of_programming).
I already made this suggestion in a blog comment, but I was thinking that to expand the deaprtment of special weapons and units, something could be added to the particle beams and spore towers and aet's.
My idea is for the creeper to have an enemy that can travel underground and rise up at a certain location on the map. Either it would contain creeper and detonate like spores do, or it would take out a unit and itself like the CW2 drones. I think it would be called the "Worm".
As a counter measure to the worms, either you could build units that could see them so you know where they will erupt, or destroy them while they are underground. Perhaps the ground could be made so that worms could be unable to rise through that ground at the cost of some energy.
In fact, in "Starcraft Brood War", there was a new unit called the Lurker which HAD to be underground in order to attack enemies.
By the way, the only real reason I came up with the subterranean units for those who don't know is because the first 2 games had only one special defense units (SAM, Phantom Coil), and currently there is only the particle beam. I was thinking that there ought to be an expansion of at least 1 unit each in that department.
Your enthusiasm for the game is appreciated, 4xC, but please try not to post more than once in a row in a given thread. There's a perfectly fine edit button that you can use.
As for underground enemies, they just seem like a variation on spores, where the threat requires special hardware to defend against and is a binary 'either you're fully protected against this threat, or it will wreak havoc' enemy.....
Quote from: 4xC on September 12, 2012, 06:39:01 PMMy idea is for the creeper to have an enemy that can travel underground and rise up at a certain location on the map. Either it would contain creeper and detonate like spores do, or it would take out a unit and itself like the CW2 drones. I think it would be called the "Worm".
I don't like underground units, because it implies being hidden from the player, and CW has always provided the player with near-omniscience in terms of information.
I don't think we need more weapons, really, just more roles and uses for the weapons we already have. For instance, when we get to new enemies, the beam is going to have to take on a role as countermeasure to some of those, I think.
Quote from: 4xC on September 12, 2012, 10:44:34 PM
By the way, the only real reason I came up with the subterranean units for those who don't know is because the first 2 games had only one special defense units (SAM, Phantom Coil), and currently there is only the particle beam. I was thinking that there ought to be an expansion of at least 1 unit each in that department.
1 unit for each what?
Quote from: Nemoricus on September 13, 2012, 12:17:59 AMThere's a perfectly fine edit button that you can use.
This.
Quote from: Nemoricus on September 13, 2012, 12:17:59 AM
Your enthusiasm for the game is appreciated, 4xC, but please try not to post more than once in a row in a given thread. There's a perfectly fine edit button that you can use.
As for underground enemies, they just seem like a variation on spores, where the threat requires special hardware to defend against and is a binary 'either you're fully protected against this threat, or it will wreak havoc' enemy.....
Yeah, I guess they were a variation of spores when they first popped into my head. I just thought the "special weapons and enemies" department could have used an expansion. As stated in other posts, I note that CW1 had only SAM's and Spores, CW2 had only phantoms and phantom coils, and so far CW3 has only spores and particle beams. By the way, Lurkily, I meant 1 unit for each side. (humans v. Creeper)
If the role of the beams and/or spores could be expanded upon as I do believe Lurkily suggests, perhaps there could be some good equillibrium with rising quality later games like CW3 are supposed to have. Also, may I ask what problem there is with multiple posts in a row? If they are on the same subject but different subtopics for each post, (ex: something weapons related, next something structure related) is that acceptable? ???
Besides, Most of the posts on the whole forum collection seem so short and concise that I feel like I would be disrespectful if I merged my blog-commenting style with my forum-replying-and-message-sending style. Kind of like now I wonder? :-[
One more thing, if a post is edited, does that count towards rising through the ranks? (newbie, Jr. member, etc.) If not, I presume that a riser ABSOLUTELY DEPENDS on at least one other person to post new replies poste haste? No complaints though. Just trying to get used to this posting thing. I am relatively new to forum posting in general, but I got tired of waving at everyone from the sidelines and decided to do something about my situation.
QuoteAlso, may I ask what problem there is with multiple posts in a row? If they are on the same subject but different subtopics for each post, (ex: something weapons related, next something structure related) is that acceptable? ???
Different subtopics are what paragraphs are for.
Multiple posts in a row aren't problematic, but they're bothersome to reply to, having to collect quotes from different posts, and they're unecessary. It's like putting each paragraph of a book on a separate page - it's just easier to read when a single post flows.
Blogs and forums are different venues - blogs are typically a 'quickie' thing which most people visit once, maybe comment on, and return to a single post rather infrequently. (With exceptions, like you and me.) Forums are a better venue for people who prefer to focus on what people have to say, and people who more often follow developments in a conversation - you may have noticed that locating all new posts on the blog is problematic, but on the forum all unread topics are accessible in a single place.
I don't believe edits count towards rank. I don't think the forum cares if anybody replied to you, either. But I also don't think anybody genuinely judges people by their forum ranks.
Does anyone here read Penny arcade, because his suggestion of worms reminded me of their comic a week or two ago.
http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2012/08/29 (http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2012/08/29) {NSFW/NSFM}
I haven't played guild wars 2 yet, but if the worms are anything like the rock worms from guild wars they are evil. So in general I think I have to vote against worms.
Added content warning - G.
I am reconsidering the idea of worms myself. They doesn't have to be someting that travels underground, but it would be nice if there was something a little more unique to the spores and beams. So far, there doesn't seem to be anything too unusual about spores except that they come from structures on the map and all the beams do is shoot down spores when they get closer.
If there is anyway to expand on them so that there is more they can or would do, I would LOVE to know what. I just hope the spores and beams aren't as narrow and short-defined as the SAM's and spores and the phantoms and coils. And again, it does not HAVE to be in the form of subterranean enemies and weapons.
having something else added in as an option sounds good. I have never been a fan of spores or phantoms. I don't like the theory that you only have a single counter to the object. I much prefer drones in cw2, where you can stop them with walls with blasters or even with drone evasion. Having different ways to approach the problem seems much more interesting to me.
Quote from: Wheatmidge on September 13, 2012, 02:53:59 PM
having something else added in as an option sounds good. I have never been a fan of spores or phantoms. I don't like the theory that you only have a single counter to the object. I much prefer drones in cw2, where you can stop them with walls with blasters or even with drone evasion. Having different ways to approach the problem seems much more interesting to me.
I was wondering if anyone else was going to register the problem wothout mentioning my ex-idea for worms. The CW2 drones were better than the phantoms in that there was always another way to fight them. I am hoping for an expansion to the particle beam priorities and/or abilities.
There will be more to the final game thanwe see - I'm certainw we'll see more discrete enemies than just spores for instance. Right now though, V is not in a place where he seems more concerned with fundamentals, so it's probably best to tuck this away for when the game leaves alpha.
Quote from: lurkily on September 13, 2012, 04:23:31 PM
There will be more to the final game thanwe see - I'm certainw we'll see more discrete enemies than just spores for instance. Right now though, V is not in a place where he seems more concerned with fundamentals, so it's probably best to tuck this away for when the game leaves alpha.
So what sort of current things are there as to what to do about the alpha settings? So far, it looks to me like it is already to be a mostly final alpha product. If there is anything, I would appreciate knowing what. A lot of the stuff I have seen talk and upbringing of is stuff that I hear will be later matters on account of how many of them are smaller details.
I must also add that this frequent way of catching on with what each party on the forums is pointing out and what hasn't yet been registered really is making time go by faster than it ever has before in my case. :o
Even I don't know what's planned, really. The beta group is an inner circle, but not THE inner circle, you know? But onside ring how CW expanded from 1 to 2, I'm confident we haven't seen it ll. I mean, we haven't even seen beta yet.
4xC, much of what has been said about the alpha is public knowledge via one or another of Virgil's videos, and that is all anyone with access can say about it.
You can ask questions about it, sure, but understand that you might not be able to get an answer to them.
Quote from: Nemoricus on September 13, 2012, 07:36:21 PMYou can ask questions about it, sure, but understand that you might not be able to get an answer to them.
Thought I had posted something to that effect . . . damn. Thanks for the catch, Nem.
Quote from: Nemoricus on September 13, 2012, 07:36:21 PM
4xC, much of what has been said about the alpha is public knowledge via one or another of Virgil's videos, and that is all anyone with access can say about it.
You can ask questions about it, sure, but understand that you might not be able to get an answer to them.
So basically, it's hard to suggest any significant alpha changes that could be useful? We,ve seen a lot of demonstrations and pics on the blog and it looks almost hard to perfect anymore that it already has been. (at least considering that some titans are said to be kept secret until further notice.)
Beyond what we already saw, all I can see happening as a major alpha progress report or change is the impossibility of someone-having-enough-time-to-play-through-a-large-map,-record-it,-and-posting-it-on-the-blog-for-Virgil-since-his-time-is-cramped-with-the-development-and-all coming true.
What else is new? ??? ??? ???
Suffice to say that Virgil has plans for the game beyond what has been shown so far. The core experience may be coming together nicely, but Creeper World 3 is a long way from a complete game....
Quote from: 4xC on September 13, 2012, 10:41:01 PMBeyond what we already saw, all I can see happening as a major alpha progress report or change is the impossibility of someone-having-enough-time-to-play-through-a-large-map,-record-it,-and-posting-it-on-the-blog-for-Virgil-since-his-time-is-cramped-with-the-development-and-all coming true.
Keep in mind, you can see the unit lists and such in the videos - it's clear that most of what's implemented has been demonstrated from those videos. Just because we can't talk about it doesn't mean that your information is necessarily out of date.
Suggesting changes is fine. Keep in mind though, that similar concepts may already be on the drawing board. That doesn't mean those suggestions are useless - they might help tune the final product.
Also keep in mind that a lot of ideas are being shelved until fundamentals are sound - the game isn't even in beta yet.
Okay. So we just submit our opinions on possible changes and input on reported progress. That sounds good to me at the present time. I am mildly surprised to think of CW3 as early to be honest. I recall first seeing fresh blog posts within the start of the 2012 Summer about the development of CW3.
I repeat: the game looks mostly done. But if I understand correctly, the big issue is balance between the players and creeper. And I also understand that Virgil is going to work on titans after core gameplay has been established; on the other hand, some of them as he said will be hidden from us until release. I think with a current overview or a general summary of what is unbalanced to the best of what can be known legally to vieweres like us, the current criteria can be a little more easily followed.
I don't try to post request after request, but they pop into my head a frequently as my questions. Again, I hope I am not hassling anyone. Also, why does the draft page of a forum post not let you see the bottom when you have a quote at the top?
Quote
Keep in mind, you can see the unit lists and such in the videos - it's clear that most of what's implemented has been demonstrated from those videos. Just because we can't talk about it doesn't mean that your information is necessarily out of date.
Suggesting changes is fine. Keep in mind though, that similar concepts may already be on the drawing board. That doesn't mean those suggestions are useless - they might help tune the final product.
Also keep in mind that a lot of ideas are being shelved until fundamentals are sound - the game isn't even in beta yet.
Title: Burst Emitters
Author: Kharnellius
Type: Enemy
Desc:
Something that would be neat is if some (not all, and not right in the beginning necessarily) ... if some creeper emitters had a timer like the spore launchers. They would produce creeper as normal but when the timer ran out it would BURST out a large amount of extra creeper.
This would force a little strategy as you may want to back off a bit until it "bursts" so you can suppress the extra creeper, mount a counter attack and nullify it before it can "burst" again. Currently, attacking emitters is very straightforward and doesn't require any really quick action on your part. This can kind of make it boring after a while.
I think this would help spice things up a bit.
The videos do show a very fundamentally sound game, for an alpha. V has stated before that he usually wants a game to be fully playable as a game (Rather than just a stable dev build, or a stable proof-of-concept) before it enters beta, which in my experience is further than many indie devs go.
My experience is that in alpha, the biggest concerns of a developer are usually stablity, optimization of those things that hog CPU cycles or memory, things that cause display errors, things that prevent gameplay, or gross gameplay issues that overwhelmingly disrupt gameplay.
Things like new guns and balance concerns are usually things that are put off until later. That way if time runs short for some reason, and they need to release before every last thing is ready, the fundamentals are sound, and they can focus on polishing the game into a product that's ready for release, and can possibly be expanded after release.
So now the big concern is the computer tech relation holding between it and the game software, I presume?
Quote from: 4xC on September 14, 2012, 04:31:50 PM
So now the big concern is the computer tech relation holding between it and the game software, I presume?
Alpha is typically the place to address fundamentals. All of the fundamentals. It's where you make sure that everything WORKS, from the core gameplay you want to release, to whether mechanics are translatong to aesthetics properly, to your coding, to the game's interface with various hardware.
Quote from: lurkily on September 14, 2012, 05:38:53 PM
Quote from: 4xC on September 14, 2012, 04:31:50 PM
So now the big concern is the computer tech relation holding between it and the game software, I presume?
Alpha is typically the place to address fundamentals. All of the fundamentals. It's where you make sure that everything WORKS, from the core gameplay you want to release, to whether mechanics are translatong to aesthetics properly, to your coding, to the game's interface with various hardware.
Well the fundamentals look like they are almost too in order to alter. Although, I just now thought that advanced as CW3 should be compared to the first 2, I imagine there may be much more lag in some cases where a lot is done at once. Perhaps overbuilding with a LOT of construction sites should be made an impossibility. In the first 2, you could put sites almost anywhere you wanted whether or not they would actually get built as long as the grounds were not touched by creeper at the moment.
Also, I don't see how the reversion to network lines will work out in the storyline after they introduced wireless transmission in 2. Maybe there should be some way to install wireless transmission in CW3 without making the wirelessness-inabling units too good. I have to ask, does it not seem like network lines for packets would be a step backwards for the third storyline time period after the "Phantom Energy Field" was integrated in the second?
it's easy to explain things like this. Maybe their use aids the enemy, or they 'pollute' sub-space, or something. I'm sure V will explain it somehow.
Yeah. good point. It should be explained. Liking the idea of finding out what it is that set the transmission to where it is now. Still, those relays with their speed upgrades have made a GREAT comeback.
Also, I just now had a thougt: maybe the game could use more music tracks than it had before in the past 2 games. The past music was good, but now I think we could use a bigger variety. Music has always been a factor of attunement to me and that is another reason why I love certain games. If CW3 has a wider range of tracks, I will be exponentially satisfied. ;D
that was MY ignored suggestion.
Quote from: Kharnellius on September 14, 2012, 11:19:49 AM
Title: Burst Emitters
Author: Kharnellius
Type: Enemy
Desc:
Something that would be neat is if some (not all, and not right in the beginning necessarily) ... if some creeper emitters had a timer like the spore launchers. They would produce creeper as normal but when the timer ran out it would BURST out a large amount of extra creeper.
This would force a little strategy as you may want to back off a bit until it "bursts" so you can suppress the extra creeper, mount a counter attack and nullify it before it can "burst" again. Currently, attacking emitters is very straightforward and doesn't require any really quick action on your part. This can kind of make it boring after a while.
I think this would help spice things up a bit.
Thanks for using the correct formula :D !
I've updated the thread with more of everyone's ideas.
Quote from: tornado on September 15, 2012, 01:55:27 AM
that was MY ignored suggestion.
Was it? Well in any case, games with few music tracks still had super-great music. Aside of the music we heard in the demo clips on the blog, I hope whatever other music is used in CW3 is either just as good or even better. I mean, take for example the tracks in Starcraft 1 and 1.5. Those tracks constantly replay themselves in my head b/c they were so awesome.
Also, maybe the AC could be launched from mortars as well as the bombers as a choice of alternative.
Nobody's awarding prizes, folks.
Quote from: Mr.H on September 15, 2012, 05:20:18 AM
Quote from: Kharnellius on September 14, 2012, 11:19:49 AM
Title: Burst Emitters
Author: Kharnellius
Type: Enemy
Desc:
Something that would be neat is if some (not all, and not right in the beginning necessarily) ... if some creeper emitters had a timer like the spore launchers. They would produce creeper as normal but when the timer ran out it would BURST out a large amount of extra creeper.
This would force a little strategy as you may want to back off a bit until it "bursts" so you can suppress the extra creeper, mount a counter attack and nullify it before it can "burst" again. Currently, attacking emitters is very straightforward and doesn't require any really quick action on your part. This can kind of make it boring after a while.
I think this would help spice things up a bit.
Thanks for using the correct formula :D !
I've updated the thread with more of everyone's ideas.
Actually, that kind of thing(but no visual timer) could easily be done with CW1, by stacking 2 or more emitters, 1 would burst out normally, the second 1 would start bursting out x seconds/minutes after map start with y amount of creeper, then repeat every z seconds/minutes after first burst, and you can stack lots of emitters with different starter times/creeper amount/repeat times.
And since we are combining the digging(turned into terraforming) from CW2 and the top-down network CW1, we can make those kinds of emitters again(if we couldn't in CW2, that is)
Are we going to add the the gravity tunnels, are we going to make them bigger? Can there be added a gravity well?
Speaking of gravity, time to talk shields. All they do is make a circular grav force that pushes away creper and AC. What if there was a unit with a more flexible way of moving the creeper? I'm talking a unit that can pull or push it in a straight line so nothing gets leftover or behind. And remember in the clip where the super shield destroys a relay by pushing creeper into it?
Well, what if there was a unit or modification to the shield that could make creeper movement more direct? Such as a straight-beam gravity manipulator like the repulsor that pushes and/or could pull C or AC in a straight path instead of just a circular direction only?
Quote from: 4xC on September 17, 2012, 11:13:38 PM
Speaking of gravity, time to talk shields. All they do is make a circular grav force that pushes away creper and AC. What if there was a unit with a more flexible way of moving the creeper? I'm talking a unit that can pull or push it in a straight line so nothing gets leftover or behind. And remember in the clip where the super shield destroys a relay by pushing creeper into it?
Well, what if there was a unit or modificaztino to the shield that could make creeper movement more direct? Such as a straight-beam gravity manipulator like the repulsor that pushes and/or could pull C or AC in a straight path instead of just a circular direction only?
I think I am opposed to this idea. variety is good, but a straight line gravity generator doesn't really make sense to me. Though a fan shaped one could be cool. or the option to select what arc a gravity generator creates. so you could make a semi circle. I guess that would mainly push the one way. So it would sortof work like you suggested.
Quote from: Wheatmidge on September 18, 2012, 12:28:43 PM
Quote from: 4xC on September 17, 2012, 11:13:38 PM
Speaking of gravity, time to talk shields. All they do is make a circular grav force that pushes away creper and AC. What if there was a unit with a more flexible way of moving the creeper? I'm talking a unit that can pull or push it in a straight line so nothing gets leftover or behind. And remember in the clip where the super shield destroys a relay by pushing creeper into it?
Well, what if there was a unit or modificaztino to the shield that could make creeper movement more direct? Such as a straight-beam gravity manipulator like the repulsor that pushes and/or could pull C or AC in a straight path instead of just a circular direction only?
I think I am opposed to this idea. variety is good, but a straight line gravity generator doesn't really make sense to me. Though a fan shaped one could be cool. or the option to select what arc a gravity generator creates. so you could make a semi circle. I guess that would mainly push the one way. So it would sortof work like you suggested.
We had such things in CW2. Remember, what applies to gravity does not necessarily apply to fields.
Quote from: lurkily on September 18, 2012, 01:45:51 PM
Quote from: Wheatmidge on September 18, 2012, 12:28:43 PM
Quote from: 4xC on September 17, 2012, 11:13:38 PM
Speaking of gravity, time to talk shields. All they do is make a circular grav force that pushes away creper and AC. What if there was a unit with a more flexible way of moving the creeper? I'm talking a unit that can pull or push it in a straight line so nothing gets leftover or behind. And remember in the clip where the super shield destroys a relay by pushing creeper into it?
Well, what if there was a unit or modificaztino to the shield that could make creeper movement more direct? Such as a straight-beam gravity manipulator like the repulsor that pushes and/or could pull C or AC in a straight path instead of just a circular direction only?
I think I am opposed to this idea. variety is good, but a straight line gravity generator doesn't really make sense to me. Though a fan shaped one could be cool. or the option to select what arc a gravity generator creates. so you could make a semi circle. I guess that would mainly push the one way. So it would sortof work like you suggested.
