Creeper World 3

[Mr.H]

Yeah, the multiplayer concepts I am most interested in providing are asynchronous in nature.  Things that allow interaction... possibly even working together, but don't require being online at the same time.

Glad I held my breath *ahhhhh*, since that's still awesome

[lurkily]

well the network path cost nothing in CW1 but the becons required a steady stream of energy I supose both could be used.

I would like to see this - in fact, I would like to see maintanence used for all units, perhaps in the form of a resource that is consumed in order to effect repairs, as well as maintain function as in CW2.

I am considering allowing people to store their save games (optionally) online.  If so, then having a web based version of the full game could be convenient since you could more easily play it on some other system.  In this case there would be online accounts.  All of this would be optional, though.

Awesome, awesome, awesome, awesome, awesome.  I will love you forever for this, due to my current circumstances.

One thing that would interest me greatly is to see an enemy that also used a network of some sort - one you could link to, utilize against the enemy, (Shared transport links,) and ultimately cut off from the enemy, to utilize as your own.

Yeah, the multiplayer concepts I am most interested in providing are asynchronous in nature.  Things that allow interaction... possibly even working together, but don't require being online at the same time.

You implied on the blog the the concept that a loss might take several rounds to complete . . . and now asynchronous MP?  Combined with the idea of cloud-based saves?

I see all the components of asynchronous coop campaign.  The campaign could have two orbital ships completing two sets of objectives separately, but their objectives could affect the future of their partner's missions.  The cloud saves are there, so one player could access a second player's campaign mission.  The asynchronous MP coop is there, so that the game can extrapolate mission parameters out of separately played campaign missions.  The development of mission parameters (so I surmise) based on previous missions (Or your partners' previous missions) is (theoretically) there . . .

Or am I barking up the wrong theoretical tree?

[Nemoricus]

*views today's picture* The more I see about this game, the more excited I get about its possibilities.

Some thoughts and questions for Virgil:

1. While the campaign will naturally limit the number of command posts available, will this limit be adjustable in custom maps? I can foresee mapmakers wanting to use more than three, especially ones in the style of the 'Multitask' maps.

2. Will some maps come with 'civilian' command posts? This could allow for scenarios where the player is coming to the rescue of a besieged population, and while they are able to hold off the Creeper for a time, they cannot do so forever. Also, the civilian structures could then come under the command of the player after they are linked to a player-controlled network.

3. How do you feel about different types of command post? Perhaps some models have higher initial energy production, but lower packet production caps or vice versa. Also, what about locking technologies so that they can only be built from certain command posts? A standard command post can't produce packets for that giant cannon, say, but the high-technology one could.

4. 'Network crawlers'. This enemy type uses the player's network connections against them by moving along them like packets, destroying everything that they come in contact with. If players can't destroy the crawler in time, they may have to choose to cut off part of their network to save the rest.

5. When will there be a forum for Creeper World 3? There's no rush on this. I'm just curious.

6. Will Nullifiers be making a return in this game?

More to come when I think of it.

[virgilw]

1: Probably...  three is an arbitrary number.  Though, there still will be a practical limit.

2: Possible...  Basically, it would just be a unit that is marked as 'not under your control'.  You'd have to perhaps 'capture' these units before you can control them.

3: Maybe.  I wouldn't want to create a micro management issue.  But I will keep this kind of thing in mind and see if it fits in.

4: Interesting idea.  These crawlers would have to be able to hop from unit to unit and cause a delayed destruction of the units (else the pathway would be cut when a unit is destroyed).

5: Soon I think.  Certainly by the time it reaches beta.  I have to balance my ability to work on the core concepts with ideas and questions that would come from the forum.

6:  Yes.

[Ebon Heart]

Network crawlers... I love this idea. :D:D Now I have a very important question. You aren't planning to add an ultimate kill-all weapon to the last level of cw3, are you?

[virgilw]

Who said anything about a last level ?

[CobraKill]

This sounds cool... ^

The thing I'm most looking forward to Is that massive cannon. I want to see waht other epic weapons are in the game. One question, is the Pulse Cannon replacing the blaster?

[virgilw]

Right now it is... it serves as the same basic weapon.

[CobraKill]

Okay, you'll probably sick of me asking questions, but here's my last one hopefully. Will the command nodes be even or odd so it will match the map? In other words, can I make a perfectly symmetrical map without Crazonium or infinite-dig walls?

[Ebon Heart]

If I may make a suggestion... is some sort of "tainted land" a possibility. That being land you can't build on, but creeper can flow through?

[Michionlion]

or land that you can't harvest energy from... maybe because of the shadow of a ship, etc.

[lich98]

or that is unsuitable for anything to be on?

[Ebon Heart]

Yes, maybe. I think fields in a top down view will be interesting. I would imagine some kind of visual effect would almost be a requirement If you're going to have fields that can drag creeper between layers. Hmm... I wonder if the top down view will allow for 3d fields? Could be very cool.

[mpete]

what is the max level size that the game will support? something like 16x256x256?

[Link327]

i'd personally dislike another "massive anihililation" weapon. In CW1 you build the THOR and the map is won.
in CW2 you built a DB and the map was won.
- I'd love to see a super-weapon, that is very strong, but not unlimited strong. Like A Thor being limited to a firepower of ca 4 blasters, 2 mortars, and being destructable when flying over creeper. Or  a dark beam that is like a beam WITH a maximum range, and taking its time to crush through creeper, instead of instaannihilating it all.
- Writing this gave me one more idea, like i've mentioned in the "weak THOR", some kind of flying battlestation. You can put some units on it, mabe you can even upgrade the unit per techonology for more units being able to put on it. Then you can fly it around and the units are able to fire to ANY layer(its flying over it!), and can fire while moving. Flying over creeper will slowly kill the station, when the station is killed all units on it are ALSO killed.
- and maybe the creeper even creates an Anti-Air weapon for themselves, allowing them to fire at our drones or this station, even destroying them.

so, there are some ideas by me. What you think of them?