We had such things in CW2. Remember, what applies to gravity does not necessarily apply to fields.
Has virgil commented about the use of fields for map creation? I think fields in funny designs are fun and add a great deal of options to the creation of customs maps, but as far as units are conerned,I like the spherical generator more than one that pushes in a line.
Quote from: lurkily on September 18, 2012, 01:45:51 PM
We had such things in CW2. Remember, what applies to gravity does not necessarily apply to fields.
Well, if there is something I may be missing that ultimately makes the shield the top notch replacement in every way to the repulsor, I would like to know. I am not quite aware, aside of the circular field, of anything that is as in control of creeper and anti-creeper movement in the units area as the repulsor. I just don't see how much control you can have over the C/AC movement with just the shield alone.
Quote from: 4xC on September 19, 2012, 01:03:15 AM
Quote from: lurkily on September 18, 2012, 01:45:51 PM
We had such things in CW2. Remember, what applies to gravity does not necessarily apply to fields.
Well, if there is something I may be missing that ultimately makes the shield the top notch replacement in every way to the repulsor, I would like to know. I am not quite aware, aside of the circular field, of anything that is as in control of creeper and anti-creeper movement in the units area as the repulsor. I just don't see how much control you can have over the C/AC movement with just the shield alone.
Shields require many fewer units to cover an area, as few as one if creeper density isn't extreme, and the bottleneck can be covered by that shield. The radius of a shield would require something like or seven repulsors to cross. If you really need two shields instead of seven repulsors, I still count that a win.
I certainly hope to see player units that can manipulate fields in a more detailed way, though, and I'll definitely do my part to encourage interesting field use by the player, as well as by mapmakers.
Quote from: lurkily on September 19, 2012, 10:44:18 AM
Shields require many fewer units to cover an area, as few as one if creeper density isn't extreme, and the bottleneck can be covered by that shield. The radius of a shield would require something like or seven repulsors to cross. If you really need two shields instead of seven repulsors, I still count that a win.
I certainly hope to see player units that can manipulate fields in a more detailed way, though, and I'll definitely do my part to encourage interesting field use by the player, as well as by mapmakers.
Okay then. So the shield does have superiority to the repulsor. That is established at this point. And yeah, I suppose field manipulations depend on the players as much as the maps. 8)
So what do you mean by bottlenecks? I am unfamiliar with that term. ??? Is that the term for "terranean choke point"? I know I ask a lot, but wherever I am, I'm usually the guy that catches the subtlest details that NO ONE else does at first, and being inquisitive is something that helps me do that which is typically tolerated by people who know that my voice sounds like someone from radio talk shows. And I'm open to anything anyone's got for me.
A bottleneck is a choke point, yes.
Quote from: Nemoricus on September 19, 2012, 07:18:33 PM
A bottleneck is a choke point, yes.
Right. Okay then.
Now what of the cost of the bertha? I know the dark beam of CW2 was significantly more costly than the usual weapons, but it wasn't THAT much more. I also know that the numbers have not been finalized yet, but maybe the bertha needs to be a TAD bit less expensive. 100 v. 350; Really?
I must also insits on this, I do not view the dark beam and bertha as "cousins" or anything like that after Virgil specifically said in a blog comment that the bertha is not a replacement to the dark beam even though I still find the 2 comparable in some ways what with the infinite range and destructive abilities.
Speaking of which, what if the bertha had a catch that made it impossible for friendly units to be within the firing zone of the bertha and live at the same time when the bertha's shot hit the target area, like when the beam of a dark beam would destroy friendly units if they were in or entered the line of fire? And perhaps the bertha could cause some minor damage to creeper structures with each hit? Unless of course that turns out to be the job of an unrevealed titan or orbital or hidden superpower of the "mothership" that could appear at the end of the storyline?
Quote from: 4xC on September 20, 2012, 09:43:02 AMNow what of the cost of the bertha? I know the dark beam of CW2 was significantly more costly than the usual weapons, but it wasn't THAT much more. I also know that the numbers have not been finalized yet, but maybe the bertha needs to be a TAD bit less expensive. 100 v. 350; Really?
Danger! Comparing two numbers from different games is a really bad idea. The mechanics are different in CW3 as compared to CW2, and so doing a direct comparison between them will yield misleading results. For starters, just consider the difference between collectors and reactors in CW1 as opposed to CW2 for an example of what I mean.
As for destroying all friendly units in the blast radius, I think that would just end up being more frustrating than interesting, since you could forget to retarget the Bertha and lose much of your attacking force as a result.
And the dark beam wasn't more expensive because of teh build cost. it was more expensive because of the firing cost. It ends up being quite like the bertha. The dark beam only cost 100 to build but then it cost 12 a second to fire.
I think it needs Creeper Sharks with laser beams attached to their heads.
Just saiyan.
Quote from: Nemoricus on September 20, 2012, 10:06:37 AM
Danger! Comparing two numbers from different games is a really bad idea. The mechanics are different in CW3 as compared to CW2, and so doing a direct comparison between them will yield misleading results. For starters, just consider the difference between collectors and reactors in CW1 as opposed to CW2 for an example of what I mean.
As for destroying all friendly units in the blast radius, I think that would just end up being more frustrating than interesting, since you could forget to retarget the Bertha and lose much of your attacking force as a result.
Okay, so the numbers were not a good link between the games, but still, there's something that relates the bertha to the dark beam and it doesn't have to be the economical efficiency.
Also, it would be frustrating if berthas destroyed friendly units in range of their target, but that's also what makes the dark beam frustrating, too. Say that there is this narrow, unwidenable hallway and creeper was flooding its side and coming fast to yuor side. If a dark beam is operational and running its beam down the hall, you can't run any units past it and you can't disarm it without letting yourself get compromised by the creeper. It was also frustrating when drones would destroy the dark mirrors that are vital toalignning the beam. And if you try to realign the beam, you could forget about nearby mirrors that would be compromised by creeper along with possible nullifiers and microrifts whose only protection is the dark beam penning them in an empty space. The longer the path, the more delicate the path of the dark beam was. There are a lot more examples of how the bertha could end up as frustrating as the dark beam, but they are almost too numerous to put in one post. And besides, some titan weapon has got to put a thorn in the side of some friendlies after what went in CW2.
Kamron3!!!!
Well, since I have too many ideas, I might as well throw some out there. Currently includes unit ideas, with coolnames (especially for Titan class stuff), a quick blurb on why this would be cool in game, and a short little counterpoint for each one. Because I'm not perfect and these aren't either, I may as well say the downside as I see it right now.
Spoiler
Creeper-Eater (Hel): A weapon that uses the Creeper it destroys to power itself up. Has a considerable start-up cost and is either slow or immobile, but once it's up and running it provides considerable protection to the area it covers at a relatively low cost in energy. Most likely operates with some sort of beam, increasing its damage output as it eats up Creeper, but it starts to lose said bonus if it stays inactive for a while. Meant more for fortifying an area than for full-on assaults, especially given that it's probably a Titan-class weapon.
Why?: Number one, coolness. Number two, it's an excellent complement to slow and defensive playstyles, since although it takes a while to set up, it's quite effective once operational.
Why not?: Defensive weapons can be kind of boring, can't they?
Shieldwall (Freya): A utility-type that acts as a very strong shield with very short range. As the name suggests, it can link up into a wall of shielding, which gives it an additional benefit of sharing ammo across the entire structure. Since it uses most of its energy when Creeper tries to break through, this allows more troubled sections to use excess energy from calmer sections and make the system as a whole that much stronger.
Why?: First off, it's a different kind of shield -more or less linear rather than circular (it probably has a shield diameter of five- the three cells the unit is on plus the bordering cells). Second, it lets you build large walls out of shields. What more could you want?
Why not?: We already have a shield.
MIRV (Katyusha): Another Titan-class, featuring rockets of death from above! Bombards a large area with submunition-launching rocket(s). The main weakness is height- the weapon simply isn't good against deep creeper, and may be incapable of targeting Creeper that's too low compared to nearby terrain (or even simply other, higher Creeper). Useful for clearing out the high ground, not so useful for launching assaults on entrenched Creeper or in rough terrain.
Why?: Rockets are awesome. Plus, it'd be a very useful unit in conjunction with Guppies, as it's uniquely suited to clearing plateaus for landing. (Wide area damage, possibly over time but nonetheless in a relatively short burst.) High-ground-attack in general seems to suggest some interesting tactical uses and limitations.
Why not?: High-ground-attack might be a bit too specialized.
Driver (Ram): A gun that fires a big, bad, hefty projectile that blows through the Creeper in its path. So basically, it does damage in a straight line. Probably has longer range than Pulse Cannons, but fires slower.
Why?: Because doing damage across a straight line: tactical!
Why not?: Aside from that, it doesn't add much, and its role could overlap with Cannons and/or Strafers depending on how you look at it.
Some very intresting discussions going on. In regards to shield I think they're awesome as they are right now. I also have a new suggestion:
Efficiency mode:
Low on energy, don't want to kamikaze your units and disintegrate your defense network? Worry no more, with the latest efficiency mode developed by some tree-huggers called 'GreenCreep' , this mode allows your units to use a lot less energy when operating. This keeps em going but ofcourse not without a cost, the fire rate slows down, creeper damage decreases, but if you have a lot of units and just need a stand-off whilst you rekindle your economy this is what you need.
As to the bertha cannon, I don't think it's very OP now. It has a insanely long construction time, takes a long time to shoot, and from what I can see it doesn't completly destroy all creeper. Ofcourse I do believe that the creeper should gain some anti-titan weaponrary to counter all those wacky devestating machinery coming up. Maybe even titan creeper?
Also twi those are some pretty epic suggestions, thanks :D . I'll add em now.
You put Driver inside of forgot to close the spoiler for Shieldwall, Mr. H :P
Also, no, Bertha is not OP unless you get a stupidly large number of them, IMO :P
Also, titan Creeper sounds interesting. Maybe have predetermined 'Creeper points' where the Creeper constructs a 'tower' if it gets high enough? And if you take the point and then lose it, it can built it again!
Of course, what this tower entails is subject to considerable debate. Maybe it can include spore towers and Air Exclusion towers and perhaps even emitters. More creatively, a terrain control device would be interesting- something that tries to undo changes your Terps made, working much like a Terp itself. That'd be...interesting.
Quote from: Twi on September 21, 2012, 06:21:20 AM
You put Driver inside of forgot to close the spoiler for Shieldwall, Mr. H :P
Also, no, Bertha is not OP unless you get a stupidly large number of them, IMO :P
Also, titan Creeper sounds interesting. Maybe have predetermined 'Creeper points' where the Creeper constructs a 'tower' if it gets high enough? And if you take the point and then lose it, it can built it again!
Of course, what this tower entails is subject to considerable debate. Maybe it can include spore towers and Air Exclusion towers and perhaps even emitters. More creatively, a terrain control device would be interesting- something that tries to undo changes your Terps made, working much like a Terp itself. That'd be...interesting.
Woops , fixed XD.
Yeah but who has the resources to get many fo them anyway.
One of the main issues with the new mega maps is it becomes a grind, so i highyl recommend we find a solution to this problem. Thus making the creeper suddenly much more difficult later on, or somesuch.
1. Progress triggers, once you accomplish a certain goal, time, or size of economy this trigger is activated. This can make the emitters emit more creeper suddenly, increase creeper defenses (larger air-exclusio-zones, faster unit creation rate , etc)
2. Creeper packs- Similar to the gateway in CW2 except this time it's used to slowly construct the powerzone for a new emitter to drop out of orbit. Try to stop this a.s.a.p! Great way to add difficulty to the map, these can only be created on creeper-covered areas.
3. Regions/Triggers- Allready discussed many times before, being able to trigger to move large sums of creeper, and create fancy effects that decimate the base woudl be great.
4. Waves- Having emitter and unit production appear in sudden 'waves' at set intervals, this makes you have to respond quickly and have strong defense system to resist. During the time between this you'll need to quickly cap the enemy positions before you're overwhelmed.
5. Earthquakes- Allready in the suggestion list, this is a naturual (or creeper0 way of manipulating the terrain. You'll have a warning beforehand to prepare and many layers of terrain can move up and down. Units will automaticly fly up if the terrain is changed under them. Great way to change the map mid-game.
,
Waves are something I was hoping fields could have done( and propably can be done whit alot of fields whit very carefull timing.)
But changing map in mid-game sounds awesome.
I'm thinking that since the player can modify the ground to any height: why don't the creeper have a way to terraform their own ground too? After all, you can't terrafrom land with creeper on it, but you can with AC on it. So perhaps the creeper could have something that allows it to terraform its affected ground as long as there is no AC in the area being changed to the creeper's will.
Quote from: Twi on September 21, 2012, 06:21:20 AM
[...] More creatively, a terrain control device would be interesting- something that tries to undo changes your Terps made, working much like a Terp itself. That'd be...interesting.
@4xC: I will be polite and treat your suggestion as an amendment, and assume you came up with it independently.
After all, this thread is rather large and hard to keep track of.
I can understand where you come from; this game has so much potential and awesomeness that I genuinely feel like placing a pre-order, and my mind is crawling with what else could be possible. That's a first, so V, consider this a big compliment to your great efforts.
On the on-topic side, some sort of scripting language with certain hooks (for creating e.g. custom units, fields, events and behaviour) would be even more awesome (thinking of the Unreal Engine scripting language here, which allows almost anything). I don't know if the set-up is modular enough for this, though - but this is only a suggestions thread, so I may as well think out loud.
As discussed earlier in the thread the creeper terrain corrosian could be implemented, similar to CW2. All terp ground is automaticly decayble , and map makers can create decayble terrain as well.
Mid-map changes could get annoying, that's why they should still be predictable; but be confusing enough for the player not compare for them completly.
how about a pad thing which can rais and lower things to your will.
We already have flying units, so what good would that do?
Also, decayable gorund is nice, but since we can terrafrom ground, why shouldn't the creeper bea able to do the same to some extent or another?
Quote from: 4xC on September 23, 2012, 07:25:53 PM
We already have flying units, so what good would that do?
Also, decayable gorund is nice, but since we can terrafrom ground, why shouldn't the creeper bea able to do the same to some extent or another?
Em wat... that's exactly what decayble ground is ... the ability for creeper to 'terraform' to some extent.
Decayable ground can only be destroyed. By allowing the creeper's side to terraform as I described, it could do everything our terps do. not being able to alter ground with AC on it like terps can't alter ground with Creeper on it.
Also, I know that it is next-to-impossible that my imagined creeper "worm" will be integrated into CW3, but in case it ever gets implemented into the series at all, whether it will be invisible while underground or leave a trail of excavated terrain along its path remains in question to me.
That reminds me, are the alpha makers trying to allow or trying to avoid air units to take damage in flight? I saw some stuff about the subject, but I got confused as to whether or not we are aiming to enable air units take damage while flying. and why don't AETs leave PZs behind?
I don't like the idea of the creeper building, Creeper is only supposed to destroy.
True, but maybe at this point in the storyline, the creeper will have learned to make use of terraforming the way we do. After all, the spore towers bloom before activating which shows a sign of growth and building is technically a form of growth.
Quote from: Wheatmidge on September 25, 2012, 10:59:48 AM
I don't like the idea of the creeper building, Creeper is only supposed to destroy.
I agree, decaying is another form of destruction and it serves very well to counter terra-forming.
How does it serve very well to it? All-destructive forces in general may need to learn at late points in time to adjust their priorities to counter larger threats than undestroyed ground. After all, units that require a line of sight may need this if they need to have another weakness to balance things out. That is only in the event that the line of sight units need to be weakened to balance it out.
By the way, shouldn't the terp require a line of sight too since they use straight beams to work on ground? Otherwise, they would shoot their terraforming beams through higher ground inbetween them.
Quote from: 4xC on September 25, 2012, 02:29:53 PM
How does it serve very well to it? All-destructive forces in general may need to learn at late points in time to adjust their priorities to counter larger threats than undestroyed ground. After all, units that require a line of sight may need this if they need to have another weakness to balance things out. That is only in the event that the line of sight units need to be weakened to balance it out.
By the way, shouldn't the terp require a line of sight too since they use straight beams to work on ground? Otherwise, they would shoot their terraforming beams through higher ground inbetween them.
I think I'd prefer not to sacrifice gameplay in favor of strict realism with terps - the manual management required to make terps function intelligently despite that restriction is ridiculous.
We can also look into re-working the visual effect into something else, if the beam crossing LOS boundaries really bothers players that much, but I don't think making them respect LOS in favor of realism over gameplay is the answer.
The terp beam could be arcing somewhat, so it's not straight because it curves up a bit, then back down to hit the target spot?
Just a thought if it really bothers some people. :)
Quote from: Blaze on September 25, 2012, 05:31:14 PM
The terp beam could be arcing somewhat, so it's not straight because it curves up a bit, then back down to hit the target spot?
Just a thought if it really bothers some people. :)
A simpler solution would be to place it later in the drawing sequence (so that it will paint over the terrain); probably this is how it works in any case.
Quote from: Lord_Farin on September 25, 2012, 06:24:05 PM
Quote from: Blaze on September 25, 2012, 05:31:14 PM
The terp beam could be arcing somewhat, so it's not straight because it curves up a bit, then back down to hit the target spot?
Just a thought if it really bothers some people. :)
A simpler solution would be to place it later in the drawing sequence (so that it will paint over the terrain); probably this is how it works in any case.
I posted that for people who think the terp should need a line of sight/can't fire at higher terrain like the blaster. :D
Quote from: lurkily on September 25, 2012, 05:14:02 PM
I think I'd prefer not to sacrifice gameplay in favor of strict realism with terps - the manual management required to make terps function intelligently despite that restriction is ridiculous.
We can also look into re-working the visual effect into something else, if the beam crossing LOS boundaries really bothers players that much, but I don't think making them respect LOS in favor of realism over gameplay is the answer.
I didn't mean to imply any strictness for anything. I was making a statement that had a topic which weas in controversy with itself. The game has physics limits like LOS for pulse cannons and I didn't think it made sense that terps could shoot beams through ground to change other ground. And I have no intention to force anything unto anyone (The situation would literally have to be about 20 times as desperate as this and this is moderately desperate I would say.)
It was just a matter of discussion and debate over what to do about the terp's parodixial performance with the beam it fires at ground. If it is a redunant matter like you suggest, then so be it. I don't judge without good reason.
An idea I have about this, in the event it does bother other players (I am not bothered, I'm just openly wondering and bringing up either a potential or full-on controversy)), is that the circular thing on the terp where the beam comes from becomes designed to rise from the boxy body to gain a LOS at other ground.
Then again, I just now thought that it could be totally redundant because: what if you wanted to terraform ground when it is at 1 level and all surrounding ground is at 10?
Quote from: 4xC on September 26, 2012, 12:16:26 AM
Then again, I just now thought that it could be totally redundant because: what if you wanted to terraform ground when it is at 1 level and all surrounding ground is at 10?
This is an excellent example of why having Terp ignore LOS requirements is a good gameplay simplification. For a less extreme example, what if the surrounding terrain is all 10 and the hole is at 9? Even at a small distance from the hole, the terp would lose LOS to the bottom.
or you could ues my pad idea.
it would keep in LOS and if that dose not work just say that the self raise to match terrain hight.
i mean it bothers me ad well so a came up whit a way round.
but my idea will be ignored inevetby.
Dear Tornado, it's not that your suggestions are ignored, more that they are either difficult to understand or difficult to implement.
manually set weapon fire rates might be useful for low energy maps.
ie setting launcher type weapons to 75% or 50% power, when faced with fast but shallow creeper, could make more efficient energy use possible on low energy maps. with blasters holding back creeper i sometimes see "wasted" launcher shots that would require way more micro management per weapon than i can be bothered to put in.
just a thought 8)
I personally would love to see the Spores get a massive overhaul.
Spore GuardianSpoiler
This is a Powerful Anti Air unit produced by Spore towers (or some other special tower) that can deploy creep bombs on your base. This ship like unit would follow a designated flying path (or the Drone pathing system) and can drop little bombs of creeper or shoot small shots of creeper at the player's weapons. This unit is designed to be a fairly troublesome unit as it can fly around and sometimes cut off parts of your base. I see beams as an excellent defense but I would expect mortars to be able to deal powerful damage to this beast. Another great utilization for this would be for it to shoot spores at you where you'd need beams to shoot down the spores it fires. This could also be implemented as solid boss idea.
(Just joined the forums I love creeper world so much and want to help make CW3 incredible)
Quote from: teknotiss on September 26, 2012, 05:06:33 PM
manually set weapon fire rates might be useful for low energy maps.
ie setting launcher type weapons to 75% or 50% power, when faced with fast but shallow creeper, could make more efficient energy use possible on low energy maps. with blasters holding back creeper i sometimes see "wasted" launcher shots that would require way more micro management per weapon than i can be bothered to put in.
just a thought 8)
So just disarm or disconnect the launchers until the creeper thickens a little more. And add more blasters. In this case, just add more pulse cannons and whatever mortars you already have should be disarmed or disconnected.
Quote from: 4xC on September 26, 2012, 06:54:22 PM
Quote from: teknotiss on September 26, 2012, 05:06:33 PM
manually set weapon fire rates might be useful for low energy maps.
ie setting launcher type weapons to 75% or 50% power, when faced with fast but shallow creeper, could make more efficient energy use possible on low energy maps. with blasters holding back creeper i sometimes see "wasted" launcher shots that would require way more micro management per weapon than i can be bothered to put in.
just a thought 8)
So just disarm or disconnect the launchers until the creeper thickens a little more. And add more blasters. In this case, just add more pulse cannons and whatever mortars you already have should be disarmed or disconnected.
did you miss the part where i said it was to save the player from micro managing EVERY launcher etc???
Setting a fire rate for each weapon is also micromanaging them.
In any case, the best solution to the problem of overkill would be to simply disarm them as 4xC suggested. CW3 has group select, so you could do this for multiple units at once.
Anyone noticed the new 'titan' units like the Bertha? Let's see if we can try suggesting some more :D . Also suggestions added.
TSPD(Time & Space Phase Disruptor)
This is a utility titan weapon that allows the user to instantly transport a single unit anywhere in the map. This allows for quick response to far away situations, however it is limited to one unit and requires a long recharge and quite a bit of energy. For a less large energy cost it can also instantly transport air units to designated locations, thus increasing your air network's speed(it allows roughly 3 air units in before it need a recharge). The player can manually designate it's options and target location. You can also select if it auto-calculates unit movement to use it as a shortcut or not. It occupies 3x3 cells (9 cells) and the unit is transported when it completely enters the central cell.
Quote from: teknotiss on September 27, 2012, 10:11:46 AM
did you miss the part where i said it was to save the player from micro managing EVERY launcher etc???
No I did NOT miss it. I said to use the disarm and/or disconnect feature so that the weapons can either keep all weapon energy stored or use up their ammo but not get resupplied by the packet-producing Base Cores (that's one thing I call Odin City, the Liberation Ship, and the Command Node all together). You could even just deactivate some or all them all at once so they neither resupply nor fire.
Besides, you are able to make groups with number names in CW2 so who's to say you can't do that in 3?
Quote from: teknotiss on September 27, 2012, 10:11:46 AM
did you miss the part where i said it was to save the player from micro managing EVERY launcher etc???
I do not see why the game should be made easier for people caring enough to have the desire of managing their fire rates - which in the end is also micromanagement. Micromanagement is one of the most important features of any RTS game. I wouldn't want it any other way (except sometimes when I notice I have wasted a lot of time and resources to go down by lack of attention).
Of course, you are free to suggest things, but IMHO this particular suggestion would detract from the gameplay, eventually making people lazy and letting them get away with it. You want a good score, you have to MM better than others. That's just how it works.
Decided to try my own Titan suggestion.
Orbital Laser TransmissionerSpoiler
This powerful titan is one of if not the most powerful titan in the game but requires insane amounts of energy. After constructing this laser device you charge it (charging should be like the cost of a lesser titan like bertha) Once fully charged you draw a curved line on the map and Transmissioner shoots some small powerful high beam laser which bounces off a satellite and cuts a massive path annihilating the creeper (similar to a DB except it's only usable once every like 9 minutes and takes up a ridiculous amount of power)This satellite thing could be something you find off of one of the planets permanently allowing you to use this satellite for this devastating attack. Also it has a big explosion :)
Quote from: teknotiss on September 26, 2012, 05:06:33 PM
manually set weapon fire rates might be useful for low energy maps.
ie setting launcher type weapons to 75% or 50% power, when faced with fast but shallow creeper, could make more efficient energy use possible on low energy maps. with blasters holding back creeper i sometimes see "wasted" launcher shots that would require way more micro management per weapon than i can be bothered to put in.
just a thought 8)
Honestly? I think intelligent use of launchers is a better solution. Place them tactically to access deeper creeper. If this is impossible, you probably never needed them in the first place. Mainly, I don't like the idea because it skews the 'fairness' of the network energy distribution, and while it looks benign at first glance, it has effects that cascade through every area of the game that requires packets from the network.
EDIT: I really don't think I'd use this . . . I usually stack blasters so that some fire hard, while others need to fire less, and can stockpile ammo . . . I don't think I'd ever want to actively limit their firing potential.
Quote from: Lord_Farin on September 27, 2012, 05:55:07 PMMicromanagement is one of the most important features of any RTS game. I wouldn't want it any other way (except sometimes when I notice I have wasted a lot of time and resources to go down by lack of attention).
I respectfully disagree. Micromanagement is a critical component of many games, but it doesn't have to be the foundation of it. Look at Supreme commander for an example of a game which cuts out many traditional micro aspects, and is still successful.
It's my opinion that any opportunity to reduce micromanagement should be examined seriously. If the game requires micromanagement to keep the player engaged, then the game designer hasn't spent enough time on making the game's core mechanics fun. (Unless micro itself is the core mechanic . . . which is fine, but not a game I generally like to play.)
QuoteI respectfully disagree. Micromanagement is a critical component of many games, but it doesn't have to be the foundation of it. Look at Supreme commander for an example of a game which cuts out many traditional micro aspects, and is still successful.
It's my opinion that any opportunity to reduce micromanagement should be examined seriously. If the game requires micromanagement to keep the player engaged, then the game designer hasn't spent enough time on making the game's core mechanics fun. (Unless micro itself is the core mechanic . . . which is fine, but not a game I generally like to play.)
Take Starcraft 2 for example it uses a solid balance of micro and macro and unit strategies. This game appeals to casual players with some strategy of unit composition and abilities while appealing heavily to hardcore players taking it to the next level with precise micro and insane macro abilities. Do you know how many professional Starcraft 2 stuff there is it's crazy.
I personally find unit composition and military style flanking and positioning to appeal to me more but I don't mind a little micro (i'm not crazy about it either though)
In any case, obviously any RTS game must not be too hard, but challenging enough to glue itself to our minds. Since there is also now a matter of micro v. military, perhaps humanity (provided it is in CW3) could be in the battlefield more directly now.
The weapons are more advanced than the past 2 games' weapons and now that we have flying units with what look like human's cockpits, maybe this one posdsibly way they can fight directly without auto-weapons.Otherwise, the design of the CN and the Mothership would have to look like they could house humans inside to a high degree since time has passed and new advancements have come. If the humans were in the fight but out of the CN and MS, this is my initial though as to how they could be.
For now, I take it the strafers, bombers, and guppies are all on auto-pilot even though they have human's cockpits?
I dont like micro, for a long period of time at least, its the main reason I havnt beaten the last level of cw2, aim db, next frame, re-aim db, next frame repeat, yawn
though in some cases its fun, ok so if I do this I starve my self and die but if I dont get it up fast enough I get overwhelmed and die so I have to balance it
Quote from: lurkily on September 27, 2012, 07:07:17 PM
Quote from: teknotiss on September 26, 2012, 05:06:33 PM
manually set weapon fire rates might be useful for low energy maps.
ie setting launcher type weapons to 75% or 50% power, when faced with fast but shallow creeper, could make more efficient energy use possible on low energy maps. with blasters holding back creeper i sometimes see "wasted" launcher shots that would require way more micro management per weapon than i can be bothered to put in.
just a thought 8)
Honestly? I think intelligent use of launchers is a better solution. Place them tactically to access deeper creeper. If this is impossible, you probably never needed them in the first place. Mainly, I don't like the idea because it skews the 'fairness' of the network energy distribution, and while it looks benign at first glance, it has effects that cascade through every area of the game that requires packets from the network.
EDIT: I really don't think I'd use this . . . I usually stack blasters so that some fire hard, while others need to fire less, and can stockpile ammo . . . I don't think I'd ever want to actively limit their firing potential.
so becasue you don't like the idea of my suggestion then no-one should have access to it?
seems a little controlling.
after all if the fire rate option was available YOU don't have to use it, do you?
odd how so many jump on this suggestion as bad, since it is a suggestions forum i put it here for the developers to read and act on or not as they choose, not for a pointless discussion by people who have little say in the development process. if you don't like my suggestion that's fine, but it just seems strange to fill this forum with your views on it, or any other suggestions.
as the OP Mr H said in the first place
Quote from: Mr.H on May 04, 2012, 12:51:48 AM
Please refrain from leaving any replies other then suggestions for the game unless absolutely necessary, cheers ;) .
(btw i felt this was necessary to try to reduce the unnecessary posts in this thread ;) )
(edit cos i can't spell today for some reason)
That about jumping to conclusions about liking or disliking suggestions is pretty eye-catching. I had similar feedback when I imaginitively created the Worm. But you know, whatever the feedback, the majority ruling of the community seems to be a main determining factor for what goes and what does not.
Definitely think we need more consistent ways to deliver AC to the field. I expect that some things are in development, but having to remember to utilize bombers seems like a pain - it would be like having to remember to tell your PC's to open fire again.
Quote from: Chawe800 on September 27, 2012, 08:13:23 PM
QuoteI respectfully disagree. Blah Blah Blah.
Take Starcraft 2 for example it uses a solid balance of micro and macro and unit strategies.
Starcraft is definitely a franchise that originated with a foundation in the heavy use of micro, though I haven't played Starcraft 2.
Quote from: 4xC on September 27, 2012, 09:15:21 PM
For now, I take it the strafers, bombers, and guppies are all on auto-pilot even though they have human's cockpits?
In CW1, all aircraft were drones, and given the unit behavior, I doubt anything has changed. Putting humans on the battlefield would be a major shift in the tone of the game, and I have my doubts that it would be beneficial.
Quote from: teknotiss on September 28, 2012, 06:58:41 AM
Quote from: lurkily on September 27, 2012, 07:07:17 PM
Quote from: teknotiss on September 26, 2012, 05:06:33 PM
manually set weapon fire rates might be useful for low energy maps.
Honestly? I think intelligent use of launchers is a better solution.
odd how so many jump on this suggestion as bad
I simply think that the situations in which it would be useful can be completely avoided by intelligent gameplay. If the player plays well, they shouldn't need it. If they do need it, they're already doing something wrong, and there are already ways to limit the damage caused by this situation. (Like move half your blasters back, instead of limiting their fire rate to 50%.) The amount of various settings needed to eliminate the various woes caused by incautious gameplay would bury the more casual players with a morass of weapons options.
EDIT: Excised the bad behavior that I originally posted, both my own and others'. Sorry. I'll try to be good. :)
Indeed. I doubt there would be anything good in bringing humans on the battlefield either, but I came up with that as a compromise for those who want humans on the battlefield; although I prefer it as it is without them on the field.
And yeah, a lot of the problems here are not as much the units as the players. It seems like there is a greater need for effort, out-of-the-box thinking, and trials and errors than some people let on. And moving units around like you suggest, Lurkily, is a good idea, and I add something I repeat: there is the ability to disconnect or disarm half of the weapons than change there whole fire rates, and there's the ability to group them into numbers like in CW2 and the Starcraft series.
And aside of what you said about the bombers, it's also preety painful that on large maps, it would take a WHILE to send in bombers to a distant target. It would be like having to rebuild them as you expand your base across the map. And what to do with the AC stored in the bomber pads if you want to destroy any that you either do not need or want anymore? This would be possible if the nearest enemy creeper was really far from where the B-pads are. I now see issuing multiple bomber attacks as issuing constant CW1 drone attacks.
It's frankly almost too bad that flying unit's pads (at least the bombers') cannot be moved unless they are eventually made to be so. I remeber in the Starcraft series that most of the terran buildings were able to move to other locations to adapt to situations and base relocations better when they needed to expand their resource production for example. And I know that rifts are not something likely to be added to CW3, but I wonder what will be done about rapid energy distribution on large maps.
Quote from: 4xC on September 28, 2012, 04:43:47 PM
It's frankly almost too bad that flying unit's pads (at least the bombers') cannot be moved unless they are eventually made to be so. I remeber in the Starcraft series that most of the terran buildings were able to move to other locations to adapt to situations and base relocations better when they needed to expand their resource production for example. And I know that rifts are not something likely to be added to CW3, but I wonder what will be done about rapid energy distribution on large maps.
Possibly a great idea would be to to construct almost an airport with a main control base that supplies all the planes parked onto the airway you construct. That idea stinks.
Perhaps the original pad constructed serves as a base of operations for commanding the bombers and strafers. and construct operating pads more towards the front lines where the bomber can land. The AC is supplied directly to the main supply pad and then relayed directly to the resuppliment pad the bomber/strafer is designated to land. Now this would actually be pretty close to some serious micro so maybe the the bombers and strafers would automatically land towards the nearest resuppliment pad.
Quote from: 4xC on September 28, 2012, 04:43:47 PM
And aside of what you said about the bombers, it's also preety painful that on large maps, it would take a WHILE to send in bombers to a distant target. It would be like having to rebuild them as you expand your base across the map. And what to do with the AC stored in the bomber pads if you want to destroy any that you either do not need or want anymore? This would be possible if the nearest enemy creeper was really far from where the B-pads are. I now see issuing multiple bomber attacks as issuing constant CW1 drone attacks.
It's frankly almost too bad that flying unit's pads (at least the bombers') cannot be moved unless they are eventually made to be so. I remeber in the Starcraft series that most of the terran buildings were able to move to other locations to adapt to situations and base relocations better when they needed to expand their resource production for example. And I know that rifts are not something likely to be added to CW3, but I wonder what will be done about rapid energy distribution on large maps.
If an option to decommission structures was implemented (pulling the anticreeper out of the bombers or energy out of the weapon, and then breaking the structure itself down into packets again) keeping your bombers near the frontlines would require only time, not a constant loss of resources to rolling waves of construction. Structures could decommission at the same speed they're built and their payloads are transmitted to them, making relocating them something that could happen with no wasted resources, or a penalty (only 75% or 50% recovery, for example) could be applied to decommissioning.
My personal experience with larger CW2 maps was that I really had no problem abandoning/scrapping chunks of my infrastructure as the level wore on. On maps of the scale we're starting to see in the blog posts, I'm not sure I'd worry that much about the cost of establishing new, more forward aircraft pads in terms of percentage of my overall energy economy.
Quote from: Chawe800 on September 28, 2012, 06:32:46 PM
Possibly a great idea would be to to construct almost an airport with a main control base that supplies all the planes parked onto the airway you construct. That idea stinks.
Are you saying my idea stinks or the idea with the line on it stinks? If you mean mine, that was harsh. It's not uncommon to get negative feedback for new ideas, but to say that so early and so sharply is so offensive, I would be initially suprised to see that reply on the forum for much longer.
And Shrike30, knowing that in CW2, makers with charged AC would let it all loose if it was destroyed before you bursted it, maybe either the pads should let loose all stored AC, or be disconnected and their bombers fly out and let it out 1 last time before the pad was destroyed.
What I said in this thread (http://knucklecracker.com/forums/index.php?topic=11460.msg79679#msg79679) applies here and everywhere else as well.
Consider: "Less is more."
Quote from: lurkily on September 28, 2012, 01:09:16 PM
Definitely think we need more consistent ways to deliver AC to the field.
I'm hanging out to see what Virgil does with Conversion Bomb technology.
Imagine bombers where you can switch the bomb load between Anti Creeper and Conversion Bombs.
If you've got ore, you can make AC - which is great for flooding a forward area to inhibit the Creeper.
If you don't have ore, but you've got spare energy, you can always make you own AC with Conversion Bombs - though the AC generated would probably behave in a very different way to AC dropped on top of creeper...
Quote from: 4xC on September 28, 2012, 09:49:24 PM
Are you saying my idea stinks or the idea with the line on it stinks? If you mean mine, that was harsh. It's not uncommon to get negative feedback for new ideas, but to say that so early and so sharply is so offensive, I would be initially suprised to see that reply on the forum for much longer.
I never mean't to criticize you or your ideas. I'm just saying the idea with the line through it stinks. I think your idea is great :)
I wonder if it's possible to have creeper and anti-creeper on top of each other in the same cell...
Quote from: Mr.H on September 29, 2012, 12:00:42 PM
I wonder if it's possible to have creeper and anti-creeper on top of each other in the same cell...
Considering that Creeper and anti-Creeper levels are represented as a range on a single signed integer value, no.
Quote from: 4xC on September 28, 2012, 04:43:47 PMAnd aside of what you said about the bombers, it's also preety painful that on large maps, it would take a WHILE to send in bombers to a distant target. It would be like having to rebuild them as you expand your base across the map. And what to do with the AC stored in the bomber pads if you want to destroy any that you either do not need or want anymore? This would be possible if the nearest enemy creeper was really far from where the B-pads are. I now see issuing multiple bomber attacks as issuing constant CW1 drone attacks.
Hum. I'm not really terribly concerned. If a bomber base's storage is such an asset that it cannot be wasted, you can use it in one last bombing run. Disabling will prevent wastage. If it's not significant enough to warrant such careful control, then the player can deal with the loss of those resources and destroy the pads to make room.
In short, the player can trade the resources invested in pads - both construction costs, and the ammo stored - for another resource, real estate. Through careful management, he can make this exchange more efficiently, through disabling the pad and using the stored ammo.
I'd like to see the bomber drop 3 different kinds of AC bombs. 1. Very similar to strafers it drop a small line of bombs create for creating a large wall of AC to use at a chokehold. 2. Normal bombing methods currently used. 3. Large bomb on specific specified target create for establishing a foothold on a plateau or for establishing great chokepoints.
"Disabling" or as CW2 calls it I believe "disconnecting". I assume by disabling the pad, it no longer gets resupplied? If so, then it goes back to CW2 where you can either deactivate, disarm, or disconnect.
Quote from: 4xC on September 29, 2012, 07:01:13 PM"Disabling" or as CW2 calls it I believe "disconnecting". I assume by disabling the pad, it no longer gets resupplied? If so, then it goes back to CW2 where you can either deactivate, disarm, or disconnect.
That seems like it'd accomplish most of what people are trying to get here. Disconnect the bomber pad so it's not getting resupplied anymore, and then send those bombers out on a last run with that AC. All that remains "lost" is the initial energy investment of setting up the pad at that point, and if you really want to recoup those losses (the slow way), destroy the pad and build a reactor in it's place.
Anyone else totally get the feeling Virgil is about to release something huge. Next update? To quote V from March 11:
And of course some sneaky new enemies that will yet again redefine the strategy genre....
I feel he may unveil a cool new update the 30th! :)
(Sorry I had too I'll avoid stuff like this in the future)
blasters fire solid projectiles right.
so you could charge the shots with anti-creeper.
Quote from: Chawe800 on September 29, 2012, 10:47:26 PM
Anyone else totally get the feeling Virgil is about to release something huge. Next update? To quote V from March 11:
And of course some sneaky new enemies that will yet again redefine the strategy genre....
I feel he may unveil a cool new update the 30th! :)
(Sorry I had too I'll avoid stuff like this in the future)
All I can say is that there is a new never seen before enemy on his to do list (but before I said too much, there still is a very small chance it won't make it into the game)
Quote from: J on September 30, 2012, 05:12:15 PM
All I can say is that there is a new never seen before enemy on his to do list (but before I said too much, there still is a very small chance it won't make it into the game)
True. As advanced as later games are, only so much can pass.
Well then I guess it's a great time for unit management and use suggestions:
1. As stated before being able to modify bomber firing modes would be great. This could be expanded on by having a choice of firing modes for more weapons, i.e. you can set the blaster on sustained, burst, normal, or sporadic.
2. The faction movement feature of CW2 in CW3 would be handy.
3. Global unit command, or within a click-drag box, that tell your units to 'retreat, charge, land, formation' etc. This allows for quick easy unit management.
4. Unit number/color code. Each unit is given it's very own unique combination of color coding on it's plating, or a small number above it to allow you to discern between weapons. Custom names for map makers would be great too.
5. Formations- Line, Arrow(triangular, strongest unit at front), reverse Arrow, Arc, Squadrons (units spread out in groups), Protection(vunerable units in centre, strongest units exposed), diagonal(left,right,etc). Custom user-defined formations?
6. Hot-keys: Self-explanatory
7. Unit overwatch: General health meter(e.g. 70% average health), Unit count, Near-Destruction-Units(NDU's)
I have to say I am impressed that the CW series would use the click-scroll box feature that I normally see in Starcraft and such. That makes it easier to select units.
I've got a couple of suggestions regarding the terraforming interface:
1) To smooth a given area of lumps (or fill in a trench), it looks like you currently place your cursor over a given spot, figure out how high it is, then go to the menubar, set the height to that, then return to the area you intend to terraform and "paint" a desired height. A common feature from graphics editing programs is the ability to use a ctrl-click (or other modified click) to copy the color under the cursor at the time. If the same could be applied to the terraforming interface (ctrl-click on a given location, and the terraforming tool's desired height is set to the height of the ground under your cursor), it'd make filling potholes, smoothing roads, or building raised platforms to a given location a little simpler.
2) In the same vein of drag-placing straight lines of structures, it'd be nice to be able to drag-place straight lines of terraforming. As terraforming is done with a painting tool, this would require another modified click (likely shift-click, if ctrl-click is used for my first suggestion) which locks the terraforming tool into sketching straight lines along the compass points (and potentially lines on the 45 degree offset). The wall demonstrated in the Roma Victor video could be drawn quickly by moving the cursor to one side of the screen, holding down shift, clicking, and zipping the mouse across the screen, rather than requiring the commander to put in the extra focus to sketch a perfectly straight line across however many cells.
While playing on a CW1 sized map, these suggestions might not make a big difference, but I think they'd really have a benefit on some of the *huge* maps demonstrated. Being able to quickly paint a straight, 3-cell-wide "Great Wall of Creepa" across a few hundred cells worth of a map the size of the "Walloping" screenshot while zoomed pretty far out, without having to go down and fiddle with little jogs and jinks in the wall where you didn't track the mouse perfectly straight, would be nice.
I have decided to do a rundown of Creeper in the Wind pointing out some serious concerns I am having:
Let's start at the 4 minute mark: He currently has 9.6 energy production and since I know every reactor boosts energy by .6 and he has 8 reactors he is generating 4.8 energy from collectors. He is currently supplying and constructing 17 things at once and this isn't a major deficit affliction. This scares me this seems like it should really provide a lot more pressure to V (Not completely kill him but make him feel a little more nervous).
Let's go back to 2:47 V is constructing 7 things at once on only 4.8 energy and it looks like no deficit problems whatsoever. I haven't found this to be too sever of a problem.
Now what really confuses me is at 5:20: V is currently producing 15 energy and he has 15 things building or needing ammunition. So why does the network display this as a deficit bump. I understand weapons can use up to 2 energy but it felt turrets and mortars could adjust to only using 1 energy in CW1 BY the 5:40 mark V has accumulated 18 energy production I found this outstanding to set up such a solid economy to incredibly rapidly.
Now at the 11 minute mark V is only using 12 energy and producing 27 energy. He currently has 12 weapons requiring packets and nothing building so every weapon costs one. So how then can energy deficit be caused at the 5 minute mark for weapons using so much energy and yet only use 1 each at the 7 mark?
Virgil I love you but you're kinda scaring me here. I don't mean to hate on CW3 but I see some really awkward flaws that might ruin the fun and challenge. I'd appreciate any replies and comments on the subject and to see if any alpha testers can confirm on some of the problems here.
I love how CW3 is doing and I just want to make it better ;)
Quote from: Chawe800 on October 01, 2012, 08:46:01 PMNow at the 11 minute mark V is only using 12 energy and producing 27 energy. He currently has 12 weapons requiring packets and nothing building so every weapon costs one. So how then can energy deficit be caused at the 5 minute mark for weapons using so much energy and yet only use 1 each at the 7 mark?
Bear in mind that energy use by weapons is dependent on their rate of fire as well as the number of weapons you have. If you've got a bunch of cannons, and they're all deep behind your lines, they have 0 energy use. In contrast, if they're all firing full-speed at Creeper, you need (Rate of fire* ammo/shot) * (Lots of cannons) energy/s to supply them.
Quote from: Nemoricus on October 01, 2012, 10:17:12 PM
Quote from: Chawe800 on October 01, 2012, 08:46:01 PMNow at the 11 minute mark V is only using 12 energy and producing 27 energy. He currently has 12 weapons requiring packets and nothing building so every weapon costs one. So how then can energy deficit be caused at the 5 minute mark for weapons using so much energy and yet only use 1 each at the 7 mark?
Bear in mind that energy use by weapons is dependent on their rate of fire as well as the number of weapons you have. If you've got a bunch of cannons, and they're all deep behind your lines, they have 0 energy use. In contrast, if they're all firing full-speed at Creeper, you need (Rate of fire* ammo/shot) * (Lots of cannons) energy/s to supply them.
Agreed. There's a lot to consider for anything before you make a statement like that, Chawe800.
Quote from: Shrike30 on October 01, 2012, 08:27:59 PM
I've got a couple of suggestions regarding the terraforming interface:
1) To smooth a given area of lumps (or fill in a trench), it looks like you currently place your cursor over a given spot, figure out how high it is, then go to the menubar, set the height to that, then return to the area you intend to terraform and "paint" a desired height. A common feature from graphics editing programs is the ability to use a ctrl-click (or other modified click) to copy the color under the cursor at the time. If the same could be applied to the terraforming interface (ctrl-click on a given location, and the terraforming tool's desired height is set to the height of the ground under your cursor), it'd make filling potholes, smoothing roads, or building raised platforms to a given location a little simpler.
We already have the ability to "pick up" a terrain height.
Quote
2) In the same vein of drag-placing straight lines of structures, it'd be nice to be able to drag-place straight lines of terraforming. As terraforming is done with a painting tool, this would require another modified click (likely shift-click, if ctrl-click is used for my first suggestion) which locks the terraforming tool into sketching straight lines along the compass points (and potentially lines on the 45 degree offset). The wall demonstrated in the Roma Victor video could be drawn quickly by moving the cursor to one side of the screen, holding down shift, clicking, and zipping the mouse across the screen, rather than requiring the commander to put in the extra focus to sketch a perfectly straight line across however many cells.
Once the map editor goes into beta, I'm sure this request will come up again. I have already seen at least one request for it.
Quote from: Nemoricus on October 01, 2012, 10:17:12 PM
Bear in mind that energy use by weapons is dependent on their rate of fire as well as the number of weapons you have. If you've got a bunch of cannons, and they're all deep behind your lines, they have 0 energy use. In contrast, if they're all firing full-speed at Creeper, you need (Rate of fire* ammo/shot) * (Lots of cannons) energy/s to supply them.
Alright I'll give you that but I'm still confused on that energy spike at the 5 minute mark. I don't really know why it was so severe. Is it because the cost of reactors is a lot?
Also that really isn't my main concern I just wanted to point that out a little. My real concern is how energy deficit really doesn't seem that major right now in CW3 :-\
The spike at 5:00 is because his demand temporarily fell under his production, which gave him a brief period of surplus.
Note that the first bar graph is energy *storage*, the second production, and the third use.
Also, the severity of a deficit is related to your position, the amount you're short by, and how long it is. In this map, Virgil has a major high ground advantage, which makes deficits less of a problem than they would otherwise be.
At this point, I think it's safe to say that the bias is the few field and gravity manipulation.
Quote from: Chawe800 on September 29, 2012, 04:57:48 PM
I'd like to see the bomber drop 3 different kinds of AC bombs.
I think current bombing procedures pretty much do all of this.
Quote from: tornado on September 30, 2012, 03:42:01 PMblasters fire solid projectiles right.
Blasters fire beams. Pulse cannons as used in CW3 do fire solid projectiles. Whether they can carry an AC payload is probably too far in the future to determine.
Quote from: Mr.H on October 01, 2012, 12:11:46 PM1. As stated before being able to modify bomber firing modes would be great. This could be expanded on by having a choice of firing modes for more weapons, i.e. you can set the blaster on sustained, burst, normal, or sporadic.
2. The faction movement feature of CW2 in CW3 would be handy.
3. Global unit command, or within a click-drag box, that tell your units to 'retreat, charge, land, formation' etc. This allows for quick easy unit management.
4. Unit number/color code. Each unit is given it's very own unique combination of color coding on it's plating, or a small number above it to allow you to discern between weapons. Custom names for map makers would be great too.
5. Formations- Line, Arrow(triangular, strongest unit at front), reverse Arrow, Arc, Squadrons (units spread out in groups), Protection(vunerable units in centre, strongest units exposed), diagonal(left,right,etc). Custom user-defined formations?
6. Hot-keys: Self-explanatory
7. Unit overwatch: General health meter(e.g. 70% average health), Unit count, Near-Destruction-Units(NDU's)
I addressed 1 earlier. With 2, I think you mean formation movement. As shown explicitly in early alpha videos, this is already implemented.
3: I think this is a little complex for the game. Pre-set formations for units will never be suitable to the particular terrain involved, and our units neither charge nor retreat. Our units need behaviors to set before gamewide unit behaviors can be as useful as they are in some other games, like Epic War.
4: I am worried that this would make it difficult to immediately locate every unit of a specific type.
5: I can't think of a single situation - except for a 100% flat map - in which a one-size-fits-all formation will be useful within the constraints of irregular terrain. This sounds like something that would be highly awesome in something like a 4x game with real-time combat elements, though.
6: Yes.
7: Not sure what you mean by an overwatch. Are you talking about a generic alert when a unit is under particular threat?
Quote from: Grauniad on October 02, 2012, 01:22:12 PM
regarding two seperate suggestions...
We already have the ability to "pick up" a terrain height. ... Once the map editor goes into beta, I'm sure this request (for straight line terraforming) will come up again. I have already seen at least one request for it.
Sounds good, thanks :)
I had another idea, regarding interacting with guppies. At the moment, guppies seem to only lift off from their pads with full loads, and to return from their destination for a refill when completely empty. It'd be nice to be able to click on a pad and say "go now," or click on a landed guppy and say "return now" in anticipation of a dynamic situation or an immediate need.
Quote from: Shrike30 on October 03, 2012, 05:05:28 AM
I had another idea, regarding interacting with guppies. At the moment, guppies seem to only lift off from their pads with full loads, and to return from their destination for a refill when completely empty. It'd be nice to be able to click on a pad and say "go now," or click on a landed guppy and say "return now" in anticipation of a dynamic situation or an immediate need.
This you can do. The rest is IMHO a game limitation. Some things the game just don't allow - for any player. So we're all playing with the same capabilities and limitations.
Like in chess, maybe someone says they'd like to see the ability for a pawn to move backwards. Yes, it might be interesting, but the game just don't allow for that.
Say, I presume this problem I have in mind is already solved courtesy of the new zoom feature, but I must say that one of the biggest pains of CW2 that I thought had a possibility of persisting in 3 is this:
If you move a large number of units to a far location and want to place them in specific spots that are not automatically determined by the settings of auto-group movement, you would have to scroll up and down constantly to place each individual in a specific spot.
I would propose that there be an ability to click multiple units and place them in specific spots in the order of which they were selected, but I can guess the zoom feature already compensates for this problem.
Also, will we be able to put groups of units and Command Nodes in numbered groups like in CW2 in which you select multiple units by just pressing the corresponding number?
Quote from: lurkily on October 02, 2012, 05:22:49 PMQuote from: Mr.H on October 01, 2012, 12:11:46 PM1. As stated before being able to modify bomber firing modes would be great. This could be expanded on by having a choice of firing modes for more weapons, i.e. you can set the blaster on sustained, burst, normal, or sporadic.
2. The faction movement feature of CW2 in CW3 would be handy.
3. Global unit command, or within a click-drag box, that tell your units to 'retreat, charge, land, formation' etc. This allows for quick easy unit management.
4. Unit number/color code. Each unit is given it's very own unique combination of color coding on it's plating, or a small number above it to allow you to discern between weapons. Custom names for map makers would be great too.
5. Formations- Line, Arrow(triangular, strongest unit at front), reverse Arrow, Arc, Squadrons (units spread out in groups), Protection(vunerable units in centre, strongest units exposed), diagonal(left,right,etc). Custom user-defined formations?
6. Hot-keys: Self-explanatory
7. Unit overwatch: General health meter(e.g. 70% average health), Unit count, Near-Destruction-Units(NDU's)
I addressed 1 earlier. With 2, I think you mean formation movement. As shown explicitly in early alpha videos, this is already implemented.
3: I think this is a little complex for the game. Pre-set formations for units will never be suitable to the particular terrain involved, and our units neither charge nor retreat. Our units need behaviors to set before gamewide unit behaviors can be as useful as they are in some other games, like Epic War.
4: I am worried that this would make it difficult to immediately locate every unit of a specific type.
5: I can't think of a single situation - except for a 100% flat map - in which a one-size-fits-all formation will be useful within the constraints of irregular terrain. This sounds like something that would be highly awesome in something like a 4x game with real-time combat elements, though.
6: Yes.
7: Not sure what you mean by an overwatch. Are you talking about a generic alert when a unit is under particular threat?
5. The formation would adapt to terrain height and such, but it is a good point. Perhaps adapting the formations to the terrain would be a solution(i.e. longest range units on highest point, defense units at front(blasters) and shield to hold it up in the middle.
7. Something like that but light-weight and not a pop-up that goes 'WARNING UNIT IN DANGER' everytime a single unit is in danger. What I mean is similar to production and such you could have a 'unit watch' where you see data related to your units, including average health
Quote from: Grauniad on October 03, 2012, 09:46:52 AMThis you can do. The rest is IMHO a game limitation. Some things the game just don't allow - for any player. So we're all playing with the same capabilities and limitations.
Like in chess, maybe someone says they'd like to see the ability for a pawn to move backwards. Yes, it might be interesting, but the game just don't allow for that.
The test that should be applied here is not whether a limitation affects everyone equally, but rather does having the limitation make the game more interesting? Pawns being unable to move backwards makes chess more interesting, just like blasters being unable to fire at terrain higher than themselves makes CW more interesting.
Forbidding a 'go now' button for Guppies does not make them more interesting, I think, especially since all other aircraft in CW3 can be launched with partial loads. Having it would bring Guppies on par with the other aircraft, and make using them less frustrating in some circumstances.
Quote from: Mr.H on October 03, 2012, 03:44:42 PM5. The formation would adapt to terrain height and such, but it is a good point. Perhaps adapting the formations to the terrain would be a solution(i.e. longest range units on highest point, defense units at front(blasters) and shield to hold it up in the middle.
7. Something like that but light-weight and not a pop-up that goes 'WARNING UNIT IN DANGER' everytime a single unit is in danger. What I mean is similar to production and such you could have a 'unit watch' where you see data related to your units, including average health
5: I still can't see this being useful. With a clean edge on terrain levels, and open space, maybe the game would be able to estimate a useful position for some of your units some of the time. But I can't think of any situation except for (unusually perfect and open terrain formations) in which I would not tweak an AI placed formation, assuming practical limitations on the intelligence of the AI.
That being said, if I have to tweak the formation almost every time, I would rather place every unit to my specifications from the start.
7: Well, I didn't say a popup or a full-screen warning. A little alarm siren when a unit drops past 50% would be nice.
I don't think an average of all units' health would be useful. You could lose many units on a large map, and the average still may not even drop below 90%.
Quote from: Nemoricus on October 03, 2012, 07:41:48 PM
Quote from: Grauniad on October 03, 2012, 09:46:52 AMForbidding a 'go now' button for Guppies does not make them more interesting, I think, especially since all other aircraft in CW3 can be launched with partial loads. Having it would bring Guppies on par with the other aircraft, and make using them less frustrating in some circumstances.
I agree. Though personally, I'm more interested in a slider for guppies, from 1% to 100%, indicating at what percentage they lift off. I like both ideas, but the second holds more interest for me, since it provides an automated control, rather than manual.
EDIT:Misconstructed quote.
Instead of a slider, I was thinking you could type in the energy value in which the guppies lift off with since it is easier to control than putting a sliding bar in the exact position you may want it. Precision slide scrolling versus typing in the value; which sounds more worthy?
Quote from: 4xC on October 04, 2012, 05:27:03 PM
Instead of a slider, I was thinking you could type in the energy value in which the guppies lift off with since it is easier to control than putting a sliding bar in the exact position you may want it. Precision slide scrolling versus typing in the value; which sounds more worthy?
Why not both? A small typable text box and a slider for fast estimations.
Quote from: Chawe800 on October 04, 2012, 07:14:31 PM
Quote from: 4xC on October 04, 2012, 05:27:03 PM
Instead of a slider, I was thinking you could type in the energy value in which the guppies lift off with since it is easier to control than putting a sliding bar in the exact position you may want it. Precision slide scrolling versus typing in the value; which sounds more worthy?
Why not both? A small typable text box and a slider for fast estimations.
Even better.
Quote from: 4xC on October 04, 2012, 10:48:14 PM
Quote from: Chawe800 on October 04, 2012, 07:14:31 PM
Quote from: 4xC on October 04, 2012, 05:27:03 PM
Instead of a slider, I was thinking you could type in the energy value in which the guppies lift off with since it is easier to control than putting a sliding bar in the exact position you may want it. Precision slide scrolling versus typing in the value; which sounds more worthy?
Why not both? A small typable text box and a slider for fast estimations.
Even better.
I would never use a text box . . . having to move from hotkeys to cross the numpad? I already have to move my mouse to the panel and click to activate a text box - instead of typing for a precise number, I'd rather just drag with a little more precision.
I'll second no text box, please. In fact, I don't think even a sliding bar is necessary. Just have a 'Take off with partial load' toggle.
The reasons for this are simple: The only time it's desirable for a Guppy to take off with a partial load repeatedly is when the supply network cannot fully supply the Guppy due to a deficit situation. In this case, shorter interruptions in supply are better than one longer interruption less often, since even a short period of no supply leaves your forces vulnerable. Having a simple toggle will ensure that the guppy will always pick up the maximum load the network can supply in a given time frame while still minimizing the length of time the destination network has no supply.
I really can't think of another situation where you'd want to regularly take with a partial load. If a destination network drains a guppy faster than its pad can be filled, then the solution is to build more guppies, not have the guppy take off with a partial load....
Any counterarguments?
Well, I don't want to have a guppy sit on an empty pad, then take off when the first packet hits it, when supply is re-established. In most cases . . . yeah, I'd leave a slider at either 1% or 100%.
You know what? I truly, honestly think CW3 would be improved if the background music were replaced by . . . oh, I don't know . . . the theme song from Shaft, maybe?
Spoiler
Yyyyyyeah, if you're taking this seriously, you're doing it wrong.
Yea probably keep it as one of those things you can't change as a player maybe? I don't know really.
What I want is the option to delay my guppies from taking off (basically deavtivating them so they get supplied but don't automatically. I already am very confident deactivation will be in CW3 that that makes me happy. :D
I'd think just saying Stop (remove their destination waypoint) or Disarm (fill with cargo but do not send out) should cover that, so it could be built into existing functionality.
I'm not sure if this has already been suggested, but I think it would be a good idea if strafers had the option to repeat their last order. (i.e. they automatically take off as soon as they finish refueling, without having to click on them)
It has been suggested, nonetheless it is a small yet very handy feature virgil could add.
Quote from: Shrike30 on October 06, 2012, 04:03:17 PM
I'd think just saying Stop (remove their destination waypoint) or Disarm (fill with cargo but do not send out) should cover that, so it could be built into existing functionality.
You mean for guppy's? It's already possible to remove their destination waypoint (including take-off back to base) by just changing their destination to their base.
That works for one guppy at a time, but if you've got a flight of a half dozen or so you're trying to shut down, I'd think hitting Stop would be faster. It's not adding "new" functionality, just changing how you go about using the existing functionality.
Keep in mind that he game is in alpha - not even at the stage where fundamentals are expected to be complete, it's not surprising to see some things missing.
Disarm is a constant for almost every unit in CW1/2. I'm sure it will not be neglected in CW3.
Quote from: Shrike30 on October 08, 2012, 10:32:59 PM
That works for one guppy at a time, but if you've got a flight of a half dozen or so you're trying to shut down, I'd think hitting Stop would be faster. It's not adding "new" functionality, just changing how you go about using the existing functionality.
If you really need to create a lot of commands at once there's always the pause key.
I never really used it I always liked to feel saving myself was partially from acting fast and efficient. Probably not going to pause in CW3 (unless on insane maps like UpperKEES pinball map)
I pause a lot, less stress; it is after-all a game for relaxation :P
In regards to guppies it would be cool if you could make them go to more than one destination, e.g. guppy 1 travels from home point A to point B- deposits half of load, then travels to point C and deposits the rest, after which it returns back to Point A
Quote from: Mr.H on October 09, 2012, 04:13:41 PM
I pause a lot, less stress; it is after-all a game for relaxation :P
In regards to guppies it would be cool if you could make them go to more than one destination, e.g. guppy 1 travels from home point A to point B- deposits half of load, then travels to point C and deposits the rest, after which it returns back to Point A
Pretty sure V's expressed on the blog (referring to AEZ's at the time) that he didn't want to create a need for implementing waypoints.
You can always create two guppies at the source, or put a guppy pad at point A that carries to point B.
At no point do I mean to imply something will be neglected, but this IS a suggestions topic, no? :) At worst (and as has happened a few times already) something that's suggested is already in, it's just that those of us who are literally trying to pick minutiae out of the weeklyish videos can't tell those suggestions are already implemented.
CW1/2 have been my downtime games for a couple of years at this point. I'm looking forwards to CW3, and there's few other locations to express my enthusiasm :)
Regarding Guppies: Come to think of it, those commands like text boxes and slide bars really don't have a place in CW3 after all considering that fast-paced-ish games don't comply with slow-paced commands like those.
Hot-key commands here we come!
Quote from: 4xC on October 10, 2012, 05:19:01 PM
Regarding Guppies: Come to think of it, those commands like text boxes and slide bars really don't have a place in CW3 after all considering that fast-paced-ish games don't comply with slow-paced commands like those.
a large part of our market is the hardcore player, who plays for score and efficiency. This type of player is probably most interested in a manual dispatch.
The other market - perhaps larger, even - is the casual market, who would benefit from the option to make some game options friendlier and more automated.
I always felt the puase button did wonders to the casual market. This really slowed down he game's pressure while making it feel fun.
The slider would work when you're paused (maybe if you're being really specific in your time) Having the slider scale by 10% would make it work better too.
Inspired by comment #12 on Big-Bertha Video (http://knucklecracker.com/blog/index.php/2012/10/big-bertha)
Make it possible to group together Berthas (and whatever weapons this is applicable) to "firing groups"
In the Firing group one Bertha (or whatever the group consists of) is the leader (default: the first selected unit, a new leader can be selected manually)
Within that group you can set
Targeting and
TimingTargeting:
- as leader (obviously can only be set for the not-leader)
- auto targeting (automatic targeting at the densest creeper, as shown in video)
- manual targeting
Timing
- Fire at will (Bertha shoots whenever it has enough ammo)
- salve (all members shoot at the same time)
- continaual (if there is 2 Berthas in the group, the leader fires, and when leader is half re-supplied, the second Bertha is fired. If it is 3 Berthas the second Bertha fires ones the first (leader) Bertha is resupplied 1/3, the third fires ones the first (leader) is 2/3 resupplied
Timing is better described as salvo-fire, I think.
Targeting can group those berthas on various networks into salvo-fire groups without player attention, I think.
Also inspired by the Bertha video, and some of the concepts involving firebases, resource drain and networking that are starting to crop up in my head.
Toggleable relays
In a larger map, the number of units involved could become staggering. A rear artillery firebase might have a dozen or more Berthas in it, with the associated impressive energy drain if they should choose to fire for effect. It might be desirable to be able to Activate and Deactivate relays, such that a portion of the network could be isolated from the rest of the network temporarily, without requiring the destruction/rebuilding of the connections between the two networks. This would allow a rear firebase to contribute its energy production to the frontline construction when not firing, but also allow it to be isolated from the frontline network (and therefore not placing a drain on it) when that firebase IS firing.
Limited relays
Similar to the toggleable relay but requiring less micromanagement once established, a relay connection could be limited with regards to some or all of the packets/energy/ore/AC ("materiel") that passes along it. This would allow for a similar network arrangement to the one above, where the rear firebase is able to contribute "excess" materiel to the frontline base, but cannot draw from the frontline network when it needs more than it can provide locally. This can currently be done with guppies, but would feel very kludgy as it could involve more than a half-dozen guppies set to fly very short distances if both networks have ore/AC being handled on them, and removing the supply "lag" of that flight could conceivably involve dozens of guppies.
This could be done by clicking on a relay, clicking a "make limited connection to..." button, and then clicking on the other relay involved (or, if that's a coding problem, allowing the placement of a new relay that becomes the other half of this pair). Each relay in this pair, when clicked on, would then have toggleable radio boxes which define what kind of materiel they will pass to the other relay in the pair, defaulted to "on" for all types of materiel.
Dedicated relays
This is a type of relay that will only "pick up" connections to the next dedicated relay in the chain. This would allow commanders to establish isolated networks that cross over/through the same geography, without having to use guppies to do so. Similar to my suggested implementation of Limited Relays, this would be done by clicking on a relay, clicking "Build dedicated relay" and then clicking where you want the next relay in the chain constructed. This new relay would only make a connection to it's parent relay, and any "child" relays of its own. Ideally, this would also automatically select that new relay and allow (even if it's not built yet) for the selection/placement of the NEXT dedicated relay in that chain, to make long chains of dedicated relays easy to build. Clicking "Build nondedicated relay" from a dedicated relay would make the next "child" Relay make connections as normal, thus ending the chain.
Reconfigurable storage units
In the same way that Guppies can be switched to carry different materiel, allow Storage to be switched over to storing different materiel. This could allow a firebase to store its ammunition packets/AC locally without putting a demand on the larger network for resupply, should the commander choose to temporarily isolate it from his network, and could smooth out demand-over-time by refilling all of the local Berthas/Bombers quickly, leaving the larger network only a few storage units to refill rather than the many weapons systems. This would also create a more elegant means of providing a remote base with a larger "buffer" of supplies for times of peak usage than running dozens of guppies to it. While a similar effect can be produced by dropping a command node in that firebase, there will be times when that is not desirable or you've got all of your command nodes busy elsewhere, and would let the game scale to larger maps without having to allow for the deployment of more than three command nodes. Weapons would preferentially draw from local storage units before requesting packets from the command node.
Transformers
Transformers would be structures with an AOE that draw Energy from a network and produce packets specifically for reloading weapons/shields within that AOE. Transformers would NOT provide packets for construction. Weapons would preferentially draw from the transformer before requesting packets from the command node. These would primarily come into play on larger maps where a commander has already deployed all of his command nodes and the distance from the command node is becoming a major problem for maintaining pressure at the frontline (those instances where a weapon runs its magazine dry before the replacement packets for the FIRST shot arrive, and the weapon only fires in bursts because it won't continue to request packets once the replacement packet for it's LAST shot has been sent). The current means of preventing this involves either having several guppies leapfrogging packets from the rear to the front to provide a forward "capacitor" for packets, or relocating the command node further forwards (something you might not want to do, or which might not even be intended to be possible in CW3).
Anti Creeper Torpedo StationSpoiler
Oh yeah, this baby launches a anti creeper torpedo at the front lines of your defense against the creeper. This has a fairly short range. But it can be really powerful. I just feel their isn't enough anti-creep weapons.
Quote from: Shrike30 on October 15, 2012, 06:58:07 PM
Also inspired by the Bertha video, and some of the concepts involving firebases, resource drain and networking that are starting to crop up in my head.
Toggleable relays
In a larger map, the number of units involved could become staggering. A rear artillery firebase might have a dozen or more Berthas in it, with the associated impressive energy drain if they should choose to fire for effect. It might be desirable to be able to Activate and Deactivate relays, such that a portion of the network could be isolated from the rest of the network temporarily, without requiring the destruction/rebuilding of the connections between the two networks. This would allow a rear firebase to contribute its energy production to the frontline construction when not firing, but also allow it to be isolated from the frontline network (and therefore not placing a drain on it) when that firebase IS firing.
Limited relays
Similar to the toggleable relay but requiring less micromanagement once established, a relay connection could be limited with regards to some or all of the packets/energy/ore/AC ("materiel") that passes along it. This would allow for a similar network arrangement to the one above, where the rear firebase is able to contribute "excess" materiel to the frontline base, but cannot draw from the frontline network when it needs more than it can provide locally. This can currently be done with guppies, but would feel very kludgy as it could involve more than a half-dozen guppies set to fly very short distances if both networks have ore/AC being handled on them, and removing the supply "lag" of that flight could conceivably involve dozens of guppies.
This could be done by clicking on a relay, clicking a "make limited connection to..." button, and then clicking on the other relay involved (or, if that's a coding problem, allowing the placement of a new relay that becomes the other half of this pair). Each relay in this pair, when clicked on, would then have toggleable radio boxes which define what kind of materiel they will pass to the other relay in the pair, defaulted to "on" for all types of materiel.
Dedicated relays
This is a type of relay that will only "pick up" connections to the next dedicated relay in the chain. This would allow commanders to establish isolated networks that cross over/through the same geography, without having to use guppies to do so. Similar to my suggested implementation of Limited Relays, this would be done by clicking on a relay, clicking "Build dedicated relay" and then clicking where you want the next relay in the chain constructed. This new relay would only make a connection to it's parent relay, and any "child" relays of its own. Ideally, this would also automatically select that new relay and allow (even if it's not built yet) for the selection/placement of the NEXT dedicated relay in that chain, to make long chains of dedicated relays easy to build. Clicking "Build nondedicated relay" from a dedicated relay would make the next "child" Relay make connections as normal, thus ending the chain.
Reconfigurable storage units
In the same way that Guppies can be switched to carry different materiel, allow Storage to be switched over to storing different materiel. This could allow a firebase to store its ammunition packets/AC locally without putting a demand on the larger network for resupply, should the commander choose to temporarily isolate it from his network, and could smooth out demand-over-time by refilling all of the local Berthas/Bombers quickly, leaving the larger network only a few storage units to refill rather than the many weapons systems. This would also create a more elegant means of providing a remote base with a larger "buffer" of supplies for times of peak usage than running dozens of guppies to it. While a similar effect can be produced by dropping a command node in that firebase, there will be times when that is not desirable or you've got all of your command nodes busy elsewhere, and would let the game scale to larger maps without having to allow for the deployment of more than three command nodes. Weapons would preferentially draw from local storage units before requesting packets from the command node.
Transformers
Transformers would be structures with an AOE that draw Energy from a network and produce packets specifically for reloading weapons/shields within that AOE. Transformers would NOT provide packets for construction. Weapons would preferentially draw from the transformer before requesting packets from the command node. These would primarily come into play on larger maps where a commander has already deployed all of his command nodes and the distance from the command node is becoming a major problem for maintaining pressure at the frontline (those instances where a weapon runs its magazine dry before the replacement packets for the FIRST shot arrive, and the weapon only fires in bursts because it won't continue to request packets once the replacement packet for it's LAST shot has been sent). The current means of preventing this involves either having several guppies leapfrogging packets from the rear to the front to provide a forward "capacitor" for packets, or relocating the command node further forwards (something you might not want to do, or which might not even be intended to be possible in CW3).
Woah, that's a lot of good economy suggestions. I've added them all as well as chaw800's Torpedo idea and the salvo fire for Berthas.
What's also interesting is that recent forum posters and members seem to have more elaborate, detailed, and inspired ideas than a lot of the veterans here. Then again, I hear creativity is so rare in organized competitions, it's almost a factual relief to find it in places like here.
Anyone up for map making suggestions?
Hot-keys
Self explanatory, however they should be short and closer together.
Advanced Simulation
Type in a custom time frame, choose the rate of simulation, pause, undo, rewind, fast-forward, multi-colouring for better clarification(the field in CW2 got confusing), have fancy numbers to give you the speed of movement(effected by wind remember?) and densities. Better simulation= more refined maps.
Quick-Test
Hate having to open the game, find your map, then test it only to find you made the simplest of mistakes? Well no more, with quick-test you can easily load your map in sandbox mode allowing you to play it as a real-game but be able to edit it as you play! Very handy for any map maker, making the process more effecient and more refined = more epic maps for players to explore.
Hero Units
The ability to place 'special' units, with a custom name tag and possibly slight variations in colours would be very appealing indeed. These units could require safeguarding since they can be tagged as 'Mission Essential' I.e. If they die you lose, however modifications to the unit statistics can be made(to an extent) e.g. a slightly higher fire rate, or a heavier punch. Also availible is the ability for characters to be 'embedded' in the unit from the storyline, these units can say things when you select them and can be essential for certain 'trigger regions' to move forth in your endeavours.
Nice suggestions Mr H.! Only thing that I expect will be impossible is to "Rewind" because it requires remembering all previous game states, a very memory expensive operation.
Quote from: Shrike30 on October 15, 2012, 06:58:07 PMToggleable relays
Limited relays
Dedicated relays
Very micro-intensive. I think I'd prefer to just make it possible to disable relays,(Which solves the toggle problem instantly,) and rely on the player building only what energy drain he's willing to support. After all, why would you build ten berthas if you're only willing to permit the energy drain of nine? I realize supply and demand fluctuate, but it seems to me that it's just as easy to be sabotaged by a mishandling of limited relays, as it is to be sabotaged by a mishandling of your own energy demands.
It doesn't really introduce more capabilities, it's only an alternate way of managing them, and to me it's a very confusing method of doing so, compared to just disabling a few units. I wouldn't want new players focusing on relay limits as the main means of handling their power consumption when it's really only supplemental to a simpler solution.
I'm not sure I understand dedicated relays. It sounds like basically a single chain of relays that forbids any packet not following the chain from using that relay. Why is this desired?
EDIT: Had to step away. I wanted to comment on Transformers and storage, too. I would like to be able to establish local storages of all types, though guppies would jury-rig into this very effectively if they were able to auto-dispatch with incomplete cargoes.
I don't like transformers because I don't think CN's should be absolutely critical all the way from alpha to omega. Right now, the one thing that is critical, uniquely done by CN's, and in my opinion, sacrosanct, is the barrier between pure energy and packets - only CN's provide the means to cross that barrier.
Quote from: Mr.H on October 17, 2012, 02:18:26 PMAdvanced Simulation
Quick-Test
I'd rather just have the editor in-game, with the in-game creeper sim operating as you edit.
I do think three types of relays gets confusing, but disabling it doesn't solve everything either. I'd go for limited relays if I were to choose one, opens quite a few possibilities for networking.
In-game editor, that sounds fancy :) ! Although the advanced simulation features would still be useful in that case, since playing normally doesn't reveal all the minute details of a map in one clear sweep as a map maker would want it to be.
Mad mag madea few maps, so I'm guessing we already have an editor. Any hints/clues on it's features Madmag?
Quote from: Mr.H on October 18, 2012, 03:25:30 AM
I do think three types of relays gets confusing, but disabling it doesn't solve everything either. I'd go for limited relays if I were to choose one, opens quite a few possibilities for networking.
It provides a toggle relay instantly.
Honestly, I think limited relays could be useful, but it creates more opportunities to mismanage when things get hectic. I don't want newbies thinking that's the primary way they should be dealing with energy demand, either. It makes the management landscape much more complex for a newbie, and I'm worried that'd be a turn-off for a casual player.
Right now, you have the chance of maybe using too much energy, and the solution is disabling some units. The risk is forgetting to re-enable them. To me, that seems like a comprehensive and simple solution that'll be clear to all players, even if it doesn't have the wealth of detail that make up some more hardcore RTS games.
I'll hit Limited relays in their own post, because they're a bit more complicated.
Toggleable relays: I didn't intend for a toggleable relay to be a special kind of relay, just for the Disable/Enable functionality on the existing Relay to disable/enable passing resources across it. I think we're on the same page on this one.
Dedicated relays: It currently appears to be possible to have more than one network/economy running at the same time (unconnected command nodes with their own energy networks appear to be completely independent of each other). Normally, placing the "bones" of a network (collectors/relays) next to the bones of another network causes them to merge into one network and normally, this is desirable, but I can imagine that a commander might want to keep his networks separate despite their connections running adjacent to each other. Dedicated relays would make this possible. I only really see them coming into play in niche situations, but it seemed like an interesting and different piece of functionality to add to a pretty core tool.
Configurable storage/transformers: In my mind, these both will primarily serve to solve the same problem, namely that weapons systems located far enough forwards from your Command Node can only shoot in bursts, due to the delay between when their magazine runs dry, and the first packet arrives from the command node. Since the weapon won't request more packets once it's entire magazine's worth of packets are en route, some method of providing a source of packets closer to the weapon system than the Command Node is desirable. As a Storage node supplying nearby cannon has a significantly larger magazine to resupply (and therefore will be continuously requesting packets from the Command Node) it'll smooth out the interruptions in weapons fire that distance from the Command Node would normally cause. The Transformer is a (less desirable, to me) means of providing the same functionality (continuous forward ammo resupply), and so in the event that we get configurable storage, would be completely unnecessary. It's worth noting that the Guppy can be turned into a sort of configurable storage already: 2-3 guppies flying packets forwards to a remote-but-still-connected base will provide a more continuous stream of ammunition packets than the land-line alone, but this has the feel of a strange workaround for a missing piece of gear.
Honestly, I don't see a point in altering our current relays. They have packets travel down them if they get to their destinations faster that way and allow all packet types to go down them. As for the energy/packet situation, Base hearts have always managed the conversion between the two and his looks evolved enough already what with the packet AND energy guppies for one thing.
I would also know better about these things if the info regarding them in the past few posts were a lot more concise because all I see is paragraphs of details that make it hard to distinguish the abilities, tips, and benefits from each other.
Limited relays:
I'm sure this is a scenario that commanders encounter, as I've hit it myself many times. You've got your "backfield" of energy generators established, your "frontlines" are filled with weapons keeping the creeper at bay, and it's time to expand and go on the offensive. This can require careful management, though, as you may only have a few points of energy per second to spare. There's a few ways of doing this:
The "Classic" method: CW1/CW2 style, building 1-2 structures at a time, or pushing one front at a time. The sheer energy drain you'd encounter if you were to push forwards, build more reactors, AND set up a few Berthas simultaneously would crash your energy economy, letting the creeper overrun your frontline and destroy your base, and so commanders are forced to micromanage their construction effort, placing one structure every few seconds for the next forseeable chunk of time to avoid a burst of demand. This is a lot of annoying clicking and watching energy bars, IMO.
The "Split Network" method: CW3 already appears to have this option, since it appears that unlinked networks with their own Command Nodes are capable of autonomous actions. Drop a Command Node near the frontline, drop a few reactors near it to support your frontline structures power needs, and then sever the connection to the original Command Node and the energy sources hooked up to it. Your Frontline network is going to be primarily providing power to weapons and shields, and the energy demand for these systems is fairly predictable. In the meantime, your Backfield network has little or no continuous demand on it as the nearby Creeper has already been controlled, and so you can safely build, say, 12 Berthas at the same time, go back to monitoring your Frontline network, and check back in every once in a while to see if your Backfield has gotten out of energy debt and finished its construction. There's significantly less micromanagement involved in this approach, but it has the problem of surplus energy going to waste across two networks, not just one.
A Limited relay joining these two networks, permitting the flow of excess energy/packets from your Backfield to your Frontline but NOT in the other direction gives the advantages of a Split Network without letting all that surplus in the Backfield go to waste. When that battery of Berthas is firing, your Backfield network will rapidly exhaust its packet supply; once they've stopped firing, the Berthas will reload and the Storage on that network will fill back up, and then once those are all full the Backfield will start putting it's surplus into the Frontline rather than simply letting it go to waste. It's easier to manage than the Classic approach and more efficient without micromanagement than the Split Network approach.
Quote from: 4xC on October 18, 2012, 12:30:02 PMI would also know better about these things if the info regarding them in the past few posts were a lot more concise because all I see is paragraphs of details that make it hard to distinguish the abilities, tips, and benefits from each other.
My bad, I tend to get a little wordy. How's this?
Adding Disable/Enable functionality to Relays will let you toggle parts of your network on and off at a single location, rather than having to select every single structure downstream of that Relay and Disable them.
Adding the option to build Limited Relays will allow commanders to pick and choose how resources are shared between two otherwise discreet networks, using a landline rather than guppies.
Adding Dedicated Relays will allow commanders to keep two discreet networks separate from each other despite passing through the same locations, should they wish to do so, without strange workarounds involving guppies.
Allowing Storage to be set to store Packets would let Storage units serve as local "batteries" for weapons and shields, allowing for a more consistent supply of packets in remote locations, without strange workarounds involving guppies.
Adding Transformers to produce Packets for Weapons would also provide a local source of packets for weapons and shields located far away from a command node without strange workarounds involving guppies, but I find the idea less attractive than Storage as it makes command nodes less cool.
Quote from: Shrike30 on October 18, 2012, 12:21:35 PMToggleable relays:
Yeah, we're probably thinking the same way here.
QuoteDedicated relays:
I can see only really rare edge cases where I can see witholding resources on a network that has them, from going to a network that needs them, as desirable.
QuoteConfigurable storage/transformers: In my mind, these both will primarily serve to solve the same problem, namely that weapons systems located far enough forwards from your Command Node can only shoot in bursts, due to the delay between when their magazine runs dry, and the first packet arrives from the command node.
You want forward storage that will actually redispatch the packets from that source, then. With the potential amount of storage on a very large map, I can't imagine that many packet dispatchers and destinations are a great idea. I know that memory access speed was the main limitation on CW1 and 2 on not having more packet sources in CW1/2, and though memory access is much faster, I imagine it's still a point of burden.
However, assuming that by release, we can get guppies to automatically launch with a partial load, there's a solution in existing units. Put a guppy on the front lines, and put its destination right next to the pad. Any supply will pour as fast as it can possibly be requested into the pad. That pad on the front will provide close-dispatch to the units there, and the transport time will be virtually nil. If it's not requesting fast enough to supply front-line units, place two guppies. Then your front-line dispatch pads will request twice as many packets in the same time. As a bonus, packet guppies request packets much faster than other units.
Yeah, the guppies would do the same job, it just feels like a workaround. And I can't imagine the memory usage for multiple guppy pads requesting packets/sending out packets/flying back and forth would be less than the memory usage of a Storage unit requesting packets/sending out packets (doing exactly the same thing, basically, minus flights). Maybe port over the idea from Transformers of having an Area Of Effect around the Storage unit configured for packets (maybe roughly the size of a Mortar's range), so that weapons won't be searching the entire map for Storage pods to drain?
Expanding the concept of limited relays would it be more helpful to have a small toggle that makes everything except command nodes and relays transparent as to be able to edit your relay network's settings in a much more simple way. Fussing around with the relay network could be dangerous if you go and cut off half of your network by accident but I think it would be helpful.
It would be a small button (similar to display creeper fields) which allowed you to view your relay network and how it's established. Since these relay settings can be quite confusing I feel it should be something available to turn on and off in the settings. It should be automatically off and the player should be able to view what the relay settings actually do. This might appeal to the hardcore audience but It might just be an annoyance for some people who want it to remain off throughout the game.
I think most of us can agree we would really appreciate the ability to siphon off half of our energy supply towards supplies berthas (and maybe other awesome titans) and our front lines while being able to view what would happen first so we don't completely kill ourselves. A possible solution for this would be the ability to preemptively view how much energy separate portions of our energy network produce. This might be a bit micro-intensive and confusing to pull off though.
We all like to ramble on a little sometimes Shrike30 ;)
(argh whenever i'm ready to post someone always posts as I'm typing :P)
Suggestion: control what packets are produced
if you are low on energy you can't produce all needed packets but you could priorize ammo over construction that maybe half of the needed ammo and only a quarter of the needed construction packets are produced
My image of the uses for limited relays never had more than 1-3 pairs on an entire map, as most networks would have a Command Node on them somewhere and the limited relay is mostly about controlling the sharing of resources with another independent network (command node, energy generation, and consuming structures). Since we can't drop more than 3 command nodes, you'd only need 1 pair of limited relays to join two separate networks, or three pairs to join three separate networks if you wanted to get really complicated (something I don't forsee happening, but I wouldn't want to limit someone else's tactical options).
Being able to see your "network overlay" might be most useful for finding slowdowns or chokepoints ("oh, no wonder it takes forever for packets to get to my frontline... the first few jumps are through collectors, not relays"), or quickly spotting where your network connection got broken on a larger map. If Connector, Relay, and Unpowered connections are all different colors, that'd be a rapid means of gathering information that seems like it could be activated simply by not drawing everything else. It strikes me as being closer to holding down R in CW2 to find what terrain has creeper hidden away inside of it... hold down the key, and all player-built structures except the ones directly related to moving resources around disappear.
RedVenom: I was a big user of the CW1 toggles that let you turn on/off production of gray, red, and green packets. Getting those back would be great; having a little slider bar (even if it's as granular as 0%/50%/100%) at a command node would be even better.
Honestly, I would only use limiter relays to choke off parts of my network that overconsume. And what you're describing is so complex that disabling 3 out of 5 berthas to reduce their packet demand by 60% just seems so much simpler.
One of this game's biggest markets is the casual player - simplicity and streamlined control is going to be critical in marketing the game to that crowd.
You may want to take a look at Harvest:Massive Encounter. It's a TD with a similar, but different network structure in which linking relays and directing the flow of energy along them is highly helpful.
Quote from: lurkily on October 18, 2012, 09:13:37 PM
One of this game's biggest markets is the casual player - simplicity and streamlined control is going to be critical in marketing the game to that crowd.
you are right.
I think that some handy options well placed dont make it to complex (you can just ignore them) but can increase the joy of other.
If someone like to build big groups of units (like me) you have to stop your construction plan to not drain your front.
it depends on the interface if it is good to implement then is could be great maybe a ruler for every packettype at the base.
Or there could be some options at relays so you can place them and just use them or you click on them and change the amount of packets or the rate for a type.
Every unit and option is a design question not to complex not to simple. Balancing is hard.
Quote from: RedVenom on October 18, 2012, 09:35:05 PM
Quote from: lurkily on October 18, 2012, 09:13:37 PM
One of this game's biggest markets is the casual player - simplicity and streamlined control is going to be critical in marketing the game to that crowd.
you are right.
I think that some handy options well placed dont make it to complex (you can just ignore them) but can increase the joy of other.
The difficulty in this is that by presenting it as an energy management tool - as opposed to just a disable or disarm button - it is also presented as the only energy management tool, and I wouldn't want new players thinking that it should be their primary management tool. It would lead them to try and handle complex situations with complex tools that they would not enjoy using, when the simpler solution that wouldn't mire them in details might go unnoticed.
One thing about the casual player, is that it doesn't take a ton of frustration with interface to lose their attention.
I usually give even the "casual" gamer a little more credit than that. I don't imagine this theoretical "casual" player messing around with limited relays... a basic relay already does what he wants it to, namely connects A to B and turns red when he's doing too much at once. I imagine the most complex network setup they might have would involve command nodes that aren't linked to each other due to geography, but that's about it.
I'll be able to do 80% of what I'd like to see limited relays used for simply by dropping a second Command Node and using that network exclusively to drive high-peak-demand systems (Berthas are my prime example, but dozens of strafers might be another), preventing the rest of my network from suffering brownouts when the big guns come online. I just feel it'd add some interesting depth that more advanced players could benefit from, without being an overly complicated modification to the basic game.
hm I don't really know what to say.
i think it's not very complex but i'm not a causual player and i know none.
i had the feeling that in this game there should be multiple ways to solve a situation. so i want so suggest a possibility do solve low energy at a different way.
i think it's usefull, easy and not to hard to inplement unfortunately i dont know what causal players would do or not do whit such an option
p.s.: thanks for suggesting "Harvest:Massive Encounter" started the demo and looks funny
I'm not worried about the casual gamer who stays long enough to see past the surface - they'll see how things work, and probably understand the ramifications of disable or disarm. I'm more worried about the casual gamer who tries the free flash version on some website, finds relays with multiple indicators that aren't always obvious, and energy management tools they don't fully understand.
A player like that will only be presented with one obvious energy management tool. In most cases, relying on that tool to limit their overbuilding is less than optimal. And if they don't like the solution, they may just move on to the next game in the 'popular games' list.
I myself have discarded games on Kongregate that doubtless had a lot of depth because one or two features or UI design or some single thing killed it for me. I don't doubt there's at least a few games in which I overlooked some saving grace that should have been simple to see.
Quote from: RedVenom on October 18, 2012, 10:40:49 PMhm I don't really know what to say.
i think it's not very complex but i'm not a causual player and i know none.
Here's why I say complex:
It requires the ability to precisely limit energy, down to the packet. It provides a clear and obvious indication of what this number you're selecting/typing/whatever does The function it performs will not always be obvious just from network behavior. It requires a way to show on the map, without selecting the relay, what the maximum limit is. It requires a way to show what percentage of that maximum limit is currently being used. It requires for it to be obvious to the player, not just what relays are limited, but what units are accessed only by limited relays, due to map sizes that can be much, much larger than the screen.
I love games with complex networks, rare though they are. Harvest, "The Space Game", (And one clone of TSG on android,) and the CW series are the only games of their type I've ever encountered with an emphasis on strong networks structure.
I think what you're trying to suggest is very interesting, has limited cases in which it could be useful, and could make an interesting game - I'm just not sure it's what CW needs. I think it would be much more suited to a game with more focus on resource management, where directing and allocating resources was more central - in that instance, a game with a complex structure of interacting rules on the network could create some very interesting economic machines.
EDIT: Anyway, I've said enough on the subject. I'm gonna shut up, and let this subject get back onto a more general track, instead of being sidetracked into discussing this one thing.
As to stopping packets from passing to other networks with vafrying relays, why does it even need to be specific as to what doesn't pass between multiple networks? If we are avoiding combined networks, why don't the relays just be deactivated?
Plus, if we avoid using guppies in scenarios like these, we would likely just be rejecting a CW3 divine spark. I mean to say that the use of the guppy sounds like it's going to be so big, it should not be denied so.
Quote from: 4xC on October 19, 2012, 08:39:26 AM
As to stopping packets from passing to other networks with vafrying relays, why does it even need to be specific as to what doesn't pass between multiple networks? If we are avoiding combined networks, why don't the relays just be deactivated?
if you have 20 bertas and 40 collectors and you just deaktivate the part of the network you get less energy and that would be fatal if you have an energy crisis.
you could just deaktivate the bertas but then you have to aktivate them when you want to use them and deaktivate on the next crisis.
and maybe you want to build some units just to be secure and its not important but you want them to finish.
It's not that you can't do thinks without some regulations you can turn most thinks on and off and that work but in the case of the bertas you just set it once
and then don't have to care about that anymore.
if you have enough energy they load and if you are low they are the first that get less or nothing.
to the guppy
i think they are more likely near the front and not in the backbone of your network
also is works with them to you just have to place them at one relay as a bottleneck set the options there and place other units/buildings behind that
its may be dangerous to create a single point of failure but there have to be a risk at every techology.
I personally would use one way relays and basically no other features. Having the option of one way relays seems similar and i think the causal market could get accustomed to it.
As for the demo just permantly disable these relay mechanics
Quoteand maybe you want to build some units just to be secure and its not important but you want them to finish.
This is the only case that I can see a use. If you need to heavily overbuild in a location connected to a CN at a bottleneck of only one relay. This is only rarely useful to me, because I typically overbuild in protected areas, and in those areas my network is typically quite interconnected.
My solution to this when I DO need it is to overbuild first, then built the network out one collector or relay at a time to expand production at a rate that's acceptable to me. Or, you can disable all the units, and use double-click to select groups of units in an area. Then you can re-enable build projects in groups. It takes a little more work, but managing construction is easier than having to manage the timing of every build project.
Quoteyou could just deaktivate the bertas but then you have to aktivate them when you want to use them and deaktivate on the next crisis.
...
it's not that you can't do things without some regulations you can turn most thinks on and off and that work but in the case of the bertas you just set it once
and then don't have to care about that anymore.
This isn't quite true. Limited relays would cause the same problem - you'd have to activate and deactivate them every time a crisis came or passed, or else your berthas would slow down their fire rate. Just like deactivating some of your berthas reduces the shots/min being thrown out as well as energy consumption, if you limit a relay to that same level of energy consumption, even if you have 20 berthas, your fire rate will reduce to the same amount unless you unlimit the relay when the crisis passes.
Limited relays as I imagined them don't have any sort of sliders or adjustable levels for setting how much of a resource passes them, they're just a relay that can be set not to pass a particular resource in a particular direction. I entirely agree that having the ability to set maximum throughput over a relay is way too fiddly, I just wanted a clicky box that can turn on/off packets/energy/etc moving in that direction.
That giant bertha farm could pass energy to the main network when it was all powered up and generating a surplus, but wouldn't be able to drain the main network dry when a barrage started. The farm would have a CN of it's own, an energy economy of it's own, and likely a bunch of Storage so that you could get off more than one volley before your rate of fire tanked out, but that's about it. You could also use this model to support dozens of strafers, or a rear base dedicated to constructing new weapons you're flying to the front. The main thing having these two networks connected by a limited relay would do is to let the rear network contribute to the front when it has a surplus, which couldn't happen with seperate networks.
How is this different than the dedicated relay? As I understand it, a dedicated relay is a relay that will not accept packets unless they intend to travel along the explicit link you have set out for them. A dedicated relay leading from your firebase to your main base would achieve the same effect, with no differences that are immediately apparent to me. Am I missing something?
oneway relays dont regulate energy crisis
Quote from: lurkily on October 19, 2012, 01:36:33 PM
This isn't quite true. Limited relays would cause the same problem
if the limited relays have a number of packets per minute they cause that promlem too
but to keep it simple there could be a button that resources that under heavy load cant pass by
so you have a single button and regulate energy and ore crisis also avoid the problem to change
the option every time because if the is some easy time you have enough energy and it flow again
but only what is overproduced
Just for my $0.02, I think that while the theory behind these special types of relays sounds nice (and could be worked out in some games probably - those could have loads of potential for the "hardcore" market) I'm not sure CW needs it. It's primarily a tool for expert players, but these players have enough skill and/or patience to manage their energy without the aid of these machines. Just sayin'.
Quote from: RedVenom on October 19, 2012, 05:42:49 PMoneway relays dont regulate energy crisis
I don't think he actually intended his suggestion of limited relays to regulate energy crises.
Quotebut to keep it simple there could be a button that resources that under heavy load cant pass by
so you have a single button and regulate energy and ore crisis also avoid the problem to change
the option every time because if the is some easy time you have enough energy and it flow again
but only what is overproduced
I would rather apply this to individual units, not to collectors or relays. What happens if I move a blaster that bridges to my main network, and totally circumvents the relay?
With that in mind, I would prefer a priority system, and I'd prefer to apply it to units, not to relays/collectors. I like intricacy in the network, but without complexity, if that makes sense.
I find myself in between casual and hardcore (just beat Loki map without the Thor today) and I would only use that one way relay thing. I really don't feel all these crazy relay ideas are going to be that helpful for many people :P
(another person posting as I post :P)
I got an idea for reactors As what I've seen from Virgil's various screenshots once the player has cleared off a small amount of space they can slowly construct a massive amount of reactors to be constructed allowing you to mass an incredible amount of energy at your disposable (this method is true in CW1 too.)
That's why I suggest the ability of only being able to construct a certain amount of reactors before you need more space to construct a reactor. Another option would be not being able to construct reactors near anything in a certain radius
Honetly I think CW3 is too far in development to make a serious change to the reactor mechanism
I second that bit about the relays. Energy burn is ALWAYS done by anything other than the friendly structures (guppies do not count because they dispatch their packets to other things, not use them except for when they are under construction). As such, there is no point in altering relays anymore than they already have been. Besides, there's too many interconnections when you have collectors all around to back up the frontline coverage.
This limit for the reactors actually does sound like a significantly large change for CW3 though. However, I would be interested if they could have some sort of energy production upgrade like "Tiberian Sun"'s GDI power plants allow players to build power turbines on them to increase their power generation. On the other hand, the power in question was used up more if more buildings and defense structures were produced, including map radar; power had nothing to do with the number of units (which were infantry and air and ground vehicles and machines). That last bit applied to both GDI and NOD.
I agree that CW3 is too far developed already for major changes in the units except for the modifications like the bertha auto-target.
Despite that, the radar thing I just mentioned makes me wonder if CW3 could use a map radar system that mainly implements a "fog of war".
Quote from: 4xC on October 20, 2012, 12:40:58 AM
Despite that, the radar thing I just mentioned makes me wonder if CW3 could use a map radar system that mainly implements a "fog of war".
+1 for this last idea; at least, it could be an option for the custom maps. This comes naturally with radar towers of course (which can then be upgraded, etc. etc.).
Maybe the game should include 'advanced options' in the game options. This is for the hardcore players who want to try advanced tactics to maximise gametime and own the creeper like a boss, this is also to stop newbies from getting confused over the overflowing amount of buttons. Thus this option would be for experienced and well-tuned players. I think that may solve the whole relay issue, since they're great ideas for squeecing everything out of your network and would be desirable for any hardcore gamer. Now casual players are happy, as are the advanced players. This approach was present in game like 'Rise Of Nations' Which was very sucessful for both audience types, and stays active to this day.
Being able to filter resources and sepeate your networks at will is very handy indeed. Also i think i'll put your concise versions up instead now :P .
@Chawe That sounds intresting... Maybe we can have that for everything.
@Lurkily, Radar ; Like cw2 fog of war. I would definetly want this as an option, perhaps for 'night' maps.
Now then I think three pages of brooding on one suggestion is quite enough, what about some new ideas? I've added the radar suggestion.
Quote from: Chawe800 on October 19, 2012, 09:20:52 PM
I find myself in between casual and hardcore (just beat Loki map without the Thor today) and I would only use that one way relay thing. I really don't feel all these crazy relay ideas are going to be that helpful for many people :P
It just seems so finicky. Anything could accidentally bridge to that network and disrupt it. Applying a priority (or lower priority) for energy delivery directly to units just seems a lot simpler, without requiring any weird routing, complicated structures, or remembering suddenly that the reason network segments are choked is because half the network can't deliver to them.
Radar . . . is kinda 'meh' to me. I could deal with it, but I don't think it'd add much for me, personally. Others might feel differently.
Some hard-core CW supporters might violently oppose it, though. CW has always provided the player with perfect information whenever they wanted it, nothing has ever been hidden.
Quote from: lurkily on October 20, 2012, 09:01:41 AM
Radar . . . is kinda 'meh' to me. I could deal with it, but I don't think it'd add much for me, personally. Others might feel differently.
I think that could work in a manner incredibly similar to Advance Wars stuff. Where you have to option to turn on fog of war every mission kind of as an additional challenge where you don't know where the emitters are or how the terrain is shaped.This could appeal towards the hardcore market in the sense of beating the campaign maps with fog of war on. (I'd find that fun anyways)
There could also be some (not so sure about this) campaign maps that always have fog of war on and some custom maps could really use it.
A possibility for this fog of war would be the ability to transform a relay into a beacon at the expense of a small amount of energy. Some custom maps could have these relay-beacons require a large amount of energy expanding the energy management challenge.
Quote from: lurkily on October 20, 2012, 09:01:41 AM
Some hard-core CW supporters might violently oppose it, though. CW has always provided the player with perfect information whenever they wanted it, nothing has ever been hidden.
I can imagine where you're coming from. Generally it will just force people to restart maps because they misjudged things that were hidden.
I have to note though that I have encountered code maps in CW2 where multiple coincidences of location of portal and emitter prevented me from guessing which portal would spam the phantoms - not to mention the intricate, multiple-layered emitters some of the custom maps doubtlessly feature. Thus, your argument about perfect information isn't entirely accurate.
Quote from: lurkily on October 19, 2012, 04:10:35 PM
How is this different than the dedicated relay? As I understand it, a dedicated relay is a relay that will not accept packets unless they intend to travel along the explicit link you have set out for them. A dedicated relay leading from your firebase to your main base would achieve the same effect, with no differences that are immediately apparent to me. Am I missing something?
A dedicated relay won't accept CONNECTIONS except to the next relay in the chain. It won't make the big web we're used to seeing if you run it through another base, even if you place it right next to another normal relay, until you tell it to. This is useful if you've got something on the front line that you specifically wish to operate on your backfield network, as you could run a landline connection to it from the backfield network right through the front line network to your destination, and that landline wouldn't establish connections to the base you were running it through. Have ever seen on a circuit diagram where two wires cross but aren't connected in real life? This would be how you do that.
A limited relay pair is intended to serve as the
single connection between two larger networks, and could be set to only pass particular resources in one direction or the other, or to not pass a particular resource at all. Either of the relays involved in a pair will freely make connections, so a little bit of care must be taken in placing structures nearby to avoid inadvertently bypassing the limited connection, but that's about as complicated as they get.
Again, yes, this is all mostly something you could do with guppies. I'd just be interested in seeing land-line options for such things exist as well, and there are a couple of subtle differences in how they'd handle that would come into play.
Quote from: Lord_Farin on October 20, 2012, 11:24:20 AM
Quote from: lurkily on October 20, 2012, 09:01:41 AM
Some hard-core CW supporters might violently oppose it, though. CW has always provided the player with perfect information whenever they wanted it, nothing has ever been hidden.
I have to note though that I have encountered code maps in CW2 where multiple coincidences of location of portal and emitter prevented me from guessing which portal would spam the phantoms - not to mention the intricate, multiple-layered emitters some of the custom maps doubtlessly feature. Thus, your argument about perfect information isn't entirely accurate.
Perfect information by design, if not by implementation. I don't think this is hidden because of a desire to implement a way to hide phantom count.
A better example is display of fields, which can be hidden by design - the one and only example of hidden information by design in CW1/2 that I can think of.
Quote from: Shrike30 on October 20, 2012, 12:17:14 PMA dedicated relay won't accept CONNECTIONS except to the next relay in the chain. It won't make the big web we're used to seeing if you run it through another base, even if you place it right next to another normal relay, until you tell it to.
This is only the case with dedicated relays that have both a link TO them, and a link FROM them. A dedicated relay that only has a link from them, but not a link to them, MUST accept packets from outside sources, or no source of packets will be able to follow the chain. The chain will be, in effect, a totally isolated network consisting only of relays.
Using only two dedicated relays - one linked to the other - you can easily use this to create a one-way relay link, or as you put it, a limited link to another network. The big difference in this case is that it's the link between relays, not the relay itself, that's special. EDIT: Unless dedicated relays are a different unit type than relay relays.
Quote from: Lord_Farin on October 20, 2012, 11:24:20 AM
I can imagine where you're coming from. Generally it will just force people to restart maps because they misjudged things that were hidden.
So? Just show the structure locations and stats possibly, but have everything else you aren't surrounding hiddeng by the fog of war. Makes it more interesting to learn about the terrain. And in the 1st games in starcraft series, the terrans had a comsat station that revealed fogged spots at the cost of some energy that was infinite but took time to reload. They also detected invisible enemy units.
Yea elaborating on the Starcraft fog of war style. You can send scouting ships and weapons to revea the location but when that scout leaves it shows what was mostly recently there.
That would work as well because you could send strafes across the map without enabling them to fire to scout out and reveal the terrain.
Can we put the relay discussion at rest at long last, please ???
Fog of war may not go well with some folks, that's why it should be a custom map feature. Opens up new types of mysterious play anyway.
Quote from: Mr.H on October 20, 2012, 04:09:07 PM
Can we put the relay discussion at rest at long last, please ???
Fog of war may not go well with some folks, that's why it should be a custom map feature. Opens up new types of mysterious play anyway.
yeah, I'm familiar with FOW mechanics, just for CW . . . Meh. I could deal, but I don't predict that it'd add anything for me.
Sure, we can drop the relay thing. :) I think it's about as fleshed out/explained as it's really going to get, anyway.
I'm not sure I really dig the idea of Fog of War, either. The CW1/CW3 viewpoint has always been (in my head, at least) from a satellite over the battlefield. Implementing a tower or creeper variant that can mask what's beneath it's area of effect/covered with the creeper variant (sneeker?) might be a way of introducing FoW to parts of a map, without having it become something people have to turn on/off. CW2's "hidden creeper" (the stuff buried in terrain) was an example of at least some element of misdirection on the part of the creeper.
I like the idea of fog of war in custom maps I just think it'd be cool to have the option of completling the campaign with it on as a pointless bonus :P
So fog of war = Can be disabled, and is a custom map bonus feature. It's just for an added challenge.
I've been thinking some about it, and I'd actually like to see a return of the Maker. Bombers are well and good for delivery of AC to a remote target, but they're messy. A Maker would be usable for more precision, continuous delivery of AC, useful for filling a moat or pool, or setting up something like a waterfall of anticreeper. It might be helpful to have it spray a very short distance, rather than produce all around the Maker, so that you could set it up on top of a wall and fill the area below.
i want changeable creeper color like the custommaps in cw2 but for every player maybe in option screen
as good as creeper world is i like to get rid of that blue
edit:
an option to flatten the land could be handy
you select an area and the complete area will be set to that level that has least modifications for the terp
Quote from: Mr.H on October 21, 2012, 03:27:04 AM
So fog of war = Can be disabled, and is a custom map bonus feature. It's just for an added challenge.
Exactly Mr. H
I think most all of us agree we'd like another Anti Creeper weapon.
Possibly a Titan?
Some AC idea spam? Trying for quantity, not quality, here.
AC shells for the Bertha?
AC thrower (like a flamethrower)?
Command Nodes exude AC (if they have any in storage) when they get hit by creeper, as a self-defense mechanism?
Anti-Creeper Gunship (a Titan), carries a massive payload of AC, can be moved around the map like the Thor, can be turned on/off and when on, pours out AC like a CW2 Maker?
Processor Nodes: Rather than harvesting ore and sending it back to the Command Node, a Processor Node turns the ore into AC as it's harvested (and promptly pumps it out onto the ground)
Containment Shields: This is a shield with a slightly larger radius that presses creeper and AC inwards at it's perimeter, and also emits anticreeper. Could be used to create a very large AC "bubble" which would then be released by deactivating the shield, or positioned to cover a creeper emitter where it's rate of AC production would (hopefully) overwhelm the emitter's creeper production. Containment Shields would draw both energy and Anticreeper from a network.
Or an orbital can drop a large container of AC directly on an emitter every so often. Maybe make it a hidden, super weapon of the Mother Ship. I figure the Mother Ship NEEDS some kind of super weapon or hidden power in it that could maybe be revealed at the end of the campaign, or just allow it at the end. Just try and do something totally kick-butt with the Mother Ship. It has to do more than just take everyone everywhere.
And who's to say there may not be humans any longer? After seeing the Digitalis clip, I think we should just continue the human's timeline. I for one would love to see a continued, official story for the CW2 characters. Maybe even just continue with Abraxis senior's story as he was in every game unlike everyone else.
Containment shields and the reintroduction of makers sounds very intresting to me. Flamethrowers... short range but devestating, perfect for gaining footholds.
Also I was thinking of a nice titan that fires anti-creeper pods across the map, in massive waves that the, like tons of little blobs that spread out.
Let's see what Virgil thinks about an AC titan weapon. With the introduction of something like the maker or containment shield we'd need some way to push that AC straight into the Creeper.
Ooh you could use another shield behind it for that. Maybe set it to only push AC as to not waste energy
I am also very curious on how AC would work against Digitalis. Would it weaken the Digitalis.
Also I kinda want some more elaboration on how the Digitalis works. (please Virgil?)
And I don't really see the creeper side's benefit from digitalis. What makes it useful and unique at the same time about it?
DIgitalis is still in the experimental phase. It would be pointless to discuss much of it at this point in time.
Quote from: Grauniad on October 22, 2012, 06:06:13 PM
DIgitalis is still in the experimental phase. It would be pointless to discuss much of it at this point in time.
Fair enough. Although I doubt the rest of the community will keep quiet about digitalis. This is a completely new concept for CW3 in that it is a new enemy utilized by the creeper forces.
What really could use some more play is the expansion of titan opitions (not just berthas alone) and AC activity (so that bombers are not the only things that utilize it). And to think of how far in development CW3 appears to be.
I'd be curious to know what the goal of the experimentation with Digitalis is, however. It seems to currently serve the role of letting thin coatings of Creeper expand out over territory they might not otherwise be capable of covering due to evaporation and making those thin coatings of creeper a little harder to kill. Maybe it will allow creeper to travel up hills, across large fields, through shields, or "upwind" (see, "Creeper in the Wind" video) similar to how tallow travels up the wick of a candle against the force of gravity to feed a flame? Thin 10-height walls may protect us against a pool of creeper, but if that wall becomes overgrown with Digitalis, the Creeper might flow right over it, making me wonder if we'll see specific anti-Digitalis weapons soon.
re: AC superweapon. There's the question of how, exactly, the Mother Ship ended up with a bunch of AC on it in the first place for that superweapon. Hm...
Space Elevator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator): This Titan structure forms a physical bridge into orbit above the planet, allowing for Anti-Creeper to be shipped up to the Mother Ship for later dispersal via Drop Pod. After the initial massive energy cost to construct, the Space Elevator would consume Anti-Creeper to "charge" a pod in orbit, which could be dropped onto the battlefield at any location after a short deorbiting delay. Once dropped from orbit, the pod slams through any creeper present and shatters at ground level, releasing a massive amount of anticreeper upon impact. While limited compared to bombers by being unable to drop a "line" of AC and in having the AC delivered in a single large burst rather than over time, the fact that the delivery of AC occurs at ground level (instead of "on top" of existing piles of creeper) would allow for very rapid dispersal of existing piles of creeper, and in the suppression of creeper emitters while ground forces come into place to destroy the emitter.
I was thinking of a Titan I call the "AC Beetle". It loads up with AC, crawls to its destination, and shoots it right in front where told to. Or it can burst it all at once (maybe taking out the beetle too in the process). When empty, it returns to its "Nest". A possibly limited number of beetles would be afiliated with each nest. Maybe instead of the creeper, the good side could use the worm I once submitted here; perhaps it could only surface and dispearse AC near the emitters.
Quote from: Shrike30 on October 22, 2012, 06:16:06 PM
Space Elevator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator)
Why not allow the space elevator to put anything in a drop pod? Dropping a number of PCs or mortars also seems useful, especially in a map where you don't have a lot of space, but need a large assault force to get anywhere.
Elaborating on the drop pod idea
How about being able to drop in the mortar bombs what were used in CW1 custom maps.
Possibly shooting Mortar shots in a random area inside a highlighted circle.
Quote from: inspiratieloos on October 25, 2012, 02:18:37 PM
Quote from: Shrike30 on October 22, 2012, 06:16:06 PM
Space Elevator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator)
Why not allow the space elevator to put anything in a drop pod? Dropping a number of PCs or mortars also seems useful, especially in a map where you don't have a lot of space, but need a large assault force to get anywhere.
You can already move PC's and mortars to any location, and AC via bombers . . . what do you intend to drob via drop pods that you can't just order to move there?
EDIT: Or bomb/guppy there?
Oh I've got it. So you make it across the map to the final emitter. As this nullifier finishes it's zapping the emitter bursts with extra creeper and continues to emit more creeper.
This would push back some of your progress forcing you to stake a position futhuer back.
This would also require you to construct defenses at a new choke point
So a one-time burst when you nullify an emitter?
What stops you from pulling your defenses back to a safer area, then pushing ahead? With the emitter gone, you only have to endure a momentary threat to press on.
Not saying it can't work . . . just trying to explore what you're envisioning a little more.
Quote from: lurkily on October 25, 2012, 04:26:28 PM
You can already move PC's and mortars to any location, and AC via bombers . . . what do you intend to drob via drop pods that you can't just order to move there?
EDIT: Or bomb/guppy there?
The Bertha is already basically a huge Mortar. The Space Elevator (transporting AC) would basically be a huge Bomber. Titans don't need to do something vastly different in order to be useful or interesting.
Quote from: Shrike30 on October 26, 2012, 03:29:09 AM
Quote from: lurkily on October 25, 2012, 04:26:28 PM
You can already move PC's and mortars to any location, and AC via bombers . . . what do you intend to drob via drop pods that you can't just order to move there?
EDIT: Or bomb/guppy there?
The Bertha is already basically a huge Mortar. The Space Elevator (transporting AC) would basically be a huge Bomber. Titans don't need to do something vastly different in order to be useful or interesting.
So you're talking about only munitions, not resources or units. I was responding in part to this:
Quote from: inspiratieloos on October 25, 2012, 02:18:37 PM
Quote from: Shrike30 on October 22, 2012, 06:16:06 PM
Space Elevator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator)
Why not allow the space elevator to put anything in a drop pod? Dropping a number of PCs or mortars also seems useful, especially in a map where you don't have a lot of space, but need a large assault force to get anywhere.
Quote from: lurkily on October 25, 2012, 08:48:51 PM
So a one-time burst when you nullify an emitter?
What stops you from pulling your defenses back to a safer area, then pushing ahead? With the emitter gone, you only have to endure a momentary threat to press on.
Not saying it can't work . . . just trying to explore what you're envisioning a little more.
I talking about how the Emitter would now emit more creeper (and maybe start emitting digitalis that'd be cool)
That would eliminate some of your progress too (it might be able to cause a large phantom burst as well)
I just think there's a lot of stuff that'd be cool to work with this.
Regarding the space elevator, if there is going to be any mass unit or AC transport involved, perhaps we should call the unit that handles it the "Stargate". Maybe the Mothership would have a stargate built into it as an orbital and there would be pre-placed stargates strategically left behind by ancient constructors. This talk about the elevator and large forces getting anywhere reminded me of the show series "Stargate Universe".
I also newly hypothesize that the AC Bettle I concocted on my last post on this thread could only be set so it can travel only through the SG. Maybe even the Mothership should be made so that it has an AI, or self-awareness that the "Stargate Universe" ship "Destiny" had. Also, consider the fact that the show series "Farscape" had a living ship called "Moya".
And about digitalis, perhaps there should be a creeper structure I currently would call the "Digitalis Network" that runs it because of the "digital" aspect of it. The "Network" part of the name comes from the "Starcraft II" game's "Nydus Network" Zerg structure which spawned Nydus Worms that allowed Zerg to go from point A to Point B literally regardless of distance and terrain.
Another run through 2 pages of posts :P
The space elevator sounds intresting, but the cross-mission benefits nullify the game in my opinion. Perhaps if it only gave an advantage at that moment, and allowed you to receive an extra supply of packets as though you have another command centre. It would be easikly destructible, tall thing, creeper gets it. So if it got hit by creeper it could 'fall' and cause some sort of epic explosion(making defence of it vital, and balancing the extra packets out nicely). The benefit of it allows you to boost your resource network, cut down travel times(network increase), and have 'one more command centre' that is immobile. It's up to virgil whether it could have some other intresting features... perhaps allowing cheaper flight.
AC Beetle, bit like a conversion bomb without the conversion. Love it :) . It should definetly be susceptible to creeper damage though, otherwise I could load ten of them and own the creeper.
Last-punch emitters would make maps a little less bland. Perhaps is the more emitters you have destroyed the higher the last punch since the rift, of the other forces pools together to support the remaining emitters. Currently CW3 does look a tad bit easy(ofcourse great map makers can make it hard... but still).
It is plagirism to derive titles from Starcraft II, don't do it.
Quote from: Chawe800 on October 26, 2012, 10:07:26 AM
Quote from: lurkily on October 25, 2012, 08:48:51 PM
So a one-time burst when you nullify an emitter?
What stops you from pulling your defenses back to a safer area, then pushing ahead? With the emitter gone, you only have to endure a momentary threat to press on.
Not saying it can't work . . . just trying to explore what you're envisioning a little more.
I talking about how the Emitter would now emit more creeper (and maybe start emitting digitalis that'd be cool)
That would eliminate some of your progress too (it might be able to cause a large phantom burst as well)
I just think there's a lot of stuff that'd be cool to work with this.
No not actually nullified, and taking more than one nullifier hit to nullify. I can't actually find the post you were replying to, which is part of the reason I'm a little confused. Though admittedly, I wasn't looking too hard.
I just think there would be a lot of cool options to work with if we had emitters that will increase power under various circumstances besides a doom timer. Like if you pass a specific point an emitter increases it's power.
Another cool potential (that most likely won't appear in CW3)
What about creating Cinematics I.E. somethings lastly 40 seconds happen before you have any control (very similar to Starcraft Cinematics)
Quote from: Chawe800 on October 26, 2012, 02:45:36 PM
I just think there would be a lot of cool options to work with if we had emitters that will increase power under various circumstances besides a doom timer. Like if you pass a specific point an emitter increases it's power.
Rather have something like comprehensive map triggers, so a mapper would be fully capable of scripting complex events in a level, rather than just emitter-tied stuff.
Quote from: Mr.H on October 26, 2012, 11:32:28 AM
It is plagirism to derive titles from Starcraft II
And who ever said it was plagerism? Do you know that for one thing, there is the stargate of "Stargate Universe" and a stargate completely different from it in the Starcraft series? So how come neither the SGU makers nor Blizzard were accused of plagerism? I did not plagerize the title at all. It was just how I got the idea for a "digitales network" tower/antenna/some other structure type. If I did plagerize by doing that, then SGU or Starcraft is and illegal product.
Quote from: lurkily on October 26, 2012, 07:21:10 AMI was responding in part to this:
Ah, okay.
Quote from: Mr.H on October 26, 2012, 11:32:28 AMThe space elevator sounds intresting, but the cross-mission benefits nullify the game in my opinion. Perhaps if it only gave an advantage at that moment, and allowed you to receive an extra supply of packets as though you have another command centre. It would be easikly destructible, tall thing, creeper gets it. So if it got hit by creeper it could 'fall' and cause some sort of epic explosion(making defence of it vital, and balancing the extra packets out nicely). The benefit of it allows you to boost your resource network, cut down travel times(network increase), and have 'one more command centre' that is immobile. It's up to virgil whether it could have some other intresting features... perhaps allowing cheaper flight.
Essentially, you're proposing constructible Command Posts, whose resource processing happens in orbit rather than on the ground? Sounds good to me; on the truly huge maps, being limited to three CPs could be a problem. I'd rather see the option to simply build another Command Post if you really need one, if this incarnation of a Space Elevator is basically "CP with a couple of bonuses."
In some situations where a Space Elevator might be damaged or destroyed, it's been depicted as essentially being a hundreds-of-miles-long whip that slams into the ground on the antispinward side of the groundside anchor site, as the break is usually depicted as being fairly far up the elevator (the book
Red Mars has a scene like this). In CW, however, the destruction of a Space Elevator would likely involve the destruction of the groundside anchor site itself (as it gets overwhelmed with Creeper) which would probably result in the orbital component of the elevator slingshotting off into space as it's center of gravity is now above the point of maintaining geosynchronous orbit. It'd be a bit of a navigation hazard, certainly, but unlikely to be something that could be represented on the map.
4xC, I'm not sure if you were serious or joking with the Stargate/Farscape/Starcraft references (regarding "plagiarism," the term Star Gate has been used in dozens of works of fiction, one more use wouldn't exactly be an issue). I like the idea of digitalis serving as a "slippery" or "wicking" surface for creeper, causing creeper to travel faster along it and do things like go up slopes or cross the gaps between asteroids, which seems like it'd be pretty similar to your Digitalis Network. If Digitalis growing over "unclaimed" power sites in the middle of the map caused Emitters or Spore Towers to gestate there, it'd add some reason to disrupt digitalis early on in the game.
Some things (Like the word network) cannot be said to be someone's intellectual property. For that reason, I don't think 4xC's use of 'network' can ever be protected as a derivative work, regardless of the fact that it actually is derived from someone else's IP.
Seriously, people . . . who cares what it's called? If our wonderful concept called the "Pepsi Missile" violates copyrights, we'll just call it something else.
Quote from: lurkily on October 25, 2012, 04:26:28 PM
Quote from: inspiratieloos on October 25, 2012, 02:18:37 PM
Quote from: Shrike30 on October 22, 2012, 06:16:06 PM
Space Elevator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator)
Why not allow the space elevator to put anything in a drop pod? Dropping a number of PCs or mortars also seems useful, especially in a map where you don't have a lot of space, but need a large assault force to get anywhere.
You can already move PC's and mortars to any location, and AC via bombers . . . what do you intend to drob via drop pods that you can't just order to move there?
EDIT: Or bomb/guppy there?
Three reasons that I can think of:
1. If you're on a small island and just don't have the space to build a lot of units for an assault because you need everything to defend your position and generate the energy for the defenders.
2. In case a position gets overrun and you can't wait a minute for units to move there it is useful if you have some reserves that can deploy anywhere within a second, or if you've overlooked a part of your network that is susceptible to spore attack.
3. Timing your units perfectly is much easier if they all arrive at exactly the second you want them to instead of having to make estimates based on travel speed and distance (of course any player that really wants to could do this by hand, but some people are lazy).
The first two have definitely happened to me before in CW1 and I'm sure I've had some failed assaults that would have ended better if I had timed my units right.
It's not going to be useful on every map, it probably won't be that useful on most, but that should go for all titan units.
On the note of timing, I'd like to see an option (kind of like Formation Move from CW2) for when you've got several units selected called Formation Flight; all of the units would travel at the same speed, that of the slowest unit in the group, rather than having to time the launching of your various assaulters to arrive simultaneously (and maybe finding yourself juggling the units over the LZ until everyone arrives).
For 1, terraform.
For 2 and 3, I dunno, I always got a rush of awesome from making the timing work - or from bringing a doomed forward base back from destruction.
I want Creeper World 3 to be on BETA and online too. It'll be fun if we fight the Creepers together online .Put it on Facebook and it'll be popular :)
Quote from: Ghost_of_RAZGRIZ on October 27, 2012, 03:43:52 PM
I want Creeper World 3 to be on BETA and online too. It'll be fun if we fight the Creepers together online .Put it on Facebook and it'll be popular :)
V is not going to make beta public
In order to get into beta you must be an active and contributing forum poster for a steady timeframe. Also he has to select you
Creeper World 3 isn't really the game that works that well with online multiplayer. (it just doesn't really work you're fighting the creeper) (maybe each person has their own command post and they can share energy)
Facebook isn't the only thing people use :P But we do appreciate any advertising you do RAZGRIZ
Quote from: lurkily on October 27, 2012, 03:03:46 PM
For 1, terraform.
For 2 and 3, I dunno, I always got a rush of awesome from making the timing work - or from bringing a doomed forward base back from destruction.
1. That.... Is a very good point.
2 and 3. Orbital dropping also gives a 'rush of awesome'
Quote from: Chawe800 on October 27, 2012, 04:29:31 PM
Quote from: Ghost_of_RAZGRIZ on October 27, 2012, 03:43:52 PM
I want Creeper World 3 to be on BETA and online too. It'll be fun if we fight the Creepers together online .Put it on Facebook and it'll be popular :)
Creeper World 3 isn't really the game that works that well with online multiplayer. (it just doesn't really work you're fighting the creeper) (maybe each person has their own command post and they can share energy)
I think it would work pretty well with network multiplayer and/or multiplayer by invite. The coordination required would be too much to play with random anonymous people.
You'd still be at a disadvantage to playing alone, but the fun factor is important too.
Quote from: inspiratieloos on October 28, 2012, 07:37:32 AM
Quote from: lurkily on October 27, 2012, 03:03:46 PM
For 1, terraform.
For 2 and 3, I dunno, I always got a rush of awesome from making the timing work - or from bringing a doomed forward base back from destruction.
1. That.... Is a very good point.
2 and 3. Orbital dropping also gives a 'rush of awesome'
The dropping of a random few blasters, compared to a successful strike involving strafers to cut off digitalis, bombers to forge a brief safe zone, and the landing of a mixed force of blasters and mortars and guppies, with every unit timed to arrive at about the same time?
I don't know, maybe it's me - I just feel the most rewarded when I do something challenging. Orbital stuff is the kind of thing I feel should be reserved for superweapons, and moving a few units faster just doesn't feel super.
QuoteI think it would work pretty well with network multiplayer and/or multiplayer by invite. The coordination required would be too much to play with random anonymous people.
You'd still be at a disadvantage to playing alone, but the fun factor is important too.
The only real solution would be to use larger maps and forbid sharing across each individual's networks. That gives up a tremendous potential advantage, but weighed against the difficulty of managing of resources, or accidentally draining an ally's energy because you landed a blaster too close to their network, it may be necessary.
The problem is, larger maps also hit a performance issue for some players.
Here's an idea:
Digitalis CannonSpoiler
This is a cannon used by the creeper. It is constructed out of digitalis and it has a current designated range. Once it's finished constructing It will shoot digitalis at Digitalis designated zones reinforcing it. This could be used to create Digitalis beachheads pressuring your base more. This could also be used to reinforce any Digitalis you may be fighting. This could also serve as some sort of digitalis healer of some sort. It has a very similar functions to the beam cannon. To destroy it I think you can eventually shoot the Digitalis it has on it to destroy it but it can be rebuilt if you get pushed back more. It could have various variables in the Map editor that you can change to increase firing rate, amount of Digitalis, Range, and how much digitalis it takes to make it/destroy it. It does not give a power-zone when destroyed. Also if the path of Digitalis connected to it is cut It can deactivate almost.
I just feel with the grid like Digitalis brought into the mix a Digitalis shooting Cannon would work nice.
I would personally prefer a digitalis-made cannon that shoots creeper.
This also gives me an idea for a beetle option: hold position and fire AC from long range. Maybe send it to eat digitalis and destroy it from within itself. Again, maybe make the Beetle go underground (but this time, possibly make it go slower if it does, and on a limited distance (make it resurface or be destroyed if it is underneath for too long)). Also maybe make it detonate AC while underground.
So maybe a large movable Anti Creeper shooting cannon. Yea I like that idea.
But making it really slow would be something I would find necessary.
and Maybe you're only allowed to make 2 per mission.
I second the limited amount motion and slowness would compensate for the potential power of the unit. Maybe something on the good unit side needs to have a space bridge builder.
Quote from: 4xC on October 29, 2012, 03:05:08 PM
I second the limited amount motion and slowness would compensate for the potential power of the unit. Maybe something on the good unit side needs to have a space bridge builder.
I'm pretty sure terps should be able to do that.
(can anyone confirm or deny this?)
the void is void, nothing can change that as far as V has told us
Quote from: Chawe800 on October 29, 2012, 03:43:09 PMQuote from: 4xC on October 29, 2012, 03:05:08 PMI second the limited amount motion and slowness would compensate for the potential power of the unit. Maybe something on the good unit side needs to have a space bridge builder.
I'm pretty sure terps should be able to do that.
(can anyone confirm or deny this?)
Terps cannot bridge void.
Personally, relays on power zones seem like good space bridges to me.
I'd like to eloborate more on the concept of Digitalis made structures.
I few more concepts would be as follows:
Digitalis RefinerySpoiler
This small Digitalis made station strengthens the Digitalis that travel through it making it a smart target for Strafers and bombers to cut off to reduce the strength of the growing Digitalis. The longer the Refinery stands the more Digitalis grow on it, the stronger it gets.
Spoiler
This Digitalis weapon has a small range and it shoots creeper at strafers and bombers that come into it's range. It has an ammo supply that transfers through the Digitalis network. The strafer could absorb like 4 hits before getting destroyed and the bomber something like 6. This could work like a Digitalis air prevention field but with the ability to destroy strafers that attempt to cut off Digitalis.
Spoiler
This works very similarly to the Normal mortar the humans have. It has a large reload time and it fires a cluster bomb of Digitalis and/or Creeper at a pre-designated area. (SImilar to Bertha auto-target).
Spoiler
This could be a way for Creeper to spread to different asteriods and across valleys better. This is a small bridge-like thing consturcted out of Digitalis where Creeper can travel across. The longer the bridge exists the stronger it becomes and the more creeper it ferries across it. (I just felt Digitalis should be able to carry creeper across seperate asteriods)
A lot of these Digitalis weapons are very similar to the weapons the humans have and that could be incorperated into the story. (Spell check is broken :'()
Between all of those ideas and what is currently going on with digitalis, I can almost see CW3 coming out after the 2012 ending.
I don't really like the idea of industrializing Digitalis. I'd prefer to see more growing, organic, plantlike behavior. Industrializing it takes CW away from its roots where you face nonsentient forces of nature.
Not to say there shouldn't be distinct units that utilize the digitalis for various things, or require it to function, but I'd prefer digitalis to be more like a tree that termites and beehives (discrete units that threaten the player) make their home in and defend, rather than an intelligent, directed foe that hates you and wants to destroy you.
Quote from: lurkily on October 30, 2012, 01:10:50 PM
I don't really like the idea of industrializing Digitalis. I'd prefer to see more growing, organic, plantlike behavior. Industrializing it takes CW away from its roots where you face nonsentient forces of nature.
Not to say there shouldn't be distinct units that utilize the digitalis for various things, or require it to function, but I'd prefer digitalis to be more like a tree that termites and beehives (discrete units that threaten the player) make their home in and defend, rather than an intelligent, directed foe that hates you and wants to destroy you.
Agreed; I'd vote strongly in favour of a symbiosis of creeper and digitalis, though (more so given the fact that they spawn from the same "womb", so to speak). Looking at nature, non-sentient organisms (particularly in large numbers - cf. Great Barrier Reef) can create marvellous structures.
Ok so the ideas we have :
1. Space Elevator
2. Digitalis Cannon
3. Digitalis industrilisation
4. Anti-Creeper Beetle
5. Emergency Emitter Overload Retaliation Protocol
Which should I add to the OP?
I can totally deal with more fluid natural Digitalis Weapons.
I just really
really feel an Aggressive Digitalis weapon of some sort would round out Creeper World more.
As for Digitalis being more defensive I would also like some sort of defensive Digitalis tool
Also 4xC
Quoterather than an intelligent, directed foe that hates you and wants to destroy you.
The nexus is an intelligent being directed for that tries to undo all humanity :P
(Your argument is invalid :P)
Quote from: Chawe800 on October 30, 2012, 05:13:53 PMQuoterather than an intelligent, directed foe that hates you and wants to destroy you.
The nexus is an intelligent being directed for that tries to undo all humanity :P
(Your argument is invalid :P)
That was my quote, actually. I was under the impression the Loki/nexus thing, was weaponizing the creeper, like the Styglek. The creeper itself being a natural force/event that was being directed and used, rather than being a weapon itself.
I need to go replay CW1. The nature of basic plot elements is a bit hazy, and there isn't a synopsis out there that I can find.
I forward the plant-and-animal-like motion for what digitalis and creeper should be. I always thought it was like that since I first knew of the CW1 spores which is a natural name, not an industrialized name. What we really need is a list of key elements of CW1, new ones in 2, and use them to decide how to further the promotion of digitalis. I definitely do not look forward to the unnatural industry-like idea of digitalis weaponization. We must stick with plant and animal routines. Heck, maybe the digitalis cound have some kind of visible (or invisible) underground routine.
And Mr.H: I personally see 1 and 4 being added, but the rest, not so much. 5 is one that sounds like a bunch of unnecessary repeats of the same assault for each level. 2 sounds like a variation of 3.
To all who have the time: I suggest that for the list idea I had, we keep a recorded copy of the game scripts to help out, because some of them are unaccessable unless certain parts of each level are beat and sometimes not until the whole level is beat. This would help save time too.
Grauniad is it ok for us to suggest digitalis features now? I recall you said it was pointless before.
I'll add 1 and 4, we can discuss the others depending on Grauniad's response.
Not to answer for Grauniad, but I must say if it was not okay to talk about it before, I don't see why it would not be now. I told him I doubted the community would keep quiet about digitalis. As it is an new concept, I expected a lot of talkative unrest in most of the other posters. I still think we need more emphasis on the expansions of itans and AC activity, but putting it on digitalis more than anything else right now is something I highly predict is going to go from here on.
Quote from: Mr.H on October 31, 2012, 11:41:15 AM
Grauniad is it ok for us to suggest digitalis features now? I recall you said it was pointless before.
You may suggest away at your own pleasure. Note what I said earlier:
Quote from: Grauniad on October 22, 2012, 06:06:13 PM
Digitalis is still in the experimental phase. It would be pointless to discuss much of it at this point in time.
At no time did I suggest you withhold suggestions. My observation was specific to the mechanics of Digitalis as implemented at that time (and up to now). Not even Beta members have access to the Digitalis with a current rule set implemented.
In that case, am I right in guessing that it will be extremely unlikely that CW3 will be released before the start of 2013? As long as the final product has all the tools to make it an interesting installment, the release can wait until 2013 for all I care.
To 4xC:
Do you forget CW2? Drones are very mechincal enemy beings. I always found gateways to be suspicous unnatural portals.
The creeper corrupted the Styglek not the other way around. As far as we know there are still millions of Styglek the Creeper has position over.
In CW2 Virgil played with the mechanical industrial side of the Creeper. I don't know what direction he wants to go in CW3 but I found it incredibly rude to abruptly shoot down all my ideas :-[. You may not like them but that doesn't mean Virgil might find it an interesting concept. At least give him the ability to view it and judge it for himself.
I can agree with the removal of 5 from the list.
But I'd like to replace it with the potenial of Cinematics and Climatic Actions before, during, and after the mission.
I can't forbid anybody from pushing industrialized D ideas - I didn't mean to shoot people down. I just feel like your enemies have acted more like a rising tide or like red ants boiling out of an anthill in response to the presence of black ants.
Enemy behavior outside of fields has always been very organic to me - even with drones and spores/phantoms, which pick their targets semi-randomly, rather than by intelligent criteria.
Sorry if it felt like I was trying to forbid further idea churn - idea churn is what the thread is for, right?
First off, I again second the organic motion by Lurkily. The creeper are too much like a fluid-simplistic version of the Starcraft Zerg.
Second: Yet again, Chawe800, you mistake me for Lurkily. Even if it was me who was "shooting down" your ideas as you thought, it was a way of saying that initially, the idea was rather abstract from what has seemed normal to the rest of us.
Besides, the drones of 2 were inventions of the Styglek, not the creeper itself. While the Styglek may have been the ones corrupted by the Creeper, the Styglek made the designs. The creeper alone are all-organic. In fact, unless the phantoms were sentient storms that lasted much longer than they did, I did not see much organic-like potential in them.
Finally,Chawe800, falsly accuse me of anything else ever again (as this is the second instance in a short amount of time) and I anticipate things between us will not be pretty. As I have basically said to teleknotis is the personal messages, I loathe false accusations, espescially when I am the one who is falsely accused. You are not being threatened; you are being warned for the first and last time. >:(
Quote from: 4xC on October 31, 2012, 08:05:52 PM
... from what has seemed normal to the rest of us.
The rest of us would like to form our own opinion, thanks. In the future, it'd be appreciated from my (and probably most others') side if you were a bit more thoughtful in your replies.
Now, back to suggestions for CW3 already!
Here's a thought for people to consider: Where does it say that the Creeper is organic? To the best of my knowledge, there is very little information about just what it is. So, while it could be organic, what's to say that it isn't an ooze full of nanomachines designed to disassemble technology? Or could be a really nasty acid mixture.
EDIT: Okay, the blurb at the top of the Creeper World 1 page says 'Imagine an enemy that is everywhere and moves like a giant, organic mass across the map.' However, it says 'like', so it could be the case that the Creeper is not organic.
Quote from: Lord_Farin on November 01, 2012, 05:07:39 AM
The rest of us would like to form our own opinion, thanks. In the future, it'd be appreciated from my (and probably most others') side if you were a bit more thoughtful in your replies.
How exactly was that not thoughtful? I'm a little offended by that. I tried to put everything in perspective for other typical posters and players as well as myself when I said that. I assumed it was normal to others as well because I did not notice any specification otherwise, so I tried to reply with an attempt to put things in perspective for everyone. Unfortunately, as someone diagnosed with autism, I generally suck at it.
Anyways, I guess the creeper is closer to organic than mechanical in this case because even though it is "like" an organic mass, small connections like that could make all the difference. Maybe it is neither organic nor mechanical, but all things considered, I still think it is closer to being organic than mechanical.
As for myself, I'm going to stick with the 'really nasty acid' hypothesis. Neither organic nor mechanical, yet still flows. ;)
(Though in truth it has properties that make it questionable that it is either an organic mass or a fluid as we know it. For one thing, it lacks any observable surface tension, and for a second it is extremely compressible, as CW2 demonstrates. However, further discussion on this should take place in a new thread.)
Quote from: Nemoricus on November 01, 2012, 06:16:19 AMHere's a thought for people to consider: Where does it say that the Creeper is organic?
I never said creeper was organic. In fact, the creeper is more like a rising tide than an actual entity.
I just meant to say that the behavior and threat represented should feel more organic, not that the enemy itself should actually be an organism.
Perhaps the word you were looking for is 'natural', as in 'like nature'?
Now wait a minute!
According to CW1, the creeper is a degenerate from of Loki who were supposedly organiclife forms that were corrupted by the dark reality. Would this count towards whether the creeper is either organic, mechanical, or acidic?
And why should the enemy not be an organism? I recall an early episode of the second season of Stargate Universe where a dispersable organism is taking over a planet and some form or part of it infected one of the characters and caused him to hallucinate for most of the episode. The organism has practically infested the whole planet and grew into large, towering plant monsters and made the area unrecognizable.
The point is organisms can take over and infest planets and people like the creeper can spread on a whole planet and kill everyone in its way.
This thread is closed, but I have removed the lock. This is so the top post can be maintained, or other posts edited as necessary. Further posts should not be added below this one but should instead move to this topic:
http://knucklecracker.com/forums/index.php?topic=11850.0
Quote from: Yelik on August 21, 2012, 01:32:06 PM
Slow Zone, everything (building attack rate, plane flight speed, creeper flow rate, is slower in an area the map maker can set
larger weapons cause damage to the terrain, like nukes leave a large hole
Electric Gun, fires electricity that spreads through creeper and anti-creeper, converting a limited amount
Creeper EMP, creeper somehow can disable all units in a range of a certain creeper thing that would disable all the units and buildings temporally
Ramps, allow collectors to work over hills
Line/fill drawing when terraforming
Ability to aim turrets
Units get a small store of anti-creeper that they release when they touch creeper
Solar energy, good source of energy from space
Ice Gun, freezes creeper, temporarily turning it into a wall
Laser Turret, similar range and ability to as a repulser, slowly damages creeper in the beam
Hope I didn't suggest anything already said, I tried not to
Really very nice suggestions.. I do liked your thoughts as all are new ones and effective too.
Locking this again. Top post has not been updated in quite a while and some activity here borders on exhumation. PM me if the top post needs updating and I'll unlock this temporarily.